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 1707  

post #25591 of 48312
i can't afford rolex. should i buy tudor? People might think less of me coz the movement is not in-house shog[1].gif
post #25592 of 48312
Please leave, and never come back.

(Unless of course, you were being mwink[1].gif, in which case shog[1].gif )
post #25593 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by in stitches View Post

everyone should buy a rolex. even if you hate them. why do i say this? to stir sh*t up.

Why would you like or hate a brand? I can see a reason to like or dislike a particular watch - but a company?
post #25594 of 48312

I don't think it's any less reasonable to dislike the style or even corporate ethos of a maker, than it is to love one.

 

I have a deep and probably unreasonable loathing for Ferragamo, Gucci, Armani and a dozen other fashion brands, that took interesting and admirable histories of quality and design, and now use them to sell sub-supermarket plastic shit at premium prices to people confused by the brand association.  There, I said it.  Come to think of it, I think all of those now sell tacky watches too. Ugh.

 

But I can't immediately think of a watchmaker with a great history that now sells a poor-quality range at premium price to deceive customers in this way.  As powerful, ubiquitous and generic as a Rolex or an Omega might seem these days, they still sell good stuff.  Of course, whether it's $8k on a steel Omega or $1k on a Ferragamo "Tramezza" quality shoe, there are plenty of arguments that more for your money is available elsewhere.  The difference is that Omega don't make a lookalike with their brand on it that's actually a cheap alloy quartz watch with a factory Chinese movement that's been made to look like a Speedmaster and sold at a similar price.

 

These watchmaker mega-brands are easy targets for inverted snobbery, as Dino said, and I think that's wrong: even if you can get a watch just as good for less money than a Rolex, a Rolex is still good nevertheless. That brand identity does have a value beyond vanity, in that it is genuinely a decades-old reputation for quality and consistency.  What's more, part of that brand is design, and we are after all talking about things we buy for their aesthetic heritage and taste as much as anything.  If there is anything more justifying of the word "iconic" in design, than a cyclops date or a Submariner's dial, or a Daytona, then it's hard to bring it immediately to mind.  Even an Omega Constellation is an enduring and recognisable design that's worth something to someone.

 

So it's not right to despise a brand for its success or ubiquity, when the brand itself has quality and design integrity as its essence.  Yet I understand where brother Roger is coming from in warning against chasing brand value as an end in itself.  I don't think he was accusing anyone here of being a "brand whore" (except maybe Stitchy, who basks in that title I think!), or even saying one shouldn't by a particular brand.  My interpretation was that he warned against buying the best-known for its own sake and stretching the budget just to get a watch that might seem more impressive to others.  I think most of us can buy that ticket.  Roger, Dino, Frilly, you're some of my favourite people on this forum, and this is by far the best thread.  I felt rather disproportionately sad to see words of irritation here.

 

Back to Steven's question, then, I think my view as a PMW-buyer for the time being, is to look at more options.  Not for its own sake, but there's a middle ground here, between doing what Roger warns against - getting something kind of expensive that might not seem right in six months, and buying something cheap that you're almost guaranteed to want to trade up in a short time.  I don't know, maybe you just love those Hamiltons, and I think they're nice.  I'm considering a Khaki for my son's next birthday (if he's interested).  But not for me.  Bill's "IntraMatic", for me, would feel like a substitute for a Nomos Orion - that isn't massively expensive either, but I guess in my crusty mind, Bauhaus should be German.  The Khaki wants to be a IWC or even a Sinn or a Stowa.  That's just how my mind works.

 

In your shoes, and in a way I am, I would get the cheapest watch that is something original in its own right.  I bought the Seiko "Orange Monster" largely because it doesn't look like I really wanted a Submariner (and I totally do by the way!); it's got its own identity.  I wouldn't buy a Hamilton Khaki for me, but I would buy a Stowa Flieger or Marine Original because the history matches up.  In some ways it would go against my principles to pay more for one ETA-based watch over another, but as I said above, watches are art, and I don't want a pastiche or homage.  At least not unless it's by one of the original artists.  In dress watches, I wouldn't personally choose a minimalist Tissot or Hamilton like the one above, but I'd happily get a Junghans Max Bill.

 

At the end of the day, what it comes down to is this: if this is a new interest, you're going to see things and read things and try things on that will change your mind.  However cussed and stubborn you might be (and believe me, I am), time and the world will influence you.  So you could go one way and get something cheap that you may or may not still like in a year's time, like the Hamilton.  Or you could get something so iconic and widely-respected that however many watches you have, it will probably always have a place in your collection - like a Rolex.  What you can afford is your business alone.  But somewhere in the middle of those two, there are a whole pile of watches with the originality and integrity of a Rolex, but closer to the price of a Hamilton.  I'd say look at more, and work out what kind of watch you really want to be wearing most of the time right now - dressy, casual, sporty, a mix?  Then look at what's there and where it comes from.  What's the history of this design, or the company, what makes this particular watch so representative of that particular maker.  And then, whether it's a Hamilton, an Omega or something in between, choose the one you really fucking love when you put it on your wrist and look in the mirror.  That's it.

post #25595 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by apropos View Post

Please leave, and never come back.

(Unless of course, you were being mwink[1].gif, in which case shog[1].gif )

foo.gif
post #25596 of 48312
I bought this because it was what I wanted. It is beat to hell, dirty, and the band is a little discolored as I don't worry about getting it wet. OP who asked about watches.....get what makes you happy.

post #25597 of 48312

^^^ Good for you jb - and thanks for showing that nice Hammy here.

post #25598 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by AriGold View Post

i can't afford rolex. should i buy tudor? People might think less of me coz the movement is not in-house shog[1].gif

laugh.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by culverwood View Post

Why would you like or hate a brand? I can see a reason to like or dislike a particular watch - but a company?

did you read the last sentence of my post? smile.gif
post #25599 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbarwick View Post

....get what makes you happy.
 

 

That would seem to be the nub of the issue. :)

post #25600 of 48312

Rolex makes me happy.
post #25601 of 48312
yes!
post #25602 of 48312

Had a SS sub rolex back in the 90's, I liked it but they have gotten better particularity the clasp.  Also like what tutor is doing- and anyone who thinks its a lesser brand- what they are doing now is really cool without being trendy/disposable.

 

Still, for my next dive type watch I am leaning towards a Seiko SBDB001, but have yet to see in person.

post #25603 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by zippyh View Post

Rolex makes me happy.

Ditto.



icon_gu_b_slayer[1].gif
post #25604 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by no frills View Post

And now, a public service announcement.  The photographer Jaroslav Wieczorkiewicz came up with a novel concept: dressing models in very, very, very fast-moving milk and taking pictures like traditional 1940s pinups.  What does that even mean, you ask?  Here's an example:




Profile of his work here via SLR lounge.com:

http://www.slrlounge.com/traditional-40s-pinup-photos-models-wearing-high-speed-milk
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
The photographer's website here (warning: some photos are NSFW):

http://aurumlight.com/

Also, just so this isn't completely OT, here's a picture of a watch: one of three known examples of the Patek 1563, a split seconds chrono variation of the 1463.  This piece pictured also has luminous Breguet numerals, which the other two supposedly does not have.  So apparently this is pretty rare, and will go up for auction via Christie's this November.  All info via Christie's/pic via Hodinkee:




Friend of mine went to a press event hosted by Christie's last Friday where the Hodinkee guys snapped these pics.  He has a pretty neat wrist shot of this piece. I asked him if he was going to bid for it, but I think the $850,000 to $1,500,000 estimate is beyond his budget.

You follow SLR Lounge regularly? My college buddy is one of the founders.
post #25605 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by zippyh View Post


Rolex makes me happy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bawlin View Post

Ditto.


Very nice choices guys!
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...)