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 2601  

post #39001 of 48312
I'll PM you the link where I got these pics.

Lot of Panerai fans excited because they were going to pay around $8k for this:










Though solid caseback, should've at least expected a movement similar to the 418 (pictured here):





Someone opened the case and SURPRISE!




Firestorm followed with good reason. Sure it's old news, and Panerai I think has been trying to dig themselves (and bury) out of that misery for some time. And though I love my 312, I can't say I have the same love anymore for the brand. I hope to one day again. But rising prices, along with slaps in the face of its loyal customers like this - just sad.
post #39002 of 48312
^^^
Perfect answer.
post #39003 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Belligero View Post


Thanks, homey! fistbump.gif

I'll readily admit that I'm excessively picky and that I have a strong pro-independent-company bias. Richemont isn't the only luxury conglomerate that sometimes tries to milk its brands as cash cows; I see similar behaviour from Swatch Group and LVMH sometimes, too.

I've fought this opinion for years on other watch forums. All of the luxury watch brands are foremost in business to make money and they do it based on obsolete technology which is sometimes at the peak of this technology. I like independent brands as well but the best are phenomenally pricey even for basic 3 hand watches. Their owners are not suffering for their craft, that's for certain. IWC in this case is building a very high end in-house movement which in this case is functionally finished. And they are building these for the 1%. It's a luxury item for the wealthy and in that industry margins are high. 

post #39004 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by RogerP View Post

I really don't buy the excuse that the pedestrian finish is justifiable because the movement is housed behind a solid case back. At this price point a decent level of finishing should be expected, as that is one of the factors which separate higher end watches from their lesser counterparts.

It's kind of like the difference between the solo golfer who calls a penalty on himself when his ball lands behind a tree and the guy who kicks it back into the fairway.

Not much turns on the difference in choice - no puppies are harmed either way - but it still says something when you choose to do the right thing even when there's nobody watching.
I agree with Roger. But maybe we are getting "Finishing" and "Decoration" confused here?
post #39005 of 48312
@rnguy001 - thanks. And YIKES!

Perfect pictorial illustration of the point I was making.
post #39006 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by MSchott View Post

I've fought this opinion for years on other watch forums. Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
All of the luxury watch brands are foremost in business to make money and they do it based on obsolete technology which is sometimes at the peak of this technology. I like independent brands as well but the best are phenomenally pricey even for basic 3 hand watches. Their owners are not suffering for their craft, that's for certain. IWC in this case is building a very high end in-house movement which in this case is functionally finished. And they are building these for the 1%. It's a luxury item for the wealthy and in that industry margins are high. 
Fair enough. But I'm not talking about the high-end exotics such as Kari Voutilainen and Roger Smith. I just feel better buying or supporting independently-owned established manufactures such as...

Nomos
Rolex
Audemars Piguet
Patek Philippe
Seiko
Breitling
Chopard

...as well as several other independents — interesting outliers such as Ochs & Junior and the low-profile Germans such as Sinn, Stowa and Laco come to mind — than I do with the big three conglomerates, who I find less likeable and too influenced by marketeers.

I can't help thinking that a maker is selling out and a minor sense of loss when one of the megas acquires it. Same deal with beer companies.

cheers.gif
post #39007 of 48312
The IWC movement is not even close to that Panerai fiasco. No comparison.
post #39008 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by in stitches View Post

The IWC movement is not even close to that Panerai fiasco. No comparison.
The principle of cheaping out on the finish work is the same, though. Why they would put a lower-grade version of a movement in a more expensive watch that's available only to their self-professed collectors is difficult to grasp. I'd expect the finishing standard in the costlier version to be the same or better than the mass-market version (which is quite good), but perhaps they're being Machiavellian and testing out just how much of that "pricing power" they can get away with. wink.gif
post #39009 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Belligero View Post

The principle of cheaping out on the finish work is the same, though. Why they would put a lower-grade version of a movement in a more expensive watch that's available only to their self-professed collectors is difficult to grasp. I'd expect it to be the same or better than the mass-market version, but perhaps they're being Machiavellian and testing out just how much of that "pricing power" they can get away with. wink.gif

I dont think there is any principle issue here, and I really doubt there is any conspiracy theory here either. I also think there is really little point in debating/bantering further on the matter.

As is see it there are 3 ways to look at this.


1. Who cares, the back is closed and you never the damn thing, so whats the issue at all. Everybody shut up already.

2. Its kind of weak, and they should have put more into it, but its not a huge deal, and it might not deter a purchase if there were enough appealing aspects to the watch.

3. Its unacceptable and a watch at that price point must have better finishing, without it its laughable, and almost highway robbery. Not only would I not kop, I reserve disdain and distrust for the brand as a whole now.


Being that there is no functional issue with the movement, rather its a question of aesthetics/levels of luxury, I dont think there is a right or wrong here. Brands make watches, there are many aspects to a watch, and inevitably there will be a variety of reactions to the finished product by the potential customers/enthusiasts/hobbyists. Those who dont care might kop and those who do care wont, but as far as any principle of the matter, or ideology, there is no right or wrong here, only a differing of personal preferences.
post #39010 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Belligero View Post



The principle of cheaping out on the finish work is the same, though. />

 



Yes. A difference in degree as between these two examples, not a difference in kind. I wonder how many would endorse the Panerai approach knowing that the movement can't be seen and accepting for the sake of argument that its functionality is not diminished?

Should you not just flat out simply expect more for your (not inconsiderable) money? I guess if you're just all about the brand, then the merits of the actual product are secondary at best. After all, it still says "Panerai" and is shiny on the outside....
post #39011 of 48312
Agree, Stitchy
Quote:
Originally Posted by in stitches View Post

The IWC movement is not even close to that Panerai fiasco. No comparison.


Strangely, I agree too, Belli.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Belligero View Post

The principle of cheaping out on the finish work is the same, though. Why they would put a lower-grade version of a movement in a more expensive watch that's available only to their self-professed collectors is difficult to grasp. I'd expect the finishing standard in the costlier version to be the same or better than the mass-market version (which is quite good), but perhaps they're being Machiavellian and testing out just how much of that "pricing power" they can get away with. wink.gif
post #39012 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by in stitches View Post

I dont think there is any principle issue here, and I really doubt there is any conspiracy theory here either. I also think there is really little point in debating/bantering further on the matter.
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
As is see it there are 3 ways to look at this.

1. Who cares, the back is closed and you never the damn thing, so whats the issue at all. Everybody shut up already.

2. Its kind of weak, and they should have put more into it, but its not a huge deal, and it might not deter a purchase if there were enough appealing aspects to the watch.

3. Its unacceptable and a watch at that price point must have better finishing, without it its laughable, and almost highway robbery. Not only would I not kop, I reserve disdain and distrust for the brand as a whole now.


Being that there is no functional issue with the movement, rather its a question of aesthetics/levels of luxury, I dont think there is a right or wrong here. Brands make watches, there are many aspects to a watch, and inevitably there will be a variety of reactions to the finished product by the potential customers/enthusiasts/hobbyists. Those who dont care might kop and those who do care wont, but as far as any principle of the matter, or ideology, there is no right or wrong here, only a differing of personal preferences.

Yes, although I'm clearly relishing the discussion, it's likely that this particular tangent is getting a bit played-out. My position is that putting in an inferior version of a movement in a more expensive model is indefensible. It doesn't seem like too much to ask to get the standard-grade bits inside:

ebeba1da8cf289f765d706a7a9debf2c_zpsa2dc5e64.jpg

Look, nobody's buying a $12K-on-a-strap chronograph strictly on the basis of function. Yes, it has to be there, but if it was only about functionality, we'd all be wearing G-Shocks (which are A-OK, by the way). In that price range, it's most definitely about having something special on the wrist.

I don't see it as an objectively right-and-wrong thing; there's an emotional element to non-essential purchases such as luxury watches, and this example simply doesn't make me feel warm and fuzzy about the company. It's fine if someone doesn't mind that their five-figure Flieger has an unfinished movement, though — this watch thing isn't exactly what I'd call rationally justifiable.



The conspiracy-theory thing is meant in jest, obviously. wink.gif
Edited by Belligero - 12/17/14 at 2:02pm
post #39013 of 48312
^^^ Well said. I'll leave it at that.
post #39014 of 48312
Ya'll still arguing about IWC? lol8[1].gif


Anyways, got a Polachecks magazine and they had this Panerai 1940 Platino in ivory dial and it has probably jumped to my favorite Pams ever.





There was also an ad on the back for the Patek 5170G and damn it's a beauty, screw the 5711! icon_gu_b_slayer[1].gif
I'm just a slave to marketing. shog[1].gif





And look, it comes with a movement worth 5 figures so it gets the TWAT seal of approval? biggrin.gif
post #39015 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by paulch View Post

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

Loving my minimalist TID from Urban Trait. I've always been against bulky, complex watches and this one fits my style perfectly.
What you guys think?
Anyone else here supporting minimal designs?
Cool watch; I'd definitely wear that. One of my favourite/most-respected companies is Nomos, and they're known for their Bauhaus-influenced minimalism.
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...)