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

The Watch Appreciation Thread - Page 1282

post #19216 of 34720
Quote:
Originally Posted by apropos View Post
men attracted to 46mm "watches for men" tend overwhelmingly to actually be... pricks.

 

You may want to ask yourself who, precisely, is being a "prick" in this conversation. Poor form, sir.

post #19217 of 34720
Quote:
Originally Posted by chocsosa View Post

A gift from my uncle after undergrad. Have had this bad boy for over 10 years..My first real watch..

 

 

Does not get a lot of play because I'm not a fan of gold tone watches or metal straps.. but I break it out here and there..

 

Very nice - watches that have some personal history attached are always special.  If it were mine, I'd set aside the bracelet, pair it with a nice brown croc strap and wear the heck out of it.

post #19218 of 34720
It seems to me that if IWC's movements are so well-engineered, they wouldn't have the accuracy problems that seem to affect their big auto. dontknow.gif

By the way, very good discussion lately; there have been quite a few knowledgeable and well-written posts in the last few days!
post #19219 of 34720

^^^ Agreed.  There was a thread a while back on WUS, with numerous IWC owners reporting on the timekeeping performance of their watches with the 8 day movement.  The results were, in my view, appalling.  All the chest-thumping about a functional approach to movement finishing rings a bit hollow when the actual function of the movement - accurate measurement of the passage of time - is quantifiably lacking.

post #19220 of 34720
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvin100 View Post

You may want to ask yourself who, precisely, is being a "prick" in this conversation. Poor form, sir.
Hey, stereotypes are for a reason.

I'd rather read someone's real and non-sugarcoated opinion — especially coming from someone with Apropos' depth and breath of knowledge — than the usual mollycoddling drivel that passes for discussion on the forums where everyone is a special flower. The freedom of being able to say what you mean, without condescending and humourless moderation turning the place into a wasteland of clueless noobs, is what makes this the best watch thread on the internet and brings in the heavy hitters who know how to write.
post #19221 of 34720
As an owner of the 5001 and 5004 models (both 7 day movements) I will say I really love them both. For me they have been very special pieces and I enjoy wearing them immensely. I realize (especially the BP) that they're not for everyone, but personally I think they're great watches and have been everything to me that I hoped they would. (classic, singular pieces in my collection)

Admittedly they are NOT accurate at all, and as much as I adore the rest of the watch, there's no hiding that the 7 day movements just don't compare in terms of accuracy to other watches (JLC for example are deadly accurate)

That being said, I'm also a big fan of IWC. I'm also a big fan of my JLC NSA and my modern 9300 Omega and my p9000 caliber PAM. I realize that these watches aren't popular with the SF forum, but I enjoy sharing them, and learning about the other brands and watches here.

I guess I"m not sure why there's this resentment towards IWC. I understand their current designs and probably their direction as a brand seems to go against their history, but I'm not sure it truly justifies the animosity it sometimes gets. Aside from the huge Hollywood-ish galas, IWC has been great in promoting its watches in general, and yes as polarizing as they can be, I feel they can offer a nice change-up to other more classic models and brands out there. Whether one feels they are over-priced for what they offer is debatable, since hey do sell pretty well in the US and overseas, I do appreciate their role in the watch market as a choice for many watch lovers who appreciate their aesthetic - not good not bad, just IWC.

And I agree people should be encouraged to voice their opinions no matter how taboo or harsh it may seem or come across, certainly there are many many guys on here whose knowledge and writing skills blow mine out of the water; but in the end I'm just happy to learn a thing or two here every now and then and contribute when I can. Noob? Maybe. Prick? I highly doubt. I think it's pretty obvious to everyone who the real pricks on the forum can sometimes be.. and I'll leave it at that.

Wearing my BP to my friend's post-wedding brunch today. Have to work like mad in the next several days so trying to enjoy what's left of this weekend.

photo IMG_0332.jpg
post #19222 of 34720
Quote:
Originally Posted by RogerP View Post

Very nice - watches that have some personal history attached are always special.  If it were mine, I'd set aside the bracelet, pair it with a nice brown croc strap and wear the heck out of it.

yes. i also think this is a great idea.
post #19223 of 34720
Quote:
Originally Posted by mafoofan View Post

...

I agree that Lange and IWC have a different finishing ethos, and understandably so--they are at completely different price points, and Lange is undeniably more interested in that which is whimsical.

And let me just say, as an initial statement, that I really have not examined an IWC under a loupe. I still think it is difficult to compare finishing techniques on a JLC v. IWC v. GO.

From what I have gleaned from your post, it seems that you are saying that IWC is an exemplar of the "form follows function" ethos. That it is this ethos that spurs their designs, their movements, and their finishing of those movements. In other words, finish is to be emphasized when relevant, and when relevant, it should be done well. An admirable ideal, to be sure. I think that Rolex is the perfect modern example of this ethos. However, I do not think I would put the Caliber 50010 in the same category as Rolex's 3135 (et alii). I do not really think the "purpose" of the IWC 5001 is to be a sports watch. What is its actual purpose? Is it made to fulfill that purpose?

The purpose of the 5001 is, I believe, a “deck watch.” The movement in a deck watch was originally designed for accuracy--it is in fact synonymous with chronometry. So what does the watch do to align itself with the purpose of a desk watch?

(1) 7-Day Power Reserve: I think that this plays well into the deck watch aesthetic. If time is of such importance, it is only logical to create a movement with a power reserve that will be difficult to deplete.
(2) Legibility: the watch definitely strives for legibility, and I do not think there is any doubt about that.

But what about accuracy? As other posters have mentioned, the 50010 movement is notorious for its problems with accuracy—I have heard that +10-+20 seconds a day is commonplace. In my mind, this plays directly against your “Germanic” ethos that IWC supposedly strives so hard for.

Just for kicks, I think the PERFECT ‘case study’ for this is a quick look at the JLC P478B/WSbr (also used by VC; Dufour based his design for the simplicity on it). Specifically, lets look at the Geophysic. The Geophysic was made for scientists, and focused on “extreme precision” and anti-magnetism. The Geophysic had the following characteristics. A precise watch must be regulated, thus there was a large compensated balance, swan neck regulator, and a Breguet end curve spiral. An accurate watch should be set to the second, thus the second hand was hacking. And a precise watch should be readable, thus it had a very clear dial design and central seconds. The watch was always a tool watch though, and the bridges had anglage without any superfluous ornamentation. For example, no cotes de geneve. Why? Geneva stripes are PURELY ornamental.




I guess what I am trying to say, is that what bothers me about IWC is that the form follows function ethos is not necessarily followed up. You say that their ethos is “Germanic,” yet both design-wise and in regards to finishing the watch does not do nearly as much as it could to remain coherent. With such a HUGE movement, why isn’t the balance wheel larger? If you are going to make such a giant movement, do it for a reason!
post #19224 of 34720
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnguy001 View Post

...

Oh I am definitely in the same camp as you--there are several IWCs I would love to pick up, such as the 5001. That is one watch I seriously plan on kopping one day. I also think I would rock the shit out of the Big Pilot!

I guess my problem is that they are eschewing their history for a different market. I just wish that they continued to make their dressier watches, instead of focusing all of their efforts on the "big watch trend." Why on earth does the Portuguese Hand Wound need to be 44mm?



I just love some of IWC's historical designs, and it makes me sad that they are either getting rid of them or "overly" modernizing them. I just do not want them to deviate from their aesthetic too much. It is just frustrating when you see a company changing before your eyes!
post #19225 of 34720
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnguy001 View Post


Admittedly they are NOT accurate at all, and as much as I adore the rest of the watch, there's no hiding that the 7 day movements just don't compare in terms of accuracy to other watches (JLC for example are deadly accurate)

That being said, I'm also a big fan of IWC. I'm also a big fan of my JLC NSA and my modern 9300 Omega and my p9000 caliber PAM. I realize that these watches aren't popular with the SF forum, but I enjoy sharing them, and learning about the other brands and watches here.

I guess I"m not sure why there's this resentment towards IWC. I understand their current designs and probably their direction as a brand seems to go against their history, but I'm not sure it truly justifies the animosity it sometimes gets. Aside from the huge Hollywood-ish galas, IWC has been great in promoting its watches in general, and yes as polarizing as they can be, I feel they can offer a nice change-up to other more classic models and brands out there. Whether one feels they are over-priced for what they offer is debatable, since hey do sell pretty well in the US and overseas, I do appreciate their role in the watch market as a choice for many watch lovers who appreciate their aesthetic - not good not bad, just IWC.
 

 

You've probably touched upon the the three elements that contribute most to disenchantment with IWC.

 

1) Accuracy - for a company that use to pride itself on better-than-chronometer paramaters for accuracy, the performance of recent movements has been disappointing.

 

2) For those that were "with" IWC before the current direction shift (my lovely and elegant 3531 would have no place within their current design aesthetic), the change isn't geneally welcomed as a positive.

 

3) IWC used to impress as a serious manufacturer dedicated to horological advancment.  Now they present as almost frivolous with their endless parade of celebrities, glamour parties and fashion model shots.  The focus seems more on branding than upon craftsmanship.  It may well prove to be ultimately successful for their bottom line, but has (as you noted) been polarizing. 

 

All that said, I don't think IWC attracts nearly the flack of some other premium brands.  Their watches still have the cool factor.  Were I in the market for a big pilot watch, the Big Pilot would be high on the list. 

post #19226 of 34720
Quote:
Originally Posted by RogerP View Post

I'd say most Reversos meet my definition of a dress watch, and would look FAR better with a suit than the great proliferation of big clunky sports watches weighing down the wrists of business professionals.  The Reverso defines the last vestiges of classic JLC design, now that the company has made a strong committment to the special forces / black ops / covert incursion / badass mall-ninja design ethos.

Entertaining. 

Quote:
Originally Posted by apropos View Post


I think at best this is a really bizarre comment to make, and the very last bit is an over generalisation that crosses into pure bizarro territory. snork[1].gif

I assume you are referring to the Master Compressor line. Look at all the models JLC has released over the last 2 years - not a single Master Compressor model. The best received new model of 2012 was the Rouge, the best of 2013 probably the new Master Perpetual or the Jubile - all 3 are dress watches; not exactly a marked change of direction for JLC into he-man territory.

True, the JLC-Navy Seals watches are regrettable collaborations at best, but I would hardly call 2 models in total out of nearly a 100 mens watches in the entire JLC oeuvre "a strong committment to the special forces / black ops / covert incursion / badass mall-ninja design ethos".

Perhaps you might have confused JLC with IWC? Now that is a once storied watch company that is fast headed toward Omega territory - just look at their new releases this year for their Ingenuier line. Pathetic, sad, stuff.
While  Roger's statement is a bit of an overstatement, IMHO it emphasizes on some level the public perception of the direction that JLC has moved toward in recent years.  Personally, my favorite pieces from JLC are the Reversos.  There are some Master series watches that I like...although I find it a hit or miss series.  The Atmos is cool, but I don't think most people pay much attention to them.  One of my local ADs had 2 NOS Atmos clocks that sat in his sales area collecting dust for nearly 10 years.  He said he couldn't give them away.  I think they are cool and would like one for my watch/car reference materials room, but they are an item that seems to get little attention from most WISs.  However, all that Master Compressor crap, the AM watches, and the Seal watch really left a bad taste in my mouth.  They remind me of the ugly cartoonish watches were were getting from Zenith a few years back.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by apropos View Post


I also really really dislike the "watches for men" tagline that nearly all the IWC ad copy has taken up recently - oddly enough men attracted to 46mm "watches for men" tend overwhelmingly to actually be... pricks.

rotflmao.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by mafoofan View Post

What do you mean by "greater hand-finishing?" Again, there is a difference between the degree of embellishment, and the quality of finish. In terms of embellishment, IWC movements don't really register. They have always verged on a more serious, engineered approach. So, superficial anglage is not to be seen (such as on plates). I see great merit in this more honest approach. ....Are you more interested in dazzle or quality?

However, Lange finishing is far from "honest." The most obvious example of what I mean is the screwed chatons securing the jewels. The screws and chatons are completely without added function. They just look pretty. Nobody else uses them and Lange thought it would be one way to distinguish themselves.

I find your defense of IWC's interesting in terms of them being as you describe IWC as on a "More serious, engineered approach."  IMHO, that might seem more true if their collections had not become more a styling exercise (and a tremendously disappointing one at that in recent years).  Not to mention in terms of more serious approach...these guys milk everything they can out of silly looking limited editions....the Prada Edition, the Cousteau, the Boris Becker, etc etc etc.   

 

I see nothing wrong with more hand workmanship and as you suggest embellishment.  In terms of honesty, lets not forget, the less they do to embellish or decorate a movement,the less labor intensive and costly it is for them and the faster they can pump them out.   

 

As for Lange not being as you say "Honest."  Well I suppose from a puritanical view of using only what is necessary in a watch, maybe that makes sense.  But at the price range they are competing in, their movements should look beautiful, impressive, and be a distinctive.  

Quote:
Originally Posted by in stitches View Post

looks positively lovely. especially the back.

Thanks Stitchy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaplan View Post

I agree that aesthetically there's nothing IWC does now, that they haven't done better in the past.

+1

post #19227 of 34720
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newcomer View Post

From what I have gleaned from your post, it seems that you are saying that IWC is an exemplar of the "form follows function" ethos. That it is this ethos that spurs their designs, their movements, and their finishing of those movements. In other words, finish is to be emphasized when relevant, and when relevant, it should be done well. An admirable ideal, to be sure. I think that Rolex is the perfect modern example of this ethos.

Not at all. Rolex finishing is abysmal. It has improved over the years, but it is not finely executed. Very rough and irregular.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newcomer View Post

However, I do not think I would put the Caliber 50010 in the same category as Rolex's 3135 (et alii). I do not really think the "purpose" of the IWC 5001 is to be a sports watch. What is its actual purpose? Is it made to fulfill that purpose?

The purpose of the 5001 is, I believe, a “deck watch.” The movement in a deck watch was originally designed for accuracy--it is in fact synonymous with chronometry. So what does the watch do to align itself with the purpose of a desk watch?

(1) 7-Day Power Reserve: I think that this plays well into the deck watch aesthetic. If time is of such importance, it is only logical to create a movement with a power reserve that will be difficult to deplete.
(2) Legibility: the watch definitely strives for legibility, and I do not think there is any doubt about that.

But what about accuracy? As other posters have mentioned, the 50010 movement is notorious for its problems with accuracy—I have heard that +10-+20 seconds a day is commonplace. In my mind, this plays directly against your “Germanic” ethos that IWC supposedly strives so hard for.

First of all, accuracy in timing is not the same thing as precision. Accuracy refers to how likely the watch is to keep with actual time. So, if watch gains 5 seconds one day, then loses 5 seconds the next, it can be said to be highly accurate, as it's net gain/loss versus the actual time is zero. However, such a watch would be highly imprecise. A watch that gains 5 seconds regularly everyday is far more precise and more difficult to engineer, even if it is less accurate. Rolex has always prided itself on accuracy. But the reason why other finer, higher-end companies can say they build finer, better movements is because they tend to be more precise.

That said, you are right: the 50010 movement is not well-regarded for accuracy. But we were talking about finishing quality. Even if a shoe doesn't fit right, we can still judge how well it is finished. So too with watch finishing. Whether you think IWC finishing actually achieves the goals it reflects is a separate issue from how nicely it is done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newcomer View Post

I guess what I am trying to say, is that what bothers me about IWC is that the form follows function ethos is not necessarily followed up. You say that their ethos is “Germanic,” yet both design-wise and in regards to finishing the watch does not do nearly as much as it could to remain coherent. With such a HUGE movement, why isn’t the balance wheel larger? If you are going to make such a giant movement, do it for a reason!

Again, you are confusing engineering with finishing. See above.
post #19228 of 34720
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newcomer View Post

I guess my problem is that they are eschewing their history for a different market. I just wish that they continued to make their dressier watches, instead of focusing all of their efforts on the "big watch trend." Why on earth does the Portuguese Hand Wound need to be 44mm?


The Portuguese was born as a big watch. At its inception in 1938, it was 42mm. The big watch trend came decades and decades later.
post #19229 of 34720
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dino944 View Post

I see nothing wrong with more hand workmanship and as you suggest embellishment.  In terms of honesty, lets not forget, the less they do to embellish or decorate a movement,the less labor intensive and costly it is for them and the faster they can pump them out.

Again, there is quantity and there is quality. You wrongly assume that more embellishment is necessarily more labor intensive.
post #19230 of 34720
Has anyone dealt with Matthew Bain for vintage / used pieces? References?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › The Watch Appreciation Thread