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 34895
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 #24572 of 34895

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 #24573 of 34895
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 #24574 of 34895
Ideally, my one watch would be something that does all the things this one does;



But looks more like this:

post #24575 of 34895

post #24576 of 34895

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 #24577 of 34895
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 #24578 of 34895
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 #24579 of 34895
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 #24580 of 34895

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

post #24581 of 34895
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbarwick View Post

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

my pleasure!
post #24582 of 34895
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 #24583 of 34895
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.
post #24584 of 34895

My first post to this thread.  But I have lurked around.  I have this pocket watch I need assistance with determine any information or insights will be valuable.  Vtg 101 yrs old.

 

Approximate Measurements:
2.5in L x 1.75in W x 8mm D

Markings:

Face: Howard 
Outside case back: (blank) 
Inside case back: Keystone Watch Case 1506557 J. Boss Extra 
Movement: E. Howard Watch Co. Boston USA 1241446 17 Jewels 3 Pos Pat'd '18

Materials:
Gold filled, enameled face. Windup movement. Antique photo attached to inside caseback. Circa 1912 to 1914

 

History

 

Howards were high end watch movements that were often cased in solid gold cases, but were not factory cased. The person buying the watch would choose a case at time of purchase and it and the Howard movement would be married by the retailer. Sharp close-up pictures of your watch would be appreciated.

Howard movement serial number 1057982 can be seen to be a 12-size, Series 7, 17-jewel, open face movement. It should be marked "Pat'd '12" If so, it was made some time between that date and 1930 when the company ceased production. You can find serial number vs. date tables that will get you closer, but I wouldn't put too much faith in them. If I had to guess, I'd put it someplace in the early 1920s, but I could be way off.  Case is Gold Filled

 

 

1859 - J. Boss received a patent for "spinning up" cases made of "gold-filled" type material. That is, material made of a sheet of composition metal (usually brass) sandwiched between two thin sheets of gold. Boss formed cases by rolling sheet metal as opposed to the traditional method involving soldering and cutting. Rolling increased the molecule density of the metal. His patent, No. 23,820 of May 3, 1859, revolutionized the watch case industry by enabling the production of not only less expensive, but considerably stronger cases. ... Unlike gold washed cases, which were made using electroplating, cases produced by means of rolling had much harder gold surfaces and were thus less apt to wear.

 

 

 

 

 


Edited by PointDexter2014 - 9/4/13 at 5:17pm
post #24585 of 34895

Hi Stitch,

 

I agree with much of your earlier post.  History and heritage are a factor, but not the primary purchasing factor in my decision to purchase watch x or watch y.  I do think that in terms of understanding a brand, and sometimes whether a company was original in something it did, or whether in borrowed an idea requires some knowledge of a brand's history.  

 

As for conglomerates taking away that fuzzy feeling when it comes to history and heritage, yes and no. There is always going to be something lost when a founder or family leaves a business, but to what degree its lost and at what point can be tough to say.  At what point is the history/heritage lost? Is it lost when the founding watch maker and family no longer make the watches?  Is it when the founding family sells the company?   Is it lost when the founder dies and leaves no heirs to take over (Hans Wilsdorf)?  Remember, someone like Hans Wilsdorf wasn't a sitting at benches assembling movements.  He didn't develop a tourbillon, he essentially started a company that became a conglomerate that bought up all of its suppliers.  He has been gone for more than 50 years...yet people are nostalgic about the 1675 and other classic models.  Surely modern Subs, GMTs, Daytonas, etc are more accurate, better made, have longer power reserves, are more anti-magnetic, and yet collectors want the oldies...and many of the most desirable models are from after Mr. Wilsdorf's death and Rolex went into a trust.  In fact Rolex moved even further toward being a self sufficient brand since Mr. Wilsdorf's passing. 

 

Maybe with a smaller company such as VC  there would be a stronger issue of losing history/heritage when becoming part of a large corporation.  However, I think much of what changed with brands and the need to become part of bigger companies was nearly being put out of business with the quartz revolution, and the need to protect themselves and remain cutting edge, when in reality mechanical watches are not cutting edge.  

 

I think the history is still there with most "Real companies," and the corporate owners do try to preserve it, if only for sales purposes.  

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › The Watch Appreciation Thread