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 2543  

post #38131 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by mafoofan View Post

Am I the only person not enamored with Laurent Ferrier? The movements are gorgeous, but the case and dial designs leave me cold. The streamlined lugs and long skinny hour/minute markers seem like token efforts to appear more modern.

Yes.

I'll never get Panerai.
post #38132 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by mafoofan View Post

Am I the only person not enamored with Laurent Ferrier? The movements are gorgeous, but the case and dial designs leave me cold. The streamlined lugs and long skinny hour/minute markers seem like token efforts to appear more modern.

 

Whether or not you are alone, you are clearly demented nevertheless.  This is a beautiful thing from any angle.  Dino will advise against the risk of buying from a smaller maker, no doubt, but from a purely artistic standpoint, I think the only logical conclusion is "fuck, yeah..."

 

 

But I do like your Panerai.  I'd like it even more on me.

post #38133 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by TobiasGendrick View Post

My first instinct would be to let the customer purchase a watch directly from the manufacturer.

That is a failed model. The manufacturer cant deal with the selling to the public. Totally different business model. It needs to be segmented. I mean, there are boutiques now, but they are brand, not manufacture, specific, and the MSRP has not changed.
Quote:
And you contradict yourself when you say I can respect who I like...as long as I don't criticize anyone. ; P

I did not say you shouldn't criticize anyone, I just requested you do so with a little class and much more perspective, before you start hurling misinformed blanket generalizations.
post #38134 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by in stitches View Post

He is a watch business phenom.

Well, some are ugly, most of the newer stock, but there are some models that I think are cool. Have not looked at any in years, but I recall thinking some of the ones that were a bit more simplistic looked neat. Maybe I wouldnt feel that way any more, but that is my recollection.

As far as the history, Carlo Crocco, the founder, was the first to make real headway with a rubber strap, and they were the first, I think, to really start playing around with using different materials in watches. Not just leather, steel, gold or platinum. Rubber, resin, carbon... whatever.

I mean, its not like the technological watershed moment of last century, but it was a cool innovation, and everything I have read about the founder was pretty complimentary. He seemed to have been a pretty charitable and kind fellow. Not at all a douche like many of the wearers of the brand today. He had a cool idea, he ran with it, but he, and they really, even after his departure/death/selling of the brand (I forget the history) never succeeded in taking it to the next level. Other brands did much more, and did it much better, playing with outre materials, but he gets the credit for the proliferation idea, and I think that is cool.

Also, the original model with the rubber strap was not nearly as absurd as the ones seen today, I think.

Disclaimer, this is all based on a lot of reading that I did years and years ago, so it may not all be right, but it is the best of my recollection. RFX may have some knowledge to drop about this, too.

The issue with the Hublot concept of using multiple materials is that it doesn't really improve the functionality of the watch. They are mostly for show. To the extent there is any improvement, such as with the practicality of a rubber strap, it is out of place in the context of an expensive luxury watch which should emphasize nobility of material and finish over utility.

In other words, Hublot's greatest legacy is good marketing. "I bought this watch because it was sold to me really well" is not something I ever want to tell myself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dino944 View Post

Exactly!  This was particularly true a few years back, when I could often get deals from some ADs that were better than some competing grays.  Often the price difference between new and used made it a no brainer...go new with full warranty! 

Store discounts are not what they used to be, which is why I say again: Europe!
post #38135 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dino944 View Post

Biver is a genius, but it still doesn't elevate what Hublot is IMHO.

Agreed. I dont love the brand as "is" but I think some of what they did in the past is noteworthy, and Ill beat the dead horse and say that I think they even have made a few models over the decades that I kind of like, or liked at some point in time.

No idea why I am defending them, as I have literally no interest in Hublot. I think its because I liked what I read about Carlo Crocco, and I am impressed with Bivers business acumen. Ah well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mimo View Post


Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)


Love that case.
post #38136 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by cyc wid it View Post

Yes.

I'll never get Panerai.

At its best, Panerai puts out irrefutably pure design. Laurent looks highly derivative--in every case (pun unintended, but appropriate).
Quote:
Originally Posted by mimo View Post

Whether or not you are alone, you are clearly demented nevertheless.  This is a beautiful thing from any angle.  Dino will advise against the risk of buying from a smaller maker, no doubt, but from a purely artistic standpoint, I think the only logical conclusion is "fuck, yeah..."




But I do like your Panerai.  I'd like it even more on me.

See above. It is a neither here nor there design to me. Also, whose stupid idea was it to have the 5 and 7 o'clock markers hit against the seconds dial?

I have no problem with small makers. In fact, an FP Journe is my likely next purchase. Those there are drool-worthy watches with a coherent design language.
post #38137 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by mafoofan View Post

The issue with the Hublot concept of using multiple materials is that it doesn't really improve the functionality of the watch. They are mostly for show. To the extent there is any improvement, such as with the practicality of a rubber strap, it is out of place in the context of an expensive luxury watch which should emphasize nobility of material and finish over utility.

In other words, Hublot's greatest legacy is good marketing. "I bought this watch because it was sold to me really well" is not something I ever want to tell myself.

Not sure I really agree. People give a huge amount of credit to those (AP/PP?) who first ran with steel in luxury watches, this is no different. Maybe you also think that is silly, idk, but you did just spend a heap of dough on a steel luxury watch, and steel has little to no nobility, and while it has finish, rubber I think is comparable, at least to a degree.

Again, I dont think its the most amazing idea, and I am not any kind of Hublot lover, and it does not affect the movement, but it does affect the aesthetics, which are important imo, and it was a neat thing they did, so I like to afford them that credit.

Anyways, I like a little bit about Hublot, most dont. That about sums it up I think. I have to leave now for the Sabbath. I will miss all this awesome watch talk.

<3 to all my TWAT bros.
post #38138 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by in stitches View Post

That is a failed model. The manufacturer cant deal with the selling to the public. Totally different business model. It needs to be segmented. I mean, there are boutiques now, but they are brand, not manufacture, specific, and the MSRP has not changed.
I did not say you shouldn't criticize anyone, I just requested you do so with a little class and much more perspective, before you start hurling misinformed blanket generalizations.

I think that's fair. Apologies for the offense.
post #38139 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by in stitches View Post

Not sure I really agree. People give a huge amount of credit to those (AP/PP?) who first ran with steel in luxury watches, this is no different. Maybe you also think that is silly, idk, but you did just spend a heap of dough on a steel luxury watch, and steel has little to no nobility, and while it has finish, rubber I think is comparable, at least to a degree.

Again, I dont think its the most amazing idea, and I am not any kind of Hublot lover, and it does not affect the movement, but it does affect the aesthetics, which are important imo, and it was a neat thing they did, so I like to afford them that credit.

Anyways, I like a little bit about Hublot, most dont. That about sums it up I think. I have to leave now for the Sabbath. I will miss all this awesome watch talk.

<3 to all my TWAT bros.

Panerai watches are tool watches, not luxury watches, strictly speaking. Doesn' t mean they aren't expensive (see Rolex sport watches). They were designed to serve a specific military function and today's iterations are faithful to the original design. Hublot, in contrast, is a contemporary contrivance meant to serve the function of fashion alone.

The Royal Oak is sort of silly, I agree. What is it really? It is not as robust as a Rolex, so it is not as effective as a sport watch. Yet it costs much, much more and cannot replace a proper dress watch. However, the design language is so cohesive and the finishing so nicely done, that it manages to be its own genre of watch. I'd buy one to have a Royal Oak, not to have a good sport watch or good luxury watch or good luxury sport watch. PP's and VC's follow-up designs don't interest me at all.
post #38140 of 48312
Still not sure I am buying the differentiation you are making between tool and luxury, but I certainly agree that the present model Hublots are contrived and in no way in line with the original, and I do hear your point of view.

Also, I certainly never in 1 million years meant to equate what Hublot has done to what the Royal Oak is.

smile.gif
post #38141 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by TobiasGendrick View Post


You make a great point. A watch purchased new for less than a watch selling used would clearly be a better buy.

My guess that a Patek, for example, costs ~10% of it's MSRP to make is a guess. Patek certainly isn't going to publish it's numbers. I'm thinking of things like this though:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/04/business/sales-of-luxury-goods-are-recovering-strongly.html

Luxury style and fashion dealers are consistently selling out of goods listed at 100% MSRP or even HIGHER. That is the species of vapid spending I'm describing. At one point in time the customer and the seller arrived at a fair price based on what the customer was willing to pay and what the seller was willing to take. Now, it really does seem as if people will buy whatever product at whatever price is asked. That type of casual overpayment for goods that may or may not be all that good will always seem silly to me.

Sorry, but the NY Times article about people spending has nothing to do with what it costs for a company (Patek or any other) to produce a watch.

 

I think you summed up your premise in two words "MY GUESS."  Guessing doesn't make anything remotely true.  You don't know that the cost of making the watch isn't 25% or 30% or more.

 

Thinking people over pay for goods isn't the same as actually having a basis for stating products cost 10% of their MSRP. 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mimo View Post

 

Whether or not you are alone, you are clearly demented nevertheless.  This is a beautiful thing from any angle.  Dino will advise against the risk of buying from a smaller maker, no doubt, but from a purely artistic standpoint, I think the only logical conclusion is "fuck, yeah..."

 

 

But I do like your Panerai.  I'd like it even more on me.

Hahaha...funny Mimo.  Overall, I like the Ferrie.  However,  based on its price range I'd probably choose something from a different brand. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by in stitches View Post


Not sure I really agree. People give a huge amount of credit to those (AP/PP?) who first ran with steel in luxury watches, this is no different. Maybe you also think that is silly, idk, but you did just spend a heap of dough on a steel luxury watch, and steel has little to no nobility, and while it has finish, rubber I think is comparable, at least to a degree.

Again, I dont think its the most amazing idea, and I am not any kind of Hublot lover, and it does not affect the movement, but it does affect the aesthetics, which are important imo, and it was a neat thing they did, so I like to afford them that credit.

Anyways, I like a little bit about Hublot, most dont. That about sums it up I think. I have to leave now for the Sabbath. I will miss all this awesome watch talk.

<3 to all my TWAT bros.

I think we did a lot of Hublot discussing recently.  I previously gave them credit for being the first company to incorporate the use of rubber straps into their designs.  However, when the watches first came out they were more fashion watches (most were quartz).  I think their contribution to the watch world with rubber straps falls more into a style than an overall design/structural contribution (but that is arguable).  Rubber is also much easier to work with than steel. 

 

While people such as myself give a lot of credit to AP for being the first to make a luxury sports watch in steel...I think it is important to consider the complexity of the Royal Oak's case design, which back in the 70s was so difficult to produce (particularly in steel), such that the first prototype had to be made in white gold (which is easier to work with).  The various angles, edges, and finishes make for a very intricate design IMHO the RO was a greater achievement, both in creating a genre of watches and also a design that others followed: a porthole design; with the movement going in through the front of the case; being sandwiched by a gasket and bezel; and a case with an integrated bracelet.  Those are cues that were then seen with the Nautilus, the 222, the IWC SL Jumbo Ing, the GP Laureato and others.  

 

Maybe the founder of Hublot was a nice guy,  I don't know much about him.  I suppose finding out more about a founder can make one have a greater interest in a brand. 

 

Anyway, have a good Shabbos.  :cheers:

post #38142 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by dddrees View Post

This is amazing, simply fabulous, thanks for sharing.

Thanks my friend. Always a pleasure! biggrin.gif
post #38143 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tried and True View Post

Yes, that's some lovely emameling.For years I've entertained the idea of having something enameled on the back of my gold Reverso (as well as some engraving done on my steel Reverso) but nothing has come to fruition.

Thanks! You should do it. I'm thinking of having an engraving done on the back of my Reverso, but probably not enamel. Somehow I think I prefer the enamel to be on the dial - makes it look a little less like an overly ornate 19th century pocket watch. But that's just my personal preference, obviously the charm of the Reverso is how personal the underside is to the owner.
post #38144 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by RogerP View Post

@~ B ~
  That is just lovely.  I'm wondering, though, whether a simple mono-colour enamel dial will be offered?  While I admire the artistry that goes into a complex cloisonné such as that butterfly, it's not my particular preference for a watch dial.  A solid deep blue or even white would really float my boat, though.

Thanks @RogerP, funny you should mention that. I had a couple clients order a mono-colored dial, exactly in either blue or white. It's no problem at all. And even with a single colored dial, the enamel still lends itself well as there's a depth to the dial and it changes color according to the angle of view - essentially like how a pane of glass (which is what the enamel technically is) placed over a still lake would look.

@jbarwick - it's actually not that hard to read the time on the actual watch. For example, with this blue dial, I'd go with electroplate (silver) hands, which will contrast with the dial. Obviously it's not going to be as easy to read as a sporty lumed watch, but it's as legible as a miniature painting on the wrist can be. With a lighter colored dial, the blued hands would be a great option to contrast with the dial.
post #38145 of 48312
Because of my ignorance in regards of watchmaking I'm hoping to get some support from the SF community. Here's a watch my aunt gave to me. She found it in a drawer on our family farm. She believes it was given to my granddad by my great grandfather. Unfortunately, anyone who would know the history about the watch is long gone. Movement looks to be in a decent condition? Could it have been replaced or do you think it's the original one? I'm not really interested in the value of the watch as I hope to pass it to my son one day, but it would be nice to know more about it. Hopefully the kids of today can appreciate a watch handed down for five generations but maybe we'll all be plugged into machines in 30 years eh? They tell me this Internet thing is getting out of hand, soon you'l even buy shoes online.




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...)