or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › The Watch Appreciation Thread (Reviews and Photos of Men's Timepieces by Rolex, Patek Philippe, Breitling, JLC etc...)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Watch Appreciation Thread (Reviews and Photos of Men's Timepieces by Rolex, Patek Philippe, Breitling, JLC etc...) - Page 1285  

post #19261 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by AriGold View Post


Yeah it's freakin' sick piece. I already have a speedy, so the next watch will have to be something dressy, and I've had my eye on the portuguese forever. If I were in the market for another sports watch, I'd get the tag above if the price was right. Lately Tag has really impressed me, and given the pieces can be had on significant discount, I find it more and more appealing

 

I just fell in love with Portuguese ever since I saw it. I can always go for the cheaper Portofino, but apparently the difference between these 2 that Portuguese uses the IWC in house machine. 

 

And yes, Tag recent watches are pretty impressive, this one in particular impressed me the most, unfortunately I find the price tag to be a little unreasonable.. Anyhow it's the 300 SLR.

 

 

The bronze color is just beautiful!

 

 

And the orange leather at the back of the strap, just woah!

post #19262 of 48312
^ I really dig the Portuguese too. I picked up this two-tone model last year, and it's one of my favorites.

post #19263 of 48312

Gorgeous IWC, Epaulet.

post #19264 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Epaulet View Post

^ I really dig the Portuguese too. I picked up this two-tone model last year, and it's one of my favorites.
 

 

Hey there, Mike - great choice there. nod[1].gif

post #19265 of 48312
great choice mike, i almost covered my screen with jizz!foo.gif
post #19266 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by mafoofan View Post

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Not at all. Rolex finishing is abysmal. It has improved over the years, but it is not finely executed. Very rough and irregular.
First of all, accuracy in timing is not the same thing as precision. Accuracy refers to how likely the watch is to keep with actual time. So, if watch gains 5 seconds one day, then loses 5 seconds the next, it can be said to be highly accurate, as it's net gain/loss versus the actual time is zero. However, such a watch would be highly imprecise. A watch that gains 5 seconds regularly everyday is far more precise and more difficult to engineer, even if it is less accurate. Rolex has always prided itself on accuracy. But the reason why other finer, higher-end companies can say they build finer, better movements is because they tend to be more precise. Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
That said, you are right: the 50010 movement is not well-regarded for accuracy. But we were talking about finishing quality. Even if a shoe doesn't fit right, we can still judge how well it is finished. So too with watch finishing. Whether you think IWC finishing actually achieves the goals it reflects is a separate issue from how nicely it is done.
Again, you are confusing engineering with finishing. See above.
Quite right about the distinction between precision and accuracy. The classic science-and-engineering-course example illustrates the concept clearly:



However, high-end makers neither claim nor deliver better precision — or accuracy — than their more common counterparts.

Once you can produce a movement that's capable of a consistent rate of plus five seconds a day (precision), it's trivial to adjust/regulate it to stay dead-on (accuracy). Isochronism and rate stability — i.e. precision — is by far the more difficult part, and that's where a manufacturer like Rolex excels.

No high-end company claims to make better movements because of better timekeeping precision; that would be foolish. They're finer and more costly simply because of the amount of skilled labour that they incorporate. A boring ol' machine-finished movement can be made with tighter and more consistent tolerances if the manufacturer is willing to invest in the production resources and quality control that it requires. With the delicate tasks of assembly, truing and adjustment done by hand in the case of Rolex, you get the best of both the mechanical and skilled-labour worlds as far as timekeeping results are concerned.

The empirical results discussed in the "Inside COSC" article on TZ support this, along with COSC director Jean-Pierre Curchod's assessment:
Quote:
What about those expensive, lovingly handcrafted crafted, pursuit-of-perfection in-house movements? It is possible for such movements to reach chronometer standard, acknowledges Mr Curchod, but at the cost of much expensive and time-consuming tweaking. "It is more difficult and the failure rates are high — as much as 60%."

Since mechanical movements are inherently anachronistic, a certain level of imprecision is accepted. It's remarkable how good the results for the lovely horlogerie movements can be, all things considered. But don't expect them to deliver better timekeeping results than mass-produced ones; that's not what it's about.
Edited by Belligero - 3/25/13 at 2:31am
post #19267 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by ahdaeeeee View Post

 

I just fell in love with Portuguese ever since I saw it. I can always go for the cheaper Portofino, but apparently the difference between these 2 that Portuguese uses the IWC in house machine. 

 

It depends on which Portuguese you're talking about.  The Portuguese chrono (as posted above) does not use an in-house movement.  The upside of that is that it is likely to be more accurate.  Whether it is foolish to expect your high end watch to run accurately is a question I will leave to you.

post #19268 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by apropos View Post

I think I've addressed all the points in your original post, and shown how your proposition was without basis in reality. You would be a more useful contributor to this thread if you at least owned your mistakes.

 

 You would be a more useful contributor if you had the ability to recognize intentional overstatement and to distinguish fact from opinion.

 

Returning to porn, have a peek at this IWC.  Elegance on the wrist.  Chances of being confused with a hockey puck = zero.  Badass mall ninja factor = zero.

 


Edited by RogerP - 3/25/13 at 4:40am
post #19269 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Epaulet View Post

^ I really dig the Portuguese too. I picked up this two-tone model last year, and it's one of my favorites.

 

I am loving two-tones watches at the moment. This is great, and the Breitling posted earlier is amazing.

 

Do you know of any online resources / examples to take a look at?


Edited by Vestment Baller - 3/25/13 at 7:14am
post #19270 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by RogerP View Post

Returning to porn, have a peek at this IWC.  Elegance on the wrist.  Chances of being confused with a hockey puck = zero.  Badass mall ninja factor = zero.



Delicious.
post #19271 of 48312
Back to porn. For my buddy RogerP - since you went strap I thought I'd even out the universe and go bracelet.

Photobucket Pictures, Images and Photos
post #19272 of 48312

Eek that 50th anniversary, bad watch to go out on IMO.

post #19273 of 48312

Lookin' good rnguy.  The cosmic forces are once again in balance.

post #19274 of 48312
More pedestrian Speedy here

post #19275 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Epaulet View Post

Great shot! (Click to show)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
This thread is locked  
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › The Watch Appreciation Thread (Reviews and Photos of Men's Timepieces by Rolex, Patek Philippe, Breitling, JLC etc...)