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

The Watch Appreciation Thread - Page 1121

post #16801 of 39109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dino944 View Post

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. 

It's hard to generalize about what compliments the appearance of people of different age, physique, subculture, etc. This debate reminds me of conservatism vs modernity debates that occur in every corner of Styleforum. Slim vs full silhouette, hard vs soft shoulders, country vs city colors, etc... The list goes on, and everyone tries to support their argument with a priori principles, but ultimately people wear what they like and if they execute the details well they hopefully accomplish their goals in the context they live in.

Living in Manhattan I see people of all sizes and shapes wear large watches all the time - especially Panerai and bulky dive watches. Many of them dress stylishly and their watches very much complement their energetic and sporty aura. For others, the watch plays a small role in their overall clumsy and awkward appearance. I also see some people who carry small watches with elegance, and others who just look like nerds.

As a general point, watch aficionados often overemphasize, arbitrarily, the aesthetic values of prior generations. Not to discount the value of seeing which designs have endured over time vs which trends became outmoded, but there's a lot of "glory days" thinking that parallels how people think about "rules" for formal attire and leads people to end up drifting far away from the mainstream for very little benefit. Right now there are plenty of people alive who bought watches from the 50s-60s when they were in production and not collectible antiques. In the not so distant future that will change and the people who run the world will have arisen at a time when there was hardly any consensus on the "correct" type or size of watch to wear, or whether it makes sense to wear a watch in the first place. Tangentially I think it's funny when people speculate on the investment value of current production watches - as if the regard today's kids have for Rolex or the "Big 3" will in any way resemble the current auction trends.
post #16802 of 39109
killin' it
Quote:
Originally Posted by elisiX View Post

Correct.

The left is a Micah Duroval.

This one today.

post #16803 of 39109
Thread Starter 
Large watch hate talk is so deadhorse-a.gif

It feels like 2003 all over again
post #16804 of 39109
Quote:
Originally Posted by gdl203 View Post

Large watch hate talk is so deadhorse-a.gif

It feels like 2003 all over again

"like"
post #16805 of 39109
Amen Stitch..

It appears nothing gets watch guys more riled up then the debate over watch size, and the SF forum is not immune it appears. It's the same debate over and over again - but that's okay since I do find it interesting to hear what everyone else has to say on the matter, and some of the views here are genuinely insightful.

I personally love watches between 42-44. Yes I own a Navy Seals Alarm and no, I'm not a Navy Seals. I simply love the watch, the way it looks, the way it works, the way it's made. I also own a Big Pilot, and no I'm not a pilot. Again, just love the way the watch makes me feel when I have it on. I try to wear what makes me happy, knowing I don't dress to impress everyone, but just wearing whatever has significance or meaning to me. I met a guy once in a store who was wearing a 36-37 mm Seiko and you could tell he absolutely adored his watch. He didn't care what others thought, but it was so obvious he was wearing the watch that he loved - and I really admired that about him, and it made the watch look great on him IMO.

I think it's a travesty when we try to speculate on a person's character based on their watch. Yes, we can feel that a certain watch size or design doesn't "go" with the rest of that outfit or occasion, but at best we can comment on their style as it relates to what WE feel is right. And even then it's subjective. Nothing bothers me more than when people judge others based on their possessions. So what if a guy loves his 34 mm vintage? And so what if he loves his 60 mm PAM 341? You may think it's ridiculous looking, and that's your right, but I think it's just plain stupid to carry it further and draw assumptions about that actual person.

They're just watches. We all love them. Things would be pretty boring if we all just wore 39 mm APs, or Reversos or PAM 232s (though we'd be a helluva lot more stylish) wink.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by in stitches View Post

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.
post #16806 of 39109
Quote:
Originally Posted by elisiX View Post

This one doesn't want to come off.

3F2A62FC-C31E-4F5A-92C8-0D567B41023F-19570-000009FC47F11AEC.jpg

NIce photo! You guys know how to shoot!

post #16807 of 39109
Quote:
Originally Posted by johanm View Post


Thank you. You nailed it.
post #16808 of 39109
Quote:
Originally Posted by johanm View Post


It's hard to generalize about what compliments the appearance of people of different age, physique, subculture, etc. This debate reminds me of conservatism vs modernity debates that occur in every corner of Styleforum. Slim vs full silhouette, hard vs soft shoulders, country vs city colors, etc... The list goes on, and everyone tries to support their argument with a priori principles, but ultimately people wear what they like and if they execute the details well they hopefully accomplish their goals in the context they live in.

Living in Manhattan I see people of all sizes and shapes wear large watches all the time - especially Panerai and bulky dive watches. Many of them dress stylishly and their watches very much complement their energetic and sporty aura. For others, the watch plays a small role in their overall clumsy and awkward appearance. I also see some people who carry small watches with elegance, and others who just look like nerds.

As a general point, watch aficionados often overemphasize, arbitrarily, the aesthetic values of prior generations. Not to discount the value of seeing which designs have endured over time vs which trends became outmoded, but there's a lot of "glory days" thinking that parallels how people think about "rules" for formal attire and leads people to end up drifting far away from the mainstream for very little benefit. Right now there are plenty of people alive who bought watches from the 50s-60s when they were in production and not collectible antiques. In the not so distant future that will change and the people who run the world will have arisen at a time when there was hardly any consensus on the "correct" type or size of watch to wear, or whether it makes sense to wear a watch in the first place. Tangentially I think it's funny when people speculate on the investment value of current production watches - as if the regard today's kids have for Rolex or the "Big 3" will in any way resemble the current auction trends.

With regard to generalizing about people and their clothing, say slim vs. full silhouette, hard vs. natural/soft shoulders, county vs.city colors...there is a commonality no matter what the silhouette, shoulder, etc...they all have a size based on the human body.  Sure you might go up or down a half size to a full size depending on the maker and cut.  But its highly unlikely that if you wear (using American sizes, I know a European 52 jacket is about 42 US) a 42 reg when wearing say a Hickey Freeman suit that you will go to a size 52 US in a Brioni or a RL Purple Label. You might like a larger full silhouette, but going up 4 sizes is generally not going to be the answer.  Sure if you like billowing pants instead of buying a 34 waist you could buy a size 40 and cynch it with a belt around your waste...but its going to look silly and like it belongs on someone else.  On some level its the same with watches.  A really skinny guy that's 6' and weights 180 lbs is going to look silly wearing a 45+mm watch...he just isn't going to have the bulk to have it look right.  Sure he can do it, but he might as well also start buying shoes and suits that are a few sizes too large to complete the look.  I'm not saying it would work better on a really short fat guy...but there is probably a reasonable size range by which watches will look good on someone...too small it looks like the guy borrowed his wife's watch, too large and the guy need's to grow into his Daddy's watch. 

 

I'm not sure watch aficionados overemphasize the aesthetic value of prior generations...although I think they often overemphasize that quality was better years ago.  As for how future generations will view the big 3 or Rolex...I think they will still continue to be a strong influence on the market for luxury watches and what people buy.  The big three and Rolex have all been around for over 100 years (more than 250 in the case of VC).   There was a slight shake up in the 1950/60s when VC was no longer considered the top of the big three and Patek took that place in the minds and hearts of many.  Names like PP, AP, VC have a reputation...something like that of legends, things that are considered the best and owned by people that are successful.  I don' really like car comparisons...but think of it this way...Ferraris are cars of legend to most people.  In the early 90s Acura came out with the NSX, it was revolutionary and was considered the best car in its day.  It made Ferrari, and others rethink what they were offering people.   But in the end, the NSX is an interesting footnote.  Companies like Ferrari, Aston etc...rebounded and came back stronger. Sure they improved their products, but they offered legend, mystique, lore, and heirtage that upstarts don't have.  Even if good companies like Breitling, Zenith, or Hublot increased their quality levels, reduced production to be more exclusive, and tried to take the position of Patek, AP, VC, I just don't see it happening...any more than we would see Acura becoming the most valuable cars at auctions over vintage Ferraris. 

post #16809 of 39109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dino944 View Post

With regard to generalizing about people and their clothing, say slim vs. full silhouette, hard vs. natural/soft shoulders, county vs.city colors...there is a commonality no matter what the silhouette, shoulder, etc...they all have a size based on the human body. [...] Even if good companies like Breitling, Zenith, or Hublot increased their quality levels, reduced production to be more exclusive, and tried to take the position of Patek, AP, VC, I just don't see it happening...any more than we would see Acura becoming the most valuable cars at auctions over vintage Ferraris. 
Spot-on; speakin' the truth to the youth as usual.

More often than not, when people buy something expensive that's meant to last, they're not going for trendiness — in many cases, they want what their father or their grandfather had on his wrist. Good design and well-thought-out proportions seem to have an inherent appeal to them that transcends fads and (should) apply to any manufactured good where looks are a factor.
post #16810 of 39109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dino944 View Post

With regard to generalizing about people and their clothing, say slim vs. full silhouette, hard vs. natural/soft shoulders, county vs.city colors...there is a commonality no matter what the silhouette, shoulder, etc...they all have a size based on the human body.  Sure you might go up or down a half size to a full size depending on the maker and cut.  But its highly unlikely that if you wear (using American sizes, I know a European 52 jacket is about 42 US) a 42 reg when wearing say a Hickey Freeman suit that you will go to a size 52 US in a Brioni or a RL Purple Label. You might like a larger full silhouette, but going up 4 sizes is generally not going to be the answer.  Sure if you like billowing pants instead of buying a 34 waist you could buy a size 40 and cynch it with a belt around your waste...but its going to look silly and like it belongs on someone else.  On some level its the same with watches.  A really skinny guy that's 6' and weights 180 lbs is going to look silly wearing a 45+mm watch...he just isn't going to have the bulk to have it look right.  Sure he can do it, but he might as well also start buying shoes and suits that are a few sizes too large to complete the look.  I'm not saying it would work better on a really short fat guy...but there is probably a reasonable size range by which watches will look good on someone...too small it looks like the guy borrowed his wife's watch, too large and the guy need's to grow into his Daddy's watch. 

I'm not sure watch aficionados overemphasize the aesthetic value of prior generations...although I think they often overemphasize that quality was better years ago.  As for how future generations will view the big 3 or Rolex...I think they will still continue to be a strong influence on the market for luxury watches and what people buy.  The big three and Rolex have all been around for over 100 years (more than 250 in the case of VC).   There was a slight shake up in the 1950/60s when VC was no longer considered the top of the big three and Patek took that place in the minds and hearts of many.  Names like PP, AP, VC have a reputation...something like that of legends, things that are considered the best and owned by people that are successful.  I don' really like car comparisons...but think of it this way...Ferraris are cars of legend to most people.  In the early 90s Acura came out with the NSX, it was revolutionary and was considered the best car in its day.  It made Ferrari, and others rethink what they were offering people.   But in the end, the NSX is an interesting footnote.  Companies like Ferrari, Aston etc...rebounded and came back stronger. Sure they improved their products, but they offered legend, mystique, lore, and heirtage that upstarts don't have.  Even if good companies like Breitling, Zenith, or Hublot increased their quality levels, reduced production to be more exclusive, and tried to take the position of Patek, AP, VC, I just don't see it happening...any more than we would see Acura becoming the most valuable cars at auctions over vintage Ferraris. 

I think you took my analogy in a different direction than I had intended, but that's ok and just further illustrates how people approach watch conventions from different angles. Personally I don't see big watches as analogous to oversized suits, but rather to things like shorter jackets, narrower trousers, nipped waists, cooler colors, and other features of a youthful, modern, sporty style. Conversely I view traditional 36-38mm dress watches as being analogous to a conservative tweed/flannel aesthetic. There are numerous problems with this analogy, but that's where I was going.

Anyway, I can see how reasonable minds can differ but I consider watches as being far more comparable to clothes/fashion than cars for many reasons, including that aside from a diminishing group of horology minded collectors, watches are widely seen and consumed as jewelry or fashion accessories rather than machines exemplifying serous and advanced engineering that are also integral to daily living. Frankly, watchmaking is a romantic and quaint craft but much fewer of the world's top minds are focused on solving horological problems than automotive engineering ones. Separately, I don't think you can compare the "legend, mystique, lore, heritage" of the great car companies since all that is generally based on (a) a record of engineering achievements that produced quantifiable and significant performance results, and (b) an almost unanimously recognized record of superior exterior design/aesthetics. The achievements of the great horologists, in comparison, are deeply esoteric at best and trivial at worst, and there is hardly any similar consensus about the separation between their designs and the abilities of newcomers (take this debate for example). Perhaps this is why, with respect to the category of stuff that is "considered the best and owned by people who are successful" I have observed that Patek et al have a far more tenuous footing than any car company, especially among younger people.
Edited by johanm - 1/13/13 at 10:48am
post #16811 of 39109
People who wear watches with Dauphin hands are poseurs.
post #16812 of 39109
Quote:
Originally Posted by johanm View Post


I think you took my analogy in a different direction than I had intended, but that's ok and just further illustrates how people approach watch conventions from different angles. Personally I don't see big watches as analogous to oversized suits, but rather to things like shorter jackets, narrower trousers, nipped waists, cooler colors, and other features of a youthful, modern, sporty style. Conversely I view traditional 36-38mm dress watches as being analogous to a conservative tweed/flannel aesthetic. There are numerous problems with this analogy, but that's where I was going.

Anyway, I can see how reasonable minds can differ but I consider watches as being far more comparable to clothes/fashion than cars for many reasons, including that aside from a diminishing group of horology minded collectors, watches are widely seen and consumed as jewelry or fashion accessories rather than machines exemplifying serous and advanced engineering that are also integral to daily living. Frankly, watchmaking is a romantic and quaint craft but much fewer of the world's top minds are focused on solving horological problems than automotive engineering ones. Separately, I don't think you can compare the "legend, mystique, lore, heritage" of the great car companies since all that is generally based on (a) a record of engineering achievements that produced quantifiable and significant performance results, and (b) an almost unanimously recognized record of superior exterior design/aesthetics. The achievements of the great horologists, in comparison, are deeply esoteric at best and trivial at worst, and there is hardly any similar consensus about the separation between their designs and the abilities of newcomers (take this debate for example). Perhaps this is why, with respect to the category of stuff that is "considered the best and owned by people who are successful" I have observed that Patek et al have a far more tenuous footing than any car company, especially among younger people.

I took your analogy in a different direction because it seemed to negate that no matter how one nips, shortens, or modernizes a suit it still has a size.   People of all sizes and shapes can wear softer shoulders, shorter jackets, and cooler colors and overall it will probably look fine provided they bought a size that fits them.  Perhaps you took my buying the wrong size suit too litterally.  I wasn't advocating it or suggesting its a coming trend, I used it as an example that size relative to a person's build matters.  No matter how fine a brand you buy, if it does look like its your size its not going to look good on you.   As for your suggestions that a traditional 36-38mm dress watch is analogous to a conservative tweed/flannel...seems to forget that 10-15 years ago most companies dress watches were somewhere between 32 and 35mm.  The original Lange 1 at 38.5mm was considered very large when it was first released.  In addition most Calatravas were well under 36mm until around 2001/2002 when they started making a few watches like the 5134 Travel Time in a 37mm case.  So the 36-38mm or larger dress watch is a relatively new phenomena.

 

As for cars, yes an imperfect analogy, however, just as one doesn't buy a Patek because they need to know the time, one doesn't buy a Ferrari because you need to transport groceries home.  Each is purely a luxury.  A Ferrari is hardly considered an example of advanced engineering that is integral to daily living.  Patek isn't priced to be a young persons watch, any more than Ferrari is priced to be a young persons car.  I also don't think Patek's target audience has ever been people in their 20s. I don't know about you but when I was in my 20's and early 30's I had no interest in Patek, and they did just fine without my business.  Now that I'm a bit older some of their designs are more appealing to me.    As for what has created the legend,lore, mystique, be it for a high end watch or a high end sports car company...it may vary, but one thing that does not is that their legendary status has helped make them items that are often purchased not just because of their engineering, but often because of less tangible qualities such as beauty, rarity, and because they are seen as a mark of success or achievement. Brand recognition is a very powerful tool for a company, and Patek has it.  I think it would take some tremendous mistakes for them (or AP & VC) to lose their status as the big three.  They've existed and been known as the big three for about 100 years and I doubt that will change, just because of a younger generation. 


Edited by Dino944 - 1/13/13 at 3:23pm
post #16813 of 39109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Belligero View Post

More often than not, when people buy something expensive that's meant to last, they're not going for trendiness — in many cases, they want what their father or their grandfather had on his wrist. Good design and well-thought-out proportions seem to have an inherent appeal to them that transcends fads and (should) apply to any manufactured good where looks are a factor.

+1.   

I learned a lot about watches from my father.  His beliefs as to what the best brands were/are made a very strong impression on me.  While we differ in taste on certain watch models, we both tend to share a great deal of admiration for the same brands and have had a lot of input on the direction that the other's collection has moved.  Interestingly, he has 2 watches that are larger than any of mine, but both are rather classic in overall design.

post #16814 of 39109
Hmm, good time to drop this one right now I think:

post #16815 of 39109
Quote:
Originally Posted by apropos View Post

Hmm, good time to drop this one right now I think:
I find that there's rarely a bad time for a Reverso. Unfortunately, it's a rarely-worn watch for me, but waterproofness is a big factor for cycling and motorcycling in Norway. Too bad, as they go from denim to near-black-tie very adeptly. The simpler ones like that are simply gorgeous.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › The Watch Appreciation Thread