The Watch Appreciation Thread - Page 1218

 

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

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?

Yes, he was Daniels pupil.

Have you even read the articles I posted because if you have, I suggest you reread the NY Times one again. This time more carefully.

At least compare apples to apples. Is the master Control perpetual calendar better than the Portuguese perpetual calender, well I think so.

Damn, ninja edit didn't come in time.

So, before daniels and after breguet, what state was horology in?

Wait, no, surely not the exact same state it finds itself in now? Chicken little, is the sky falling?

You didn't read the articles I linked to did you?

You just decided to mouth off didn't you?

Proving to all and sundry that you haven't got a clue what you are talking about.

While I understand your functional/design preference...I find it interesting that you use the 3970 as an example of what would meet your criteria in evaluating a watch.  Its a fantastic watch, but I think it more likely fullfills criteria that I've discussed (beautifully finished movement, quality, history, tradition, and exclusivity) .  There is no proof that a 3970 is any more accurate or reliable than any other Patek, or other brand for that matter...so I can't imagine those factors actually matter or could easily be evaluated in this watch.  As for the great technical achievement, is a great achievement but one that has existed for decades (be it from Patek, AP, VC etc).  Its design and size are rather traditional (its predecessor looks nearly identical and was made several decades ago), its the recent trend in big watches that has caused manufacturers to "Supersize everything."  I agree looks or a design can cause an emotional experience.  I guess I would have thought a much more modern, cutting edge watch rather than something quite traditional would be what meets or exceeds most of your requirements (maybe with the exception of appearance).

 

As for you choosing a Grand Seiko if they offered one with the same beautiful case and dial (particularly if it were the same price as a Patek), I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.  However, while Grand Seikos are great watches and lots of people say they would buy one over some other more recognized luxury brand, very few people "Put their money where their mouth is" and actually do that.  As for you not being swayed at least slightly by Patek's branding, history, tradition, joining a "club", exclusivity, artisanal blood/sweat/tears, etc...if thats true your will power is stronger than most mere mortals. 

 

I certainly wasn't saying you have to like or be interested in a quartz...simply according to the factors you stressed, a quartz watch could meet or exceed your requirements.

I read them, and honestly don't know what you are talking about. Horology is in the finest state is has been in in quite a long time. Roger Smith, Kari Voutilainen, Philip Dufour, FP Journe, etc., are all carrying on a tradition starting with Breguet and culminating, with, well, the present. Yes, Daniels was an outstanding watchmaker, who has a hell of a legacy. However, all the aforementioned folks still have the rest of their lives to make that legacy. The art is not 'dead.'

We engage in discussion on this thread. Take your vitriolic statements elsewhere, or, better yet, have a discussion and enlighten us as to why you don't think that we will every see a contemporary to Daniels. Pointing people in the direction of very mundane and generic NYT articles written by people who know little about horology does not illustrate much.

please take your thread shitting elsewhere. for some reason reason it pleases you to think that the world is going to hell in a handbasket. thats fine. dont be a spoilsport.

your statements are wildly absurd. yes, GD was a genius. he was a brilliant man and watchmaker. to think that he was last of his kind is absurd. no, i dont need to bring proof. there are many many many great watchmaking minds producing marvels this very day.

most modern watches are not about jewelry, i dont even know where you pulled that out of, unless you mean something else by jewelry. "most" use mass produced movements? sure, most suits are also fused. most of anything will not be tip top, but there are plenty of watches being made that are not only as great as watches of the past, but even greater. ESPECIALLY in regards to finishing. the finishing of todays top of the line watches blows away that of watches of yesteryears.

and as to "I very much doubt that we will see skill of that level again. This thread confirms that, sadly." seriously? you feel the need to just waltz in here and condescend on the entire thread? just take a heaping dump on everyones head for no reason.

dont be an asshole. if you dont like the thread, dont read it. we are all very proud that you know who GD was. bravo. now go find another thread to be a jerk in, this place is a friendly one.

My response was to someone who was being vitriolic towards me. Apropos mouthed off without reading the article I'd linked to whilst also ignoring the fact I wasn't even engaging with him. And to further compound his foolishness he continued to have a 'pop'. Similar to how you are behaving now,.

Secondly, the linked articles weren't meant to be authoritative, they were a response to a request for information about whom I was referring to in an earlier post. His Wikipedia page would also have sufficed but I thought the two newspaper articles were a little more informative and of more interest. I would have thought that obvious.

Most of the watches lauded in this thread are mass produced, or contain mass produced parts. ETA movements for example.They are not exemplars of the finest craftsmanship and they are not art. Many are aesthetic pleasing though. It does not follow that because something is mass produced that it cannot be aesthetically pleasing. This is one of the reasons consumer goods sell.

Daniels was the last of his type. I know of no other living horologist who could build a watch the way he did. That is make and assemble every component by hand. Maybe you do?

Daniels represented horology in its truest incarnation. Artist and technician which is my point.

Not to get in the way of the love-in, and they're not PPs or VCs, but I had some Ball watch photos I thought I'd share.

 

most watches purchased by human beings are mass produced. even in the entry level to mid range luxury watch level. i would never argue that most watches are exemplars of craftsmanship at its finest. but so what? people can enjoy thier JLCs and Rolexes and Panerais and Omegas and APs....... they make some outstanding and beautiful watches (maybe that is what you meant by jewelry), many of which are in fact very expertly made from a craftsmanships point of view as well.

people can laude what they like, and it seems a lot of people here, many of whom have significant watch knowledge, laude the watches that are posted here. do you have a problem with that? you can dislike these watches all you want, buy you dont need to, or have the right to imo, look down your nose on others for enjoying these timepieces. as well, art is the most subjective term ever, one mans art is another mans toilet paper, so who gets to decide what is art is ridiculous. art is art for whoever is calling it art at that moment in time.

sidebar - many of the ETA movements are exclusive to the brand buying them, and many are reworked heavily afterwards by the manufactures, and aside from that, ETA makes some fine movements. mass produced or not, they make some solid product.

i dont personally know of a specific watchmaker like GD, no. im not an expert on the individuals making watches and watch movements, but that does not mean his breed is dead. do you know every horologist that you can assert this claim so forcefully? there are hundreds and possibly thousands of people in watchmaking ateliers all over that are making watches, many of whom are brilliant in their own right. and besides, i dont think that making a watch entirely by hand is necessarily important. use of machines for many things has great advantages over being hand made.

losing GD was indeed a loss to watchmaking, but there are plenty of others out there keeping the flame lit. a doomsday attitude helps no one in my view.

This is a little bizarre. What about Dufour's Simplicity line? What about Daniels's one-time disciple Roger Smith? They are one-man shops that do handmade watches.

additionally, i do not think that by your definition GD represents, "horology in its truest incarnation. Artist and technician which is my point." horology in its history was very much about innovation and invention, not sticking to age old practices. it was about achieving new and exciting things that could not be accomplished with old techniques, not about doing exactly what the last guy did.

based on what i have read of the founding fathers, so to speak, of watch making, i am almost certain that the greats of the past centuries would embrace the new technology we have. not insist on using hand tools only. and i can only imagine what they could do with the things we have now.

and i do know for a fact, that there are many brilliant watch makers doing just that. combining hundreds of years of watchmaking know how, with the tools of today, and creating true masterpieces of innovation and invention. and that, imo, is the true incarnation of horology.