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 1888  

post #28306 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by ridethecliche View Post

What's the red tip dial for?


Date?

Yep, it is a full 31 day day-counter smile.gif.

And I really like that one. Although I have to say, I kind of prefer the FC Slimline Moonphase. However, I cannot exactly remember why. I like the blue dialed variant of what you posted.
post #28307 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by CHRK33 View Post

Those are my sentiments exactly - rather disappointing and although I appreciate wholeheartedly the varied tourbillions and open worked pieces as well as scrimshaw dials, none of these new pieces have me running to my AD even if they weren't much beyond my budget.

Gladly, it makes my decision to budget for the Lange Aub/Auf that much easier. That may very well be my one watch addition of 2014.

Really? That is an excellent choice! It is actually fairly reasonable, all things be relative. I have sincerely thought about it, but I feel like I would get more wear out of a Nautilus / AP RO 15202. If I go down the dress watch route though, it would likely be the aub/auf or potentially the VC Patrimony Small Seconds.
post #28308 of 48312

I'm sure you will cherish both the PS and the pocketwatch.  Very sorry for your loss, Cleav.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cleav View Post

Thought I'd take some pics of the half hunter my late Father in Law gave me, along with the fave PS.

Sorry if this is wrong place or tedious

AppleMark
post #28309 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleav View Post

Thought I'd take some pics of the half hunter my late Father in Law gave me, along with the fave PS.

Sorry if this is wrong place or tedious

Very nice pictures, Cleav, and very sorry for your loss.
post #28310 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by in stitches View Post

a friend of mine has been looking into getting a watch, and is pretty much settled on baume and mercier.

although i own one myself, i have not been a huge fran for a while. but then i saw this and i though its quite pretty. agree?

 

Yes and no.  I think, TWAT-cred and the vagaries of fashion aside, Baume and Mercier make some very nice looking watches.  But yours (Capeland chrono, right?) is nicer.

 

There are a few things about this:  first, it's really big.  Does he want this for a dress watch?  43mm x 12+mm is Panerai chunk, without the casual looks.  Second, although I think regulator dates are cool. having the mix of Arabic numbers and sticks inside the date ring makes it look kind of squashed and jumbled to me: most regulators are quite minimalist otherwise, in my limited experience - the FC is a nice example.  With all the numbers and windows and whatnot here, it becomes a bit of a dog's dinner to me.  I mean, it's kind of pretty, in an oversized, dressy-casualy crossover IWC Portuguese kind of way.  But there's too much going on for that to work in my opinion.  And thirdly (this is very much my personal brain wiring at fault, I know), but a triple calendar that isn't also at least an annual calendar, always seems half-assed to me.  It looks like a calendar, but it kind of isn't.  It's a date window with pretensions.

 

And one more thing: it's getting on for $4k isn't it?  As discussed over the last few pages, there are some nice watches in that price range, and many of them too big for Kaplan at least, especially if your friend does indeed want a larger dress watch.  That money buys anything from a Speedmaster at the sporty end, to the (very nice) FC Nuke mentioned at the dressy end, and a hundred in between.  So I'm not quite getting why you settled here?  Of  course, everyone has their own taste - my illogical love for the Speedy moonphase is no less strange I suppose.  And if that chunkier, more industrial kind of dressy is what he wants, then why not?  I'd maybe suggest Zenith as another maker to look at in that range for a similar feel, then: smart, but very metallic and masculine, and biggish.

 

But let's humour you.  Let's imagine it's just a big love for Baume and Mercier, or your uncle owns the AD, or there's some weird kind of numerology in the name that I can never hope to understand until Cthulhu wakes.  If it's B&M, how about this?

 

 

This is the "Classima".  It is about the same price I think, perhaps only a shade more but your Stitchy powers can take care of that.  And viz. my three points above:

 

- It's still really big for a dress watch at 42mm by 10mm.  But when those two measurements are combined, I think the difference is very significant in feel.  It's big if he likes big, but it's not quite silly.

 

- The dial still has some numbers around some other numbers, but the way the dial is laid out, and the use of four Romans instead of six Arabics makes it much less cluttered.  The guilloche is pretty and dressy, and it just feels nicely balanced to me.  Oh, and the feuille hands soften the whole thing a bit.  Sure, it's not got a moonphase or a day of the week, but the moonphase on the other wasn't a particularly nice one anyway (flat, insipid, too big), and if you don't know what day of the week it is, your choice of watch might not be the biggest issue in your life.  

 

- Which leads me on to the calendar: it's a proper annual calendar.  Until February 29 ever four years, it knows what the date is.  That would make me happier.  

 

Anyway, as I said, there's a bit of "yes" to your question: at first glance, I think it's quite pretty.  But with a bit of closer observation, I think you can do your friend a better service. :)

post #28311 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by akatsuki View Post


I think so when you are complaining about font choices, that is probably too picky (albeit the OP prefers batons).

Used/vintage is clearly the winner when someone wants a 36-38.

 

Agreed 100%.  I would look for vintage 1960's Omegas - the one I have fits the bill of what you're looking for.

post #28312 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by in stitches View Post

a friend of mine has been looking into getting a watch, and is pretty much settled on baume and mercier.

although i own one myself, i have not been a huge fran for a while. but then i saw this and i though its quite pretty. agree?
  Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

 

Yes, it is! I've been looking for one since you recommended me one of those and this one is very cool!

post #28313 of 48312
Went to Tourneau yesterday to try on the Mark XVII for the first time. I have held off up to this point because I was afraid I would fall in love on the spot. However, I was having my sunglasses repaired and had time to kill, so I popped in. Some takeaways:

The face is big. While I don't have the largest wrists in the world, I'm usually fine up to 41mm (worth nothing that both the XV and XVI look great on me). The XVII is measured at 41mm, so I figured it would be fine. Not the case at all. I'd say it's closer to 43mm or 44mm when worn. It's just too big and really takes away from the understated class that is so readily evident on the XV and XVI. And while I really like the red accent on the face, it really is not worth looking like a hip hop impresario. Again, I'm not a big guy, so this is just how it looked on me.

More surprising than how strikingly big it wore was the SA's insistence that it was the perfect size for me. He even made a play to have me look at the Big Pilots, which are way larger. I was very surprised to see how hard the guy pressed about it. He said that for an old man a smaller face was right, but that someone younger needed the statement. Needless to say I was pretty turned off by that point. I know we're (largely) a bastion of conservatism here, but I was still shocked at how hard he was pushing the bigger face. And it got me thinking whether or not bigger faces are a trend that makers are trying to cash in on now so that five years down the road, when you realize your watch has been too big all along, you come back to but something sub-42. Looking through Tourneau's offerings, most of the entry-level watches were bigger that 40mm. Just food for thought.

The last thing I realized is that the steel band on the XVII is not nearly as nice or discreet as the XV or XVI. While there is the "cool" self-adjustment capability on the bracelet (something that the SA tried to use as a selling point for a $4k watch...), there is also a big "IWC" stamped in huge letters. While I'll likely wear mine with croc (haven't decided whether I like black or brown better), it was still kind of baffling to see how much more conspicuous the XVII was in its detailing (at least when compared to the XV or XVI).

All-in-all I went from being sure that the XVII was the watch for me to ruling it out altogether. I plan on taking a closer look at the XV and XVI moving forward. Just figured I'd share if anyone else was entertaining the idea...
post #28314 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newcomer View Post

Really? That is an excellent choice! It is actually fairly reasonable, all things be relative. I have sincerely thought about it, but I feel like I would get more wear out of a Nautilus / AP RO 15202. If I go down the dress watch route though, it would likely be the aub/auf or potentially the VC Patrimony Small Seconds.

The 15202 is definitely amazing and agreed it is more versatile as it easily straddles the line of sporty and dressy. I am fortunate enough to own one and it is my favorite watch hands down. icon_gu_b_slayer[1].gif We should all enable you to pick one up. I can easily see it being someone's one watch (as long as they are reasonably careful with their watches).

And you are spot on regarding the VC Patrimony Small Seconds -- I really love that watch as well and one I considered carefully. Ultimately, I would have wanted a white gold case with the platinum version's slate grey dial. The platinum version is just too pricey in my book. The Aub/Auf just strikes me as a perfect dress watch -- enough visual interest to differentiate from the dress watch pack and I really think it is another classic from Lange.

Thinking about SIHH a bit more and I find it pretty interesting that most of the watchmakers went for super high-end, high horology complications this season that price even many of their normal customers out. I am wondering what the rationale might be -- perhaps a bit of saturation in the $10 - 20K price point? I am curious what Patek and Rolex have in store for Basel.

Also, Cleav, belated condolences. Very sorry for your loss.
post #28315 of 48312


Really liking this watch. Now do I sell all my shoes to make sure I get in on it?
post #28316 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevent View Post

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

Really liking this watch. Now do I sell all my shoes to make sure I get in on it?

Dibs on your cordovans.
post #28317 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by bourbonbasted View Post

Went to Tourneau yesterday to try on the Mark XVII for the first time. I have held off up to this point because I was afraid I would fall in love on the spot. However, I was having my sunglasses repaired and had time to kill, so I popped in. Some takeaways:

The face is big. While I don't have the largest wrists in the world, I'm usually fine up to 41mm (worth nothing that both the XV and XVI look great on me). The XVII is measured at 41mm, so I figured it would be fine. Not the case at all. I'd say it's closer to 43mm or 44mm when worn. It's just too big and really takes away from the understated class that is so readily evident on the XV and XVI. And while I really like the red accent on the face, it really is not worth looking like a hip hop impresario. Again, I'm not a big guy, so this is just how it looked on me.

More surprising than how strikingly big it wore was the SA's insistence that it was the perfect size for me. He even made a play to have me look at the Big Pilots, which are way larger. I was very surprised to see how hard the guy pressed about it. He said that for an old man a smaller face was right, but that someone younger needed the statement. Needless to say I was pretty turned off by that point. I know we're (largely) a bastion of conservatism here, but I was still shocked at how hard he was pushing the bigger face. And it got me thinking whether or not bigger faces are a trend that makers are trying to cash in on now so that five years down the road, when you realize your watch has been too big all along, you come back to but something sub-42. Looking through Tourneau's offerings, most of the entry-level watches were bigger that 40mm. Just food for thought.

The last thing I realized is that the steel band on the XVII is not nearly as nice or discreet as the XV or XVI. While there is the "cool" self-adjustment capability on the bracelet (something that the SA tried to use as a selling point for a $4k watch...), there is also a big "IWC" stamped in huge letters. While I'll likely wear mine with croc (haven't decided whether I like black or brown better), it was still kind of baffling to see how much more conspicuous the XVII was in its detailing (at least when compared to the XV or XVI).

All-in-all I went from being sure that the XVII was the watch for me to ruling it out altogether. I plan on taking a closer look at the XV and XVI moving forward. Just figured I'd share if anyone else was entertaining the idea...

Thanks for the report. Yes, there is no question that big is the trend these days, and it seems that most of the high-end watchmakers are trending that way to maintain their market share. But also there are many big watches that have always been big (Panerai, the Big Pilot you mention, etc.), purportedly for their intended uses. And I would bet that there has been a big upswing in the demand in recent years for those big watches that have always been big. However, in the case of watches that are large because of their history and tradition, I don't at all associate that look with the hip hop crowd, although perhaps a non-WIS might.

Speaking of which, sporting the BP with business casual dress today (with socks!), as I'm going to be sitting in my office all day doing some light reading . . . frown.gif Man my Vass could use a polish. LOL

12071247784_5002fc8f26_z.jpg
post #28318 of 48312
Oh, and speaking of Tourneau, I don't understand how they manage to sell anything. In Houston I've always hypothesized that they muyst get a fair amount of wealthy international tourists who aren't expecting a discount (or don't care) and aren't completely put off by the arrogance.
post #28319 of 48312
thanks for the replies, guys. my friend decided he wants something more sporty, and had picked a different B&M model. not what i would have done, but he needs to do whats best for him and what will make him happy.
post #28320 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by TC (Houston) View Post

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Thanks for the report. Yes, there is no question that big is the trend these days, and it seems that most of the high-end watchmakers are trending that way to maintain their market share. But also there are many big watches that have always been big (Panerai, the Big Pilot you mention, etc.), purportedly for their intended uses. And I would bet that there has been a big upswing in the demand in recent years for those big watches that have always been big. However, in the case of watches that are large because of their history and tradition, I don't at all associate that look with the hip hop crowd, although perhaps a non-WIS might.

Speaking of which, sporting the BP with business casual dress today (with socks!), as I'm going to be sitting in my office all day doing some light reading . . . frown.gif Man my Vass could use a polish. LOL

12071247784_5002fc8f26_z.jpgWarning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

For a sportier watch I think I would go bigger. For instance, if I this were my third or fourth watch, I'd entertain something that fit larger. However, for a daily wearer, I still think I want something more conservative and in proportion to my wrist. That said, the idea of "proportion" is very much in the eye of the beholder, so while some may think it looks perfect, others will scoff. I was just more surprised by the SA's insistence that I was wrong about a smaller face being the right play.

Per the hip hop comment, I certainly don't want to come off as obtuse. However, at least where I live, the large face crowds are more often than not going for that look. So perhaps I have a hard time separating that in my mind.

And I completely agree with the comment about Tourneau. I was baffled there were people in there actually paying for watches...

BTW, both your IWC and Vass look great icon_gu_b_slayer[1].gif
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...)