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

The Watch Appreciation Thread - Page 1293

post #19381 of 39072
Quote:
Originally Posted by ahdaeeeee View Post

 

By reading from what you posted, do you think it is actually better to purchase the Portuguese handwound rather than the chrono? 

 

As between those two watches, I'd certainly choose the handwound.  But in the great wide world of $8-10k watches, I'd almost certainly make a different choice.  The Portuguese (and from here on I refer to the handwound only) is a beautiful watch possessed of elegant design features.  My issue is with its dimensions.  Others will no doubt quickly enter a galssy-eyed trance and rhapsodize about the historical entecedents which inform the present day rendition.  I'll happily leave that to them and simply make some comments about the watch itself, since it is the watch you would be purchasing.

 

44mm is big for a dress watch, IMO.  Really big.  In a sports chroograph or a dive watch, a case that big is more than okay.  But for me, a dress watch of those dimensions simply doesn't make sense.  The substantial case diameter is visually exacerbated in the Portuguese by three factors: 1) short lugs, 2) thin case and 3) thin bezel.  The end result is an "all dial" watch that looks even larger than its immodest dimensions suggest.  It takes a hefty wrist indeed to wear the watch and not have it appear that the watch is wearing you. A pancake on a strap is a look that will work for some, but not for others.

 

So if the goal is to get a Portuguese, the hand-wound is definitely the one to get, IMO.  But if the goal is to get an elegant dress watch in that price range, there are many more appealing options out there.  And yes, the foregoing reflects my personal and entirely subjective aesthetic preferences.  Though I'm sure that will not deter the usual suspects from telling me that I am "wrong".

post #19382 of 39072
Quote:
Originally Posted by no frills View Post

Foo, do you think this holds for the calculation Patek made when they decided to go in-house with the 5270G after using the Lemania-based CH27-70 movement for years (decades!) with their perpetual calendar chronographs?

I don't know if Patek would ever spell it out, but I think the fundamental reason why they are migrating away from the Lemania ebauche has to do with the competitive edge that comes with deploying an in-house movement. Rightly or wrongly, collectors and enthusiasts attach a premium to whether a movement is in-house. Also, as in-house chronographs become more common at lower price points, an ebauche (no matter how fine and sophisticated) becomes a harder and harder sell.

I hear some say that people don't really care about whether movements are in-house. But I think the market demonstrates otherwise. Companies tend to know what their customers want and high-end watchmakers have been significantly ramping up in-house development over the past ten years. Some of this has to do with the fact that ETA is no longer providing kit versions of their ebauches, forcing companies to buy already-assembled movements. But that only affects watches under the $5k price point (give or take). Patek sells its manual-wind chronograph (without other complications), employing the CH-29 in-house movement, for over $60k.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ahdaeeeee View Post

By reading from what you posted, do you think it is actually better to purchase the Portuguese handwound rather than the chrono? 

It would certainly be my pick. At the end, it really depends on what you're looking for. If, despite everything you've learned, you still like the Port. Chrono better--go for it! But if you want a Portuguese, or if you care about having an interesting movement, or if you are aiming to collect classics, or if you care about future value, the Handwound is the better choice. Also, I think it looks infinitely better. The case and movement are nicely harmonized.

In contrast, the rarely depicted side-view of the Port. Chrono:

post #19383 of 39072
Quote:
Originally Posted by RogerP View Post

As between those two watches, I'd certainly choose the handwound.  But in the great wide world of $8-10k watches, I'd almost certainly make a different choice.  The Portuguese (and from here on I refer to the handwound only) is a beautiful watch possessed of elegant design features.  My issue is with its dimensions.  Others will no doubt quickly enter a galssy-eyed trance and rhapsodize about the historical entecedents which inform the present day rendition.  I'll happily leave that to them and simply make some comments about the watch itself, since it is the watch you would be purchasing.

44mm is big for a dress watch, IMO.  Really big.  In a sports chroograph or a dive watch, a case that big is more than okay.  But for me, a dress watch of those dimensions simply doesn't make sense.  The substantial case diameter is visually exacerbated in the Portuguese by three factors: 1) short lugs, 2) thin case and 3) thin bezel.  The end result is an "all dial" watch that looks even larger than its immodest dimensions suggest.  It takes a hefty wrist indeed to wear the watch and not have it appear that the watch is wearing you. A pancake on a strap is a look that will work for some, but not for others.

You are right that the Portuguese is very large for a dress watch. But for what it's worth, most models (including the Handwound and 5001) are 42mm, not 44mm. I also think the thin bezel, thin case, and short lugs are exactly what make a larger watch more elegant and wearable. You would otherwise have a much chunkier looking watch.

I wear my 5001 daily, with suits and even my dinner jacket. I've never felt conspicuous about it. But then, I think when you love your watch, it somehow always feels appropriate. smile.gif
post #19384 of 39072

Foo - Wristwatch Annual  2010 (the only volume I have with me at the office) lists the Portuguese handwound at 44mm, the 5001 at 42.3mm and the chrono at 40.9mm in diameter, respectively.

 

I've tried on both the handwound and the 5001 as recently as two weeks ago and those listed dimension are in accordance with my perception of the watches on the wrist.  The 5001 sits just at my personal upper limit for a dressy watch to be worn with a suit (42mm) and is better visually balanced to my eye by its thicker case (~13mm versus 10mm for the handwound).  I could happily wear the 5001 with a suit, but the wider and thinner hand-wound had too much pancake effect to my eye.

 

I agree that shorter lugs make a larger watch more wearable - less likelihood of lug overhang and such - but as with a thin bezel, they serve to visually emphasize width.  That can be good or bad. 

post #19385 of 39072
Huh, you're absolutely right--it is indeed 44mm. Odd. The Jubilee was 42mm.

On the thinness of bezels: I always prefer less metal showing. To the extent a thin bezel makes a watch look bigger, due to emphasizing the dial, it also makes it look more streamlined and low-profile. I would rather have a larger-looking, elegant dress watch than a smaller-looking, chunky one.
post #19386 of 39072
Quote:
Originally Posted by mafoofan View Post

Huh, you're absolutely right--it is indeed 44mm. Odd. The Jubilee was 42mm.

On the thinness of bezels: I always prefer less metal showing. To the extent a thin bezel makes a watch look bigger, due to emphasizing the dial, it also makes it look more streamlined and low-profile. I would rather have a larger-looking, elegant dress watch than a smaller-looking, chunky one.

I am kind of in between on that. I think that the previous-gen GO PML's are nicer than the new ones. I think it is more of a balance issue for me.

For example:



VERSUS



Although I typically like thinner bezeled watches, in regards to thickness, I feel like a thin bezel can often make a watch look slab-sided.

And as an aside, I wonder if the thin bezeled look is a bit on the "trendy" side of things?
post #19387 of 39072
The post on originality came to mind when I saw this watch:



A Speedmaster "homage", you say? I'd agree completely, especially since the dial is identical except for the logo.

The only snag is that this one is said to have been introduced in 1954. eh.gif
Edited by Belligero - 3/27/13 at 7:44am
post #19388 of 39072
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newcomer View Post

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

 

I am kind of in between on that. I think that the previous-gen GO PML's are nicer than the new ones. I think it is more of a balance issue for me.

For example:



VERSUS



Although I typically like thinner bezeled watches, in regards to thickness, I feel like a thin bezel can often make a watch look slab-sided.

And as an aside, I wonder if the thin bezeled look is a bit on the "trendy" side of things?

 

 

 

Funny, I like the newer one. I feel the dials on the face of each match up well with the bezel of each version respectively. But I enjoy the new version slightly more overall, slabs aside, just works better for my eye.

post #19389 of 39072
You know, I originally liked the newer one... but I have yet to see a picture on the wrist that was very flattering! Some examples:

From Cylon:




And another:



And this is coming from someone who was INCREDIBLY close to picking one of these bad boys up. I was very disappointed when I actually got to try one "in the metal."
post #19390 of 39072

I blame the over growth of hair and then the arm waxing.

 

In general I don't rely on wrist shots of others, but I agree it looks disappointing in those. I enjoyed the look of it on my wrist, but perhaps because I wanted to, but I'll have plenty of time to change my mind over and over again as I reevaluate my choices endlessly. Related, I'm glad I waited on the MUT Moon, after several try ons, I decided something was missing for me as far as the case/lugs went (and I've loved every online wrist shot I've seen of it). Something just felt lacking, despite trying to convince myself I still loved it; just not for my wrist I suppose. I've moved on to Reversos and the PML's, perhaps one of each decisions.gif

post #19391 of 39072
Quote:
Originally Posted by mafoofan View Post


I agree with you for the most part. "Inferior" is a relative term. The Port. Chrono is not a bad watch. However, I really do think it is a questionable value proposition. Its retail price is $7,900--two thousand dollars more than the retail price of a Pilot Chronograph on a leather strap. Heck, the Pilot Chronograph on a bracelet is $7,100--still $800 less than the Port Chrono. Yet, they all share essentially the same movement. To make matters worse, the least expensive "real" Portuguese (the Portuguese Handwound) is $8,900. In actual purchase dollars, that is only a ~$700 premium, and you get an in-house, full-sized movement. Plus, the Portuguese Handwound is arguably the most classic form of Portuguese currently available. The white dialed version with gold numerals is a near dead ringer for the Jubilee, but with applied numerals. Actually, now that I think of it, it's shocking how much of a premium people are still willing to pay for the Jubillee now that these are available new (and with the typical dealer discount).

You are right about the JLC chronograph ebauche--but, again, chronographs are really their own isolated world in the horological universe. Also, as time goes on, I am convinced there will be more and more pressure on companies like AP and VC to develop their own truly in-house chronographs. It's a matter of prestige, and now that others are doing it, they cannot continue using the excuse that available ebauches are good enough.

In contrast, in-house movements must be newly developed and are not typically shared with other brands. Hence, they can be made in a way that is optimal for their specific applications, and you can wind-up with something a lot prettier and more elegant.

You do make a very compelling argument for the handwound Portuguese.  While I'm aware of their history behind the original Portuguese and the quality of the handwound model, personally the Portuguese line never really called out to me.  My former IWC AD frequently tried to sell me the Port chronograph, but it just didn't do much for me.  I always preferred the original Flieger and Doppel Chronographs, particularly when on the original bracelet with "pyramid" shaped links.  That bracelet was simply fantastic (I didn't like the revised version).  But the use of the Valjoux 7750 always prevented me from closing the deal.  Knowing it used cams rather than a column wheel, and it also powered dozens of watches that could be purchased for far less always bothered me.  Hence I've never purchased an IWC.  If I were to get an IWC, the one that appealed to me most was produced in the 1990s, the Novecento Perpetual Calendar.  Something about a perpetual calender in a rectangular case just appealed to me.  Years ago, a client from Italy had one and it was quite impressive. 

 

I agree that with Patek developing and using their own inhouse chronograph movements, others will follow suit.  For AP and VC to be competitive, they will have to have their own in house movements as the public's perception is that inhouse movements are better.  Furthermore, when one is spending litterally tens of thousands of dollars on a watch, there may be a strong desire to have exclusivity and feel that the movement was made specifically for your watch rather than sharing it with other brands, even if those brands are very high end like AP and VC.  In addition as you suggested, an inhouse movement can be tailored to a brands specific needs in terms of both function and beauty. 

post #19392 of 39072
Quote:
Originally Posted by RogerP View Post

 

As between those two watches, I'd certainly choose the handwound.  But in the great wide world of $8-10k watches, I'd almost certainly make a different choice.  The Portuguese (and from here on I refer to the handwound only) is a beautiful watch possessed of elegant design features.  My issue is with its dimensions.  Others will no doubt quickly enter a galssy-eyed trance and rhapsodize about the historical entecedents which inform the present day rendition.  I'll happily leave that to them and simply make some comments about the watch itself, since it is the watch you would be purchasing.

 

44mm is big for a dress watch, IMO.  Really big.  In a sports chroograph or a dive watch, a case that big is more than okay.  But for me, a dress watch of those dimensions simply doesn't make sense.  The substantial case diameter is visually exacerbated in the Portuguese by three factors: 1) short lugs, 2) thin case and 3) thin bezel.  The end result is an "all dial" watch that looks even larger than its immodest dimensions suggest.  It takes a hefty wrist indeed to wear the watch and not have it appear that the watch is wearing you. A pancake on a strap is a look that will work for some, but not for others.

 

So if the goal is to get a Portuguese, the hand-wound is definitely the one to get, IMO.  But if the goal is to get an elegant dress watch in that price range, there are many more appealing options out there.  And yes, the foregoing reflects my personal and entirely subjective aesthetic preferences.  Though I'm sure that will not deter the usual suspects from telling me that I am "wrong".

 

I just went to look at the Portuguese Chrono, Handwound and the 7 days reserve. Boy those watches definitely looks much bigger in real life. I did not know it was actually a 44mm, I have always thought they were 42mm, guess I should've done my homework. Even at 42mm I still think they are a little bigger for my wrist. I would like to hear the other many more appealing options for the dress watch if you don't mind that is. 

 

My reasons for wanting IWC for so long is because the 1) brand image it has 2) the history and the value of the watch 3) the Portuguese are just beautiful! But hey, I am not dead on certain on buying it, still keeping my options open.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mafoofan View Post

It would certainly be my pick. At the end, it really depends on what you're looking for. If, despite everything you've learned, you still like the Port. Chrono better--go for it! But if you want a Portuguese, or if you care about having an interesting movement, or if you are aiming to collect classics, or if you care about future value, the Handwound is the better choice. Also, I think it looks infinitely better. The case and movement are nicely harmonized.
 

 

Glad to see that we agreed that the handwound is the Portuguese to go for. Those things you mentioned are definitely factors to be considered, movements, classics or even future value. Don't all 3 have to be considered when buying a watch? I mean I certainly would...

post #19393 of 39072
Quote:
Originally Posted by DLJr View Post

I blame the over growth of hair and then the arm waxing.

In general I don't rely on wrist shots of others, but I agree it looks disappointing in those. I enjoyed the look of it on my wrist, but perhaps because I wanted to, but I'll have plenty of time to change my mind over and over again as I reevaluate my choices endlessly. Related, I'm glad I waited on the MUT Moon, after several try ons, I decided something was missing for me as far as the case/lugs went (and I've loved every online wrist shot I've seen of it). Something just felt lacking, despite trying to convince myself I still loved it; just not for my wrist I suppose. I've moved on to Reversos and the PML's, perhaps one of each decisions.gif

What size are your wrists if you don't mind me asking? Mine are a hair under 7", and I found that the PML just looked a little bit too big. I love my MUT Moon, but I understand why it may be a bit too cold for some. I also think that the lug width may be what was throwing you off? Strangely, for a 39mm watch, the lug width is 21mm! The combination of the black alligator strap with the case I find to be a bit daunting. I just ordered a gold ostrich strap from Camille Fournet, so I think that will make me much happier.

And the Reverso is a lovely, lovely watch. I would really like to pick one up some day. Fortunately for me, I am attracted to the ultra thins more than the complicated ones!
post #19394 of 39072
New IWC chronograph. A little expensive, but seems to be very nice. IWC in house chronograph movement as well..

*
post #19395 of 39072
I like the newer PML too. Have to see it in the metal though, thanks for the insight into how it wears on the wrist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newcomer View Post

You know, I originally liked the newer one... but I have yet to see a picture on the wrist that was very flattering! Some examples:

From Cylon:




And another:



And this is coming from someone who was INCREDIBLY close to picking one of these bad boys up. I was very disappointed when I actually got to try one "in the metal."
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › The Watch Appreciation Thread