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

The Watch Appreciation Thread - Page 1150

post #17236 of 35695
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dino944 View Post

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Interesting to read how you and Newcomer started learning about watches.  You guys are both younger, your perceptions are different, but each makes sense based on your experiences.  I'm almost 42, and I have been interested in watches since I was about 10 or 11.  I learned a lot from my Dad who knew the brands Patek (his uncle owned one in the 1950s) and he met someone in the early 1970s that showed him an AP.  VC was a brand he learned about from another doctor in the 1980s who had gone to school in Europe.  Back in those days, the only way to get information about watches was from printed ads or to get catalogs.  The internet didn't exist and it was really tough to get information about watches.  Back then I though each company made its own movements.  Its really only been since the 1990s that those printed Wristwatch Annual Catalogs came out and then there were website like TZ and eventually watch companies created there own sites. 
I think you hit a number of important points regarding why AP is rightfully considered one of "The Big Three."  They have made some very amazing complications, and if I am not mistaken, in the 1980s they were the first company to incorporate a tourbillion into a wristwatch.  They are the originator of the luxury steel watch with the Royal Oak.  Everyone including PP, VC, GP, and IWC to name a few all followed with luxury sport watches once they eventually saw the ROs were selling.  AP also has as you pointed out the distinction of still being owned by a founding family, and Jasmine Audemars is the Chairwoman of the Board of Directors.  Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
I think Patek might be at the top of the big three in my mind, as I do think their finishing and quality is maybe a notch above, VC.  I think PP and AP are really on par in terms of quality from what I've seen, but I think their edge over AP is they dominate in the world of resale and auction prices so for that reason maybe I see them as a step above.  Although, I've alway thought most Pateks while beautiful, with the exception of the Nautilus, were largely for much older men and many of their dress watches were a bit sterile compared to what was offerd by VC and AP.  Just my 2 cents. 
You perspective is a bit too narrowly focused and maybe your experience growing up in the age of rappers and sports stars wearing APs has prevented you from really seeing the brand beyond what it has been in the last 20 years.  As mentioned AP really invented the luxury sport watch with the Royal Oak and others followed.  In addition, AP was really known for dress watches and highly complicated pieces for decades before the RO existed.  In addition, even in the 1980s the RO was a pretty rare sight and was not as prominent a model as it has been during the last 15-20 years.  Also their advertising campaign and who they associated with up until the 1990s, included old aristocracy, old actors (Douglas Fairbanks Jr.), historians (Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.) and others that were hardly the house hold names back in the 1980s, that Lebron James and JayZ are today.  Check out these old watch ads (for fun just to see the pricing of an all gold AP or Rolex).  http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/jewelry-and-watches-ads-1970s   http://www.vintagepaperads.com/1984-Audemars-Piguet-Royal-Oak-Watches-Ad_p_51976.html

AP and Patek are both relatively young compared to VC which was established in 1755.  Until roughly the 1950-1960s, VC was considered the top brand of the big three.  I think some of what caused that to change were the changes in ownership that I believe took place around that time.  VC also went through periods when they were underfunded and had lots of different models but no real cohesive collections. 

Patek is well known, they make roughly twice as many watches as AP or VC.  And although coveted by colletors and auction houses today...years ago dealers sat on huge stocks of them and as recently as 2003/2004 you could easily walk into dealers and get 30%+ off anything other than a 5070.  Heck my Dad bought a brand new Calatrava from an AD back in 1994 or 1995, and just to move it they gave him 40% off the list price.  So these watches were not always these items that people covet in the same way they do today.  Years ago one dealer told me they carry it more as a novelety and occasional sell them, but they make all of their money selling Rolex and Cartier...they could live on those alone, all the other brands were for show.

Vacheron makes beautiful watches.  I have 2 of their dress watches and I adore them.  Although the oldest brand of the three they seem to have been the the least well known of the brands during the last 30-40 years.  In part as mentioned, they have had several owners, sometimes been underfunded, sometimes had collections with no real direction, they were the last of the big three to figure out how to make a sport watch that would be successful and enduring (They started with the 222 in the 70s which I thought was nice looking, then came out with an ugly offshoot the 333, then the uglier Phidias, and finally in the mid 90s they released the 1st generation Overseas).  Overall I like some of their dress watches, but I don't think the quality of their sports watches in terms of finish and reliability have been on the same level as AP or Patek. 

Personally, I don't like the marketing direction that AP has taken.  I think it cheapens the brand and maybe your perception of the brand is proof of that.  However, I suppose their success and need capture the attention and funds of a younger generation, may be proof that being an obscure brand with a slogan "Known only by those who know" will not provide the clients, success, or funds neccessary to carry on with important R&D and to sustain themselves rather than having to be bought out like most companies.

I'm a bit saddened that you really only know the brand as a watch that appeals to rappers and sports stars, as I think you have not seen or been given enough information by AP to know how rich and strong their history of making superb watches is.  However, I can't blame you based on their ad compaigne which I don't like.  I think if you do some serious research into the brand you will see and understand they are deserving of being one of "The Big Three."


+1

I started my watch collection at 7 with a (ladies-sized) Bucherer diver bought in their Zurich boutique. smile.gif

I'd like to echo some of Dino's other comments here about AP; while in latter times they are best known for the Offshore line, their more classically-styled watches and complications are every bit as exquisitely made and finished as the PP, VC or ALS watches out there. One thing I have liked about AP is that they don't skimp on materials or finishes, unlike VC, which is known to use slightly less 'noble' materials at times (e.g. use of a 22k gold rotor in the AP Extra Thins vs VC's use of steel rotors, etc.) - kind of irks me given the higher price point that VC is trying to command!

A few of my personal favourites from among their more classically-inspired watches:

Jules Audemars Chronograph


Jules Audemars Escapement


Jules Audemars Minute Repeater


Edward Piguet Chronograph


Tradition Extra Thin (in rich platinum!)


AP stand out for me compared to the other great houses because of their daring and willingness to innovate (both in terms of design and materials). For example, the fact that AP have watches like the Offshore and Millenary in their collections, whereas PP and VC have tended towards conservatism in their designs. In the past, as Dino has said, they led the pack when it came to launching the luxury steel sports watch, finished to much finer degree than anything that Rolex or Omega could churn out. This evolution has continued with the ROO, imitated but never bettered by newer marques like Hublot, etc. I also like that they experiment with new materials (e.g. forged carbon, ceramic, etc.) that other traditionalist great houses steer away from -- it's a sign of their modernity to me.

While I do agree that the use of celebrity ambassadors and the mass marketing behind the Offshore range does 'cheapen' AP in the eyes of some, I interpret it as their attempt/willingness to engage with a younger, more current and contemporary customer base. They are not remaining snobbish and aloof in the same way that PP, VC and ALS are, but have tried to keep themselves 'young'. Also from a business stand point it clearly makes sense, given that they are a smaller entity than PP and don't have the backing of a large parent company like Richemont. I don't think this means that they have compromised on their heritage by any means; the classically-inspired models quoted above are clear examples that - while their more trad watches many no longer be their bread-and-butter - they still know how to make elegant and stately watches.
Edited by academe - 1/24/13 at 1:41am
post #17237 of 35695
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Quote:
Originally Posted by no frills View Post

Thank you - I posted pics of the 5040J a few days ago, but here's another shot of my little tonneau-shaped beauty roaming Sixth Avenue in NYC: 



Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Here is a not-so-good shot of my 5711, which I brought with me on a recent trip to Disneyworld. Pardon the bad lighting but this was the best shot my crappy camera phone could manage right before the Disney Electrical Parade started at 7pm EST. 




I wanted to get a wrist shot right by the 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea ride, so that at least the 5711 would be right beside Captain Nemo's "Nautilus" - heh heh.  But I didn't realize that I was holding on to memories from a long-gone childhood back in the '80s.  That ride was shut down in the mid-1990s.  Oh well...

Actually, despite the bad photo I kind of like how the amazing blue/green dial of the 5711 catches the little remaining light in the background. It's one of the many things I quite like about this watch.  Like many folks I was repelled by the 5711 the first time I saw it - in 2D, online.  But once I saw it for real, and once it was sitting on my wrist... well, I had to have it.


Re-quoted for greatness. I never tire of seeing your PP tonneau. It's a thing of beauty!
post #17238 of 35695
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThinkDerm View Post

want to see more of your watches posted on here.

thanks

Thanks. For details, just visit the tumblr in my sig.
post #17239 of 35695
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dino944 View Post

Hi B,

Interesting, I've never looked at it and thought about the Cioccolatone.  However, now that you mention it, the layering/stepped effect does remind me of it.  Although, the Carree's design is based on a VC from the 1930s while I believe the Cioccolatone is from around the 1950s. Who knows, maybe the Carree got them to thinking about watch a watch would look like if they rounded and smoothed most of its lines...just kidding...no idea.  Both are beauties IMHO.

My friends call me Dino.  I don't own a Dino, but I have one of its descendants, a 1989 328GTS.

Yes VC has always been known for their extravagant case designs and the Carree and Chocolate are just part of their design heritage, along with the voluptuous teardrop lugs and tonneau watches. It almost makes their current output seem boring!

I see. I have always lusted after a Dino but classic car ownership in Asia is not cheap (more so than elsewhere). The 328 is a very nice prancing horse. Another modern classic Ferrari which I have my eye on is the 355, one of the all time great V8s from that marque.
post #17240 of 35695

So, finally made it thru the thread. Some awesome watches in here. I'll contribute my meager IWC. 

 

 

 

 

 

Next purchase, still a few years away, would be a AP RO white face (15400). Grail watch now is probably AL&S Lange 1 moonphase or Zeitwerk. 

post #17241 of 35695
Quote:
Originally Posted by no frills View Post

 

Thank you - I posted pics of the 5040J a few days ago, but here's another shot of my little tonneau-shaped beauty roaming Sixth Avenue in NYC: 

 

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

 

 

I wanted to get a wrist shot right by the 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea ride, so that at least the 5711 would be right beside Captain Nemo's "Nautilus" - heh heh.  But I didn't realize that I was holding on to memories from a long-gone childhood back in the '80s.  That ride was shut down in the mid-1990s.  Oh well...

 

 

 

 

Actually, despite the bad photo I kind of like how the amazing blue/green dial of the 5711 catches the little remaining light in the background. It's one of the many things I quite like about this watch.  Like many folks I was repelled by the 5711 the first time I saw it - in 2D, online.  But once I saw it for real, and once it was sitting on my wrist... well, I had to have it.

Amazing, simply amazing.

 

Well done sir.

post #17242 of 35695
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lebowski10 View Post


Fellas,

this watch was brought to my attention by the gentlemen on the Watchuseek forums: http://forums.watchuseek.com/f257/review-ball-trainmaster-cleveland-express-cosc-silver-dial-bracelet-1-year-later-506779.html

what are the thoughts on this?  loving the look of it...not quite as dressy as i was picturing...but i feel like it could work?

pretty dial, would like a lot better on a brown strap.
post #17243 of 35695
Quote:
Originally Posted by dddrees View Post

Amazing, simply amazing.

 

Well done sir.

 

Thanks for the kind words.  That's pretty much the extent of my small collection - three Pateks (3940P, 5040J, 5711/1A) and one Rolex (114270, Explorer I).  The madness of collecting came over me about two months ago and that's when I went through my purchases and trades (used to have two Calatravas in the stable too), but this current set gave me a measure of peace.  I still look at what's out there (and for some strange reason, my AD and grey market dealers send me offers every week), but I don't feel that compelling urge to get another piece or trade in one I currently have.  I am not sure how long this will last, though haha.

 

If there's any theme to what I'm currently looking at (but not immediately getting), it's a chronograph.  I'm thinking of getting either a Rolex Daytona (I'm attracted to either the 16520 with a white dial / Zenith movement or the updated 116520 version with an in-house movement) or an Omega Speedmaster Pro (if I go this route I'd like a transparent caseback so I guess that would be the 3573.5 or the like).  I like the history, workmanship and aesthetics of these two.  


Of course there is also the appeal of a Patek perpetual calendar chronograph like the 3970 or the 5970, but these are six-figure watches (pre-owned or not) and that price point does make me pause. :)

 

Any thoughts from you guys re: Rolex Daytona 16520 or 116520 versus the Omega Speedy Pro with a display back?  Inputs always appreciated.

post #17244 of 35695
Dino and academe, excellent posts, i really enjoyed reading them.

i was very glad to see that my love for AP is shared, and you guys were able to really explain more than i did what is so great about the AP marque. as well, it was cool that 2 of the watches that academe posted, were ones i chose to highlight as well on my earlier post.

also, you both reminded me, that when i said i first got into watches at 20, i really meant high end watches. my love for watches started probably around 9 or 10 with my calculator watch, then i got a few nicer dress watches for my bar mitzvah, followed by my first "fancy" watch, an esq when i was 15. from there i started learning about jlc and iwc and so i continued deeper down the rabbit hole.

as well, dino, you reminded me about all the watch catalogues i ordered, i cant believe i forgot that. that was one of the biggest learning instruments i had. i went and found the phone number to every watch company i could think of and called to ask for a catalogue. i still have them, well over 100. i learned a tremendous amount reading through them (many of them really are books, not catalogues. funny though that rolex and patek have the skimpiest ones ime). between the pictures of all the models, the watch write ups, and the history write ups as well, i probably took the biggest chunk of my watch learning from those catalogues.

in short, i love watches.
post #17245 of 35695
Quote:
Originally Posted by no frills View Post

 

...(if I go this route I'd like a transparent caseback so I guess that would be the 3573.5 or the like).  I like the history, workmanship and aesthetics of these two.  

 

 

Personally, I prefer the 3572--you have a hesalite front and a sapphire caseback. More important for me though is the fact the wording on the back states "first watch worn on the moon," whereas the 3573 states, "the first and only watch worn on the moon."

 

This discrepancy was curious to me so I did a little investigation

 

For those who do not wish to click, here's the relevant info:

 

Quote:

From Apollo XV, astronaut David Scott:

(Source NASA's Apollo 15 Lunar Surface Journal, Specifically EVA-2 Prep page...)
[Quick find hint: do a find on "142:14:22" within the EVA-2 Prep Page]
142:14:22 Scott: "Verify cabin at 3.5." Okay, cabin's at 3.5. Suit circuit's locked up at about 4.4. My PGA is coming through 5 and decaying. And let's slip on a watch.
[Dave may have had his watch hanging from the instrument panel and, in any event, he is now putting it on and is probably starting the stopwatch function.]
[Scott, from a 1996 letter - "I do not recall ever having looked at my watch after egress. In the cabin after EVA-2, I noticed that the crystal of my Omega had popped off sometime during the EVA. Therefore, on EVA-3, I used my backup Waltham watch (which was) of a similar type. It worked just fine during the even higher temperatures of EVA-3.]".
 
 
Hence, We can clearly shoot down the notion that the Omega Speedmaster was the only watch worn on the moon. We have direct testimony on NASA's site from a "Moonwalker" that he wore a Waltham on the moon.

 

This was of critical importance to me. I understand Omega relies heavily on their NASA heritage and thats OK, but cmon theres no need to make stuff up.  If I couldn't locate a 3572, I would have purchased the solid caseback version.

 

As for daytonas, not particularly my cup of tea so I don't know much about them. Dino can probably fill you in smile.gif

 

..but for bang for buck factor my vote is w the speedyicon_gu_b_slayer[1].gif


Edited by Cylon - 1/24/13 at 6:49am
post #17246 of 35695
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cylon View Post

 

Personally, I prefer the 3572--you have a hesalite front and a sapphire caseback. More critical for me though is the fact the wording on the back states "first watch worn on the moon," whereas the 3573 states, "the first and only watch worn on the moon."

 

This discrepancy was curious to me so I did a little investigation

 

For those who do not wish to click, here's the relevant info:

 

Quote:

 

This was of critical importance to me. I understand Omega relies heavily on their NASA heritage and thats OK, but cmon theres no need to make stuff up.  If I couldn't locate a 3572, I would have purchased the solid caseback version.

 

As for daytonas, not particularly my cup of tea so I don't know much about them. Dino can probably fill you in smile.gif

 

..but for bang for buck factor my vote is w the speedyicon_gu_b_slayer%5B1%5D.gif

 

Thanks for this pretty critical input: I'm a big Patek fan but I don't think I'm a crazed "only Patek for me" devotee.  But a big  part of what attracted me to the Speedy Pro is its history, and if the 3573.5 shows a bit of exaggeration then that's a no-no for me.  

 

Any idea about the durability of the hesalite front versus sapphire crystal re: scratches and nicks?  Or does it not matter much?

 

The 3592.5 also has a caseback - and looks historically accurate. :)

post #17247 of 35695

It took me a long time to decide on hesalite v sapphire. If you google it, there are many discussions on many forums about the subject.

 

You can look on it on multiple levels:

 

1. historically accurate--not just for the caseback but the front as well!  NASA used hesalite because it wouldn't shatter. Glass shards and sensitive electronics do not make for a smooth ride.

 

2. you get a slight distortion around the edges of the hesalite when looking at the dial. Again not for everyone, but I must admit its charming.

 

3. milky ring--the sapphire glass has a milky white ring around the edge which I did not like so much (and no distortion).

 

4. scuffs on hesalite--thats true but polywatch will fix it. Also hesalite is much cheaper to replace so even if it bothers you itll cost much less. And frankly it looks cool in its own way.

 

I think if I were you i'd say this: you already have plenty of beautiful pristine dress watches. It's time to get a lil down and dirty with a hesalite speedy tool watch

post #17248 of 35695
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cylon View Post

It took me a long time to decide on hesalite v sapphire. If you google it, there are many discussions on many forums about the subject.

 

You can look on it on multiple levels:

 

1. historically accurate--not just for the caseback but the front as well!  NASA used hesalite because it wouldn't shatter. Glass shards and sensitive electronics do not make for a smooth ride.

 

2. you get a slight distortion around the edges of the hesalite when looking at the dial. Again not for everyone, but I must admit its charming.

 

3. milky ring--the sapphire glass has a milky white ring around the edge which I did not like so much (and no distortion).

 

4. scuffs on hesalite--thats true but polywatch will fix it. Also hesalite is much cheaper to replace so even if it bothers you itll cost much less. And frankly it looks cool in its own way.

 

I think if I were you i'd say this: you already have plenty of beautiful pristine dress watches. It's time to get a lil down and dirty with a hesalite speedy tool watch

 

You make a rather compelling argument.  Let's see what I can do about finding a 3572.5.

post #17249 of 35695

Apologies for completely forgetting about the 3592 point

 

the diff is:

 

3592 uses the 863 caliber and is in yellow gilt

 

3572 uses 1863 caliber and is rhodium plated
 

post #17250 of 35695
Quote:
Originally Posted by no frills View Post

 

Thanks for sharing these old watch ads. I especially loved the historical context provided - GM was basically its own nation in the early 1970s! 

Glad you enjoyed them.  I think its fun to see how brands marketed their products, how they viewed us as consumers, and to see vintage styles and prices.

 

Your 5711 is very handsome...to bad you couldn't take its photo next to Capt. Nemo's Nautiuls.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › The Watch Appreciation Thread