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

The Watch Appreciation Thread - Page 1120

post #16786 of 37161
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvin100 View Post

Maybe more importantly, I consider small watches kind of "old-fashioned"--of course all mechanical watches are old-fashioned, but styles change. Just as I didn't pop my collar in the 80's and don't wear skinny jeans now, I don't follow all the trends, but large watches look good to me and look great on my wrist (I'm not a petite dude--I played Div I college rugby), so it's a trend I'm happy to be part of. Your mileage, of course, may vary, and that's great--in no way am I trying to impugn your taste, which may well work wonderfully for you.

"In matters of principle, stand like a rock; in matters of taste, swim with the current." - Thomas Jefferson wink.gif

OK, so you like big watches because they suit your presumably larger physique, because you just do and because they are "in".

Got it. Did I miss anything?

One more thing - re: impugning taste and presumably attributing opinions...
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvin100 View Post

Wow, that's the kind of wildly speculative armchair psychology usually reserved for "Men's Rights" misogynists.

I like large mattresses and small whisky glasses, tall loudspeakers and 7" vinyl singles, compact cars and thick books, big asses and small waists, huge megacities and narrow alleys, hefty steaks and baby carrots--which of these should I measure to ascertain my manliness? 

"Dominating women/smoking/drinking/fucking with abandon" is a stunted, infantile standard of masculinity. But even by those measures, you have no idea where I stand, and the size of my watch won't tell you. I understand you're whiny about the "good old days" (good for whom? white dudes only, pretty much), but the most "emasculated" thing in this thread is your contention that our belongings are serviceable metrics and reflections of our adherence to some threadbare gender roles that have never been much more than myths and excuses to begin with.
post #16787 of 37161
Quote:
Originally Posted by apropos View Post

Well, watches today are worn more as an expression of personal taste as opposed to a need for portable timekeeping, and by extension I also feel that ere is some currency in the opinion that the large watches of today are a form of compensation for the so-called emasculation of the modern man.

To clarify the point I am trying to make through hyperbole, you have the original He-men of the 1950s/60s who with 33-34mm watches strapped on explored/dominated women/smoked/drank/fucked with abandon, while you have the relatively emasculated Joe Sixpack today picking the kids up from school in the MPV complete with baby seat his wife forced him to buy... with a 46mm Breitling strapped to his wrist.

In other words, consider that you perceive smaller watches as "dainty" (i.e. feminine) because a watch for you is as much expression of your "manhood" as your not wearing a skirt.

While to some degree I appreciate the Panerai aesthetic and think their watches look nice, I think of the brand more as a PR triumph in the sense that they (sorry GDL) managed to parley recased ho-hum ebauches worn by an inconsequential unit in an inconsequential navy in an inconsequential military power (seriously, Italian naval divers???!!) into a global He-man desirable watch phenomenon... IMO JLC and IWC are trying to replicate Panerai's success with that concept today with the Navy Seal and Top Gun LEs respectively.

I find the final paragraph horribly funny but true. By observation though, I see that watches in the next twenty years will be worn at the 41 to 43 mm area. Rolex for instance has upsized most of its new collections, others are following. It is the Apropos-Marvin100 mean.
post #16788 of 37161
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvin100 View Post

 

Wow, that's pretty insulting. I strongly prefer big watches (up to 46mm, even), and find small watches old-fashioned and even "dainty." Are you genuinely convinced your preference for small watches is somehow objectively correct or superior? Because, um, it. is. not.

I know your kidding, right! You read sharp, if you find it insulting then be very insulted! I say things,sometimes absurd, to generate dialog; I dont think SF would last with only you guys photos, agreed! By the way, I like them all! Now what I was really going to say which would have been less harsh, but I enjoy 2much Guinnes, was: For me a watch over 40mm should have a hole drilled in its lugs, chained and put in your pocket, better, right?  (46mm, thats a pocket watch and I like those 2)smile.gif


Edited by ant702 - 1/13/13 at 12:33am
post #16789 of 37161
Quote:
Originally Posted by apropos View Post

Well, watches today are worn more as an expression of personal taste as opposed to a need for portable timekeeping, and by extension I also feel that there is some currency in the opinion that the large watches of today are a form of compensation for the so-called emasculation of the modern man.

To clarify the point I am trying to make through hyperbole, you have the original He-men of the 1950s/60s who with 33-34mm watches strapped on explored/dominated women/smoked/drank/fucked with abandon, while you have the relatively emasculated Joe Sixpack today picking the kids up from school in the MPV complete with baby seat his wife forced him to buy... with a 46mm Breitling strapped to his wrist.

In other words, consider that you perceive smaller watches as "dainty" (i.e. feminine) because a watch for you is as much expression of your "manhood" as your not wearing a skirt.

While to some degree I appreciate the Panerai aesthetic and think their watches look nice, I think of the brand more as a PR triumph in the sense that they (sorry GDL) managed to parley recased ho-hum ebauches worn by an inconsequential unit in an inconsequential navy in an inconsequential military power (seriously, Italian naval divers???!!) into a global He-man desirable watch phenomenon... IMO JLC and IWC are trying to replicate Panerai's success with that concept today with the Navy Seal and Top Gun LEs respectively.

You're overthinking it. People wear large watches because...they're fun to wear. To the extent they express "masculinity" or whatever, they do it by signaling independence and liberation from conformity to obsolete fashion rules. Of course there's no excuse for an ugly watch, large or small.

I do agree it's ridiculous when people extol the historical military associations of Panerai, IWC, etc. as if they're proud to pay homage to the bad guys in WWII.
post #16790 of 37161
Quote:
Originally Posted by in stitches View Post


Just for you and chocsosa, found this in my camera roll. smile.gif

Not the best pic, but gets the job done.

unyqa6eq.jpg

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by in stitches View Post


Just for you and chocsosa, found this in my camera roll. smile.gif

Not the best pic, but gets the job done.

unyqa6eq.jpg

OMG I had that on a strap almost 9yrs ago! Thats a capeland s right! It looks good on youfing02[1].gif

post #16791 of 37161
Quote:
Originally Posted by johanm View Post

You're overthinking it. People wear large watches because...they're fun to wear. To the extent they express "masculinity" or whatever, they do it by signaling independence and liberation from conformity to obsolete fashion rules. Of course there's no excuse for an ugly watch, large or small.

You have a point - thank you.

I guess I should have mentioned that the preceding hour to my post had been spent on a popular Paneristi forum. Have you been to one? Utterly depressing place.
post #16792 of 37161
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvin100 View Post

Maybe more importantly, I consider small watches kind of "old-fashioned"--of course all mechanical watches are old-fashioned, but styles change. Just as I didn't pop my collar in the 80's and don't wear skinny jeans now, I don't follow all the trends, but large watches look good to me and look great on my wrist (I'm not a petite dude--I played Div I college rugby), so it's a trend I'm happy to be part of. Your mileage, of course, may vary, and that's great--in no way am I trying to impugn your taste, which may well work wonderfully for you.

 

"In matters of principle, stand like a rock; in matters of taste, swim with the current." - Thomas Jefferson ;)

Ok where sorry your a chubby kid so you need a bigger watch, makes sense, case closedcrackup[1].gif

post #16793 of 37161
This one doesn't want to come off.

3F2A62FC-C31E-4F5A-92C8-0D567B41023F-19570-000009FC47F11AEC.jpg
post #16794 of 37161
Quote:
Originally Posted by apropos View Post

OK, so you like big watches because they suit your presumably larger physique, because you just do and because they are "in".

Got it. Did I miss anything?

One more thing - re: impugning taste and presumably attributing opinions...

Just to play Devil's Advocate here and I'm not trying to pick a fight. I love this thread due to the maturity of its contributors and ability to debate without name calling.

Couldnt one argue that those who so vehemently (and vocally) dislike today's popular oversize watches do so simply because so many others (the unwashed masses) do like them and because they are in? Swimming against the stream is a clear indication of one's independence/superiority. You know the guy..."I much prefer their old stuff".

For the record, I think 40mm is just about perfect for me. I sold off some 38-39mm pieces years ago because I thought them too small at the time. Rubbish in retrospect. I always liked the idea of a 44mm Panerai but they never felt right. I still long for the 42mm (and tall) 3713 Doppel which is probably as big as would be comfortable for me.
post #16795 of 37161

I personally prefer watches that wear a bit lighter, and go unnoticed until it is needed. They do however need to be easy enough to be read by someone who cannot see quite as good as he used to.

 

However not everyone would agree, and I can certainly understand that. Besides it would be rather boring if everything were designed the same and conform to one standard.


Edited by dddrees - 1/13/13 at 8:55am
post #16796 of 37161
Quote:
Originally Posted by apropos View Post

To clarify the point I am trying to make through hyperbole, you have the original He-men of the 1950s/60s who with 33-34mm watches strapped on explored/dominated women/smoked/drank/fucked with abandon, while you have the relatively emasculated Joe Sixpack today picking the kids up from school in the MPV complete with baby seat his wife forced him to buy... with a 46mm Breitling strapped to his wrist.


While to some degree I appreciate the Panerai aesthetic and think their watches look nice, I think of the brand more as a PR triumph in the sense that they (sorry GDL) managed to parley recased ho-hum ebauches worn by an inconsequential unit in an inconsequential navy in an inconsequential military power (seriously, Italian naval divers???!!) into a global He-man desirable watch phenomenon.

Not sure if I agree with the comparison about men of the 1950s/60s to modern men, although I did find it interesting and entertaining.  With the exception of a few watches that hit the 42mm range,  I'm not a fan of oversized or extra large watches.  I did not grow up in the 1950s/60s...so while I find the Mad Men stereo type interesting, its not something I feel is missing from my life, nor is it something I'd have to compensate for...but then again I don't drive a mini-van.

 

I agree and also like the Panerai design, and think you really nailed it with the idea of them being largely a PR triumph.  I am not sure if I think IWC falls squarely into trying to replicate that success, but clearly there are many companies that jumped into the large watch arena with the hopes of capturing that type of success. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chocsosa View Post

I see those guys with the 46mm watches and the first thing you notice is the size of the watch before anything else.. I feel a watch is supposed to compliment not be the star..but that's just to me though.

 +1 . 

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ant702 View Post

I know your kidding, right! You read sharp, if you find it insulting then be very insulted! I say things,sometimes absurd, to generate dialog; I dont think SF would last with only you guys photos, agreed! By the way, I like them all! Now what I was really going to say which would have been less harsh, but I enjoy 2much Guinnes, was: For me a watch over 40mm should have a hole drilled in its lugs, chained and put in your pocket, better, right?  (46mm, thats a pocket watch and I like those 2)smile.gif

 crackup[1].gif  Love the pocket watch theory!!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by johanm View Post


You're overthinking it. People wear large watches because...they're fun to wear. To the extent they express "masculinity" or whatever, they do it by signaling independence and liberation from conformity to obsolete fashion rules. Of course there's no excuse for an ugly watch, large or small.

I do agree it's ridiculous when people extol the historical military associations of Panerai, IWC, etc. as if they're proud to pay homage to the bad guys in WWII.

I agree with Chocsosa.  A watch should compliment a persons appearance.  Sadly, a large percentage of people dress and wear watches as though they do not own a mirror.  Short of maybe an NFL linebacker, I've rarely seen anyone that could carry off wearing a 45mm+ watch.  There are even average guys wearing 44mm that resemble little kids wearing a watch from their Dad and they need to grow into it.  But its a free country and if someone wants to follow the trend to the point of looking silly they are free to do it.

 

However, my pet peeve with extra large watches, is that so many are just an ordinary movement, from an ordinary company.  Its frequently not from a great brand and it doesn't have complications that require the case be ridiculously large.  If a person is going to wear something the size of a tuna can on their wrist, thereby drawing attention to themselves and their watch, it should be something from a very significant company, worthy of attention, and have a good reason for being so large, be it historic or an unusual/complicated movment that must be housed in an extra large case.  To me, extra large/oversized watches which don't have any reason for being so large, are for posers caught up in the extra large watch trend. 

post #16797 of 37161
Ah, arguments about subjective tastes. Everyone is right!

Personally, I have a range of watches from 35mm - 45mm. Each satisfies a particular niche that I wished to fill. If I'm going to a weekend retreat with some partners at my firm, then I wear the Rolex. If it's just a regular weekend of eating/shopping/hanging out with friends, I wear the Panny. If it's just a regular work day, I'll probably strap on the Reverso. I have yet to see a watch that is perfect for all environments.

I am always amused by how strongly people hold their watch size preferences, as if there is a true, objective "right" watch size. Probably better to argue about something somewhat objective, like movement quality (e.g., "Ugh, those ETA movements in those ___ watches certainly aren't worthy of such a large case." (Dino was sort of moving there)). But I suppose there's no fun in that smile.gif.
post #16798 of 37161
Quote:
Originally Posted by YRR92 View Post

Yes good. Thanks, stitches!
This thread makes me frown at my Seiko Cinco...
On the plus side, it does provide a bunch of reasons to get good grades.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chocsosa View Post

Yessir! That is the business right there! lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by ant702 View Post

OMG I had that on a strap almost 9yrs ago! Thats a capeland s right! It looks good on youfing02%5B1%5D.gif

thanks guys, much appreciated.

YRR - dont frown at your seiko, enjoy it. im sure it will be the start of nice collection based on your interest in watches.

ant - yes it is. got it from my wife when we got engaged, about 10.5 years ago.
post #16799 of 37161
I find that many excessively large watches are inherently more feminine than reasonably-sized ones, in that their jewelry and eyeball-attracting qualities are a high design priority, in most cases over comfort or having a case that's not mostly void space. Big flashy watches seem a bit needy to me, which is definitely not a trait I'd associate with traditional notions of masculinity. A watch will not make you appear to be tough and cool, no matter how tactical-ized, Navy-SEALS-logo-a-fied, Luftwaffe-flyed or RAV*-prized it is.

Here's someone with big arms and wrists, in an advertisement that was presumably meant to imply that the oversized product is the more "manly" one. Which watch would you say looks better?



*Russians/Arabs/Villains
post #16800 of 37161
re: watch size debate. this whole thigh made me groan. sorry guys.

a persons watch, or anything they own, does not necessarily have to be a reflection of anything other than that they like the item so they bought it. small or large, watches can be nice and they can be ugly, the same watch can look nice on one person and dumb on the other. let people enjoy the things they chose to buy and not judge them for it. no one has to love every watch, but we dont need to make assumptions based of the ones we may not love.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › The Watch Appreciation Thread