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 286  

post #4276 of 48312
that particular watch is bespoke. based from model Overseas http://www.google.com/products?q=vac...antin+overseas dial is 18k gold
post #4277 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by &Son View Post
Anyone have a ref. number for this one?

Looks like a one-off Overseas
post #4278 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by zjpj83 View Post
Looks like a one-off Overseas

I'm worried that will be the case, but I like it regardless, so very un-VC.
post #4279 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ahriman4891 View Post
*shrug* Gazman and I are having a conversation about what's an in-house movement. We clearly have different opinions on it, but try to communicate our points of view to each other. As an example of a modified movement, he points me to the Perseus in the Voutilainen -- to which I reply that IMO he is a tuner and not a watchmaker. You grab his link, and start the "more intelligent and open-minded" talk in his support. It's possible that I have misinterpreted your post -- internet communication has its downfalls -- but it looked damn close to you trying to insult me or being condescending in my general direction. Hence my answer. Still confused? BTW your last reply is just as bad. You don't sign your posts with your full real name, so I'm not sure what answer to the "who are you" question you expect. And the forum rules don't say I have to amass 17K posts to be entitled to reply to you. Gazman -- I hope my previous post somewhat cleared my position. Obviously nobody has to adopt my views, but I think now you understand where I'm coming from. I don't like the Voutilainen watches (I think it's the moon hands) but appreciate the looks of Romain Gauthier. It just happens to have a very interesting in-house movement, but I would like it even with a Unitas inside. Sadly the price puts it out of my range.
post #4280 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by mafoofan View Post
You're right. I wrongly assumed the Longines was a knock-off. Your comments prompted me to do some casual research and I easily stumbled upon information about the vintage Longines Diver. I didn't know the Polaris was just one of many "super compressor" watches made by many different manufacturers in its day. Thanks for correcting me.

To be fair if I hadn't been on the virge of buying a similarly styled watch I wouldn't have known either and just presumed the same...but the fact that many brands back in the day used the same case design by the same supplier was something I found rather interesting, seems sourcing parts from specialist suppliers was the norm for the industry for a long time.
post #4281 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ahriman4891 View Post
*shrug*
Gazman and I are having a conversation about what's an in-house movement.

Not really. We were talking about your definition of a watchmaker since you didn't consider someone of like Kari Vountilainen to be a watchmaker.

However, the point you make is a valid one, although expressed in an odd fashion (forgive me for saying so). Phillipe Dufour has passionately argued that the true watchmaker is a dying breed. He is of the view that watchmaking schools are just churning out "assemblers" rather than true watchmakers since graduates of these schools will join a manufacture only to find themselves at a bench assembling a movement rather than creating a movement.

The definition of in-house movement has been muddied by the likes of marketing executives attempting to forcefully position their products to be of horological significance. The last two to three years saw a lot of that. Furthermore, there are various tiers of the watch manufacturing value chain, of which bits and pieces are outsourced. The traditional Swiss watch manufacturing industry is based on this outsourced premise through a cottage industry. In pre-industrialised Switzerland, many farmers spent their winters producing parts or assembling watches on behalf of watchmakers, including Breguet.

In today's Swiss watch industry, its not just movements that are produced in mass quantities but also hairsprings, screws and shock absorbers. And honestly speaking, the only truly vertically integrated watch manufactures (in the world today not just Swiss) include Seiko, Rolex and JLC. All other manufacturers, including Patek, source certain parts from a specialist. Using your motor analogy, Ford does not make its own brake pads, wires, seat covers, screws, pistons, etc. These are all made by third party OEMs. Remember that we are only talking movements here, not the entire watch, since cases, screws, straps, buckles, crowns and dials are outsourced to various OEMs as well.

So an "in-house movement" can be classified as:

1) in-house designed and in-house manufactured - in the purest sense everything is produced in-house, including hairsprings, shock absorbers and screws.

2) in-house designed and in-house/outsourced manufuctured - a movement is desiged in-house designers and manufactured (or assembled) in-house with components made in-house or by OEM.

3) outsourced designed and in-house manufactured - a movement is designed by a third party consultant / watch maker but the design is the property of the brand and then manufactured in-house. George Daniels would be a good example here with Omega as is Vincent Calabrese with Blancpain.


4) outsourced design and outsourced manfucatured - movement is designed by a third party consultant and manufactured by OEMs and perhaps assembled in-house.

And then there are all those variations in between.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ahriman4891 View Post
We clearly have different opinions on it, but try to communicate our points of view to each other. As an example of a modified movement, he points me to the Perseus in the Voutilainen

The Perseus movement was an example of craftmenship, which you used to universally dismiss Kari as a watchmaker. What about his chronograph and decimal repeater? The chronograph was developed in-house as is his decimal repeater, which by the way is considered to be the only minute repeater that sounds the hours, ten minute intervals and then the minutes. Traditional repeaters sound the quarter minute intervals instead of ten minute intervals. This should be considered an innovation in the same vein as the vertical clutch chronograph. I am not sure if you were aware of his achievements in these two areas but I offer this as a challenge to your assertion that Kari is a mere tuner of movements.

You seem to forget that like a car manufacturer, the final outcome of a stock production car is a huge collaboration amongst engineers, designers, chemists, phycisist and a host of other professionals. To solely credit one area would be misleading and naive. Watchmakers have to deal with issues of torgue, power reserves, movement design (squeezing many complications into a tiny space), friction, etc.
post #4282 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by gazman70k View Post
Not really. We were talking about your definition of a watchmaker since you didn't consider someone of like Kari Vountilainen to be a watchmaker.
Originally the conversation revolved around Dornblueth and Lang und Heine Unitas-based movements, and whether they could be classified as in-house or as just another Unitas. Then you mentioned Kari Voutilainen, among others, and said "Are they just mere jewellers?" You gave a link to Kari working on a Perseus movement, which (IMHO) is not *watchmaking*. I was not aware that he designed movements on his own -- given that, yes, he is an inventor and a watchmaker, no doubt. Question to you though -- if Kari's achievements were limited to modifying the Perseus, would you still call him a watchmaker in the same sense as George Daniels is one? As for the rest of your post -- I was aware of pretty much everything you wrote. I realize that the days of one person creating a movement from the ground up are gone -- there likely won't be another Breguet or Favre-Jacot. However, you can still have a guy with an original idea, who may interest a watch manufacturer enough to assign CAD modelers and material scientists to turn his idea into a movement worthy of serial production. Thinking about it, summing up "in-house movement" in one sentence is not that trivial. Let's say it's a movement which as a whole cannot be obtained by other watch manufacturers without licensing some know-how or stealing IP. This could include a novel escapement, or some super-alloy for the mainspring which allows 5x power reserve in the same volume of mainspring compartment, or something else. (I don't think it really matters where it is designed/manufactured -- it's the exclusivity of these technologies to a watchmaking "house" that make them "in-house" to me as a buyer.) But the definition above would also include a 7750 which IWC bolted its Pellaton winding system onto; and what's a 7750? Is it already in-house to the Swatch group? Or only to ETA? Should ubiquitous licensed base movements be excluded right away? Should anything with licensed parts be excluded? The definition becomes longer and clumsier, with multiple points to argue about. Note that I don't really require an in-house movement in a watch I buy; but coming up with a consistent definition would be nice. I don't want to create too much offtopic talk in this thread, but at least a couple others seem interested in this topic. I assume you wouldn't write such a long post if you weren't
post #4283 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by gdl203 View Post
The FPJ Resonance is actually one of my two dream watches. I love the concept, the execution, the case and dial design. Everything is just perfect IMO.



I don't like their white dialed watches so much. The black dialed resonance is quite nice.



It seems that their black dialed watches are better looking.



The new resonance is nice too.



I know you don't venture above 59th st but have you checked out their new Boutique on Madison btw 63rd and 64th?
post #4284 of 48312
its amazing how quickly another mans panties will drop when you're wearing any of the above watches
post #4285 of 48312
Like Greg, I'm enamored with the Resonance. It is one of my grail watches, along with a Portuguese Minute Repeater. What makes thew new one new? I see they've changed the dial set-up on the left side.

F.P. Journe's 38mm Chronometre Souverain is a more realistic goal:



I love how they shrink numerals so they don't get cut off by sub-dials. Just quirky enough.
post #4286 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by poorsod View Post
I don't like their white dialed watches so much. The black dialed resonance is quite nice.



It seems that their black dialed watches are better looking.



The new resonance is nice too.



I know you don't venture above 59th st but have you checked out their new Boutique on Madison btw 63rd and 64th?

gorgeous watches!
post #4287 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by mafoofan View Post
Like Greg, I'm enamored with the Resonance. It is one of my grail watches, along with a Portuguese Minute Repeater. What makes thew new one new? I see they've changed the dial set-up on the left side.


The left sided dial is 24 hours.

More info here
http://fpjourne.watchprosite.com/sho...ti-580901/s-0/
post #4288 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by mafoofan View Post
Well, all I can say is that they're comparable to me.

I think it just comes down to the fact that different beautiful objects resonate differently with different people. Details and subtleties that seem geeky or irrelevant to outsiders are often crucial to the enthusiast. I find no personal resonance in, say, fishing rods, but I bet a lot of people care very greatly about them in ways I cannot fully appreciate.




- B
post #4289 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by zjpj83 View Post
Looks like a one-off Overseas

Anyone else prefer the previous generation Overseas (discontinued '03/'04, IIRC) better? I think the current one is quite tacky in the way it integrates the VC logo into the bracelet and bezel. You wouldn't see something like that from PP, JLC, AP or ALS. The only places a watch name/logo should be, IMO, are the dial (once, either just below 12 or just above 6), the crown, the case back and the buckle.
post #4290 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by DGP View Post
Anyone else prefer the previous generation Overseas (discontinued '03/'04, IIRC) better? I think the current one is quite tacky in the way it integrates the VC logo into the bracelet and bezel. You wouldn't see something like that from PP, JLC, AP or ALS. The only places a watch name/logo should be, IMO, are the dial (once, either just below 12 or just above 6), the crown, the case back and the buckle.

The currant one is fantastic, much more comfortable, and much, much better looking,.
As far as what the 2 of the big 3 would do, they have designed details of their sport watch faces with their bracelets, PP with their Aquanaut has a globe pattern that the tropical rubber strap is a perfect compliment, the Nautilus with its horizontal lines is in perfect harmony with it's bracelet, and AP's Royal Oak waffle pattern dial and octangular bezel with screws is perfect for the somewhat chunky bracelet they have.

So its obvious to me much thought as gone into them. I have all 4
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...)