Originally Posted by Newcomer
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
Lovely picture by the way.
I've always liked the Daytonas, even before I knew a lot about the movements, and well before they were popular. Sadly, I'cw never owned a manual wind model. However, its one of those watches that the longer you own it, the more you come to appreciate it. Its one of their "Professional models" that maintains the classic case shape and profile. I'm sure at some point I will break down and get a Rolex with the new wider shoulders, but I have to admit I don't think the wider shoulders/lugs are an improvement on most of their current sport/pro models. But enough about that. As I believe Belligero has stated, the Daytona is just such a versatile watch. Sure there maybe be events for which you may prefer a true dress watch, but short of those events the Daytona has you covered for everything. Its one of those pieces that looks good with casual clothes or a suit. And as mentioned, I beat the hell out of my first SS Zenith based movement model and it was dead on accurate for 5 years.
I think when you are ready to pick up a Daytona, it will put a very large smile on your face, based on its solid performance, great looks, and versatility.
Originally Posted by in stitches
missed a lot of good action today and too tired to properly read all the posts.
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.
An SF party!!! WTF, where are the invites??? Just kidding! Hope you guys are having a great time. Party on my SF bros!
Originally Posted by Omega Male
Very nice. That's my favorite dial.
Thanks. I've owned black and white dials on the older Zenith based models. The white dials are easier to read at a glance, but I've always favored black dials to white.
Originally Posted by Belligero
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:Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
"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
Yes, possibly too generous. I guess I've come to expect that here in the US, unless the watch article is in a dedicated watch publication, or written by someone that regularly contributes to one...its all going to be fluff peppered with groundless opinion and statements that expose the writer's shallow knowledge of the topic. I guess I find the generalizations in those articles humorous, as I know that anyone with true experience would not write such nonsense.
Yes, I've read some of Jack Forester's articles. He is certainly spot on with his discussion about journalists writing about watches.
Also, I meant to mention, its interesting that a watchmaker (particularly one with Patek experience) holds the Daytona in such high regard as to choose one for himself.