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 2000  

post #29986 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by mimo View Post

Ironically, I think the next one to go that way really is Omega.  They have had such a huge marketing push over the last few years that I can see them becoming rather ubiquitous.

let's hope they do not…. I like Omega… but I see your point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mimo View Post

But they don't seem to have acquired the douche-associations of a Breitling or a Hublot, and despite their Swatch-status, their history and design integrity keeps them pretty respectable I think.

I recently met a giant in my industry here in LA and the guy was giving a talk. Of course whenever I meet people such as this I'm always scoping their attire, shoes, etc. and especially the watch. He was presenting… I was at least 25 feet away where I sat and saw what appeared to be a nice AP. So after the talk I got to come down and ask a few questions one-on-one. While he was turned I zoomed in to check out the gear only to see that this multi-millionaire, giant of entertainment law was wearing a …. yes, Hublot. Douche was the first word that crossed my mind!
post #29987 of 48312
The Wraith (Click to show)
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWraith View Post

Pics of my wife's Rolex (on the desk in my study), which arrived earlier today. Wrist shots in May (when it's her birthday). This goes under lock and key until then wink.gif




Great work mate, looks very classy indeed!
post #29988 of 48312
I'm no fan of Hublot - Curious though, if this guy was indeed wearing an AP, would you still have considered him douchey after talking to him?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kid Nickels View Post


I recently met a giant in my industry here in LA and the guy was giving a talk. Of course whenever I meet people such as this I'm always scoping their attire, shoes, etc. and especially the watch. He was presenting… I was at least 25 feet away where I sat and saw what appeared to be a nice AP. So after the talk I got to come down and ask a few questions one-on-one. While he was turned I zoomed in to check out the gear only to see that this multi-millionaire, giant of entertainment law was wearing a …. yes, Hublot. Douche was the first word that crossed my mind!
post #29989 of 48312
I used to like Hublot, but old Hublot, pre-Biver
post #29990 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by BostonHedonist View Post
 

@clpotter

 

I am around your age and like the look of some Breitlings. I was originally considering a Transocean or a Navimeter for my first serious watch. This was a while back. I'd seen the cool Travolta ads with the leather jackets and airplanes. I'd assessed that they were of better quality than Tag Heuer but not quite on par with Rolex and that I was okay with that because I'm not into Rolex for the same reasons I'm not into BMWs. But when I tried a few on my wrist, well, they just didn't work for me. I just thought they were a bit large and just too busy. Also, I looked around at the kinds of people who wore Breitlings. I won't attempt to stereotype, but they tended not to bee my crowd. 

 

I went back to the drawing board and started really doing research, learning bits and pieces about the heritage of various watchmakers. I narrowed down my criteria for a first watch.

 

It had to:

 

1) Be swiss made with an in-house mechanical or automatic movement

2) Have a reputation for bullet-proof reliability

3) Come from a heritage only an idiot can (and will to my amusement) deny

4) Be minimal and versatile enough to wear anywhere, but not too minimal to be boring. (This came to mean a basic, timeless sports watch, on a stainless steel bracelet, with no more than two complications.)

5) Have only complications that would be useful to me.

6) Fit my budget of around $4k

7) Not be a watch that just anybody would recognize as a "serious" watch

 

After I established my criteria and looked around, the only questions left were weather my Omega Speedmaster should have a date, moon phase or neither - and then whether my plain-jane Speedy should have a hesalite or sapphire crystal. 

 

While I am beyond thrilled that I chose the Sapphire Sandwich for my first serious watch, I won't say it's for everybody (though at that price point I still can't imagine finding anything better). Picking your watch is a very personal process. I would say do some research, poke around the Watchuseek forum for a few weeks, and start with some basic criteria. Then you'll find that the options available aren't really as numerous as you might think. Most importantly, try the watch on and see if you like it. Once you feel the caress of the right one, it will haunt your dreams until you can't live without it. It'll drive you mad like a schoolyard crush. That's when you pull out your wallet and conquer the bitch. 

 

At least horological love can be handled so. Until you start gazing on the Pateks of the world. :inlove:  But I digress.

 

Thanks, Boston. I really appreciate your insight. Your thought process really resembles that of mine, the only difference is that I'm a few years behind.  It's funny you mentioned Omega because, I see a lot of Omega watches posted on this forum and had never really considered them a "nice" watch, but I guess that's because I attributed price to quality and after reading many, many posts, I'm beginning to understand that obviously is not the case. 

 

As I've mentioned before, I think for my first watch, I'm leaning towards the Panerai 112, because I really like it's simple design and how I can class it up or down, but I have yet to actually go and try one on, perhaps I'll change my mind (or not) after that.  I've also been considering getting a second watch with a steel bracelet, which is where I thought a Breitling might work because, just as you, I'm not that into Rolex (they're just not for me, plus, my father and father-in-law both have one and that just doesn't feel right), but thought Breitling might be a decent choice within my price range.  After hearing everyone's perspective, I haven't ruled out Breitling altogether, but I will begin to look more deeply into Omega.  And for the record, I like to think I'm the antithesis of doucheness, but I would hate to get grouped into that category.  

 

It's funny, after I started reading this forum, I began to catch myself checking out other guys watches every chance I got, but through my limited knowledge, really could only determine if it was a "nice" watch or not.  Started to learn there are a few more nuances than just that, i.e. Hublot, which I've never paid any attention to and not sure I would recognize one if I saw it.

post #29991 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by BostonHedonist View Post

 

1) Be swiss made with an in-house mechanical or automatic movement

2) Have a reputation for bullet-proof reliability

3) Come from a heritage only an idiot can (and will to my amusement) deny

4) Be minimal and versatile enough to wear anywhere, but not too minimal to be boring. (This came to mean a basic, timeless sports watch, on a stainless steel bracelet, with no more than two complications.)

5) Have only complications that would be useful to me.

6) Fit my budget of around $4k

7) Not be a watch that just anybody would recognize as a "serious" watch

 

 

When did you decide to compromise on the in-house movement? Did you consider the speedy Co-Ax or '57 models with the Cal 9300 in-house movements? Did budget keep you at the 3570/3573 level or did you just prefer the look more? Just curious.

post #29992 of 48312
love or hate post-biver hublot, the guy is a frigging genius.
post #29993 of 48312
Not an Omega expert but i dont think the moon watches like your double sapphire are in house movements. Beleive they are lemanias. Nothing wrong with that IMO but not in house as far as i know.

Would be happy to learn something new though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BostonHedonist View Post

@clpotter


I am around your age and like the look of some Breitlings. I was originally considering a Transocean or a Navimeter for my first serious watch. This was a while back. I'd seen the cool Travolta ads with the leather jackets and airplanes. I'd assessed that they were of better quality than Tag Heuer but not quite on par with Rolex and that I was okay with that because I'm not into Rolex for the same reasons I'm not into BMWs. But when I tried a few on my wrist, well, they just didn't work for me. I just thought they were a bit large and just too busy. Also, I looked around at the kinds of people who wore Breitlings. I won't attempt to stereotype, but they tended not to bee my crowd. 

I went back to the drawing board and started really doing research, learning bits and pieces about the heritage of various watchmakers. I narrowed down my criteria for a first watch.

It had to:

1) Be swiss made with an in-house mechanical or automatic movement
2) Have a reputation for bullet-proof reliability
3) Come from a heritage only an idiot can (and will to my amusement) deny
4) Be minimal and versatile enough to wear anywhere, but not too minimal to be boring. (This came to mean a basic, timeless sports watch, on a stainless steel bracelet, with no more than two complications.)
5) Have only complications that would be useful to me.
6) Fit my budget of around $4k
7) Not be a watch that just anybody would recognize as a "serious" watch

After I established my criteria and looked around, the only questions left were weather my Omega Speedmaster should have a date, moon phase or neither - and then whether my plain-jane Speedy should have a hesalite or sapphire crystal. 

While I am beyond thrilled that I chose the Sapphire Sandwich for my first serious watch, I won't say it's for everybody (though at that price point I still can't imagine finding anything better). Picking your watch is a very personal process. I would say do some research, poke around the Watchuseek forum for a few weeks, and start with some basic criteria. Then you'll find that the options available aren't really as numerous as you might think. Most importantly, try the watch on and see if you like it. Once you feel the caress of the right one, it will haunt your dreams until you can't live without it. It'll drive you mad like a schoolyard crush. That's when you pull out your wallet and conquer the bitch. 

At least horological love can be handled so. Until you start gazing on the Pateks of the world. inlove.gif   But I digress.
post #29994 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by robw View Post

Not an Omega expert but i dont think the moon watches like your double sapphire are in house movements. Beleive they are lemanias. Nothing wrong with that IMO but not in house as far as i know.

Would be happy to learn something new though.


They aren't. I guess Lemania is now integrated under Breguet which is under Swatch, where Omega is as well. So kind of sort of, maybe, if you want to tell yourself it is, but not really.

post #29995 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by BostonHedonist View Post

@clpotter Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
I am around your age and like the look of some Breitlings. I was originally considering a Transocean or a Navimeter for my first serious watch. This was a while back. I'd seen the cool Travolta ads with the leather jackets and airplanes. I'd assessed that they were of better quality than Tag Heuer but not quite on par with Rolex and that I was okay with that because I'm not into Rolex for the same reasons I'm not into BMWs. But when I tried a few on my wrist, well, they just didn't work for me. I just thought they were a bit large and just too busy. Also, I looked around at the kinds of people who wore Breitlings. I won't attempt to stereotype, but they tended not to bee my crowd. 

I went back to the drawing board and started really doing research, learning bits and pieces about the heritage of various watchmakers. I narrowed down my criteria for a first watch.

It had to:

1) Be swiss made with an in-house mechanical or automatic movement
2) Have a reputation for bullet-proof reliability
3) Come from a heritage only an idiot can (and will to my amusement) deny
4) Be minimal and versatile enough to wear anywhere, but not too minimal to be boring. (This came to mean a basic, timeless sports watch, on a stainless steel bracelet, with no more than two complications.)
5) Have only complications that would be useful to me.
6) Fit my budget of around $4k
7) Not be a watch that just anybody would recognize as a "serious" watch
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
After I established my criteria and looked around, the only questions left were weather my Omega Speedmaster should have a date, moon phase or neither - and then whether my plain-jane Speedy should have a hesalite or sapphire crystal. 

While I am beyond thrilled that I chose the Sapphire Sandwich for my first serious watch, I won't say it's for everybody (though at that price point I still can't imagine finding anything better). Picking your watch is a very personal process. I would say do some research, poke around the Watchuseek forum for a few weeks, and start with some basic criteria. Then you'll find that the options available aren't really as numerous as you might think. Most importantly, try the watch on and see if you like it. Once you feel the caress of the right one, it will haunt your dreams until you can't live without it. It'll drive you mad like a schoolyard crush. That's when you pull out your wallet and conquer the bitch. 

At least horological love can be handled so. Until you start gazing on the Pateks of the world. inlove.gif   But I digress.

I like what you did here and the criteria you used, but how is the chrono on the speedy useful in every day life? Don't get me wrong, I like wearing my chrono, but unless I wear it to the gym (which I don't; I am no Frills), it doesn't get used much..
post #29996 of 48312
dn't be so quick to make assumptions about people based on their watch. people like us who study, talk about and  are obsessed about watches are a very small minority of the watch population. I don't think too many watch companies would stay in business if we were the entire customer base.  Most high end watches are bought by people who just like the way they look and/or want a status symbol. I know some people who have some very serious watches and know very little about them just that they are expensive status symbols.

It is very possible that this guy walked into a shop and decided to pick up the Hublot because it caught his eye or because the salesman might have told him that is what's popular now or any other reason. If it had been a different time or different watch shop, he might have walked out with a Royal Oak or a Nautilus bought for the same reason(s) and you wouldn't be thinking douche.

quote name="Kid Nickels" url="/t/36253/the-watch-appreciation-thread/29970#post_7006943"]
let's hope they do not…. I like Omega… but I see your point.
I recently met a giant in my industry here in LA and the guy was giving a talk. Of course whenever I meet people such as this I'm always scoping their attire, shoes, etc. and especially the watch. He was presenting… I was at least 25 feet away where I sat and saw what appeared to be a nice AP. So after the talk I got to come down and ask a few questions one-on-one. While he was turned I zoomed in to check out the gear only to see that this multi-millionaire, giant of entertainment law was wearing a …. yes, Hublot. Douche was the first word that crossed my mind![/quote]
post #29997 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by robw View Post

dn't be so quick to make assumptions about people based on their watch. people like us who study, talk about and  are obsessed about watches are a very small minority of the watch population. I don't think too many watch companies would stay in business if we were the entire customer base.  Most high end watches are bought by people who just like the way they look and/or want a status symbol. I know some people who have some very serious watches and know very little about them just that they are expensive status symbols.

It is very possible that this guy walked into a shop and decided to pick up the Hublot because it caught his eye or because the salesman might have told him that is what's popular now or any other reason. If it had been a different time or different watch shop, he might have walked out with a Royal Oak or a Nautilus bought for the same reason(s) and you wouldn't be thinking douche.

+1. I once complimented a guy on his watch.
I said "hey, nice DateJust". He replied "Oh no...It's a Rolex".
post #29998 of 48312
i never judge a man by his watch.

as long as he is not wearing a shitty watch.
post #29999 of 48312

Good point Tifosi!  Most people know of brands and tend to forget models or that you can buy used.  Also to add to this, he could have been shopping for a watch, wanted to check out a few boutiques, stopped at Hublot, and walked out with a watch before considering everything else.

 

How many times have we not weighed all of the options when buying something?  I am guilty of it and will continue to be guilty of it.

post #30000 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by in stitches View Post

love or hate post-biver hublot, the guy is a frigging genius.
Love him for what he did with Blancpain but he lost it at Hublot.
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...)