The Watch Appreciation Thread - Page 1030

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cylon 

I am sure I will get flak for saying it, but at this admittedly preliminary point I think I would settle for an homage sub to focus on other things (GO PML, Explorer 1016, or a Reverso TT31 limited for starters).

 

Sure, if I was of age in the 60s and 70s itd be all about James Bond and Steve McQueen, but  something seems...I think disingenuous is too strong a word here but I'm struggling to find a suitable replacement so lets just on "off" there. 

 

 

commence firing on my position 

Ok, Dino said this already. But I'm confused I don't understand where you are coming from. You don't like the Sub enough to buy the real thing, but you like it enough to get something that looks like it. Why stop there? You might just be able to get replicas, homages, or look alikes for the other watches your looking at as well. Who are you getting your watches for?

Quote:

Originally Posted by aleksandr 

This whole homage / replica topic has been discussed to death on other threads around here, and it seems like most people have strong opinions one way or the other, but since the topic of subs and Tudors came up (and being mindful that this is a watch pr0n thread, after all), where does this sit on the scale between FAKE -- HOMAGE -- REAL DEAL? While the price differential between a Sub and a Pelagos is somewhat less than between a Sub and any other homage/fake, your argument seems to suggest that this is somewhat near the top of the slippery slope. To the uneducated eye, a Pelagos could very easily pass off as a Sub.
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

 

Edit - on the topic of Rolex and innovation - not a fan of the look of the new SkyDweller, but the complication is

Now that is an interesting point I haven't heard anyone bring up previously.  Personally, I've never wanted a Tudor.  I'm someone that would rather wait and save up for the item I truly want.  If I wanted a Rolex Submariner, a Tudor Sub would never quell my desire to have a Rolex Submariner.   However, there are people that will purchase or have purchased Tudors and been happy with them as it gives them an authentic and durable Sub case and its famous appearance. 

I have never really understood Rolex's idea (beyond making extra money) that to appeal to a larger audience we will essentially copy our most famous design, but give it an ETA movement and a lower price...you don't see Patek say, well for 1/2 the price we will sell you a "Stern Calatrava" it will use a Patek case but ETA movement.  I suppose if Rolex wants to create a cheaper copy, its their design tha they are free to do so...but I'd rather have the real deal.  I think at least historically Tudors really were not very popular in the US, and Rolex may have had greater success with them in Europe or maybe Asia.  For a while Rolex wasn't even marketing Tudors in the US...so its hard for me to really see the importance of a brand like Tudor in terms of its value in the market place or even to Rolex.  I know my group of watch friends is a very small percentage of watch collectors, but at least the guys I knew that wanted good watches but didn't want to spend what it cost to buy a Rolex, they often looked at or bought Omegas, Breitlings, and other brands.  None of them considered a Tudor as an alternative...but maybe Tudor has a bigger more important share of the market in other countrys/regions.

Dont worry dino there are no hard feelings on my part-- I am just trying to be honest here. I haven't acted upon these thoughts yet, but I am not going to deny they don't clank around in my head.

On the one hand, I agree with you when you say the submariner is a ruggedly handsome watch. I think the balance/symmetry is exemplified best in the no date variants (5513 or 14060), but sometimes the date bubble does catch my eye. If I were ever to do it, I'd expect one of two things to happen: I'd get it out of my system and it would wind up in a drawer somewhere, or double down and crave the real thing even more. Contrary to the prevailing WIS wisdom, fakes have a more complex role to play in the industry than most might think.

As this conversation evolves, I find myself more fascinated with the response to a mere suggestion of wearing a cheap watch--ONOZ. If I see someone drinking sierra mist or driving a hyundai genesis, I don't get all huffy.

Now lets get back to our regularly scheduled programming?
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by DerekS 


hey now....YOURE bloated and boring!
thought this was a great segue to show off my new one...
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

 

Not a huge fan of the bracelet, so i stuck it on a NATO. standard 36mm, really small, and doesnt have the "rolexrolex" rehaut. Pretty happy with it so far.

Hi Derek,

Congrats on your Explorer.  When I said the modern Explorers are bloated and boring, I should have been clearer and said the CURRENT 39mm models.  Do you like the 39mm versions?  I prefer and have owned the 36mm Explorer.  I had a 36mm 114270 for 10 years, I only sold it because it wasn't getting much wrist time, so I gave it a good new home.

Best regards,

Dino

I think having tudor allows rolex more flexibility in terms of marketing. As much as I complain that Rolex is lazy/boring, I also understand their conservatism is due in large part to the fact that they represent the gold standard of luxury watch making to the public at large (for better or worse). Any misstep carries the potential of ruining the brand (a la new coke), so deploying new ideas via the tudor route allows them to take risks, be bold, and test new ideas out without damaging the staid continuity of their established lines.

Just imagine if the pelagos was the updated submariner (minus the snowflake dial marker/hands)????

Tudor can do it precisely because Rolex can't