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

The Watch Appreciation Thread - Page 1639

post #24571 of 31062
Quote:
Originally Posted by apropos View PostHmm, forgive me for not being completely convinced by your declaration of invulnerability, given you own(ed) or are planning to own a Speedy, a Zenith with an El Primero movement, and a Rolex Sub. I am pretty sure you have a soft spot for the Max Bill watch, JLC, and more than a bit of affection for Omega. It doesn't add up... to me anyway peepwall[1].gif


 

 

I seek to convince you of nothing, least of all of my personal priorities when making a watch purchase.  My affinity for the watches you mention has everything to do with the quality of the product today and the price / value equation they represent in a bountiful and competitive market.  It has little or nothing to do with fanciful reminiscence of the past history of the manufacturers in question.  I leave others to rhapsodize and romanticize about brand history and get all wrapped up and carried away by the story.  I have bought more watches than I care to admit, and never once found any history in the bag when I got home - just a watch - which stands or falls on the technical merits of design and execution.  F&ck the elves. smile.gif

post #24572 of 31062
Okay I just typed up a longer response, but it got lost in the posting process somehow.


First of all let me say ~B~ I appreciate your contributing here and I hope you take whatever sincerely constructive comments you get, in the spirit that they were intended.


And frilly for the love of God don't hurt yourself.



Regarding brand heritage/history/tradition....there is a whole lot of ground that could be covered here, but I will say that for me, it is most definitely a factor. Not perhaps the overriding factor, and if I were doing a pie chart, I'm not sure how big of a piece it would be exactly...but it IS a factor.

To use one example from my quote-unquote collection....I've got a reissue version of the so-called Steve McQueen Monaco, and I really like it, and wear it in regular rotation with my other watches. I've had it for maybe 4-5 years now.

I understand that in many respects it is an unremarkable Tag chronograph. Yes I do like it's squareness, and its blueness, and it looks great on a couple of different straps.....so I suppose it does fill a niche in a several ways when compared to others that I own.

But let's face it, you had me at McQueen on that one.

Hello?! It's Steve McQueen! In a f*cking race car?! Just take my money.

(Quick aside: I understand that Mr. McQueen mainly wore a 5512 Sub in his off-screen life, and also.... when I say "heritage" we all know this example only goes back maybe 40 years ago...so we're not talking about Vacheron making pocket watches for centuries or whatever).

But regardless....and just being honest ....if my Monaco were a $50K watch, instead of a fraction of that, then I probably wouldn't have saved and shopped and ultimately purchased one. So certainly, purchase price is another piece of the pie when it comes to these kinds of decisions. I'd say for many guys, that would be the single biggest factor: what can I afford?

Of course there are lots of other factors involved in any watch purchase personally (case size relative to my wrist size, accuracy and reliability of the movement, potential repair costs and/or resale value, overall legibility of the dial....all pieces of the pie). So yeah, I'm sure people have all kinds of different criteria for these decisions, but undoubtedly in my case, "brand heritage" certainly does play a role, FWIW.
post #24573 of 31062
I think ultimately there are many reasons why someone will buy a particular watch, and there's nothing wrong with that.

I do think however that at least IMHO if heritage/history were your overarching criteria, there is really only one choice:



Think about it. The wristwatch is pretty much an accessory of the 20th Century. As time moves on, more and more people will regard it as an anachronism, much as many now consider the pocket watch as such. Meanwhile, the Moon Landings will likely represent the pinnacle of historical and technical achievement during the 20th Century, and this watch is best known for going along on that ride. We should not be surprised if in some far future, would one were to look up the entry for "wristwatch" in some future ontological application, that this watch would be the first and perhaps only image they see.

Yet as we all know, there really isn't much remarkable about the Speedmaster as a watch technically or otherwise. I have one, I love it, but if I were limited to only one watch, it would not be "the one." I don't think I've figured out which one would be, personally.
post #24574 of 31062

According to Hodinkee, most people would choose a Rolex Daytona if they were to only have one piece.  I know it is a topic to debate for a while but I assume if only allowed to have one watch, most TWATers would pick a Chrono of some sort.  I will give honorable mention to the G-Shock Frilly mentioned he enjoyed as it had a ton of functionality for the price.

post #24575 of 31062
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbarwick View Post

According to Hodinkee, most people would choose a Rolex Daytona if they were to only have one piece.  I know it is a topic to debate for a while but I assume if only allowed to have one watch, most TWATers would pick a Chrono of some sort.  I will give honorable mention to the G-Shock Frilly mentioned he enjoyed as it had a ton of functionality for the price.

I've wrestled (wrassled if you're in the south) with this for awhile. I really thought I could be a 1 watch guy. I thought my last purchase would be the last for awhile. Nope. I just will never be content with only one. Which I guess is ok. I'm fine with it. Guys like me are why they make owe variety packs of cereal. Sure I fuckin love lucky charms. But every day forever?? Nah. Frosted flakes are good too. Grrrrreat even.

I used to use this analogy for why I went thru girlfriends. Can't do that now that I'm married so it fits here too. wink.gif


But I do think a Daytona would be a perfect choice for those who are a 1 watch kind of person. Fills lots of needs...truly fantastic watch.
post #24576 of 31062
Ideally, my one watch would be something that does all the things this one does;



But looks more like this:

post #24577 of 31062

post #24578 of 31062

Interesting theory about the "one watch".  In reality, I am pretty close to "one watch" at the moment because I wear the same one most of the time - a simple three-handed manual wind.  There are plenty of chronos and other complications I'd like, but actually I have a different requirement for my new watch: I think it might be an automatic dive watch for exercising and the beach.

 

The Daytona, as I think we discussed a few months ago, is a pretty sound choice on the face of it, as it looks pretty dressy.  I'd say that a Sub or GMT might add that bit of robustness for the weekend, though.  But if the Daytona it is - no question that it looks great with a suit, especially the white dial - then perhaps it has some other competitors: a steel Royal Oak chrono is a thing of beauty, though for me it would have to be the smaller, older 39mm version.  Perhaps even the chrono version of the Nautilus, if you had the dough?

 

But for me, I think at this point I have to say stuff practicality, and any watch with a second hand is a chrono if you want it to be: I can live with taking my watch off for the beach, just for the joy of having it the rest of the time.  And I think a perpetual calendar is for me.  Of course that could also be combined with a chrono or other functions.  But my "one watch" if I can ever afford it, and however nonsensically, is still this:  practical automatic, useful perpetual calendar, and...well, it's a platinum Lange so fuck everyone.  And it does look great on me, doesn't it? Did I mention that I have an inexplicable love for this watch?  Oh yeah...I did :)

 


Edited by mimo - 9/4/13 at 1:15am
post #24579 of 31062
Quote:
Originally Posted by mimo View Post
 

Interesting theory about the "one watch".  In reality, I am pretty close to "one watch" at the moment because I wear the same one most of the time - a simple three-handed manual wind.  There are plenty of chronos and other complications I'd like, but actually I have a different requirement for my new watch: I think it might be an automatic dive watch for exercising and the beach.

 

The Daytona, as I think we discussed a few months ago, is a pretty sound choice on the face of it, as it looks pretty dressy.  I'd say that a Sub or GMT might add that bit of robustness for the weekend, though.  But if the Daytona it is - no question that it looks great with a suit, especially the white dial - then perhaps it has some other competitors: a steel Royal Oak chrono is a thing of beauty, though for me it would have to be the smaller, older 39mm version.  Perhaps even the chrono version of the Nautilus, if you had the dough?

 

But for me, I think at this point I have to say stuff practicality, and any watch with a second hand is a chrono if you want it to be: I can live with taking my watch off for the beach, just for the joy of having it the rest of the time.  And I think a perpetual calendar is for me.  Of course that could also be combined with a chrono or other functions.  But my "one watch" if I can ever afford it, and however nonsensically, is still this:  practical automatic, useful perpetual calendar, and...well, it's a platinum Lange so fuck everyone.  And it does look great on me, doesn't it? Did I mention that I have an inexplicable love for this watch?  Oh yeah...I did :)

 

Awesome looking watch, great choice.

post #24580 of 31062
Quote:
Originally Posted by terrapen View Post
 

 

Looks good!  Is that the strap end in the background?  If so, you may want to look at a shorter strap so it doesn't look like you are wearing someone else's watch.

post #24581 of 31062
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbarwick View Post

Looks good!  Is that the strap end in the background?  If so, you may want to look at a shorter strap so it doesn't look like you are wearing someone else's watch.

No. thats how its supposed to look. VIntage panerais had very long straps to fit around the wrists over the wetsuit. If you check out some vintages with the original strap and GPF Mod Dep buckles, they all have a long tail...

hard to tell from the pic, but im assuming thats an original. replacing the strap on that would be punishable by death. wink.gif
post #24582 of 31062

Thanks for the heads up.  Did not know that was the purpose.  

post #24583 of 31062
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbarwick View Post

Thanks for the heads up.  Did not know that was the purpose.  

my pleasure!
post #24584 of 31062
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hayward View Post

If heritage as a reflection of brand is the only reason to buy a watch then we're really stuck with a few limited choices, aren't we? And what happens when an established brand goes off the reservation in some way, such as Zenith did, or some might argue Rolex has?

 "What happens when an established brand goes off the reservation in some way, such as Zenith," poses an interesting question/example.   We can't say there was a lack of quality, they make great movements.  However, I think with any brand there can be innovation and evolution, there is complete disregard for beauty, design, heritage...and then there is complete cluster f*ck!  We all have different taste, and while I appreciate the creativity and going beyond what is conventional, brands like Urwerk, MB&F, Vianney Halter...seem to disregard traditional aesthetics and beauty and they just aren't appealing to my eye.   

 

Zenith headed down complete cluster f*ck road and has only managed to improve its image by getting rid of those ridiculous designs that came about during Naft's reign. Now we see them focusing again on more traditional looking pieces.    

 

Relative to the general discussion about history and heritage.... I see nothing wrong with appreciating the history and the heritage of a brand.  Is it the most important thing no, of course not.  There are lots of factors that we use in making a decision.  I personally appreciate the history of a brand, its heritage, and its contributions to horology.  I think to disregard those factors is on some level to discredit the value of several brands.  Its focuses then only on what is current, which is fine, but I enjoy seeing the journey that a company has made.  If that means I drink the Kool-aid and believe in elves ... I don't care.  If that makes some people throw up just a little, it doesn't bother me. 

 

Obviously, we are all free to ignore the history of a brand or a watch, but watch companies know that it matters to many collectors.  Just look at their advertising.  PP has people passing watches down from generation to generation.  VC tells you that they had been in business for X number of years when we first had rail roads or went to the moon, and brands celebrate their anniversaries with watches such as the Reverso 1931, the Annversary Sub, the return of a very similar to original ultra thin RO, and Pilot watch designs from several brands intending to look like the watches of the 1940s.  Then we have the Granddaddy of iconic/kool-aid ads...the Moon Watch.  I see tons of people that bandy about the fact that they bought a Speedy Pro, the only watch ever to be worn on the moon.   Its a great watch, no doubt about it.  However, several other watches have been worn in space, its been decades since a Speedy Pro has been to the moon, and the movement isn't the same as what was in it when it went to the moon.  Its a great watch, I love the history behind it, and I have seen plenty of owners mention the fact that its been to the moon quite proudly.  Would it be a key selling point to me, no, but adds a little flavor to a sporty watch, and clearly it does help Omega sell watches.   

 

I also find that those that often know little about a brand's history and heritage are often the quickest to criticize a brand.  One of the most common examples, are people that say Cartier isn't a real watch company, and that they are just a jewelry company.  Often they have no idea that Cartier was making wrist watches when several other brands were still stuck in the mindset of focusing on pocket watches.  That the Tank design, while often copied by other top brands, is a design Cartier came up with nearly 100 years ago. While their mainstream watches use basic ETAs (often used by other respected brands), Cartier has a history of producing some very fine watches in collaboration with fine movement makers (something people forget Rolex did, because Rolex eventually bought their movement makers).  

 

Someone mention not liking when people say they bought something because its iconic, but I wonder if that is relative to the person buying it because that person sees the word iconic as a status symbol, or because in general they don't like someone buying something for its possible history/heritage.  Personally, I don't like someone buying something just because something is a status symbol.  Maybe because things bought as a status symbols are often done so to impress others, and are purchased by people understanding or appreciating little about the item, its solely for making an impact on others.  Which I think makes they buyer a pretty sad individual.  However, I don't mind buying something iconic because of its place in history.  I wanted a luxury sports watch, I looked at various models, from various brands.  I narrowed it down to a few and decided, after looking at many, considering the quality, workmanship, movement, and beauty, and decided I wanted the original that created that genre, the ultra thin RO/Jumbo.  There are lots of great brands that created their own version Patek's Nautilus, IWCs Jumbo Ingenieur SL, GP Laureato, VC's 222, Chopard's St. Moritz.  To me, the RO is iconic because it was the original steel luxury sports watch.  

 

My thoughts above, are by no means to state that history or heritage are the most important factors in buying a watch, but merely to state that for me, I find them to be a factor I consider along with quality, workmanship, movement, and beauty.  The factors you use may vary, and that's helps us each build interesting but diverse collections.  

post #24585 of 31062
GREAT post, dino. i pretty much agree 100%. i do still maintain what i said earlier. if that makes any sense.

also, im happy you made the distinction between iconic and historic. i meant to touch on that. whatever your feeling on history and prestige (my feelings being that they are super cool to read about, but they rarely affect my purchase decisions much), some designs are iconic by design. the sub and DJ are iconic, the reverso is iconic, the tank is iconic, the RO is iconic....

i guess that fact becomes history, but id never buy a JLC *insert non reverso model*, because they happen to make the reverso which is iconic. nor would i buy a cartier *insert non tank model*, because they happen to make the tank which is iconic. but, i certainly would (and did) put value on buying a watch because that model is iconic. 2 reasons, among others, being.

1. its cool to have things that are iconic.

2. iconic designs that have passed the test of time stand a good chance to always look good and fashionable. that is kind of part of being iconic.

ymmv
---

terrapen - great panny

----

regarding one watch, i could never have just one watch, but if i did, it would definitely not be a daytona. it would probably be (assuming i had as much money to spend as i wanted) a high complication, more dressy that sporty, platinum on leather strap model, from one of the big 3.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › The Watch Appreciation Thread