or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › The Watch Appreciation Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Watch Appreciation Thread - Page 961

post #14401 of 35670
I should possibly elaborate: although the explorer would be an excellent suggestion for ruggedness, ruggedness is definitely relative. My mother is not leading the most rugged of lifestyles, and something on the effeminate side of the spectrum is more desirable. By water, I mean water from dishes, and the odd shower, swim in the pool, etc.
post #14402 of 35670
Quote:
Originally Posted by PartagasIV View Post

For the SMP midsize/PO debate, here's a pic:
I wore the midsize SMP for years with a 6.5" wrist and thought it fit just about right. I gave it to a sibling after I got a 42mm PO. The PO was initially, I thought, gigantically too big in comparison. It grew on me gradually, the more I tried on larger diameter watches. However, I still like the size of a vintage Calatrava or Reverso Duo--I can't conceptualize wearing anything bigger than 42mm.
edit: I like the suggestion of the 36mm Explorer I. Much more classic and hardy of a watch. Cartier and water are like oil and water in my head.

Wow. I've been looking everywhere for a photo comparison of the SMP full-size vs mid-size, but wasn't able to find one, surprisingly. This really helps. The lugs of the 41mm sit smaller than the width of my 6'' wrist, so that not much of the links are visible from the top view. I thought it looked humongous. The mid-size looks a bit smaller than I'd like because the actual face looks tiny. Still thinking about it...
post #14403 of 35670
Newcomer, I was mostly suggesting the 36mm Explorer on account of it's great looks (wouldn't mind having one myself), the ruggednes is just an added bonus smile.gif

Anyway, for a more elegant watch, the recommendation for the Oyster Perpetual Lady in the pic above still stands (it's 25mm). It should hold up nicely to your requirements. Sorry, but I've no experience with lady's watches from any of the other brands listed (exept Cartier Tank on a leather band, but that will obviously not do). Hopefully someone else can chime in...
post #14404 of 35670
Quote:
Originally Posted by yywwyy View Post

Wow. I've been looking everywhere for a photo comparison of the SMP full-size vs mid-size, but wasn't able to find one, surprisingly. This really helps. The lugs of the 41mm sit smaller than the width of my 6'' wrist, so that not much of the links are visible from the top view. I thought it looked humongous. The mid-size looks a bit smaller than I'd like because the actual face looks tiny. Still thinking about it...

I will say the one thing I do miss on the PO is the lack of dial texture...guilloche is not the right term here, but whatever is--the blue wave pattern. That distinction, to me, made the watch feel bigger and more visually interesting. The PO face, smooth black, feels a bit vanilla by comparison. You can probably find a pre-'Liquidmetal' bezel fullsize SMP on the grey market pretty easily. I don't care for the brand new ones.

Newcomer, If I were buying my mother a watch personally, I'd lean towards the midsize steel/rose gold Santos 100. It reminds me of the classic ladies' Santos steel/gold on bracelet, only a little more distinctive.
Edited by PartagasIV - 10/3/12 at 4:42pm
post #14405 of 35670
Tonne Goodman has a thing for big watches. When models started showing up in the fashion mags with them on it was her doing. She herself likes Omega. If you google her you get lots of pix wearing a Seamaster Pro, and when she was interviewed for the Diana Vreeland movies she wore a (presumably 42mm) Planet Ocean.
post #14406 of 35670
On the gift front it looks like Rolex no longer makes the Air King, but do make a 36mm Lady Datejust. That company is just bonkers now. Madoff must've stolen their brains along with their money.
post #14407 of 35670
[quote name="PartagasIV" url="/t/36253/the-watch-p0rn-thread/14400#post_5790630"]
I will say the one thing I do miss on the PO is the lack of dial texture...[/quote]
 

 

Wabi Guilloche.
post #14408 of 35670
As for ladies watches and durability... I'd nix Piaget. They make great watches (I was looking at several of their watches the other day). I love their dress watches but I wouldn't choose one as a daily wearer especially if it might get exposure to water.

Cartier makes some great watches, the Santos, Tank Francaise, and Pasha. If 100m of water resistance is crucial to your mom, it might limit some of your choices. I think the Santos & TF are only water resistant to 30 m. I can say my wife has had a Tank Francaise as an every day watch for 10 years & she loves it. Never had a problem with it. It's gotten wet, but she hasn't taken it swimming. She has the large steel automatic which isn't that large by today's standards.

The Rolex Datejust isn't that unusual, but it's incredibly versatile, durable, and it's water resistant to 100m. Your mom would also have a choice of several sizes and all steel or steel & yg or steel & rose gold. My wife has one in steel & rose and she feels between the TF and DJ, she has some very versatile watches that cover her needs. Whenever she starts look at true dress watches she gets distracted and ends up choosing jewelry instead of a watch.

Chopard, makes nice jewelry, but I've never met anyone that owned one of their watches, so I can't say how durable they are.

As for Omega, my wife thinks the Speedy Pro is good for a man, but she doesn't like their ladies watches at all.

The best thing to do is to take your mom shopping and see what she likes.
post #14409 of 35670
newcomer - i have not looked into the specs or price, but the patek 24 is a fantastic ladies watch.
post #14410 of 35670
And that takes Dad right up to $10k.

Sounds like newcomer's mom wants something all-around but with a bias toward practical. The Rolex fits the bill, and the ladies Datejust is available in three sizes.

It also sounds like she's not a movement fetishist, so again the Rolex wins. Rolex movements are well made and bulletproof, but they are not finely finished like say Patek. You will never see a Rolex with a display back. When people ask Rolex for a "finer" watch, they just slap more bling on it. It's a different philosophy from other high end watch Marques. If Dad takes her shopping and she gets captivated by display backs, then Rolex is the wrong choice. But that doesn't sound like this is the case.

Actually, the way Rolex has gone with styling, it seems like all of them are suitable for women. Even the men's watches have an ironic "butch" look to them that should appeal to women and girls. They just don't look like "serious" watches. But I must presume that they are still very well made.
post #14411 of 35670
the new rolex cellini prince watches have transparent case backs. and some of them are beautiful. tried a few on, but way to small for my wrists.
post #14412 of 35670
newcomer, have you thought about some men's watches? depending on her build, i think some men's watches can look good on women, even moms. My gf's mom sometimes wears an IWC pilot that i think is quite proper on her, and my gf has her dad's AP royal oak that is fantastic (out of that price range though). rolex also seems like a good call.
post #14413 of 35670
Quote:
Originally Posted by in stitches View Post

the new rolex cellini prince watches have transparent case backs. and some of them are beautiful. tried a few on, but way to small for my wrists.

I had not seen those. Also looks like my original assumption about the Air King and Date models was incorrect, they still make them. And they are less "blingy". The dials are still goofy though. The Cellinis are actually the most refined looking, which is as it should be I guess.
post #14414 of 35670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hayward View Post


It also sounds like she's not a movement fetishist, so again the Rolex wins. Rolex movements are well made and bulletproof, but they are not finely finished like say Patek. You will never see a Rolex with a display back. It's a different philosophy from other high end watch Marques. If Dad takes her shopping and she gets captivated by display backs, then Rolex is the wrong choice.

Actually, the way Rolex has gone with styling, it seems like all of them are suitable for women. Even the men's watches have an ironic "butch" look to them that should appeal to women and girls. They just don't look like "serious" watches. But I must presume that they are still very well made.

Rolex and Patek are rarely direct competitors except maybe in terms of price (a new lower priced Pateks is around the mid to higher price range of Rolex). But the purpose of the watches are totally different (Patek making a much finer dress watch, Rolex making a rugged watch you can beat the hell out of...I've seen a Calatrava that the owner whacked against a door way and broke the lug... I've never seen someone break the lug off of a Submariner).

Very few ladies watches have display backs as most are quartz... so that's probably an irrelevant issue.

Not sure why you think current Rolex watches don't look like serious watches? I own a few Rolex watches, but also some much "finer watches" and I consider the Rolex watches to be serious looking watches, they are much more rugged and can probably withstand more punishment than my "finer watches." No watch can be everything to every buyer, and that's why it's good to have a few pieces to fit various owners' needs.
post #14415 of 35670
Well, my tendency to bash Rolex comes from an appreciation of what they looked like in years past. Up until the 90s the Sub had a very classic, functional look. Then they added the blingy markers and the glossy enamel dials. Granted the new dials don't crinkle up in the sun. My "new" Tudor sub looks like it has melanoma, but I enjoy looking at it. I had a late production Sea Dweller and got bored with it. And the Deep Sea, Sky Dweller, and Yacht-Master just look comical to me, with all the word salad on their dials. The GMT seems to work with the new styling. And it also looks like Rolex is finally supplying decent bracelets with their watches.

Basically it seems as if Rolex got scared of Omega. The SMP was a real jump in quality, and when they started coming out with the retro designs, culminating in the PO, Rolex apparently felt some Botox was in order. Now Omega is introducing proprietary movements. Between quartz models and cellphone clocks, appreciation of the movement itself is becoming a bigger part of the appeal of a mechanical watch.

It just seems like if you wanted to buy a Rolex Sub 30 years ago, you would want a Sinn or Seiko Prospex if you want the same sort of watch now. Or for Rolex prices you could get an IWC. Or for a little more a JLC, though their technical watches are rather goofy looking too. If you're willing to spend $6k for a watch, why not $10k? Then you hit the lower end of brands like Patek.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › The Watch Appreciation Thread