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

The Watch Appreciation Thread - Page 1151

post #17251 of 36784
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newcomer View Post

Talking about AP, PP, and VC, and their respective reputations has kind of got me thinking recently. As a relative newcomer to horology, it is interesting to read the perspective of others in regards to the 'trinity.' As a younger guy (at least in regards to most on this thread), I feel like I have a very different perspective of the trinity than most. I think that out of the three, I definitely view PP to be in a league of its own (I am excluding AL&S). PP is definitely what I have always perceived as the tip-top of the tier. Somewhere below them I view VC. I actually never heard of VC until I became more interested in watches. Even now, I view them as a slight step down from PP, but in the same realm.

What I find kind of funny is how people tend to lump AP in with PP and VC (and AL&S). At least from my perspective, I generally associate AP with rappers, nouveau riche, etc. In a lot of ways, like a more expensive Hublot or possible IWC. Now, that is not to say that I necessarily think that. There are a lot of AP pieces that I would LOVE to own. I just typically do not think of them as being part of that top tier anymore. They do not market like PP or VC, they have much more 'mainstream' styles, they use celebrities. When I think of AP, I automatically think of the ROO, and various special editions.

I guess I just find it interesting, because for me, AP just does not hold the same cachet as I think it does for other generations.


Yes AP makes a lot of sort of blingy LE watches but if you see one up close, the quality is immediately evident. They make nearly all their movements in-house now and their haute horology department is among the best. It would be a mistake not to rate them at a level with PP and VC.

post #17252 of 36784
Quote:
Originally Posted by no frills View Post

 

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.


There are many great chronographs on the market. Uses Daytona's can be pricey beyond their value as a watch but will maintain their resale value. Speedy Pro's are fine and classic pieces but IMO nothing special.

 

If I were you I'd look for an actual Zenith with the El Primero movement. Rolex slowed the movement from 36,000 VPH to 28,800 VPH for some reason, possibly to meet some reliability standard but the El Primero is known to be extremely reliable at it's designed speed. It also makes the movement more interesting. I own a Class Sport El Primero hand wind and it's a great watch. Let me offer 3 other choices, all with the wonderful FP 1185 integrated chronograph movement. One is a Blancpain Leman Flyback, either in the older 38mm case of the more recent 40mm case with large date, the VC Overseas Chronograph like the one shown a few posts above or the AP Royal Oak chronograph which is a spectacular watch. I am not referring to the Offshore chronograph by the way which uses a chronograph module on top of an AP movement.

post #17253 of 36784
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cylon View Post

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:

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

Pity that Waltham has never really been able to capitalise on this bit of trivia...Funny to think that they don't even appear on many WIS radars. I had to look them up to find out more!
post #17254 of 36784
Quote:
Originally Posted by no frills View Post

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. smile.gif

Any thoughts from you guys re: Rolex Daytona 16520 or 116520 versus the Omega Speedy Pro with a display back?  Inputs always appreciated.
where/who do you buy from?
post #17255 of 36784

I dunno about yall but I buy from a guy on the corner with a trenchcoat full of great watches
 

post #17256 of 36784
Quote:
Originally Posted by academe View Post


[/SPOILER]

+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!

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.

+1

 

VC makes some great dress watches, but but at this point I think both Patek and AP offer slightly higher quality in finishing and materials. 

 

Overall I think each of the "Big Three" have a strong history for producing watches superb watches and for being creative.  Each seems to appeal to a different type of watch afficionado, although there are pieces from each that one can't help but love even if one is a dedicated VC fan, PP fan, or AP fan.  

 

As for brand ambassodors I think they have little meaning, at least to me.  Afterall, they are bought an paid for.  Its not the same as a celebrity buying a watch using his own money because he really likes it or it meets his needs...at least then it might have some meaning...although I'm not someone that would be motivated to buy a watch, a car or anthying else just because a famous person has one. 

post #17257 of 36784
Quote:
Originally Posted by no frills View Post

 

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.

In regards to the Daytona, the price for a Zenith can run about the same amount as a new one. I think most would agree the in house movement is technichally better. However I think most who chose the Zenith version tend to  believe the dial on this version is more aesthetically pleasing. The seconds sub dial is in a different location and the sub dials on the white face are black instead of silver. The bracelet on the latest version includes the improved clasp and solid end links. I chose the latest version, and have not looked back once.The while dial tends to be easier to read than the black dial version.

 

I also have a Speedy Pro with a exhibition case back. I often look at the movement of this watch. It simply looks amazing. The Speedy Pro is quite a bit easier to read than the Daytona, and this is due to the contrast of colors on the dial.


Edited by dddrees - 1/24/13 at 9:13am
post #17258 of 36784
Quote:
Originally Posted by in stitches View Post

Dino and academe, excellent posts, i really enjoyed reading them.

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. 

Glad you enjoyed my post on AP.

 

My first good watch was an Omega Seamaster in the 1980s...it was a gift and I was about 12.  When I was around 13, I seemed to eat, sleep and dream Rolex.  So I convinced my parents to let me cash some bonds from my Bar Mitzvah and I bought an all steel GMT Master with black bezel.  I would wear it out to dinner with my parents or at home on the weekend.  I didn't start wearing it until I was a junior in high school.  Even when I was in school and didn't have money to spend on watches I was still looking at them and collecting catalogs.

 

I still have many of my old catalogs, and when I was growing up my walls didn't just have car posters on the walls,they had watch advertisements.  I would check my parents New York Times Sunday Paper and NYT Magazine for watch advertisements cut them out and put them on my walls.  I had ads on my walls from AP, Rolex, Corum, Concord, VC, Patek, Piaget etc.  Now I have a bonus room above the garage for my watch reference matterials and I still enjoy going through them when I have some spare time.

post #17259 of 36784

dear god thats hardcore
 

my first watch was a transformers watch. I lost it while playing with it on the toilet bowl. It fell in and i couldnt bring myself to fish it out.

 

Then i got a mickey mouse watch for my kindergarten graduation. It was mickey on a motorcycle. youd rotate the bezel to reveal the digital time.

 

then i had a long hiatus--dunno why.

 

in HS and college I had a citizen eco drive solar powered watch. It was cool. Id love to be able to find it. I stopped wearing it thinking I was being too flashy with it and my oakley sunglasses.

 

Then i got the MUT moon for my wedding

 

and the speedy pro for my first kid

 

I have no idea where to head next, and I think I am craving some sort of direction

post #17260 of 36784
Quote:
Originally Posted by no frills View Post

 

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.  

 

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

The Daytona and the Speedy Pro are both excellent choices, and any of them should provide you with many years of good service and enjoyment.  I have owned a few Daytonas both the 16520s with Zenith based movement and the 116520 with in house movement.  Each is a great watch, they just depend on your needs and what you want.  See my comments below.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dddrees View Post

In regards to the Daytona, the price for a Zenith can run about the same amount as a new one. I think most would agree the in house movement is technichally better. However I think most who chose the Zenith version tend to  believe the dial on this version is more aesthetically pleasing. The seconds sub dial is in a different location and the sub dials on the white face are black instead of silver. The bracelet on the latest version includes the improved clasp and solid end links. I chose the latest version, and have not looked back once.The while dial tends to be easier to read than the black dial version.

 

I also have a Speedy Pro with a exhibition case back. I often look at the movement of this watch. It simply looks amazing. The Speedy Pro is quite a bit easier to read than the Daytona, and this is due to the contrast of colors on the dial.

I've owned a few 16520 Zenith based Daytonas and inhouse movment 116520 Daytonas.  Each has its strong points and both are great watches.  I think which is better just depends on a persons taste and use.

 

 

The 116520 (inhouse movement)has a longer power reserve, better bracelet, and better clasp.  If you are just going to bang around it in as a casual watch, it will certainly do the trick.  If you are considering pre-owned there are 2 versions, the early models about year 2000-2004, which I find the least attractive.  They had made the luminous markers on the dial wider for better viewing in low light conditions, but they kept the same hands from the prior Daytona model.  That is the thin hand model, I find the hands and markers on the dial a bit missmatched on that version.  Then from about late 2004 or early 2005 they changed the hands to and made them thicker and I find they look better suited for newer dial with larger hour markers...this is often referred to as the fat hand model.  Other differnces between these and the prior model (beyond the movement) are all subdials were shifted upward slightly on the dial and the continuous seconds hand is in the subdial at 6 o'clock.  I will say my first which was an early thin hand purchased new, did give me some problems with the chronograph, and it did have to go back under warranty to be repaired.  I hadn't worn it in 6 months and when I went to used it when I would engage the chronograph mechanism, the large sweep hand would go around once and the minute counter hand would move in increments of 5 to 10 minutes.  I sold this one and bought a fat hands version and had no problems, also never had a problem with any of my Zenith based versions.

 

The 16520 (Zenith based movement), is a more collectible watch (production numbers I believe were much lower, due to Rolex relying on an outside company for the base movement, and there are several variations).  The earliest models had bezels calibrated only to 200 and the word Cosmograph is separated from the Superlative Chronometer writing.  These are among the rarest.  I believe these also did not have the oyster lock clasp, and the bracelets were complete brushed.  There are other variations that come along like the "Patrizzi" dialed Daytonas where the white subdials turned brown with a lot of exposure to sunlight due to a defect in the dial...these are very expensive and sought after by collectors.  Then there is the orientation of the 6, 9 and shape of numbers in the subdials.  All of these had old style Clamshell bracelets except for the last serial numerbs that start with I believe an "A," which got solid end links.  Also, around 1992/93 the clasp became an oyster lock (safety latch clasp).  Thats just the "Cliff's Notes" version of variations and why some people collect these and values have gone up roughly 2-3 times the original MSRP in some cases.   I wore a 16520 everyday for 5 years, and it was dead on accurate and took whatever punishment I could dish out.  Personally, I think they are the better looking of the 2 "modern Daytonas."  I think the smaller lum markings on dial and thin hands look better than that of the 116520, and I like that the subdials are symetrically placed on the dial rather than shifted upward, and I like the subdial colors black and white, more than silver...but those are just personal taste.  The movment in the Zenith based Daytonas had several changes, the largest being a reduction in beats per hour from 36,600 to 28,800 for better reliability and servicability.  There are a bunch of other changes that were made that really make the movement probably the most labor intensive movement in terms of hand workmanship that has come out of Rolex in the last 20 years or that will come out in the future.  If someone wants to know those changes let me know, I have a list at home....otherwise no need to get into that right now.  Overall, the white dial of either version is easier to read(I've owned both colors), but for some reason I've always favored the black dial.   If someone likes the hunt of searching for a watch, then searching for really rare versions it will provide a project as it will probably take some time as many collectors have already snapped them up.

 

In the end both Daytonas are great.  I've enjoyed each them. 

post #17261 of 36784
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dino944 View Post

The Daytona and the Speedy Pro are both excellent choices, and any of them should provide you with many years of good service and enjoyment.  I have owned a few Daytonas both the 16520s with Zenith based movement and the 116520 with in house movement.  Each is a great watch, they just depend on your needs and what you want.  See my comments below.

I've owned a few 16520 Zenith based Daytonas and inhouse movment 116520 Daytonas.  Each has its strong points and both are great watches.  I think which is better just depends on a persons taste and use.

 

 

The 116520 (inhouse movement)has a longer power reserve, better bracelet, and better clasp.  If you are just going to bang around it in as a casual watch, it will certainly do the trick.  If you are considering pre-owned there are 2 versions, the early models about year 2000-2004, which I find the least attractive.  They had made the luminous markers on the dial wider for better viewing in low light conditions, but they kept the same hands from the prior Daytona model.  That is the thin hand model, I find the hands and markers on the dial a bit missmatched on that version.  Then from about late 2004 or early 2005 they changed the hands to and made them thicker and I find they look better suited for newer dial with larger hour markers...this is often referred to as the fat hand model.  Other differnces between these and the prior model (beyond the movement) are all subdials were shifted upward slightly on the dial and the continuous seconds hand is in the subdial at 6 o'clock.  I will say my first which was an early thin hand purchased new, did give me some problems with the chronograph, and it did have to go back under warranty to be repaired.  I hadn't worn it in 6 months and when I went to used it when I would engage the chronograph mechanism, the large sweep hand would go around once and the minute counter hand would move in increments of 5 to 10 minutes.  I sold this one and bought a fat hands version and had no problems, also never had a problem with any of my Zenith based versions.

 

The 16520 (Zenith based movement), is a more collectible watch (production numbers I believe were much lower, due to Rolex relying on an outside company for the base movement, and there are several variations).  The earliest models had bezels calibrated only to 200 and the word Cosmograph is separated from the Superlative Chronometer writing.  These are among the rarest.  I believe these also did not have the oyster lock clasp, and the bracelets were complete brushed.  There are other variations that come along like the "Patrizzi" dialed Daytonas where the white subdials turned brown with a lot of exposure to sunlight due to a defect in the dial...these are very expensive and sought after by collectors.  Then there is the orientation of the 6, 9 and shape of numbers in the subdials.  All of these had old style Clamshell bracelets except for the last serial numerbs that start with I believe an "A," which got solid end links.  Also, around 1992/93 the clasp became an oyster lock (safety latch clasp).  Thats just the "Cliff's Notes" version of variations and why some people collect these and values have gone up roughly 2-3 times the original MSRP in some cases.   I wore a 16520 everyday for 5 years, and it was dead on accurate and took whatever punishment I could dish out.  Personally, I think they are the better looking of the 2 "modern Daytonas."  I think the smaller lum markings on dial and thin hands look better than that of the 116520, and I like that the subdials are symetrically placed on the dial rather than shifted upward, and I like the subdial colors black and white, more than silver...but those are just personal taste.  The movment in the Zenith based Daytonas had several changes, the largest being a reduction in beats per hour from 36,600 to 28,800 for better reliability and servicability.  There are a bunch of other changes that were made that really make the movement probably the most labor intensive movement in terms of hand workmanship that has come out of Rolex in the last 20 years or that will come out in the future.  If someone wants to know those changes let me know, I have a list at home....otherwise no need to get into that right now.  Overall, the white dial of either version is easier to read(I've owned both colors), but for some reason I've always favored the black dial.   If someone likes the hunt of searching for a watch, then searching for really rare versions it will provide a project as it will probably take some time as many collectors have already snapped them up.

 

In the end both Daytonas are great.  I've enjoyed each them. 

 

Very detailed and informative post, as always.  I'll let you guys know which way I eventually go.  This feels like a longer term purchase... if this was like some of my recent purchases and trades, the deal would be done by now.  But for some reason I can wait.  What is this?  I seem to have developed patience and a capacity for delaying gratification, haha!

post #17262 of 36784
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dino944 View Post

Glad you enjoyed my post on AP.
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
My first good watch was an Omega Seamaster in the 1980s...it was a gift and I was about 12.  When I was around 13, I seemed to eat, sleep and dream Rolex.  So I convinced my parents to let me cash some bonds from my Bar Mitzvah and I bought an all steel GMT Master with black bezel.  I would wear it out to dinner with my parents or at home on the weekend.  I didn't start wearing it until I was a junior in high school.  Even when I was in school and didn't have money to spend on watches I was still looking at them and collecting catalogs.

I still have many of my old catalogs, and when I was growing up my walls didn't just have car posters on the walls,they had watch advertisements.  I would check my parents New York Times Sunday Paper and NYT Magazine for watch advertisements cut them out and put them on my walls.  I had ads on my walls from AP, Rolex, Corum, Concord, VC, Patek, Piaget etc.  
Now I have a bonus room above the garage for my watch reference matterials and I still enjoy going through them when I have some spare time.

awesome! we are kindred spirits of sorts.
post #17263 of 36784
Quote:
Originally Posted by in stitches View Post


awesome! we are kindred spirits of sorts.

Definitely!  Maybe brothers separated at birth (and by about a dozen years).  cheers.gif

post #17264 of 36784
I've been a regular lurker in this thread for quite a while and I must say the knowledge presented in many people's posts is astounding and so incredibly interesting. This is by far my most frequented thread on SF.

I do have a question for those more knowledgeable on the subject though; I'm aware VC, AP and PP are regarded as the 'Big Three', however having seen ALS' watches I'm curious why it isn't included in this grouping of prestige watch companies. Is ALS regarded as higher or lower on the totem pole than the Big Three? And on the same note, I notice that Breguet is rarely discussed in this thread. Where do they stand among these four other watch companies?
post #17265 of 36784
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dino944 View Post

Definitely!  Maybe brothers separated at birth (and by about a dozen years).  cheers.gif

laugh.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by plot View Post

I've been a regular lurker in this thread for quite a while and I must say the knowledge presented in many people's posts is astounding and so incredibly interesting. This is by far my most frequented thread on SF.

I do have a question for those more knowledgeable on the subject though; I'm aware VC, AP and PP are regarded as the 'Big Three', however having seen ALS' watches I'm curious why it isn't included in this grouping of prestige watch companies. Is ALS regarded as higher or lower on the totem pole than the Big Three? And on the same note, I notice that Breguet is rarely discussed in this thread. Where do they stand among these four other watch companies?

glad you enjoy the thread! its awesome isnt it!!!

ALS is really right up there. iirc as a german company, they were shut down during the second world war and remained so for a while. it was not til many years lather that the brand was revived. i think the term "big 3" is not centuries old, maybe mid last century or so? and i imagine that when it was coined, ALS was not what we know it to be. but i think they are right up there.

brequet, also, were only recently revived by nicholas hayek sr (rip) and and the swatch group. i am not sure id put them in that class though. not sure why either, but they strike me as just slightly below. but i am sure that is arguable. as to why we dont see them so often here. idk. they make some truly fantastic models, and if i had the coin, i would have a few.

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