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 2545  

post #38161 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by academe View Post


I suppose I'm in the same boat. Ferrier and Moser don't sing to me either, though objectively I appreciate the finishing and workmanship on Ferriers in particular. For time-only dress watches of this calibre, the design language of Lange or VC appeal to me more.

First what you said the your previous post...spot on 100%  !!!

 

I appreciate various elements of the Ferrier and Moser designs beyond their beautiful movements.   I know there are some here who like to romanticize about a single watch makers possibly making nearly every aspect of the watch.  For some reason, I can appreciate that idea more with a very talented artisan making a bespoke suit or shoes.  With mechanical objects not as much. Enzo Ferrari didn't make the engines or any other parts in the cars bearing his name, neither did Hans Wilsdorf, and anything made by Jean Marc Vacheron, Jules Audemars,

Antoni Patek or their descendants would have been produced long before I was born.  Even if they had a policy of one watchmaker making nearly an entire watch himself...it wouldn't make much difference in my decision process...but I still get it if people like that idea. As I mentioned earlier I like various elements of the watches from Ferrier and Moser but generally when I look at their pieces as a whole and I consider my other options for the same money...I just can't see myself purchasing a Ferrier or Moser.  Great watches, but in that price range competition is quite strong.  

post #38162 of 48312

Although I like some things from both, I have to agree with this. ^^  Like is one thing.  Like more than a Lange is another.  Although the occasional massive discount on these offerings is another thing altogether: with my encouragement, a friend of mine just picked up a palladium Moser Mayu for about $10,500.  It isn't made any more, they no longer make anything in this awkwardly exotic material, and it's a beautiful and unusual piece with a stunning movement and a Geneva seal to boot.  That kind of deal I would be very happy with, had I had the dough: a really wonderful precious metal piece, new from the dealer, at a fraction of the price of the equivalent Calatrava or Patrimony.

 

But even then, it's not quite a fair comparison:  It was cheaper this time.  But a day later, as a used piece, it's worth demonstrably less than the equivalent Calatrava or Patrimony, and probably a lot harder to sell, simply because smaller brand means smaller demand.  Maybe this will be a treasured and collectible rarity for my friend's grandchildren, and maybe it won't, but either way it's a crappy bet.  Which takes us back to the original point: pauper or baller, buy what you love, and buy it to keep. :)

post #38163 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krish the Fish View Post

I think I narrowed down my list for a first watch to a single one: this Seamaster (ref. 2254.50):
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

It's been discontinued but there seem to be a good amount of them going around the forums. Is there anything I should know about this model that would sway my choice from this model? Also, any recommendations for how to best purchase a watch online (and to make sure I don't get scammed)? Thanks!

It's a great piece I think. If you get it and you are into mods, this has always been one I liked, probably because I prefer the PO bezel.
http://forums.watchuseek.com/f20/omega-seamaster-2254-custom-big-pictures-403797.html
post #38164 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by academe View Post

Not to add further fuel to the fire, but I find these economic arguments dull and repetitive. The same arguments get re-hashed over and over again by "the bargain hunters", whether it's about watches, bespoke clothes, etc. Lets just accept that watches or bespoke clothes are (with a few exceptions) neither great investments nor "value propositions" in the strictest sense of the phrase. We buy watches and bespoke clothes because they are beautiful design objects/examples of craftsmanship, not because we are going to get a good return from them. When I invest, I put my money in property, the stock market or art. I have no illusions that my watches/bespoke clothes are going to make me money or are good value. I buy what I love, within financial limits; I would guess that many of us are this way too. I'm not going criticize anyone for buying second hand or buying "cheaper" watches; so long as they love and appreciate what they have. And I'm more than happy (like most others) for anyone to post any watches they love here, regardless of whether its a Stowa or a Patek.

No; the main problem I have with posts like this is that there's a large element of sour grapes/wealth envy that underlie comments like this. Just becaus you don't have the cash to buy a new Patek perpetual doesn't make you any less of a watch lover/collector than Frills or some of the wealthier members on this thread, but neither does it give you any moral high ground to condescend to those of us who can afford more. I'm pleased that you're happy to collect what you have, whether you've bought new or second hand. There's no shame or judgment. A beautiful watch is a beautiful watch - period. But don't go bring down the tone of TWAT just because you wish you had bigger bucks and envy those who can afford more. Life isn't fair, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try our best to just live and let live.

EDIT: The juxtaposition of Nardine and Patek still baffles me; Nardine is a mid-tier maker which is not a super-prestige brand to most watch fans, and Patek...well is Patek. Price differential for comparable models (eg time only watches, etc) are radically different. What gives?

I should be clear. I'm not poor, but even if I was much wealthier than I am I don't see myself pouring money into companies like Patek. I just don't consider that value for the money. Sam Walton, for example, was notorious for driving the same beat up pickup truck long after achieving huge wealth and fame.

I think that in his case he took it too far. There's no reason for well to do people to act like beggars. Similarly, it's possible to dress well on any type of budget, large or small.

There are people like myself who will always be bemused rather than impressed by someone wearing a Patek. It's a free country; do what you want. But don't assume that decisions like that will lead people impressed with your cleverness and taste. At some point, excess is just excess and exceeds the bounds of taste and reason.

Would you wear one of those mens watches completely encrusted with diamonds? I feel like most men wouldn't, but some definitely do. If there was no market for them they wouldn't be produced. A steel Patek presents the same issues. Would you buy a laptop cased in solid gold? Would you buy the gold toilet Austin Powers claims to covet?

In short, is any luxury item whatsoever justified by its own existence, or can you concede that some of these objects would be silly? Would you laugh at a man wearing a gold baseball cap encrusted with diamonds, or would you admire him and suppress your "wealth envy"?
post #38165 of 48312
Do you really put a mechanical Swiss watch in the same category as a baseball cap crusted with diamonds?
post #38166 of 48312

Wait... did I miss the discussion of how a $10k watch that, y'know, tells the time and all, somehow isn't a luxury item but a "tool"???  Did I??? :crackup:

post #38167 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by RogerP View Post
 

Wait... did I miss the discussion of how a $10k watch that, y'know, tells the time and all, somehow isn't a luxury item but a "tool"???  Did I??? :crackup:

 

I would not say that you missed it. This thread (as well as forums dedicated solely to watches) are full of the crowd that is remarkably obsessed with "tool" watches.

post #38168 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by TobiasGendrick View Post

I should be clear. I'm not poor, but even if I was much wealthier than I am I don't see myself pouring money into companies like Patek. I just don't consider that value for the money. Sam Walton, for example, was notorious for driving the same beat up pickup truck long after achieving huge wealth and fame.

I think that in his case he took it too far. There's no reason for well to do people to act like beggars. Similarly, it's possible to dress well on any type of budget, large or small.

There are people like myself who will always be bemused rather than impressed by someone wearing a Patek. It's a free country; do what you want. But don't assume that decisions like that will lead people impressed with your cleverness and taste. At some point, excess is just excess and exceeds the bounds of taste and reason.

Would you wear one of those mens watches completely encrusted with diamonds? I feel like most men wouldn't, but some definitely do. If there was no market for them they wouldn't be produced. A steel Patek presents the same issues. Would you buy a laptop cased in solid gold? Would you buy the gold toilet Austin Powers claims to covet?

In short, is any luxury item whatsoever justified by its own existence, or can you concede that some of these objects would be silly? Would you laugh at a man wearing a gold baseball cap encrusted with diamonds, or would you admire him and suppress your "wealth envy"?


Just a few last remarks as this topic is tiresome, you are a bore, and I will now be adding you to my "ignore" list.

First, I think very very few of us who are serious watch nerds buy watches to to impress others, except perhaps other fellow watch collectors (and if that, rarely). Most of the serious watch nerds that I know simply collect watches because they love them. If they have more, they spend more; if they have less, then they collect more modestly.

Furthermore, the average member of the public would have a hard time recognizing the difference between a Patek and a Bulova. They might spot a Rolex because it's generally recognized in popular culture as an "expensive" watch brand, but other good watches fly under the radar. So if watch nerds were buying Pateks, JLCs or any other manufacture as a means to impress and to show off they would be failing miserably. Our money would be better spent on expensive cars or some other more visible sign of conspicuous consumption.

Third, I think you're completely missing the point of TWAT and would suggest your time would be better spent elsewhere on SF. The point of this thread is - pure and simple - a place for watch nerds and fellow travellers to enjoy and show their appreciation for watches. The people that post here really love watches, and what's nice about this thread (short of the occasional derogatory remarks about Hublot) is that most people are here because they like to spend time discussing, understanding and critiquing the merits of watch design, mechanics, technology, aesthetics, etc.

Last, your rant about excess is just bizarre and a little incoherent. Diamond encrusted bezels aside, high-end haute horlogerie would not exist if there was not a demand for those products, so clearly there are many (including the majority on TWAT, I would guess) who see their value. In a way, you have answered your own question; luxury items exist, not because they are justified in and of themselves, but because there is a demand for them in the market place. Feel free to think of luxury watches as silly and excessive, just please do it in another thread. In fact, feel free to start your own thread, and take your unwelcome comments elsewhere.
post #38169 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by TobiasGendrick View Post


I should be clear. I'm not poor, but even if I was much wealthier than I am I don't see myself pouring money into companies like Patek. I just don't consider that value for the money. Sam Walton, for example, was notorious for driving the same beat up pickup truck long after achieving huge wealth and fame.

I think that in his case he took it too far. There's no reason for well to do people to act like beggars. Similarly, it's possible to dress well on any type of budget, large or small.

There are people like myself who will always be bemused rather than impressed by someone wearing a Patek. It's a free country; do what you want. But don't assume that decisions like that will lead people impressed with your cleverness and taste. At some point, excess is just excess and exceeds the bounds of taste and reason.

Would you wear one of those mens watches completely encrusted with diamonds? I feel like most men wouldn't, but some definitely do. If there was no market for them they wouldn't be produced. A steel Patek presents the same issues. Would you buy a laptop cased in solid gold? Would you buy the gold toilet Austin Powers claims to covet?

In short, is any luxury item whatsoever justified by its own existence, or can you concede that some of these objects would be silly? Would you laugh at a man wearing a gold baseball cap encrusted with diamonds, or would you admire him and suppress your "wealth envy"?

I'm going to weigh in briefly here...I'm a big time horological enthusiast, and to me something like an heirloom Patek  is a functioning work of art, not merely a symbol or an empty vanity.

 

Consider businessman A and businessman B. A makes 100k per year after taxes, B makes 1M each year after taxes. They both are menswear and accessory enthusiasts and like to spend about 10% of their post tax income on menswear.

 

Person A LOVES shoes. He  usually buys about 5 pairs of St Crispin's every year. He makes other purchases with the remainder of his budget.

 

Person B LOVES watches. He spends about 60% of  his fashion budget, or 60k each year, on watches. Sometimes he buys a couple of watches and sometimes he saves it up for a big Patek purchase.

 

Both of these guys give some of the rest of their disposable income to charity and put some of it into savings and stocks.

 

So--what is the issue with person B? How is his fascination with luxury watches, consuming 10% of his budget, any different from person A's fascination with shoes (which, again, take up 10% of that budget)?

 

Why do people get anything nice? Why do people donate money to art museums? Why do people take their honeymoons at highly celebrated resorts instead of at the Motel 6 in Lexington, Kentucky?

 

At the end of the day, the market value of any item or any security is what somebody is willing to pay for it today. Sublimely beautiful objects, however, have a transcendent, sublime value above and beyond fluctuations in the market.

 

Let's say there was a big worldwide stock crash, and the mona lisa goes up for auction to try and bail out its owners. At auction, it only commands a fraction of its prior sell price. Is it less beautiful? Less historically significant? Less instrinsically valuable as a testament to human creativity and ingenuity?

 

I've been ogling Patek in magazines since I was about 10 years old. A watch like this is nothing less than an horological mona lisa:

http://www.gemnation.com/watches/Patek-Philippe-Sky-Moon-Tourbillon-5002P-1502.html

 

Watches aren't everyone's cup of tea. Some guys are into cars, or shoes, or boats, or speakers/electronics. For those of us who really, really love watches though, Patek produces Holy Grails every year. 

post #38170 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by academe View Post


Just a few last remarks as this topic is tiresome, you are a bore, and I will now be adding you to my "ignore" list.

First, I think very very few of us who are serious watch nerds buy watches to to impress others, except perhaps other fellow watch collectors (and if that, rarely). Most of the serious watch nerds that I know simply collect watches because they love them. If they have more, they spend more; if they have less, then they collect more modestly.

Furthermore, the average member of the public would have a hard time recognizing the difference between a Patek and a Bulova. They might spot a Rolex because it's generally recognized in popular culture as an "expensive" watch brand, but other good watches fly under the radar. So if watch nerds were buying Pateks, JLCs or any other manufacture as a means to impress and to show off they would be failing miserably. Our money would be better spent on expensive cars or some other more visible sign of conspicuous consumption.

Third, I think you're completely missing the point of TWAT and would suggest your time would be better spent elsewhere on SF. The point of this thread is - pure and simple - a place for watch nerds and fellow travellers to enjoy and show their appreciation for watches. The people that post here really love watches, and what's nice about this thread (short of the occasional derogatory remarks about Hublot) is that most people are here because they like to spend time discussing, understanding and critiquing the merits of watch design, mechanics, technology, aesthetics, etc.

Last, your rant about excess is just bizarre and a little incoherent. Diamond encrusted bezels aside, high-end haute horlogerie would not exist if there was not a demand for those products, so clearly there are many (including the majority on TWAT, I would guess) who see their value. In a way, you have answered your own question; luxury items exist, not because they are justified in and of themselves, but because there is a demand for them in the market place. Feel free to think of luxury watches as silly and excessive, just please do it in another thread. In fact, feel free to start your own thread, and take your unwelcome comments elsewhere.

 

This is a good reply. Ultimately, a person who does not get watches should not be here. Moreover, when it comes to spending habits pouring money into watches of a certain variety is not a bad way to spend loot compared to other options.

post #38171 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by papa kot View Post
 

 

This is a good reply. Ultimately, a person who does not get watches should not be here. Moreover, when it comes to spending habits pouring money into watches of a certain variety is not a bad way to spend loot compared to other options.

Exactly--how is a guy with a Patek and a BMW more deserving of criticism than a guy with a Movado and a Ferrari?

post #38172 of 48312
To get TWAT off of this rant session, here is a picture of my BLNR. After a year of ownership it still puts the biggest smile on my face. It is my armor to take on the world and tonight it will protect me on my 29th birthday dinner as I tackle a burger and dessert. I hope I make it to the other side!

4ea045300483e20c323ead04a340c555.jpg
post #38173 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbarwick View Post

To get TWAT off of this rant session, here is a picture of my BLNR. After a year of ownership it still puts the biggest smile on my face. It is my armor to take on the world and tonight it will protect me on my 29th birthday dinner as I tackle a burger and dessert. I hope I make it to the other side!

4ea045300483e20c323ead04a340c555.jpg

Many happy returns of the day jb! looking good there icon_gu_b_slayer[1].gif
post #38174 of 48312
In the spirit of more pics, this week...


post #38175 of 48312

@Cleav Thanks!  I love those 2 ties.

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...)