The Watch Appreciation Thread (Reviews and Photos of Men's Timepieces by Rolex, Patek Philippe, Breitling, JLC etc...) - Page 1329
Styles mentioned in this thread:
Interesting. I haven't heard of that series, but I will check it out. Thanks!
Thanks, glad you like them!
They make very nice pens, but it is not a brand that attracts me as a potential watch consumer. Personally, I think of them mainly as a pen company. Their most significant contributions have been in the world of pens rather than watches. I find some of their watch designs seem a bit forced and at times even flashy. Also, while I understand the idea of a familiar theme among products, but many of their black watches, black pens, and black cufflinks seem too matchy, matchy.
Knowing that several MBs were ETA or Val 7750 powered wasn't a strong selling point for me. ETA/Valjoux make good solid movements, but if I were getting a watch powered by one of those, I would probably consider an IWC Pilot watch from the late 1990s, such as a 3706 or 3713, or maybe a Mark XV. I always find a watch company's history, heritage, and accomplishments in the world of watch making to be both interesting and on some level a selling point. MB doesn't have much history in the world of watch making and and I don't see them as really standing apart from the crowd.
When I consider the prices of some of their watches, I tend to be more interested in other companies that have always been watch makers rather than those branching out to target new types of consumers. Nothing wrong with it, its just not for me. Ralph Lauren and Zegna have come up with watches that use very respected movements, but again I think of them as clothing makers. While their history is rich in their original fields, I am not interested in owning one of their watches. I guess I don't see a point in buying something that isn't what the brand known for...be it car makers, clothing makers, watch makers, or pen makers. But no one brand can be everything to everyone. If we all favored the same brand and model of watches it would be a very boring forum.
Thank you DINO - your insight and opinion much appreciated. Happy to return the favour if you need any advice on high end-shoes.
As promised, the Montblanc I wore into London today..
Some people will say its a sport watch or a tool watch and you shouldn't wear it with a suit. But I think that is a pretty narrow view.
FWIW, I don't care for two tone watches. But that's just a personal preference.
I generally agree with this statement, although you'll want to consider dial design, formality of the strap versus bracelet, the precious metal used to make the watch, the height of the watch (does it slip discreetly into your formal jacket's cuff?) and your own personal preferences.
I like 36mm, and I think this particular watch of mine, for example, straddles the balance between formal wear (business suits, tuxedoes) and casual (weekend wear, shirt/jeans). Indeed, the case size is 36mm!
1. Dial design: the balance of various subdials given the perpetual calendar complication renders it for me quite appealing for formal wear, but the chronograph function gives it a "sporty" edge that goes well with casual wear.
2. Formality of strap versus bracelet: Leather straps are pretty flexible for me, perfectly at home in formal settings but also acceptable for casual wear. This one is in black but I think if it came in brown that might work even better for casual wear - but maybe not for black tie events.
3. Precious metal: This piece is made of platinum, which tends to fly under the radar (which I like). Depending on the finishing some people can't even distinguish it from stainless steel. That gives it the "sporty" edge for me that allows me to wear it with casual stuff - yellow gold might not go as well with ripped jeans. This one (for me) works just fine.
4. Height of the watch: This is where the 13mm height of this 3970P can be hit or miss. It is arguable that the sub-9mm height of the Patek 3940 is better for formal wear. But the extra heft and height delivered by the chrono movement (I have yet to see an "ultra thin chronograph") appeals to me for casual wear, while the watch is just short enough to slip under my (formal) jacket's cuff. Any taller/thicker/meatier and I think I'd be uncomfortable pairing this with formal wear.
5. Personal preference: Hey. At the end of the day the above reasons justify my use of this watch for both formal and casual wear. These are my reasons. It's perfectly fine if you disagree with me and if you think my reasoning is bullsh*t and my sense of style sucks.
I will keep on happily wearing this watch.
Hey, I wear my perpetual calendar chronos with a beat up Uniqlo undershirt (two for $12.99 baby). Can't get more casual than that I suppose, unless I took my shirt off. Standard "Frills shot" (according to Newcomer) below.
No shit. Read the following thread if you want to have a little insight on the craziness that embodies vintage Rolex collection:
This is absolutely madness. I, admire these folks, I do not have that much time on my hands......!
I tried to swing the Frills shot, but unfortunately, I think you have me beat on it
I think you are correct in saying that your 3970P can play in between casual and formal wear. And it is a very interesting observation. The pushers really "casualize" the piece, but by no means would I say that it does not remain, at heart, a dressier watch.
I have been thinking more and more about how complications relate to one another within a watch. I guess when Dino spoke about how he appreciates the history-design interplay (sorry for my crude, crude explanation), it got me thinking about the 'purity' of a watch.
The perpetual calendar chronograph really is fascinating in that respect. It is amazing to think that it measures seconds, minutes, hours, days of the week, days of the month, phases of the moon, months, and the year. It really is a poetic set of complications. Similarly, that is one of the reasons I am very attracted to my MUT Moon. It tracks the days of the month, and the phases of the moon--both complications relate only to the month. In a similar vein, this is what bothers me about watches like the Omega Speedmaster Moonphase, or the Big Pilot Perpetual Calendar. In the case of the former, you are pairing arguably the most sedentary and poetic complications with the most erratic. In the case of the latter, you are taking a pilot's watch, which is all about being "of the moment," and placing a complication that is completely irrelevant to its primary purpose.
One of the more interesting watches I have seen as of late has been the Habring2 Foudroyante with Secondes de Mort. What a fascinating combination!
Just a couple of the evening thoughts.
that sounds just like my retirement plan when i refi my house to buy a high complication PP.
Not at all! The only watch among mine that I ever wear with black tie rig is my Breguet Classique. Time only, small seconds at 6. Hand wound white gold on black croc. Small, simple and elegant. Even then, it feels a little wrong to wear a wristwatch.
If not small, then at least proportionate to the wearer, and not obviously large. I would certainly agree that a slim watch with no extraneous pushers, bezel or other jiggery-pokery, looks more formal. I'd also suggest a black leather or croc strap is most "dressy", or even a steel one. And going further, I don't think gold works with black tie. The black and white minimalism, I think, begs for platinum/white gold/silver. Considering black tie is evening wear, I'd consider a moonphase witty, but really a simple two or three hand Calatrava, Patrimony...maybe an ultra-thin JLC...would be just lovely.
That said, I have none of those, but I haven't been to a black tie do in a while either. I don't drink, and find the sight of inebriated bankers in novelty waistcoats and nylon socks doing the Macarena, quite revolting. But I'll endure one again sooner or later I suppose...
Edit: Just saw Flake's post above. Great minds...