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

The Watch Appreciation Thread - Page 1257

post #18841 of 33484
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newcomer View Post

And, for the crowd, the "Frills Shot:" Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

laugh.gif awesome!
Quote:
Originally Posted by NonServiam View Post

At 78 degrees north this week, Svalbard archipelago. Sporting, of course, the 'polar' Explorer II on a custom Nato in Norwegian colours. Effectively minus 50 deg Celcius the first day, thankfully only in the 20s after. Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
0ab8102caf8ec70cea64402a398f9a9f_zpsfb53cba5.jpg
b33b843ea381887b08514549a1e7a072_zpsa0354b1e.jpg
d992d4148141f5f6ac10561576f550fa_zpsc2493a50.jpg

holy moly that is awesome.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RogerP View Post

That is sweet!  Last year I parted with this classic from 1964 - I still kind of miss it: Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)


frown.gif

Allez Allez - missed you on the multi-quote, great looking rolex!
Quote:
Originally Posted by NonServiam View Post

I would suggest you end this line of inquiry, sir. Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
5a79740bf732dd7157c2e95d66580ff1_zpsf1d6f879.jpg

please to x-post in WAYWRN
post #18842 of 33484
Quote:
Originally Posted by RogerP View Post

aprorpos, you have correctly identified  self-delusion, but incorrectly identified its source.  Everyone needs a cause and I wish you the very best of luck with yours.

That may very well be so! smile.gif Anyhow, all the best with whatever watches you purchase, and may you wear them always in good health. satisfied.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by ~ B ~ View Post

And one of my favourites, a vintage Vacheron ultra-thin from 1962. I bought it from the original owner's son who told me how his dad wore it all his life everyday for 50 years. To add to that, the original owner shares the same first name as me.

Came with its original box, gold buckle and hang tag. I compared it to the modern re-issue Historiques 1955, and the vintage original is clearly built better on several levels. Dont we all pine for the pre-conglomerate V&C years...

Movement is the sublime cal 1003, the thinnest reliable mechanical movement ever made.

AppleMark

That's quite nice, and quite discreet. Case size 33-34mm?
post #18843 of 33484
I would disagree with you here, and though I can see where you're coming from I don't think that if a person can't afford a Rolex for example, then he automatically should not be allowed to buy a MkII because it's a Rolex homage. Maybe he likes the styling and the MKII presses all his buttons at his price point. It's not a Rolex, it's a MKII. No one will argue that it hasn't copied many of the design elements from the Submariner.

Some will never have enough or will never want to pay enough for a Rolex, but that shouldn't keep them from buying other watches that they like and want and can afford.

I agree with everyone on the fake Rolexes out there though, that is something entirely different IMO.


Quote:
Originally Posted by apropos View Post



But what about those people of more humble means who can't afford the "real thing"? Aren't they entitled to be able to purchase something nice as well?

Well, no, they aren't - you've answered your question already, no one is entitled to purchase anything. There will always be things out of our reach - always has been, always will be. We aren't talking about food, air, water, we're talking giving people the impression you're buying a luxury watch. Just learn to make do without, like the rest of us.

Just because I can't afford a Ferrari doesn't make it right for me to purchase a Lada, and slap the chassis together with some bodykit and call it a Ferrari homage. If all I want is a Ferrari, but all I can afford is a Lada, well, some self-examination is in order - so that maybe someday I can afford the Ferrari.

I don't - and you shouldn't - take the instant gratification route and then try to make yourself feel better by saying "it's a homage". It's not. It's something you bought because you couldn't be arsed to do the necessary so that someday you can afford the real thing.
post #18844 of 33484
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnguy001 View Post

I would disagree with you here, and though I can see where you're coming from I don't think that if a person can't afford a Rolex for example, then he automatically should not be allowed to buy a MkII because it's a Rolex homage. Maybe he likes the styling and the MKII presses all his buttons at his price point. It's not a Rolex, it's a MKII. No one will argue that it hasn't copied many of the design elements from the Submariner.

Some will never have enough or will never want to pay enough for a Rolex, but that shouldn't keep them from buying other watches that they like and want and can afford.

I agree with everyone on the fake Rolexes out there though, that is something entirely different IMO.

+1
post #18845 of 33484
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnguy001 View Post

I would disagree with you here, and though I can see where you're coming from I don't think that if a person can't afford a Rolex for example, then he automatically should not be allowed to buy a MkII because it's a Rolex homage. Maybe he likes the styling and the MKII presses all his buttons at his price point. It's not a Rolex, it's a MKII. No one will argue that it hasn't copied many of the design elements from the Submariner.

Some will never have enough or will never want to pay enough for a Rolex, but that shouldn't keep them from buying other watches that they like and want and can afford.

I agree with everyone on the fake Rolexes out there though, that is something entirely different IMO.

 

Well said.

post #18846 of 33484

Some more porn - today I'm wearing my Oris Chrono - it's a limited edition Chronoris Grand Prix 1970, and displays bold 70's style without apology.  Definitely more of a "busy" watch, but still reasonably legible.  Abd I like having a little colour in the rotation.  Damned hard to photograph, though.

 

Stock pic:

 

 

 

My pic:

 

post #18847 of 33484

Looks like they took out the glass for the stock pic, because of the same problem!  Anyway, it;s cool.

post #18848 of 33484
Quote:
Originally Posted by apropos View Post

That's quite nice, and quite discreet. Case size 33-34mm?

Thanks, its 33mm. 5mm thick including the domed acrylic crystal.

AppleMark

AppleMark
post #18849 of 33484
So who else had to sync their whole hoard today?

post #18850 of 33484
Very cool. I have to find my Oris as I stashed it somewhere but can't seem to remember where!
Quote:
Originally Posted by RogerP View Post

Some more porn - today I'm wearing my Oris Chrono - it's a limited edition Chronoris Grand Prix 1970, and displays bold 70's style without apology.  Definitely more of a "busy" watch, but still reasonably legible.  Abd I like having a little colour in the rotation.  Damned hard to photograph, though.

Stock pic:





My pic:


post #18851 of 33484
Quote:
Originally Posted by apropos View Post

Well of course I don't speak for you. I speak for myself. Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

What I am trying to get you (and every other homage lover) to do is see that there is merit in my views, as opposed to the self-deluded groupthink BS that passes for reasoned thought in the homage forums, and which rises to the surface every now and then on this thread.
First - what is a "homage" watch meant to be exactly? The term homage implies an element of respect, and I would add that often oblique references are made to the original.

Most homages are anything but that - the references are not oblique, which more or less rules out their chances of being respectful.

I am all ears if anyone has any idea as to how (in the case of MkII Kingston) how following the Rolex design nearly to a tee, and then slapping on the MkII logo, has anything to do with respect for the original model. I'll let the photos below do the talking.



My point is the vast majority of homage watches are merely replicas which escape legal repercussion - and a replica by definition is trying to pass itself off as something else (better).

It doesn't matter as much whether the person who bought the Kingston is trying to pass it off as something else when the whole point of that homage watch's existence is to try to pass itself off as something else, or at least come as close as possible without inciting a legal backlash.

I have nothing against ebauches, though I prefer that watches above a certain price point not have them. I just think they should not inhabit cases that are poor copies of iconic models. Using an ebauche is sometimes a necessity, but even the poorest companies can take the effort to design a case dial and hands unique to them.
What I don't get is why we'd even be discussing them in a watch appreciation thread. Wow, someone copied a design and put their own logo on it. What am I supposed to say — "good work, that must have taken some real talent"?

"Homages": Lame-o!
post #18852 of 33484
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnguy001 View Post

I would disagree with you here, and though I can see where you're coming from I don't think that if a person can't afford a Rolex for example, then he automatically should not be allowed to buy a MkII because it's a Rolex homage. Maybe he likes the styling and the MKII presses all his buttons at his price point. It's not a Rolex, it's a MKII. No one will argue that it hasn't copied many of the design elements from the Submariner.

Some will never have enough or will never want to pay enough for a Rolex, but that shouldn't keep them from buying other watches that they like and want and can afford.

I agree with everyone on the fake Rolexes out there though, that is something entirely different IMO.

I understand your point.

But when you think about it there are literally zillions of non-homage watches out there that are affordable and genuinely interesting - so why do people still go for homages? The elephant in the room is the borrowed prestige of the original watch.

That Kingston which RogerP likes was 1100 GBP - which is well into the territory inhabited by interesting companies like Fortis, Oris, Baume et Mercier, Damasko, Stowa, etc. If you went vintage you could pick up a spectacular Omega Constellation "pie pan" or Universal Geneve Bicompax for that price, and have enough left over to service the watch too. Second hand non-vintage would get you a Nomos or maybe a Tudor.

So really... there is no excuse.

Homages offend me on an intellectual and aesthetic level. They're lazy unimaginative solutions released by lazy unimaginative companies eager to make a quick buck by standing on the shoulders of giants. The term "homage" itself is the basest form of PR triumph, pure marketing doublespeak.

The homage buyer pays for the privilege of an unregulated and completely unfinished or minimally finished ebauche in a cheap steel case that will be finished in a ho-hum way and without a shadow of doubt be a pale imitation of the original. I can guarantee you your homage company would have gone bust in 20 years because they are simply not there for the long haul and their business model depends mostly on the goodwill of cheapskates... who are a fickle bunch and will move on to the next homage company that sells the same thing or close enough for $30 less.

Given their very existence is a sort of common-sense defying anachronism when you really think about it, I don't believe in too many half measures when it comes to little luxuries like mechanical watches - and homages are a half measure too far for me, the "Gacci", "Chenel" or "Luis Vuitton" bags of the watch world. Would you let your wife carry one of those?

I guess there are those homage lovers who will call me a watch snob, but I'm happy to be one if it means that I am passionate about something actually worth preserving, something with deep roots in tradition and skill... unlike the homage anti-snob who too often is happy to hoist the banner of faux egalitarianism. Just drop by any of the homage forums... you'll see what I mean.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Belligero View Post

What I don't get is why we'd even be discussing them in a watch appreciation thread. Wow, someone copied a design and put their own logo on it. What am I supposed to say — "good work, that must have taken some real talent"?

"Homages": Lame-o!

:biggrin.gif
Edited by apropos - 3/11/13 at 6:03am
post #18853 of 33484

deadhorse-a.gif
 

 

blahblahblah

 

too many words

post #18854 of 33484
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newcomer View Post



So, just the first pic of what will be many later! But wanted to share this with at least someone who even remotely cares smile.gif

Hey, I just got back from FL, and saw the good news.  Congrats and enjoy it.  Its a beauty!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Allez Allez View Post

Latest acquisition: Vintage 1967 Rolex Oyster Perpetual. Original hands and dial with soft patina.

Congrats on a great find!  In addition to the dial color I really like that the hour markers for the 3, 6, and 9 are a different size from the others.  Great choice.

 

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

AppleMark

Quote:
Originally Posted by ~ B ~ View Post

And one of my favourites, a vintage Vacheron ultra-thin from 1962. I bought it from the original owner's son who told me how his dad wore it all his life everyday for 50 years. To add to that, the original owner shares the same first name as me.

Came with its original box, gold buckle and hang tag.

Classic!  Very impressive to find one with the original box, hang tag, and buckle.  Enjoy it!

post #18855 of 33484
Quote:
Originally Posted by uninkco View Post



Thanks for the input gentlemen! I didn't have a specific model in mind, just trying to look at a variety of brands and learn as much as I can. I am wanting to purchase a watch prior to my wedding and looking to spend $2k on a quality piece that will be my first "quality" watch purchase. Any other hidden gems in terms of brands that you can recommend? Damasko also looks nice as well.

Sorry for being late to the party, I had intended on responding to you, but never got around to it this weekend.

I was in a similar position as you a few years ago (although not in the context of a wedding), and was thinking that either a Damasko or a Sinn would be a good first 'real' watch choice. I ended up picking a Damasko DC56:



I kept it in my stable for a few months, before realizing that it was not quite for me. I plan on picking another one up in the future, but it is a difficult watch to have as a "one watch." Just a few things you may want to note before picking it up:

GOOD:
  • The hardened case is awesome;
  • The whole watch seems well made, including the printed dial;
  • It is one hell of a tough watch;
  • It is pretty much the perfect tool watch.

BAD:
  • It is the epitome of a tool watch--everything is bead blast, so no chamfering, no frou-frou details, very 'Germanic'--so it can be a bit cold feeling, not much to look at;
  • The printed dial gets a bit boring; this is about the most sleep inducing watch EVER;
  • Some of the cases are pretty high--and with a lack of detailing, look slab sided;
  • Cases are thick, cannot wear watch under sleeve.

I kind of realized that I am not much of an "extreme toolwatch" kind of guy. This is not like the IWC Mark XV and such, which are pilot watches, but feature some stylized elements. And also recognize that you will not be wearing this kind of watch to a wedding!

Do not get me wrong, I loved my Damasko, and will probably get one some point soon, but it is not the most exciting watch out there!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › The Watch Appreciation Thread