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

The Watch Appreciation Thread - Page 1514

post #22696 of 39132

 

The message about Patek, Rolex and JLC is spot on, especially for those who want to do business in Asia.

 

Personally, I can care less about the other brands.  I would not consider Cartier a watch manufacturer, regardless of how many in-house movements they make unless they can sustain and focus on this business for a long, long time.

post #22697 of 39132
Quote:
Originally Posted by jgold47 View Post



Thanks for the advice. the condition or the 'accuracy' of the watch is less important to me than the year. I am trying to create a heirloom that my father would have bought for the occasion of my birth. Long story....

 

Then reach out to Jacek from hqmiltion.com.  I am sure he'll be able to find something.

post #22698 of 39132
Quote:
Originally Posted by no frills View Post

 

"End of Days" AP ROO!  Boom!

 

CREATOR: gd-jpeg v1.0 (using IJG JPEG v62), quality = 80

 

Ahnold looking SERIOUS in "End of Days"!  Boom Boom!

 

 

 

I am not a big fan of AP ROO but this piece in titanium somehow seems very attractive to me, as portrayed in this picture.  Why is that?

 

 

 

Boom!  Boom!  Boom!

 

(I am not sure why I ended up liking and using the term "Boom!" recently)

 

 

But seriously speaking, this is on offer right now for me.  I am sorely tempted, but I am belatedly - after the splurge from November through March - exercising my willpower.

 

 

Rolex Double Red Sea Dweller Mark IV ref 1665 baby!  Ugh, so tempting.

Still not a fan of the ROO, even the End of Days Edition.  Still there is no denying its iconic in the AP collecting world, and it really got collectors interested in AP's limited editions.  Unfortunately, in recent years they have gone crazy releasing limited edition Offshores that seem to commemorate things nearly as uninspiring as opening a new tube of toothpaste.  And even with hot models wearing them, Offshores generally do not interest me.

 

As for the Double Red SD, what a stunner!  Don't deny yourself...that is one hot watch!!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by no frills View Post

 

"Iconic" pic of Charlize at a Lakers game wearing a DSSD:

 

 

Lovely pic of Charlize getting all passionate about the game - while some guy with a PP Aquanaut sits beside her, most likely thinking horrible thoughts.

 

 

Charlize is pure HOTNESS!  Still I don't like the DSSD, and I don't like it on her.  

Quote:
Originally Posted by Omega Male View Post

 

Hahaha. Know exactly where this is. Been in there a few times to see the hedgies.

 

 

Right next to Watches Of Switzerland. Dangerous work address!

Nice Tank Francaise Chronograph. 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cylon View Post

 

Personally (2cent alert), I'd prefer a date bubble. I can't--never could--handle the "flat" date window on SD but this is still a beautiful pic

I've never minded the old vintage SD without cyclops, but in a way it does look like something is missing on the DR SD without it.  Maybe I'm just so conditioned to seeing that overall look with a cyclops as I've seen more photos and a few Red Subs in person.  I've never seen a DR SD in person.  

post #22699 of 39132
Quote:
Originally Posted by dddrees View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by mimo View Post

I admit a GMT could also be an option.  Although I don't like the Jubilee bracelet very much.  But then we get into GMT options - vintage "Pepsi", "Coke", new black'n'blue?  I really don't know.  Anyway, academic for now, but maybe if someone accepts the consultancy proposal I'm currently writing - I will then consult with you!

**ignoring Cylon deliberately**
The great thing with the older version is that you have so many more options. I also have the oyster bracelet and could easily get the black and the red/black insert if I wanted.

Yeah, I reckon the GMT is a worthy buy only if you getting the 2 tone version, or if you can to different time zones. A SUB is perfect for every occasion.
post #22700 of 39132

Entertaining, but a lot of fluff.  What does this mean "Next to Rolex, Patek is the top high end brand in the world..."  I have been a huge fan of Rolex for years, and I enjoy wearing them, but I've never thought of Rolex and Patek being in the same catagory as top high end brands.  Patek, Lange, AP, VC, Piaget, and some JLCs, yes...Rolex I see them in a completely different catagory.  I will say one thing I have noticed that was somewhat accurate is that several Cartier owners I know are very artistic (which is something I had not considered until reading the article).   While I found the article amusing I thought there was not much value in the article.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Newcomer View Post

Also, I went to a local watch shop today, which is a Rolex AD. Finally saw a black dialed Daytona. I have to say... I am pretty darn smitten. Just looked phenomenal on my wrist. I have never really understood the allure, but what an incredibly solid feeling watch. It just handles so nice as well.

I've owned at least 1 Daytona in some form or other since 1994, and they never fail to put a smile on my face or impress me.  I used one as a daily wearer for 5 years, it was dead on accurate (maybe the most accurate watch I ever owned), banged the hell out of it, and sold it for nearly twice what I paid for it when they were nearly impossible to get brand new.  Kept some of the money and used the rest to buy another one at list price.

 

A quick photo of the last one I purchased new back in 2005.  

 

post #22701 of 39132
Quote:
Originally Posted by papa kot View Post

 

The message about Patek, Rolex and JLC is spot on, especially for those who want to do business in Asia.

 

Personally, I can care less about the other brands.  I would not consider Cartier a watch manufacturer, regardless of how many in-house movements they make unless they can sustain and focus on this business for a long, long time.

Sorry, but your statement about Cartier seems groundless or as though you are not very familiar with the brand.  Cartier is one of the largest watch manufacturers in the world.  Often only out done in production by Rolex.  Are you aware they made their first watch before Rolex existed?  Cartier has made wrist watches now for more than 100 years and I think they will be in this business for a very long time.  I think their choice to employ movements from ETA in many of their main stream watches, is based on their desire to cover a large variety of budgets.  However, they make several watches with inhouse movements, and some of their other high end watches have used movements from Piaget, JLC, F.Piguet, and THA.   

 

If you are faulting them because some of their watches do not use in house movements, IMHO, that's just silly.  Is Rolex a real watch manufacturer because their watches are made in house?  Oh wait a minute not all of them are made in house, they gave their lesser line of ETA powered watches a different name, Tudor.  Oh and don't forget until cal 4130 came out around 2000/2001, all of their chronographs used outsourced movements.  In addition, many of their products from the 1930s have cases and movements similar to Gruen, why, because both used the same suppliers.  Rolex largely became a company making their watches completely in house by eventually purchasing the suppliers for their cases, bracelets, movements and other components.  Nothing wrong with that, I adore Rolex, but one should not forget they haven't not always been a "Manufacturer."  Not to mention, some Cartiers are more finely finished than a Rolex (even when not using an inhouse movement).   In addition, the Patek, AP, and VC, Breguet, and BP have all used outside sources for their movements, particular chronographs (Patek only recently started making their own chronograph movements).  In addition, Omega, Breitling, and IWC until recently all relied heavily on Valjoux 7750s and ETA movements.  While I understand the term manufacturer, and that today's collectors prefer watches use inhouse movements when possible, however I don't think that is a measure of a brand's importance in the world of horology, nor do I think you can say Cartier is not a watch manufacturer or is any less of a manufacturer ( than Rolex, AP, Breguet, VC etc), when many great companies still use movements made by outside sources.    

 

If you don't like Cartier I can accept that, but your statement about not considering them a manufacturer is silly.  


Edited by Dino944 - 7/4/13 at 7:29am
post #22702 of 39132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dino944 View Post

...

You know, I certainly understand now where you are coming from when you speak so fondly of the Daytona. It has such a reassuring feel to it! It is definitely something I would purchase down the road. But I tried the whole run of modern Rolexes on today, and that was really the only one that sung to me. The maxi cases on the sub and GMT just did not really feel right. The GMT masked it better, but on my very flat wrist, it just kind of had a pancake feel to it. I really like the look of the Explorer I on me as well, but the hands have always kind of bothered me. The Daytona though... I really do get it. I have never been the strongest advocate of the Daytona, but I think I have changed my mind. I also like the Explorer II and Milgauss, but they definitely did not feel as consistent on the wrist.

And +1 to whatever you just said about Cartier. Never get between the Dino and his Cartier fistbump.gif

Lovely picture by the way.
post #22703 of 39132
missed a lot of good action today and too tired to properly read all the posts. frown.gif

wurger, ddd and dbln79, great sots.

SF/TWAT meetup in nashville. myself, dereks and dcg. yes, that is me with teh donald duck tee shirt and a 112. smile.gif





post #22704 of 39132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dino944 View Post

A quick photo of the last one I purchased new back in 2005.  

 

 

Very nice. That's my favorite dial.

post #22705 of 39132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newcomer View Post

You know, I certainly understand now where you are coming from when you speak so fondly of the Daytona. It has such a reassuring feel to it! It is definitely something I would purchase down the road. But I tried the whole run of modern Rolexes on today, and that was really the only one that sung to me. The maxi cases on the sub and GMT just did not really feel right. The GMT masked it better, but on my very flat wrist, it just kind of had a pancake feel to it. I really like the look of the Explorer I on me as well, but the hands have always kind of bothered me. The Daytona though... I really do get it. I have never been the strongest advocate of the Daytona, but I think I have changed my mind. I also like the Explorer II and Milgauss, but they definitely did not feel as consistent on the wrist.[...]
I know exactly what you mean, and I came to the same conclusion. As much as I appreciate the quality of the current professional range, I don't like the updated ones on my wrist as much as their predecessors. But the Daytona offers every modern refinement when it comes to the bracelet and the movement, yet retains the original sports-Rolex charm with its classic case contours.

When I first took an interest in this stuff, it was one of the last ones I could have imagined getting (mostly due to having read the BS that gets circulated on certain forums), but the more I got into the watch thing, the more I came around to Rolex in general and eventually the Daytona in particular. A big part of that was meeting an ex-Patek watchmaker a house party in 2009 who was wearing one with a black dial in steel. He had a very high regard for Rolex, and especially for their 4130 movement; hearing a legitimate expert's opinion drastically changed how I viewed the company. I'm still learning new things, especially from a watchmaker friend of mine who's just returned from their 3-week advanced course in Geneva where they covered the less-common models such as the Oysterquartz.

I now understand why many experienced collectors (not that I consider myself a collector, I just like wearing 'em) have stated that they'd pick a Daytona of some sort if they had to choose only one watch. I like that it's not something that I have to coddle or stress about wearing, that it goes with anything, and that it's neither too simple nor too complicated — at least for my tastes. Also, it's just kind of fun to wear for some reason. It's probably because I'm rather easily amused, so I like the interactive element of the chronograph function. It's handy for timing espresso shots, for example...



It's maybe not the best choice on a NATO...



...but the bracelet seems to work OK. Ahh, that's better:



Looking forward to seeing yours if you end up getting one! cheers.gif
post #22706 of 39132
Quote:
Originally Posted by in stitches View Post

missed a lot of good action today and too tired to properly read all the posts. frown.gif

wurger, ddd and dbln79, great sots.

SF/TWAT meetup in nashville. myself, dereks and dcg. yes, that is me with teh donald duck tee shirt and a 112. smile.gifWarning: Spoiler! (Click to show)






Nice shot of the 3 classics
post #22707 of 39132
My grandfather has a TT Connie, my mum has a TT Connie, and I have a Omega Constellation Black Dial 35mm. That was before I purchased the DJ and SUB. icon_gu_b_slayer[1].gif

post #22708 of 39132

Same old, same old.  Well I suppose this is relevant to Wurger and OM anyway: my mother bought this for my father in 1970.  If you're sick of seeing it, say a little prayer for my new consultancy gig, and I'll get something else. lol8[1].gif

 

post #22709 of 39132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dino944 View Post

Entertaining, but a lot of fluff.  What does this mean "Next to Rolex, Patek is the top high end brand in the world..."  I have been a huge fan of Rolex for years, and I enjoy wearing them, but I've never thought of Rolex and Patek being in the same catagory as top high end brands.  Patek, Lange, AP, VC, Piaget, and some JLCs, yes...Rolex I see them in a completely different catagory.  I will say one thing I have noticed that was somewhat accurate is that several Cartier owners I know are very artistic (which is something I had not considered until reading the article).   While I found the article amusing I thought there was not much value in the article.   Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
I've owned at least 1 Daytona in some form or other since 1994, and they never fail to put a smile on my face or impress me.  I used one as a daily wearer for 5 years, it was dead on accurate (maybe the most accurate watch I ever owned), banged the hell out of it, and sold it for nearly twice what I paid for it when they were nearly impossible to get brand new.  Kept some of the money and used the rest to buy another one at list price.

A quick photo of the last one I purchased new back in 2005.  


That's rather generous of you to say; I didn't even get any entertainment out of it. But at least some good came of the link; I remembered to check whether Jack Forster — someone who does have writing talent — had any new articles. Lo and behold, I found this, which incisively summarizes everything that's wrong with the mindless pap that constitutes a typical watch article:

"I know of no other branch of consumer journalism [than watches] in which (and it gives me no pleasure to say this) the press has so thoroughly abdicated its responsibility to bring some level of critical acuity to the products it covers, and there are a number of reasons for this.[...]

Now part of the problem — especially in the United States — is that the whole notion of watches as objects to be taken seriously on any level at all is largely an alien one. Virtually every editor-in-chief of every major consumer publication from the lowest to the highest knows very little about watches and watchmaking; individuals who in every other respect are models of intelligent discernment, who wouldn’t dream of approaching wine, or style, or cars, or architecture, from an uninformed perspective, look at watches with a nervous suspicion (often largely justified, it pains me to say) that not only are they themselves not terribly interested in watches, but their readers aren’t either. Thus we see high end mechanical watches –objects with over 500 years of history in Europe and the USA, and which for much of that time represented one of the most sophisticated syntheses of technology, science, and artistry in the entire course of human history –handled by already overworked fashion or accessories/jewelry editors; the level of sophistication is usually abysmal (all-black is in!) and coverage all too often consists of a single page of watches with only the most superficial relationship with each other piled one atop the other like so much fruit in a basket."

I was surprised to find the perfect antidote to the mind-numbing effect of AA's vacuous drivel within the same publication. What amazes me is that whoever is in charge of this stuff at Forbes presumably didn't experience any cognitive dissonance (or at least not enough to drop Adams' column) from running the "social peacocking" dreck right after Forster's call for writing standards, design education and discernment in the industry press.

The article goes into more detail regarding the drought of journalistic credibility and reasoned critique in the watch industry; it's well worth reading in full. This is what real writing looks like:

The Good, The Bad, And The Inexcusable: On Writing About Watches
post #22710 of 39132
I will come back to some of the previous statements later which I would like to answer, i.e. Belli's last two posts.

And Mimo, I am always glad to see pictures of your watch, and of course I am hoping you land your consultancy gig! Good luck!

But I have an important message: Happy Fourth of July!!



Is there anything more American than blondes, unbridled patriotism, and women eating phallic shaped foods? I think not.

Edit: to make picture of Kate larger.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › The Watch Appreciation Thread