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

The Watch Appreciation Thread - Page 1217

post #18241 of 34989
Quote:
Originally Posted by johanm View Post


Thanks for elaborating on your views on movements Dino. On the question of quartz, a results-oriented view on movements doesn't require one to prefer quartz watches. Just because one doesn't place much value on the artisanal craftsmanship aspect of watchmaking doesn't mean he can't appreciate the solution of interesting problems within clearly defined parameters that is the basis of the mechanical watchmaking enterprise.

Personally I aspire to a pragmatic and results-oriented (forward-thinking?) approach to both clothes tailoring and watch movements, so tend to be less impressed by endeavors to complicate either for the sake of exclusivity or symbolizing labor/effort, neither of which have much value to me. That's not to discount the value of aesthetics and ornamentation - I of course recognize that a certain amount of pleasure can come when one looks at the display back of his watch from time to time. Likewise I'm not advocating a formulaic calculation for evaluating watches (x, y, z potential points for movement, dial, case, etc.) - clearly our favorite watches are the ones that appeal intuitively.

 

I guess if one has as you've described a results oriented view of a movement, what is wrong with a quartz movement?  Its simple, more accurate, often less expensive, and more technologically advanced than mechanical movements which have been around for hundreds of years. 

 

You previously suggested the reason people get so interested in watch movements is to inject intellectualism into the subject.  At least for me its due to an appreciation of workmanship, exclusivity, and maybe history.   However if one is mostly focused on end results, is it accurate and reliable ...then why would one consider any of the higher end brands?  Simply for design?   A Rolex, Omega, Breitling, or IWC will give you the time, are accurate, reliable and should satisfy one's appreciation of solving the problem of how to tell time.  Much of how Patek, VC, AP and Lange are marketed and sold is based on quality, workmanship, tradition, history, and exclusivity (and thats often just when talking about their movements...not the overall brand).  If you take those away (from the movement or the brand) are you merely left with the overall appearance as the criteria of what to buy? 

 

The appreciation of solving a problem within parameters as a way of choosing a watch sounds rather robotic.  However, if one considers why one appreciates that, isn't it because at some point someone used labor/effor/intelligence to devise a way to tell time with a mechanical device...so does that not then go back toward some appreciation of history and a romantic notion of skilled craftsman figuring out how to make a clock or watch run?

 

Your end results purchasing idea is interesting, but without any interest in the finish, history/tradition, exclusivity, etc., which are factors that play on our emotions, it does make me wonder why one would buy a high end watch when an average watch (be it mechanical or quartz) can essentially do the same job.

post #18242 of 34989
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dino944 View Post

I guess if one has as you've described a results oriented view of a movement, what is wrong with a quartz movement?  Its simple, more accurate, often less expensive, and more technologically advanced than mechanical movements which have been around for hundreds of years. 

You previously suggested the reason people get so interested in watch movements is to inject intellectualism into the subject.  At least for me its due to an appreciation of workmanship, exclusivity, and maybe history.   However if one is mostly focused on end results, is it accurate and reliable ...then why would one consider any of the higher end brands?  Simply for design?   A Rolex, Omega, Breitling, or IWC will give you the time, are accurate, reliable and should satisfy one's appreciation of solving the problem of how to tell time.  Much of how Patek, VC, AP and Lange are marketed and sold is based on quality, workmanship, tradition, history, and exclusivity (and thats often just when talking about their movements...not the overall brand).  If you take those away (from the movement or the brand) are you merely left with the overall appearance as the criteria of what to buy? 

The appreciation of solving a problem within parameters as a way of choosing a watch sounds rather robotic.  However, if one considers why one appreciates that, isn't it because at some point someone used labor/effor/intelligence to devise a way to tell time with a mechanical device...so does that not then go back toward some appreciation of history and a romantic notion of skilled craftsman figuring out how to make a clock or watch run?

Your end results purchasing idea is interesting, but without any interest in the finish, history/tradition, exclusivity, etc., which are factors that play on our emotions, it does make me wonder why one would buy a high end watch when an average watch (be it mechanical or quartz) can essentially do the same job.

Dino - I do view watches primarily as design objects (not art) and would identify design as the feature that most stimulates my interest and "emotion" with respect to watches, with "design" encompassing dial/case aesthetics, functions, accuracy, reliability, and possibly the exterior aesthetics of the movement if the watch has a display back. Why buy a "higher end brand"? The main reason would be superior design. Take the 3970 posted above - beautiful dial/case and a compact perpetual calendar/chrono movement that represents great technical achievement. If Seiko put out a Grand Seiko perp calendar chrono with a similarly beautiful dial/case, I could very well prefer it to the Patek, and I wouldn't be influenced by branding, history, tradition, joining a "club", exclusivity, artisanal blood/sweat/tears, etc. Don't believe that prioritizing design/aesthetics over that stuff makes this approach more robotic or less emotional.

Going back to quartz, I just don't find the problem of building an accurate/reliable/beautiful quartz watch to be as interesting as building a mechanical watch with the same characteristics. Would love to have an Ikepod hourglass on my desk, however, and would be interested in any other examples of creatively designed modern hourglasses.
post #18243 of 34989
+1 Johanm.
post #18244 of 34989
Most modern watches are about jewellery not craftsmanship. Most incorporate mass produced movements.

The last true horological craftsman died a few years back. The last of his kind.
post #18245 of 34989
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lovelace View Post

Most modern watches are about jewellery not craftsmanship. Most incorporate mass produced movements.

The last true horological craftsman died a few years back. The last of his kind.

Tell us more please.

 

So what year did this take place exactly?

 

The day horological craftmanship died that is.

post #18246 of 34989
Quote:
Originally Posted by dddrees View Post

So what year did this take place exactly?

The day horological craftmanship died that is.

You mean you don't know?

A connoisseur of the horologists art would know immediately of who I speak.
post #18247 of 34989
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lovelace View Post


You mean you don't know?

A connoisseur of the horologists art would know immediately of who I speak.

Who me?

 

No, I'm just a simple newby.

 

 

But please, do feel free to expound a bit, and share your vast knowledge and wisdom.

post #18248 of 34989
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lovelace View Post

You mean you don't know?

A connoisseur of the horologists art would know immediately of who I speak.

I think he is just calling bullshit.
post #18249 of 34989
Quote:
Originally Posted by dddrees View Post

Who me?

No, I'm just a simple newby.


But please, do feel free to expound a bit, and share your vast knowledge and wisdom.

His name was Dr George Daniels. Died in 2010,

He invented the coaxial escapement used by Omega.

It was said just before his death, that he was the only living horologist able to build a watch completely by hand. That is, make every component and assemble it by his own hand.

Here:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/father-time-why-george-daniels-is-the-worldrsquos-best-horologist-2067792.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/24/fashion/24iht-acaw2-daniels24.html?_r=0
post #18250 of 34989
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cant kill da Rooster View Post

I think he is just calling bullshit.

You thought wrong.
post #18251 of 34989
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lovelace View Post


His name was Dr George Daniels. Died in 2010,

He invented the coaxial escapement used by Omega.

It was said just before his death, that he was the only living horologist able to build a watch completely by hand. That is, make every component and assemble it by his own hand.

Here:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/father-time-why-george-daniels-is-the-worldrsquos-best-horologist-2067792.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/24/fashion/24iht-acaw2-daniels24.html?_r=0

As great as he may have been, the art existed long before he was born, and it will continue to prosper long after his passing.

post #18252 of 34989
Hmm - do you mean JLC as a whole is inherently better than IWC?

Or do you mean ANY JLC watch is automatically better than ANY IWC watch? If the latter then I would disagree with this type of blanket statement. Ex: a JLC MC is not automatically better than an IWC Perpetual, just because it's a JLC, and a Patek Calatrava is not better than a JLC Duometre simple because it's a Patek..

Sorry in advance if I'm misinterpreting your statement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by apropos View Post



Thus within the limitations of what defines a mechanical watch (and so separates a good mechanical watch from a poor one... which BTW includes care/effort in making) I am absolutely comfortable in saying that objectively my JLC is better than your Tag Heuer or IWC but worse than your patek.

By all means buy what you like regardless of its "merit", I certainly still do. Like I said before it's an emotional hobby. But I still think it's always useful to have at the back of your mind a sort of objective scale to temper your impulses, lest today's infatuation becomes tomorrow's flip! smile.gif
post #18253 of 34989
Quote:
Originally Posted by dddrees View Post

As great as he may have been, the art existed long before he was born, and it will continue to prosper long after his passing.

As I said. The last of his kind.

I very much doubt that we will see skill of that level again. This thread confirms that, sadly.
post #18254 of 34989
Quote:
Originally Posted by no frills View Post

So a red box arrived today.  Guess what was inside?

 

 

Love it from the back, the exhibition back that is.  Amazing.

post #18255 of 34989
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lovelace View Post

His name was Dr George Daniels. Died in 2010,

He invented the coaxial escapement used by Omega.

It was said just before his death, that he was the only living horologist able to build a watch completely by hand. That is, make every component and assemble it by his own hand.

Here:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/father-time-why-george-daniels-is-the-worldrsquos-best-horologist-2067792.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/24/fashion/24iht-acaw2-daniels24.html?_r=0

Eh, 2 newspaper articles hardly qualifies as authoritative fact re the death knell of horology. Sure, there may be no more George Daniels, but I'm sure someone will come along in a bit and fill his place.

It's not as if in the huge gap between breguet and daniels the world of horology died or anything even approximating that.

Ever heard of Roger Smith?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › The Watch Appreciation Thread