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

The Watch Appreciation Thread - Page 2269

post #34021 of 35610
Thanks you all the replies... busy part of the forum this one
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dino944 View Post

I like the idea of the bracelet upgrade (although, still like the looks of the older bracelet more).  I'm not into the NATO strap thing so that would be irrelevant to me.  Its not a make or break upgrade (and in the event you are just starting your research the movement is a bit different than what was in the original Moonwatch, which was cal 321).  

For some it will merely be a question of whether the price increase is worth it to them for the upgraded bracelet, box, strap, etc, or if they would rather look for the previous model.  

Thanks Dino... I research any (for me) significant purchases so have a fairly decent knowledge of the history of the speedy pro and associated movements (cal 321 -> cal 861 -> 1861) plus move to coaxial for DSOTM, '57 nod, and others. Also learnt a lot about other watches... of which you have my grail the Royal Oak jumbo.

The 3570.50 was the watch for me (and may still be), as I like the looks of the hesalite and it's the closest modern version to the moonwatch of years ago. The replacement release does throw in a small conundrum as I wouldn't be adverse to buying lightly used meaning the 3750.50 could still be the one. I guess when the time comes I can shop around and look at the new model and make a call on f the bracelet and extras are worth the extra cost to me (and if I prefer the aesthetics of the new bracelet).
post #34022 of 35610
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnsNotHere View Post

Thanks Dino... I research any (for me) significant purchases so have a fairly decent knowledge of the history of the speedy pro and associated movements (cal 321 -> cal 861 -> 1861) plus move to coaxial for DSOTM, '57 nod, and others. Also learnt a lot about other watches... of which you have my grail the Royal Oak jumbo.

The 3570.50 was the watch for me (and may still be), as I like the looks of the hesalite and it's the closest modern version to the moonwatch of years ago. The replacement release does throw in a small conundrum as I wouldn't be adverse to buying lightly used meaning the 3750.50 could still be the one. I guess when the time comes I can shop around and look at the new model and make a call on f the bracelet and extras are worth the extra cost to me (and if I prefer the aesthetics of the new bracelet).

You are very welcome and thank you for the kind words about the RO Jumbo.  Wishing you lots of luck with your decision.  Cheers!

post #34023 of 35610
Ahem.

ajubepe7.jpg
post #34024 of 35610
lol8[1].gif

Well Dónde Frilly, well done. lol8[1].gif
post #34025 of 35610
Quote:
Originally Posted by bkotsko View Post
 

Honestly, I think there is more lather about this than necessary.

 

They have a movement they supposedly co-developed with another company, of which some of the parts are made in the UK.

They claimed it was an in house movement, but neglected to mention it was co-developed.

Some of the proprietary blueprints were possibly released, when they shouldn't be.

 

I don't get the hype.

So many of the people on the thread seem to be trying to catch someone in a lie.

 

Bremont's decisions regarding design are not really under scrutiny.  Some people are saying "what's the big deal? It was a smart move to work with LJP."  That's fine.  It just misses the point entirely.  What is being justifiably criticized is that they say verbatim that the movement was "designed and developed in Britain."  That's straight from their webpage.  The stance now has been amended to include "both in the UK and with our long term movement partner, Le Joux Perret, in Switzerland."  Both of those are direct quotes from them and the second flies in the face of the first.  For someone to argue that they have been up-front with that fact would be insanity.

 

There is a lot of gray area when it comes to what manufacturing burden qualifies as an in-house movement.  However, it is an altogether much clearer distinction between absolute truth or lie when you tell someone you wrote a novel, and later it comes out that a friend of yours also published that same novel with different character names and a a couple of different minor plot points.

 

To top it all off, when someone says "Hey I already read that novel, I have valid concerns about the origins of the concept and design" you release a statement accusing people of trying to sabotage your work and threatening legal action.  You also then admit you did work with someone else, but go on about how this book was a huge leap in progression towards writing a complete novel by yourself. That is admittedly a rough analogy.  The point is the concept of creative process and design.  The "big deal" is claiming a creative process as entirely yours and then marketing it as such when it is clearly not.  And it is clearly not.  They already said so themselves.  People saying they technically may not be incorrect are the same sort of intellectuals debating what Bill Clinton considered as "sexual relations" with that woman.

 

No matter what is said next week in their official statement, it does not change the facts about what already occurred, which are:

1) Bremont releases the watch to press saying it is an in-house movement "designed and developed in Britain."
2) The movement is discovered to closely resemble an existing LJP movement.
3) Bremont responds with a defensive statement that it was also in partnership with LJP and part of the design was done in Switzerland.  They also mention legal action.

 

These are compounding mistakes, in my opinion.  In a watch society that prizes design history and technical prowess so dearly, it also seems more emotive of betrayal of trust than likely it would be in other industries.  We celebrate brands like Nomos, etc. when they make they make the huge leap forward to make in-house movements.  It cheapens their (and really any in-house brand) accomplishments to just stand by and be mute to someone who claims to have done the same and has not. 

 

What Bremont will likely do next week is what Tag Heuer did when it was discovered that they had not designed the 1887 "100% in-house," and claim evolution of pre-existing platform.  That is not the same thing.

post #34026 of 35610

I am going on the record as saying, I don't care.  Wright Brothers or not, that watch doesn't excite me enough for the 16,000 GBP.  I just checked out their website and none of their stuff really excites me.  

 

d4nimal - The sexual relations comment elicited a smile from me.

post #34027 of 35610

This "in house" business is interesting.  I agree it's dishonest, but I feel every so slightly for Bremont as they seem to have been caught out so comprehensively while others seem to be accepted as "in house" when they're little more than iterative changes to old designs.  Even Nomos's movements are based on a pre-existing design, aren't they?  Still, they are adding new elements of their own more and more, so fair play.

 

@Belligero has made dark references to this sort of thing before - dishonest descriptions of supply chains, movement origins, etc.  I'd like to hear more.

 

In the mean time, talking of things that cost a controversial amount of money, I was hosted this evening by some friends, and my often impressively wrist-attired "uncle", was wearing this:

 

 

I will not forget that I thought this was silly when I saw the pics two years ago: baby blue dial, brown bezel...solid platinum sports watch?  Haha, I thought.  And then I kept dreaming about it (literally) like the Eye of Sauron.  And now I've met it in person, yes, it wins.  Especially on my wrist as pictured!  Although I'd still take a Datograph for the money, Dino-approved or not.  Now there is an in house movement...

post #34028 of 35610
Perhaps I'm totally ignorant of something, but design aspects notwithstanding, how much more difficult can it be to manufacture movements if you're going to make such elaborate casework and modifications to stock movements? Especially now, with distributed fabrication technologies?
post #34029 of 35610

P.S.  In-house movement designed and manufactured by us.*

 

*(We chose blue for the screws, and put some cloth and our name on the rotor. Fucking WHAT?)

 

 

 

Read my lips: I did not have sex with that woman.**

 

**(She just sucked my cock a little bit, but that was purely therapeutic.)

post #34030 of 35610
Quote:
Originally Posted by mimo View Post
 

This "in house" business is interesting.  I agree it's dishonest, but I feel every so slightly for Bremont as they seem to have been caught out so comprehensively while others seem to be accepted as "in house" when they're little more than iterative changes to old designs.  Even Nomos's movements are based on a pre-existing design, aren't they?  Still, they are adding new elements of their own more and more, so fair play.


The Alpha is based on the Peseux 7001 with different bridges and plates, but manufactured "in-house" (not purchased and modified, but built from the ground up). The rest are truly "in-house" I believe.

post #34031 of 35610
With the recent talk of boring fonts and box and papers, this might me a good time to post my latest acquisition:



Again, courtesy of the awesome e-uncle from whom I had acquired my first TWAT-worthy piece less than a year ago.

@Kaplan : I owe you some thanks too since it was your thread that turned me on to this watch in the first place. I also remember your subsequent post about how yours might possibly be the last Mark XV ever made.
post #34032 of 35610

post #34033 of 35610
Quote:
Originally Posted by TC (Houston) View Post

I dunno, I would say that the nice box that the Royal Oak came in enhanced the my first AP experience. At least for the 10 minutes it was out before it went up on the shelf in the closet. LOL

give it to me then plz. kthnxbai. smile.gif
post #34034 of 35610
medium800.jpg

It's been a while...

Fitbit needs to be more discrete.
post #34035 of 35610
Gaz, nice to see you back, hope you stick around.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wes Bourne View Post

@Kaplan : I owe you some thanks too since it was your thread that turned me on to this watch in the first place. I also remember your subsequent post about how yours might possibly be the last Mark XV ever made.

Congrats on the acquisition Wes and I'm glad to hear I was helpful in making up your mind. If you like yours as much as I like mine, it's gonna be a keeper :-)


Warning: Mark XV praise (Click to show)
Just for fun, and to make you feel good about your new watch, I located a few owners comments on their Mark XV over the last decade:

'the Mark XV is as close to the "perfect" watch for me, and it holds its own against my 3 Rolexes and Cousteau Diver' - D, 2004

'A superb alternative to the usual (Rolex) and quite possibly the perfect watch.' - B, 2006

'The Mark XV is a perfect watch in every way. I know of no other watch that is perfect like this. ' - E, 2008

'I too like the mark XV's (the last IWC marks with the proper hands :wink: ) A pretty near perfect watch if such a thing exists' - N, 2011

'Nice watch, yo' - Kaplan, 2014

Disclaimer: Though these are genuine, that was mostly tongue in cheek, as I know you can probably find someone somewhere saying antything is perfect if you look for it, but I do think that for those that get the Mark XV it does seem like they *really* get it :-)


Btw, I recently got a brown Camille Fournet strap for mine, but I think it's a bit too light and I like yours better. Do you know where it's from?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › The Watch Appreciation Thread