or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Fine Living, Home, Design & Auto › Watches losing popularity
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Watches losing popularity - Page 4

post #46 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by imageWIS
What do you mean? Because the reason ETA's are used is because they are inexpensive and mass-produced. From a business standpoint, a company like Cartier would be smart to use ETA movements since they are reliable, can take a beating and most people who buy Cartier watches do not do so for the movements, they can skimp on finishing, because they figure that most customers won't care. And they are right; they could care less. My point however is that Cartier is not up to the same standards as other companies in the same price range.

Also, great as the watch movements from F. Piguet may be, the company is owned by Swatch just as ETA is. But, they are designed and made in a completely different manner, and thus come out completely differently.

Jon.

Oh, I am certain that Cartier's watches are designed primarily as jewellery. As a company they are dramatically different from a company like Nomos or Stowa (which immediately come to mind). The ornamentation is less but more care goes to the movements and the overall finish. Yes, I know that Swatch is a colossus that literally owns a huge chunk of the horological business. WHich is why I am also happy to see smaller brands coming out of the woodwork and trying their own hand at the business.
post #47 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by skalogre
The rest of my watches are distinctly of the proletariat ( ) but that is something I prefer.

My dad now does too. He has some really nice pieces at home, BUT wears a really inexpensive as his everyday watch (I think he likes the fact that if they break, he just buys a new one).

Jon.
post #48 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by imageWIS
My dad now does too. He has some really nice pieces at home, BUT wears a really inexpensive as his everyday watch (I think he likes the fact that if they break, he just buys a new one). Jon.
I find it hard to treat any of my mechanical watches as beaters frankly. Even the 16 year old NOS Vostok Albatross I got a while ago. I also know for a fact that when time comes for servicing or repairing one of my Soviet or Chinese watches I will not hesitate to pay a lot more than their acquisition fee. Unfortunately for most companies including the collossi like Rolex, repair and service is something that is getting less and less important. How often do you find a watch maker that is not the equivalent of a lube guy at Sears Auto rather than a knowledgable engineer? We are already at the point where often the fix for a problem with a watch is a new movement I really need a spellchecker. I cannot type a single sentence without typos.
post #49 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by skalogre
We are already at the point where often the fix for a problem with a watch is a new movement


Yeah, you get that a lost now: "we'll just replace this part or this movement" instead of actually fixing it. Its nice that you get a new part, but how come 100 year old watches don't have these types of problems and they can oftentimes be fixed without simply just replacing items?

Jon.
post #50 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by imageWIS
Who ever said it was mall trash? I think Cartier is a very important part of watch history, but they are and always will be a jewelry company that happens to carry watches. But, again your point did not equate to the reality of Cartier.

And I don’t know where you get your $10K number from, since there are many good watches that can be had for less than that, like JLC, IWC, etc.

That collection doesn’t look like it once did, and also that was 2 years ago…I think your anger is misplaced regarding the thoughts of other people who are not I.

Jon.

Well, of the already small number of expensive watches you see "out in the wild", I picked under 10k because that represents about the highest cut off for watches you'll see more than once in public.

What do you mean about the collection not looking like it once did? Have you seen their new Tortue Tourbillon?
post #51 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Violinist
Well, of the already small number of expensive watches you see "out in the wild", I picked under 10k because that represents about the highest cut off for watches you'll see more than once in public.

What do you mean about the collection not looking like it once did? Have you seen their new Tortue Tourbillon?

My collection, since you said it was unimpressive (although you think that Patek's are unimpressive, so I guess it's a relative term). It's a lot smaller than it once was.

Jon.
post #52 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by skalogre
Oh, I am certain that Cartier's watches are designed primarily as jewellery. As a company they are dramatically different from a company like Nomos or Stowa (which immediately come to mind). The ornamentation is less but more care goes to the movements and the overall finish. Yes, I know that Swatch is a colossus that literally owns a huge chunk of the horological business. WHich is why I am also happy to see smaller brands coming out of the woodwork and trying their own hand at the business.

Someone e-mailed me with an attractive offer to buy a Nomos Tangomat, but I'm a bit worried about its small size. For me, Stowa's quality doesn't match Nomos but I like that they have larger faces.

Initially I didn't care about watch size, but I'm now fully grown... I have huge wrists and usually wear something 44mm+

About your collection: if you want to talk about impressive collections, it's hard to beat some of the people on Timezone and other websites who have high 6 figures to collections worth a few million. I'm sure you've owned really nice watches, but part of my admiration for Cartier comes from the fact that I know and know of people with fabulously expensive collection who still give Cartier its due.
post #53 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by imageWIS
Yeah, you get that a lost now: "we'll just replace this part or this movement" instead of actually fixing it. Its nice that you get a new part, but how come 100 year old watches don't have these types of problems and they can oftentimes be fixed without simply just replacing items?

Jon.

Yep. That's another reason why I want to start getting more comfortable with movements, start doing some basic maintenance and repair for myself. The Geek Squad/Compusa approach to computer repair is not what I want for my watches damn it!
post #54 of 119
You guys who wear watches regularly, how do you put up with watch tans? If I wear a watch for 3 hours outside there's going to be a pasty outline of it on my wrist for two weeks. That's why I only wear a watch at night.
post #55 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Violinist
Someone e-mailed me with an attractive offer to buy a Nomos Tangomat, but I'm a bit worried about its small size. For me, Stowa's quality doesn't match Nomos but I like that they have larger faces.

Initially I didn't care about watch size, but I'm now fully grown... I have huge wrists and usually wear something 44mm+

Well, the quality differential from what I understand is not that significant but it is there, at least in some movements and models. I guess in some ways Nomos is a wee bit above Stowa but below Schauer's (the owner of Stowa) own creations in finish. In reality I do not see how it will affect in any way the running, life expectancy or accuracy of the wristwatch itself. Plus seeing as Stowa is such a small firm you can literally deal with Schauer directly (he often fields questions over at the Watchuseek forum). I am not taht familiar with Nomo's oner's and their policies. In any case, I don't see how you could go wrong with either. But for me the only watches I would consider from either (just personal preference) are the Tangente and the Antea.

Their flieger watches are nice too, and Stowa's is a direct reproduction of the ones made by Stowa for the Luftwaffe in the 1940's. I already have a tough reliable flieger-style watch (a full luminous face Seiko 5 of all things ) - if I get another of the sort it will be a Poljot most likely as certain ones of those movements were historically made using tooling confiscated from Germany at the end of WW-II.

Anyway, I have small wrists so the 36mm Antea Kleine Sekunde looks fine on my lilliputean arms. The "full" Stowa Antea is either 38 or 40 mm, don't remember (the original Bauhaus-design Stowa from the 1930s was around 36 mm I believe). The Tangente is also around 38mm I think.
post #56 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by SGladwell
You guys who wear watches regularly, how do you put up with watch tans? If I wear a watch for 3 hours outside there's going to be a pasty outline of it on my wrist for two weeks. That's why I only wear a watch at night.
My hometown is rarely overcast and I get the typical mediterrannean summer colour. I am just used to it, I guess, and I always wear watches relatively firmly on my wrist so it does not usually show.
post #57 of 119
The discussion so far seems to centre on Cartier as a brand, and not the individual product lines, which it should. It is worthwhile to note that the Les Must de Cartier range was introduced in the 1970s, that was the first affordable line of Cartier products, in fact it was the first 'democratisation' of super high end luxury that once only catered to royalty and the very rich. It started with the lighter and then progressed on to encompass pens, sunglasses and watches, almost anyone could afford a small Cartier item. The Les Must de Cartier turned Cartier from a struggling brand into a billion dollar (sales) company by the 1980s. Majority of what Cartier makes is derived from the Les Must de Cartier range in terms of price and quality.

As a brand Cartier does have a rich and glorious history, but in general the products it makes today cannot compare to what it made in the past. Only at the very top end, like the watches from the Collection Privee Cartier Paris (CPCP) and the jewellery from the high jewellery workshop in Paris (mostly priced above EUR200K), is anywhere near what Cartier of the early 20th century put out. The CPCP collection does contain several technically impressive timepieces, including a tourbillon that utilises a GP Three Gold Bridge movement, but it is ultra-exclusive, ultra-pricey, and rarely sold outside large Cartier boutiques.

The more down to earth Cartier watches are descendants of the Les Must de Cartier line. They are outstanding for their classic design, Cartier has wisely kept many of their old designs like the Tank and Santos. A sophisticated collector, even with a multi-million dollar collection, will probably recognise the history and value of the designs, which remain as attractive today as when they were unveiled nearly a century ago. The Tank and Santos are arguably more iconic than the rarest Patek Pagoda or Top Hat watches, they are important in the history of the wristwatch. But in terms of tangible quality, most Cartier watches are comparable to Rolex, Omega and the like, and are priced in the same segment. In some ways Cartier offers a Patek Philippe history and heritage for the price of an Omega.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Violinist
About your collection: if you want to talk about impressive collections, it's hard to beat some of the people on Timezone and other websites who have high 6 figures to collections worth a few million. I'm sure you've owned really nice watches, but part of my admiration for Cartier comes from the fact that I know and know of people with fabulously expensive collection who still give Cartier its due.
post #58 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJX
The discussion so far seems to centre on Cartier as a brand, and not the individual product lines, which it should. It is worthwhile to note that the Les Must de Cartier was introduced in the 1970s, that was the first affordable line of Cartier products, in fact it was the first 'democratisation' of super high end luxury. It started with the lighter and then progressed on to encompasses pens, sunglasses and watches. The Les Must de Cartier turned Cartier from a struggling brand into a billion dollar (sales) company by the 1980s. Majority of what Cartier makes is derived from the Les Must de Cartier range in terms of price and quality.

As a brand Cartier does have a rich and glorious history, but in general the products it makes today cannot compare to what it made in the past. Only at the very top end, like the watches from the Collection Privee Cartier Paris (CPCP) and the jewellery from the high jewellery workshop in Paris, is anywhere near what Cartier of the early 20th century put out. The CPCP collection does contain several technically impressive timepieces, including a tourbillon that utilises a GP Three Gold Bridge movement, but it is ultra-exclusive and rarely sold outside large Cartier boutiques.

The more down to earth Cartier watches, descendants of the Les Must de Cartier, like the Tank, Santos etc etc are outstanding for their classic design. A sophisticated collector, even with a multi-million dollar collection, will probably recognise the history and value of the designs, which remain as attractive today as when they were unveiled nearly a century ago. The Tank and Santos are arguably more iconic than the rarest Patek Pagoda or Top Hat watches. But in terms of tangible quality, most Cartier watches are comparable to Rolex, Omega and the like, and are priced in the same segment.

I agree, but I think Cartiers are superior to a lot of Rolexes (obviously excluding standouts like the Daytona etc...). I won't get into the movement, but Rolex bracelets feel like they are half plastic.

I own an Omega and I don't know if it's exactly on par with a good Cartier either.
post #59 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Violinist
I agree, but I think Cartiers are superior to a lot of Rolexes (obviously excluding standouts like the Daytona etc...). I won't get into the movement, but Rolex bracelets feel like they are half plastic.

I own an Omega and I don't know if it's exactly on par with a good Cartier either.

Well you are definitely entitled to your opinion, but based on personal experience with all the watches mentioned (except the Cartier CPCP), I disagree.

In the past Rolex bracelets were probably the weak point of the whole package, but now they have mostly been improved such that they are actually quite well built. Rolex case finish and dial quality has always been top notch.

As for Omega, you'd be surprised at good the quality is. Examine a Broadarrow Speedmaster or one of the new Baselworld 2006 products in brushed rose gold.

But to be honest, Cartier competes more with Rolex than with Omega, even industry execs say that. Omega is still seen by the public as a notch below, even if the actual tangible quality is similar.
post #60 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJX
Well you are definitely entitled to your opinion, but based on personal experience with all the watches mentioned (except the Cartier CPCP), I disagree.

In the past Rolex bracelets were probably the weak point of the whole package, but now they have mostly been improved such that they are actually quite well built. Rolex case finish and dial quality has always been top notch.

As for Omega, you'd be surprised at good the quality is. Examine a Broadarrow Speedmaster or one of the new Baselworld 2006 products in brushed rose gold.

But to be honest, Cartier competes more with Rolex than with Omega, even industry execs say that. Omega is still seen by the public as a notch below, even if the actual tangible quality is similar.


I prefer a lot of Omega to Rolexes... I might consider a GMT though... I think the fact that Omega is now offering a coaxial movement in a "cheap" watch is pretty cool. My Planet Ocean is stunningly accurate.

As for what you say about the bracelets, you're probably right. I am not very attracted by many of Rolex's designs, but I know they're a great company. I don't like how ubiquitous they are, but whatever.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Fine Living, Home, Design & Auto › Watches losing popularity