The Watch Appreciation Thread (Reviews and Photos of Men's Timepieces by Rolex, Patek Philippe, Brei

[in stitches]



I like JLCs a lot, but I can't say that I love the above watch. Aside from it being an AC, I generally don't care for a centrally mounted hand pointing to the date around the outer edge of the dial. VC has done this in the past and I didn't like it from them either. I think if they changed the date on the above JLC, I might like it more...but then again still an AC

welp, on this one all i can says is, as the legendary ron burgundy said,

Symmetricize ? ... lets just call that a Stitch-ism. I think if you bought a Datejust without a date...it wouldn't be very Datejusty...look at that I made a word too!

I like symmetry, but I can also like asymmetry if done correctly...Lange 1, Cartier Tank Asymetrique, or VC 1972 from 2000-2006, or Patek's old 5015.

agree 100% to all that. and nice job on the new word!

I think if we took the that pic and photoshopped it so his arms were green, it would look like the Incredible Hulk busting out of that shirt!

to quote another visual...

 

[rnguy001]

NS,

repost for extreme awesomeness

Today

 

[no frills]

Remember this one?

http://www.hodinkee.com/blog/patek-...tual-calendar-in-titanium-for-only-watch-2013

With this press image?



Actual pics now available via Antiquorum's site, not just for Patek but for every watch maker creating a unique piece:

http://www.antiquorum.com/press-rel...ges-of-timepieces-offered-in-only-watch-2013/

Here are the pics for the PP 5004T:







Just sharing!

 

[RogerP]

The odds of my next watch being a Rolex just went up. In the metal, this thing rocks the house. I just wish it came with the same cool glidelock adjustable bracelet as the Sub C.

 

[in stitches]

frills - do not want. well, ok, id take and flip.

roger - now youre talking. man o man i want that. i fell even more in love with it when i tried it on.

 

[Dino944]

The odds of my next watch being a Rolex just went up. In the metal, this thing rocks the house. I just wish it came with the same cool glidelock adjustable bracelet as the Sub C.

That's a hot watch! I haven't been into a Rolex dealer in a while, so I've yet to see one in person. If I get a chance I may pop into an AD to see if I can get a look at one. The Breitling chronograph you posted the other day was quite nice...but I'd rather have the blue/black GMT...just my 2 cents.

 

[dopey]



. . .
Dopey, that's a really funny way to look at it.  I never considered that.  Only about half of my watches have dates on them, and when possible I would opt for a watch without a date because I prefer its symmetry (but that's more of a preference pertaining to appearance over function).   I think we have all seen watches that make us say, "Oh why the f*ck did the cut a hole in the dial for a date?  This watch would have been absolutely perfect as a time only piece."

. . .

I know I am an outlier and most people don't share my dislike for simple date indicators. I certainly don't expect to convince anyone, though I know I am right!!! But just in case I wasn't clear - it really bugs me that the simple date function is, BY DESIGN, wrong half the months of the year. I know collectors don't really care since most don't have autowinders running constantly so must constantly reset their watches frequently for reasons other than the only-semi-functional date mechanism. But to my mind, a functional watch should be one which you can set once and forget about. It should not lose or gain a meaningful amount of time and you should be able to ignore it, other than servicing it every x years. If it gains or loses too much time, that is considered either out of spec or else a design flaw and one that the maker tries to improve upon. It would annoy you if you constantly had to fix the time because it was inaccurate. Likewise, it should bother you that the date is inaccurate and especially that it is inaccurate on purpose. To me, this is just bad engineering; if you can't make it work properly, leave it out. But something that is broken on purpose feels like a splinter in my brain. On those watches I have with a date function, I simply never set it and try to pretend it isn't there.

But I know no one else really cares.

 

[bawlin]



The odds of my next watch being a Rolex just went up. In the metal, this thing rocks the house. I just wish it came with the same cool glidelock adjustable bracelet as the Sub C.

Yup! I made the mistake of trying one on a couple of days ago. Beautiful piece but I think it would make a great second watch

 

[Keith T]

#symmetricize4life

Also with you on that pointer date on the JLC...nice execution IMO.....indeed, a rare disagreement with Dino. Horses for courses.

 

[DLJr]

I know I am an outlier and most people don't share my dislike for simple date indicators. I certainly don't expect to convince anyone, though I know I am right!!! But just in case I wasn't clear - it really bugs me that the simple date function, is BY DESIGN, wrong half the months of the year. I know collectors don't really care since most don't have autowinders running constantly so must constantly reset their watches frequently. But to my mind, a functional watch should be one which you can set once and forget about. It should not lose or gain a meaningful amount of time and you should be able to ignore it, other than servicing it every x years. If it gains or loses too much time, that is considered either out of spec or else a design flaw and one that the maker tries to improve upon. It would annoy you if you constantly had to fix the time because it was inaccurate. Likewise, it should bother you that the date is inaccurate and especially that it is inaccurate on purpose. To me, this is just bad engineering; if you can't make it work properly, leave it out. But something that is broken on purpose feels like a splinter in my brain. On those watches I have with a date function, I simply never set it and try to pretend it isn't there.

But I know no one else really cares.

I agree with you 100%. The concept irritates me, but I still own (or have owned) some watches with date features.

 

[dopey]

This is the gospel.

Henceforth, simple date functions will be described correctly. It is not a date function. It is a new complication called a Day Counter, and most, by convention happen to go to 31 days. If you want to use them to keep track of the date for a few days, great, though it gets wonky towards the end of some months. if you want to keep track of how many days your wife or SO (or you) has been in shark week, great - they are good for that, too. Set it when your kid runs away from home so you know when five days are up and you can inform the police - an excellent use. Just don't call the Day Counter a date function, because it isn't.

 

[in stitches]



Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

I know I am an outlier and most people don't share my dislike for simple date indicators. I certainly don't expect to convince anyone, though I know I am right!!! But just in case I wasn't clear - it really bugs me that the simple date function, is BY DESIGN, wrong half the months of the year. I know collectors don't really care since most don't have autowinders running constantly so must constantly reset their watches frequently. But to my mind, a functional watch should be one which you can set once and forget about. It should not lose or gain a meaningful amount of time and you should be able to ignore it, other than servicing it every x years. If it gains or loses too much time, that is considered either out of spec or else a design flaw and one that the maker tries to improve upon. It would annoy you if you constantly had to fix the time because it was inaccurate. Likewise, it should bother you that the date is inaccurate and especially that it is inaccurate on purpose. To me, this is just bad engineering; if you can't make it work properly, leave it out. But something that is broken on purpose feels like a splinter in my brain. On those watches I have with a date function, I simply never set it and try to pretend it isn't there.
But I know no one else really cares.

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

This is the gospel.
Henceforth, simple date functions will be described correctly. It is not a date function. It is a new complication called a Day Counter, and most, by convention happen to go to 31 days. If you want to use them to keep track of the date for a few days, great, though it gets wonky towards the end of some months. if you want to keep track of how many days your wife or SO (or you) has been in shark week, great - they are good for that, too. Set it when your kid runs away from home so you know when five days are up and you can inform the police - an excellent use. Just don't call the Day Counter a date function, because it isn't.

i think you are asking a lot from a mechanical item. its not the watch makers fault that we have a marsupialed calendar.

the facts as i see it are two fold.

1. making a mechanical watch to fully account for all the changes in the calendar year and cycle is both difficult and costly. it can be done, but its not cheap. that is pretty much fact as far as i know.

2. a date on a watch is a very useful thing for many people, myself included. many people need to check the date throughout the day, and having it displayed on your wrist is the quickest and easiest way to make sure you have it right.

that being the case, i think that it is more than reasonable for a watch maker to use a date on their watch, so that its wearer can take advantage of that function, and they should do their best to incorporate said date in a way that is as aesthetically pleasing as possible.

if one can afford an AC or better yet a PC, that is great. but most cant, and that should not preclude them from having a date on their watch. a watch maker using a simple date function in this way gives a person the opportunity to have the date at the ready, and not break the bank. if that means that 5 times a year you spend 10 seconds changing the date, i think that really is a small penance. and is in no way bad engineering. its utilitarian and economical engineering imo.

#symmetricize4life

Also with you on that pointer date on the JLC...nice execution IMO.....indeed, a rare disagreement with Dino. Horses for courses.

 

[dopey]

If you want to use a Day Counter as a clumsy proxy for the date, that is OK with me. It is a fine use of the function, as long as you remember to reset it every so often.

 

[in stitches]



If you want to use a Day Counter as a clumsy proxy for the date, that is fine with me. It is a fine use of the function, as long as you remember to reset it every so often.

 

[dopey]

You should get a day counter that is marked for seven days followed by a bunch of smiley faces.