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 2395  

post #35911 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by RFX45 View Post

I actually like Hublots design more than Royal Oaks, just like the rounder bezel and the case it sits on, just a personal preference. I think that is a big difference between them and AP, the round bezel and I don't know why they get flack for that when they did try to separate themselves by doing what AP wasn't doing like having a round porthole and adding a rubber strap. Why doesn't AP get flack for putting a rubber strap in their RO? They "copied" that from Hublot.
Yeah, claims against Hublot are specious. What they've done is no more egregious than what any of the other makers have done.
post #35912 of 48312

A lot of makers, even most makers, make some ugly and/or derivative watches.  Hublot's "egregious" sin is to do so both exclusively and expensively.

 

But it would be boring if we all liked the same things.  That grey Omega's hot, even if it's silly. :)

post #35913 of 48312
I'm still loving the Stowa Antea KS you guys recced me back in '06.
post #35914 of 48312
Curious if the new VC handwound will contain a new (larger) movement?

42mm is pretty big for the dress category, but I would like to see it in the metal.
post #35915 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by bkotsko View Post
 

A bit of a story...

I was out to eat recently and was at a restaurant where there was a blind man playing guitar.

I have known this man for years as he was a friend of my parents many years ago.

He is completely blind.

I was sitting there eating when I noticed he was wearing an analog wristwatch.

I couldn't figure it out, and was completely baffled.

About 30 minutes later, he lifted his wrist, and opened the crystal which was hinged, and felt the watch hands and face.

I really never knew this existed.

 

Sometimes, the watch nerd in us shines bright.

In any case, here is a picture of what I think it was.

 

 

That's pretty cool.  Those have actually been around for quite some time.  I did a project in school back in the 1980s regarding braile and I remember reading about these watches, but I've never seen one in person.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RFX45 View Post

I actually like Hublots design more than Royal Oaks, just like the rounder bezel and the case it sits on, just a personal preference. I think that is a big difference between them and AP, the round bezel and I don't know why they get flack for that when they did try to separate themselves by doing what AP wasn't doing like having a round porthole and adding a rubber strap. Why doesn't AP get flack for putting a rubber strap in their RO? They "copied" that from Hublot.

I'd also give Hublot some credit for using different materials and creating/combining metals. They also have their in-house movements so it's not like they are strictly use modified ETA movements only.

But back to Hublot, I just do not have a problem with them and do not get why others have so much disdain for the brand 

Sorry my friend, but I'm just not getting what you are not understanding?  Just as you are free to like Hublots, other are free to dislike Hublot for what it pretends to be.  You are also comparing Hublots and APs as though they are equally creative and original brands and that simply isn't so.  

 

I'm going to guess based on the statement that you made, which I have bolded, that you really are not familiar with Hublot's origins?  If you look at Hublot's early models, while it was a porthole, they were drastically different from today's offerings and maybe still had some identity of their own.   They aren't getting flack for trying to as you describe it, separate themselves from AP....they are getting flack for actually moving toward the RO/ROO design.  Reducing the number of bolts on the bezel, changing the integrated case shape and angling it so that it resembles the downward slope of the integrated case/bracelet of a RO and going from a rounded case shape to a case with sides to ones that are more angled like on a RO.  They haven't moved toward creating their own identity, they have moved toward borrowing someone else's.    

 

In case you are unsure of what the original Hublots looked like see below. Much softer, rounder, and small flat lugs.  Then below is some form of the Big Bang.  In addition, Hublot was basically an irrelevant brand that did nothing and dropped off the radar from the late 1980s until the Big Bang hit the market around 2004/2005.  I'm not a fan of the Offshore, but that hit the market some 11 years before the Big Bang, was a big success, and was one of the pioneers in offering and welcoming in the age of 42mm + watches to the general public (prior to that they were largely military pieces).  

 

As for the use of creative materials, I gave Hublot credit for using rubber straps.   However, AP was using materials like Tantalum, Titanium, and other composites far earlier than Hublot or a variety of other brands.  Sorry, but to me the use of plain black rubber for straps versus using unusual metals and composites for cases and bracelets is the equivalent of you wanting to compare a burger flipper at McDonald to an executive chef at a 3 Start Michelin restaurant.  

 

You are free to love the Hublots.  I just would rather have the original.  

 

the-birth-of-fusion.pngs

 watch-club-hublot-big-bang-44mm-rose-gold-2001-402x402.jpgf_5947.jpg

post #35916 of 48312
I am not condemning those who hate Hublots, I have no idea why you even have to say "I have the right to like and others to hate"? I am trying to understand the hate on the brand.

I am also well aware of how the the old Hublots look and as Biver explained, they were inspired by the porthole and then they looked at AP and said "what can we change?" They said make it round, ok! Then a rubber strap, ok! And so on and so forth. Sure a thought of "let's try and make it look similar to AP" has crawled their mind but they tried to separate themselves by going that route.

The new Big Bang is an updated version and again inspired by the porthole, no Royal Oaks. Sure similarities can be made just like similarities can be made to the old classic Hublots. I dont think they are drastically different at all either, you see either and you know they are Hublots. The new Big Bangs just had an injection of the big watch trend and they pretty much just buffed up. It's an update because they are trying to market it for a younger crowd, the old one is dated and would not sell. Hell the brand flopped with that old design and you expect them to keep creating the same one and hope it sells better?

You see the change a certain way and I admit there are some look towards the RO but the way I see it is it just a brolic version of the old, extended width and length, the same shapes are there from the original.

I also know the history of Hublot and I already mentioned that plenty of hate came from them literally being a ghost and coming off the grave and waking up and making a run without stopping. Part of the reason for that is sponsoring events and paying any famous celebrity and athletes to promote and wear their watch and then they got a big explosion of popularity without doing some historic movement they can call in-house that really hit hard to most WISers.


Again, I am just trying to understand why it is hated to much, pretty much the polar opposite of the slurping Grand Seiko gets. I am not saying "you can't hate Hublot" at all, go ahead and hate it, I got no qualms with those who do but don't act like I am trying to send you to hell for doing so when all I was doing is asking a question.
post #35917 of 48312

I got a chance to look at some Hublots in person for the first time during a Caribbean cruise. They looked quite a bit like AP but up close they looked more and felt more like swatches on steroids. Cheap is the only feeling I got when checking them out in person. 

post #35918 of 48312
Most are definitely on the gaudier side too and I think that is what sold to most people outside of WISers. It was and is a trend then they multiplied it to 1000. lol
post #35919 of 48312
I've never mistaken a Hublot for an AP but I've mistaken some recent AP for Hublot.
post #35920 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by RFX45 View Post

I am not condemning those who hate Hublots, I have no idea why you even have to say "I have the right to like and others to hate"? I am trying to understand the hate on the brand.

I am also well aware of how the the old Hublots look and as Biver explained, they were inspired by the porthole and then they looked at AP and said "what can we change?" They said make it round, ok! Then a rubber strap, ok! And so on and so forth. Sure a thought of "let's try and make it look similar to AP" has crawled their mind but they tried to separate themselves by going that route.

The new Big Bang is an updated version and again inspired by the porthole, no Royal Oaks. Sure similarities can be made just like similarities can be made to the old classic Hublots. I dont think they are drastically different at all either, you see either and you know they are Hublots. The new Big Bangs just had an injection of the big watch trend and they pretty much just buffed up. It's an update because they are trying to market it for a younger crowd, the old one is dated and would not sell. Hell the brand flopped with that old design and you expect them to keep creating the same one and hope it sells better?

You see the change a certain way and I admit there are some look towards the RO but the way I see it is it just a brolic version of the old, extended width and length, the same shapes are there from the original.

I also know the history of Hublot and I already mentioned that plenty of hate came from them literally being a ghost and coming off the grave and waking up and making a run without stopping. Part of the reason for that is sponsoring events and paying any famous celebrity and athletes to promote and wear their watch and then they got a big explosion of popularity without doing some historic movement they can call in-house that really hit hard to most WISers.


Again, I am just trying to understand why it is hated to much, pretty much the polar opposite of the slurping Grand Seiko gets. I am not saying "you can't hate Hublot" at all, go ahead and hate it, I got no qualms with those who do but don't act like I am trying to send you to hell for doing so when all I was doing is asking a question.

I don't hate Hublot, and I never used that word so please do not misquote me.  You are the one who said you can't understand that flack Hublot gets or why there is so much disdain for the brand.  I think at least with many AP fans the answer is rather obvious, largely they are garish caricatures that borrow far too much from the AP RO/ROO designs.  I'm not really sure why that is so difficult for you to understand.   The movements in Hublots don't bother me as they started out as rather basic quartz pieces in the 80s, so what they offer now is a significant improvement even if its not my taste. 

 

You interpret their design changes as moving away from and distinguishing themselves from AP, but that doesn't seem accurate if one looks at the evolution of their product.  Their original was less like a RO and the Big Bang pieces are far more like RO's than the originals.  I'm not saying they had to produce their rather dated originals until the end of time.  However, updating them in a way that takes on many more RO design cues than their original isn't moving away from ROs, it's moving closer to them.  If they didn't want to be seen as copying another product, perhaps they should have created something truly original.  Or perhaps if they had emulated a less successful watch, it would be less noticed and not an issue.  

 

Again for me the paying celebrities to wear their watches is meaningless.  Lots of brands do it and I don't think it adds or takes away from the value of a watch if its truly a worth while piece to have. 

 

At no point did I act like you condemned anyone to hell. I merely disagreed with your descriptions of their product evolution and the credit you gave them for being creative, both of which I see as overly generous.  If you like their designs, that's great, enjoy.  If my response to your discussion of Hublot was too blunt for you, then I apologize.   :cheers:

post #35921 of 48312
When I said "you can hate them or you can like," it is a general term, not meaning specifically you or me.

I get the RO likeness but as I said, I don't get it because they tried to move away from ROs design. And if you give AP credit for the porthole then give credit to Hublot for using a rubber strap then when AP uses them which made it closer looking to Hublot then you have to give AP flack too. Biver also clearly stated that they didn't make the distinction between the two until AP used rubber straps on their RO line. ROs main competition was the Nautilus back then but after AP used straps and they looked more similar to Hublots then that is when the comparisons began to grow and Hublots get shit on even though they were already in the dumps. Then the rise out of obscurity and become a huge success and they get blasted because most do not know that history. Most of those who hate Hublot (again not just in this forum) doesn't even know that it is a 34 year old company, plenty thinks they just sprung up out of nowhere to copy APs Royal Oak design.


Again the wathces inspirations are the same and their first incarnation are already similar so any update will have similarities too. If Hublot just make their cases bigger and blows it up, that is what you see in the big bang, I can easily see that. The shape is there in the lugs, the case and that plastic/kevlar part of the case that protrudes on the side, those are all distinctly Hublot from the old to the new. Hublot still has it's roundness while the RO is overall angular. I am not going to lie and say there isn't some RO int here but you also can't say there aren't any Hublot in AP even if the only credit you can give them is the rubber strap.

So yeah, I guess I apologize if I do not understand people hating one brand because they think they copied another when I just tried to point out that they didn't. There are similarities, no doubt but that happens when the inspirations are similar. AGain you can't tell me the big bang look more like a Royal Oak than the old classic Hublots, big bang is pretty much the classics on steroids. There are still stark differences between the big bang and RO.

And yes, I get it, sponsorship or your favorite athlete wearing something means nothing to you but I am obviously speaking to the general public who can be sheeps. And of course sponsorships has effects on the brand, that is why Tiger got dropped by most of his brands after his cheating scandal. It may not have an affect on you but it obviously does to others.


Stop saying "too blunt" all the time like I am some 4 year old who needs to be cuddled after getting yelled. lol I get it, you guys have strong opinions on watches and your belief cannot be faltered. I can handle anything this forum or any forum throw, trust me anything that happens here is child's play in comparison to what I see and experience on other forums. Nothing here is as bad s sports fans, trust me. Not even close. lol

Fact is if you say something that sounds or reads condescending, then there is something there even if you don't see it and just like you say that the statement might be too blunt for me then don't take what I say as being too blunt either. I did not say you condemned someone to hell, I said you acted like I did if someone doesn't like Hublot by saying....
Quote:
Just as you are free to like Hublots, other are free to dislike Hublot for what it pretends to be.


Again, that can sound condescending and whether you say "bluntly" or whatever, it made it sound like I am saying that people shouldn't be free to hate Hublot when that is not what I am saying at all. Of course all are free to like or hate what they want for whatever reason they want to but I am saying I do not agree with those reasons and gave a different point of view because I do view the history differently. I don't get that hate because I don't see them pretending to be AP and if that is truly the case why they hate the brand, then so be it but don't be mad if I wanted to further the discussion to get deeper into it and to see whether knowing the real history would change their mind. If their mind doesn't change, then again, oh well. At least now they know there is a different side of the story, if they don't believe it, no big deal. At least i know.


BTW, I am on the SWD side of the forum most of the time so you may not know but that is just how I post. Don't mistake that long reply as a rant or being "mad", that's just how I roll!
post #35922 of 48312
http://www.ablogtowatch.com/tag-heuer-formula-1-gmt-watch/

Interesting take...
Quote:
Allow me to broach the obvious issue that TAG Heuer was clearly influenced by the 2013 Rolex GMT-Master II BLNR (hands-on here), with its two-tone blue and black ceramic bezel. Rolex is the subject of a lot of homaging, so I don't think they will mind. TAG Heuer did it gracefully and retained the Formula 1 DNA, as well as that Autavia-style case that the new Formula 1 watches have.

post #35923 of 48312
That's been a hot topic debate for a week now on some forums between homers on both ends. lol

I like the Tag and not a bad alternative if you want the Batman look and do not have $9k to throw around. I think it was a bad idea that the bezel cannot be rotated though but if I were in the market for such a watch, with an MSRP of $2200, I'd wait for it to hit 40% off and cop.
post #35924 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by RFX45 View Post

I actually like Hublots design more than Royal Oaks,



j/k - in seriousness I appreciate you challenging established dogma and I'm enjoying the discussion for and against.
post #35925 of 48312
Hallo, been a bit.....






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...)