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 2228  

post #33406 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by DerangedGoose View Post
 

Absolutist and sensationalist statements are the only thing that drive forum discussions, especially in watch forums. Every thread on WUS is the same rehash of "WEAR IT IN GOOD HEALTH" and then dies after six posts. With the exception of a few threads where there is some honest, opinionated discussion, everything else is just people clapping each other on the back repeatedly. Yawn.

 

Its one thing to argue about whether Rolex's current market prices are justifiable, but the whole vintage Rolex circlejerk is something beyond it entirely. It is, to me, a clear example of something being "awesome" by the sheer virtue of its alleged "scarcity" and nothing else!

 

When you can buy a 200+ year old Japanese sword that was painstakingly handcrafted by a team of men over several weeks, forged by the sweat of their brow and the blood of their hands, which has not only seen but physically made history, for less than half as much, its a wonder to me why someone would pay that money for a 40 year old Rolex dredged from the bottom of a lake.

I think Frills covered most of this quite well.  I'll just add that there are over 2,200 posts in this thread, so IMHO this thread has done quite well without many absolutist and sensational statements.  In the world of watches- absolutist & sensational statements are often exaggerations that when scrutinized are just inaccurate.  So they serve little purpose, other than to maybe perpetuate myths or inaccuracies. 

 

As for the 200+ year old sword selling for half of what a particular Rolex sells for, its simply what the market dictates.  Age, workmanship, and rarity are good factors in understanding value, but without large scale interest in an item, it may not be as valuable as something else.  Maybe the inability for most to wear/use a sword regularly, and its size/space constraints in displaying them, along with possible a concern about whether future generations will be interested in them or collect them results in their values being less than that of some watches.  Watches can be worn daily, take up less space, and some may almost be seen as investments when dealing with vintage Pateks, Rolex, and other fine brands.   I'm not saying its right, but people speak with their wallets,and perhaps the market for vintage watches is stronger than that of vintage swords. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bings View Post


not entirely true. dino goes after the person, not the opinion.

Well if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black.  None of my posts were going after you.  Your final few posts were simply you losing your cool and then becoming insulting.  You might not like my posts, but most are fairly well reasoned, and are about opinions and watches...not people.  

 

Most of my posts were quite positive about your choice.  I thought your discussion regarding your purchase was both interesting and reasonable until you said, "I'm not prepared to pay that kind of premium simply to attract a very select niche of men who appreciate the nuances of why the daytona is as awesome as it is over the speedy."

 

Funny that you accuse Daytona owners of purchasing their watches for the purpose of attracting men who appreciate the nuances of their watch, and yet here you are posting pix of your watch and showing us your purchase. Is that not the same?  Isn't your comment a swipe at Daytona owners?  Isn't it holding yourself above Daytona owners?  Perhaps you don't see that in your statement, but its there.  Just consider that as food for thought. 

 

In the end, I'm willing to extend an olive branch, and I apologize for any transgressions you feel I've made toward you.  However, if you are unwilling to move forward and you want to keep throwing barbs my way, I'm more than willing to deal with them as I see fit.  Again, I wish you well with your recent purchase. 

post #33407 of 48312
DG, you have a great collection of watches.

My problem is that I'll get fascinated with one brand or product line and get multiple examples, and then eventually get bored. Like owning three Rolexi or Sinn or now high-end Seiko, and then wishing for more variety.
post #33408 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by ncc1701d View Post
 

I guess now's not the time to show these photos :embar:

 

Ever since I saw Mr. Frills post the SD4000 I've needed to compare it to the watch I thought I wanted. I recently had a chance to do that and... I catch myself still being drawn to the JLC. With my stupendous lack of knowledge, I at least realises (I hope!) one is sports watch and the other a dress watch. But that makes little difference to me. Whatever I get will be worn all the time, because... it is a watch... and i can't afford both! 

Photo comparison (Click to show)


 

 

Such different watches that it would make it a tough choice for me.  Perhaps consider your life style.  Do you need something very rugged?  Do you do lots of out door activities?  Do you work in a dressy environment?  Do you attend a lot of dressy functions?  Or maybe which one feels better and makes you smile more.  Both are great watches, so which ever you choose is not going to be a mistake.  Perhaps in a few years you can pick up whichever model you didn't choose.  Good luck and I look forward to eventually seeing some wrist shots. 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DerangedGoose View Post
 

Apologies for the trolling, its best not to engage in horseplay with strangers at first.

 

As far as my personal tastes go, I tend to be a minimalist, summed up best by the Antoine de Saint Exupery quote: "A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." ...

 

This is my last interesting one to post, and its a bit of a departure from my normal tastes. It is a Rado Balboa, which was a luxury version of their Diastar line sold in the Asian markets. The tungsten carbide case has a lovely champagne color to it, and the sapphire crystal is faceted and throws light beautifully. The dial is sandstone, and even crazier models were made with burgundy/aubergine colored cases in all kinds of interesting shapes with opal, firestone, and tiger eye dials. Apparently the materials themselves were very expensive and difficult to slice thinly/cleanly enough to make a watch dial out of, and those more rare models easily fetch thousands on japanese auction sites. I was fascinated by the fact that the gold case is completely spotless and 40 years old. It is twice as dense as steel and has a lovely heft to it, but I couldnt imagine a case+bracelet made out of TC. Over the years, as cases chipped or broke the watches were thrown away, which makes these more rare compared to other vintage watches which can be readily refurbished. The only part that has faded is the plated crown, which Ill replace eventually:

 

 

 

Definitely, your best post to date!  It's always great getting some insight into another's collectors preferences and collection.  The Rado is a particularly interesting watch.  I haven't seen any in a while, as our local AD (for RADO and several other brands closed their shop about 7 years ago).   However, they have always been innovative with the use of different materials Tungsten Carbide, Ceramic and other materials to make largely scratch proof watches.  The case reminds me a bit of the Omega Flightmasters from the 1970s, and I think the faceted crystal is very cool.  You are correct, stone dials were used on some and are very difficult to work with and are quite costly.  Piaget is famous for working with stone dials (onyx, lapis, tigers eye, etc).  From what I heard recently, most of the largest tigers eye mine has been completely mined so it is something that might either be only available on a very limited scale, or perhaps in the future only if one chooses a vintage watch.  Watches of the late 1960s and 1970s used some very funky cases and, while they sometimes do date a watch to a particular decade, I think its really cool to have case shapes that are something other than round.  In fact, so far I have yet to buy a round cased dress watch, they are all other shapes (square,rectangular, and asymmetric).  Thanks for sharing your collection with us.  Cheers!  

post #33409 of 48312
I used to have that Citizen Promaster diver, Deranged. That was the watch I told you was too light for me, so I sold it.
post #33410 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dino944 View Post

"I'm not prepared to pay that kind of premium simply to attract a very select niche of men who appreciate the nuances of why the daytona is as awesome as it is over the speedy."

that was clearly a joke... you are correct in your assertion that i am trying to attract men with my omega just not quite so many men as i would with a daytona. i'm more of a monogamist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hayward View Post


IS THIS REAL?! If so and in steel with an all brushed bracelet I'm buying it. Been thinking about flipping some watches and getting a BLNR but the bracelet keeps putting me off. Maybe I could convince an AD to throw in a Sub bracelet? Nah...

yeah it's pretty common actually, just search GMT coke pretty much anywhere.

--

perhaps it has already been covered in here but how do we feel about buying used pieces that, while they are authentic, they are lacking the certificate of authenticity?

makes no difference on the wrist but certainly affects resale.
post #33411 of 48312
Doesn't bother me if it's legit.
post #33412 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by bings View Post


that was clearly a joke... you are correct in your assertion that i am trying to attract men with my omega just not quite so many men as i would with a daytona. i'm more of a monogamist.

--

perhaps it has already been covered in here but how do we feel about buying used pieces that, while they are authentic, they are lacking the certificate of authenticity?

makes no difference on the wrist but certainly affects resale.

Sorry, didn't look like a joke, particularly in light of your follow up "it's just like cars... you spend all kinds of money on something rad and for every 1 woman that gives a shit there are 25 guys taking pictures and asking you how much HP it as."  Your current response about being more of a monogamist I can see has some humor to it.  Oh well, perhaps we do not have the same sense of humor and we should just put it all in the past

 

As for used pieces its a trade off, you pay less in the beginning since it doesn't have all of its papers/cert of auth, so it will be worth less in the future than a similar watch that has a complete set of boxes & papers. But as long as the buyer understands and is ok with that, I don't see a problem with it. On some watches, say a basic 1978 Datejust or Breitling Navitimer, it may not greatly impact the value that much maybe a few hundred dollars.  However, on a very collectible/rare Patek or Rolex it could add several thousand to watch.  

 

If the watch were say, 1970 or older I would probably be more ok with it not having boxes and papers.  Its pretty rare to find watches that are 40+ years old with boxes and papers.  It seems like fewer people saved all of that stuff once its from say 1970 or older, or perhaps the original owner dies and when his family or estate decides to sells it perhaps they don't know where everything is/was.    However, something from the 1980's isn't quite as old and it seems that there are often more examples readily available with boxes and papers (as long as its not a very obscure watch), so if its a newer piece I'd probably hunt down a watch that had B&Ps.  In addition, not all the time, but if a watch has all of its boxes and papers it can be a sign that the watch was well cared for by a meticulous owner.  I am a big fan of originality and completeness, so whenever possible I'd opt for a watch with all boxes and papers.  However, its a personal decision that every collector has to make for himself and maybe if the condition of a watch without B&Ps is really great, then perhaps saving some money on the purchase is the right move for some collectors.  

post #33413 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dino944 View Post

Sorry, didn't look like a joke, particularly in light of your follow up "it's just like cars... you spend all kinds of money on something rad and for every 1 woman that gives a shit there are 25 guys taking pictures and asking you how much HP it as."  Your current response about being more of a monogamist I can see has some humor to it.  Oh well, perhaps we do not have the same sense of humor and we should just put it all in the past

As for used pieces its a trade off, you pay less in the beginning since it doesn't have all of its papers/cert of auth, so it will be worth less in the future than a similar watch that has a complete set of boxes & papers. But as long as the buyer understands and is ok with that, I don't see a problem with it. On some watches, say a basic 1978 Datejust or Breitling Navitimer, it may not greatly impact the value that much maybe a few hundred dollars.  However, on a very collectible/rare Patek or Rolex it could add several thousand to watch.  

If the watch were say, 1970 or older I would probably be more ok with it not having boxes and papers.  Its pretty rare to find watches that are 40+ years old with boxes and papers.  It seems like fewer people saved all of that stuff once its from say 1970 or older, or perhaps the original owner dies and when his family or estate decides to sells it perhaps they don't know where everything is/was.    However, something from the 1980's isn't quite as old and it seems that there are often more examples readily available with boxes and papers (as long as its not a very obscure watch), so if its a newer piece I'd probably hunt down a watch that had B&Ps.  In addition, not all the time, but if a watch has all of its boxes and papers it can be a sign that the watch was well cared for by a meticulous owner.  I am a big fan of originality and completeness, so whenever possible I'd opt for a watch with all boxes and papers.  However, its a personal decision that every collector has to make for himself and maybe if the condition of a watch without B&Ps is really great, then perhaps saving some money on the purchase is the right move for some collectors.  

+1
post #33414 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hayward View Post

IS THIS REAL?! If so and in steel with an all brushed bracelet I'm buying it. Been thinking about flipping some watches and getting a BLNR but the bracelet keeps putting me off. 

Actually, I think that is a photoshopped or modified GMT.  As far as I know the only 2 ceramic bezel GMTs are currently available with multi colored bezels are the BLNR in steel with blue and black bezel and the recently released Pepsi GMT in white gold, and both have polished center link bracelets and neither say GMT Master II in red writing. 

 

The watch in the photograph looks like someone posted a photo shopped watch where the person made the bezel red and black instead of blue and black and made the word GMT Master in red.  

All examples of the Coke GMT I'm familiar with do not have the maxi dial, ceramic bezel, or "super case" with chunkier lugs.  They are all the previous generation with tapered lugs and anodized aluminum bezel.

 

I too would prefer the GMT's to have bracelets with brushed finishes rather than polished center links.

post #33415 of 48312
Yep. Didn't think there was a "New Coke" yet.

So do you think it's possible to buy a Submariner or Explorer II braceles separately from an AD? Or do you think it would be simpler to just have the bracelet brushed only to have Rolex shine up if you ever send it in for service?
post #33416 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hayward View Post

Yep. Didn't think there was a "New Coke" yet.

So do you think it's possible to buy a Submariner or Explorer II braceles separately from an AD? Or do you think it would be simpler to just have the bracelet brushed only to have Rolex shine up if you ever send it in for service?

I would have it brushed by a trusted jeweler / watchmaker - with the attendant caveat that sometimes some Rolex Service Centers are nitpicky about servicing pieces that have been "altered" in any way. Brushing bracelets and mirror polished surfaces (side of the lugs and case?) shouldn't incur their wrath all that much. One hopes.
post #33417 of 48312

Thanks. I may just ask the local SC for a reaction. 

post #33418 of 48312
DerangedGoose - fantastic post. Thanks for elaborating on your preferences and the stuff in your collection. Aside from the details Dino pointed out above, I love what you did with the rocket hands. That lume shot is awesome hahah.
post #33419 of 48312
I am with Frills there, DG, thanks for that lengthy and informative post. It is stuff like that that keeps this thread moving!
post #33420 of 48312

DG, I love that Longines - a 38mm steel dress watch with small second and gold markers is something that should be seen more often.  Gold is too much bling (and money), and most steel dress watches I see seem to either be very big and flat, or no small seconds, or spoiled by unbalancing elements like an Arabic 12 or a date window.  That is bang on.  

 

Also, I'm intrigued by your Russian items too - every one a winner in my eyes.  How did that particular interest come about?

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...)