or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › The Watch Appreciation Thread - Part two (Rolex, Patek Philippe, Audemars Piguet, Jaeger LeCoultre, Baume & Mercier and more)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Watch Appreciation Thread - Part two (Rolex, Patek Philippe, Audemars Piguet, Jaeger LeCoultre, Baume & Mercier and more) - Page 175

post #2611 of 3927

For anyone on the fence on a Journe Chronometre Bleu, I played around with some macro photography yesterday. Honestly, if you have ~20k to spend on a watch this is THE PIECE to buy.

 

 

post #2612 of 3927
Closing in on my first major watch purchase. Kind of wanted to get peoples thoughts on rolex blnr vs deep blue sea dweller.
post #2613 of 3927
Quote:
Originally Posted by bespoken pa View Post

Closing in on my first major watch purchase. Kind of wanted to get peoples thoughts on rolex blnr vs deep blue sea dweller.

How do they each sit on the wrist? Conventional wisdom says the blue is too large and topheavy, particularly for the size of the bracelet. On the plus side, the inner ring is not as apparent as in the photos and it's a marvel of engineering. Plus, the dial is pretty cool.

The BLNR is pretty awesome in every way though a little flashy.
post #2614 of 3927

Ok
I'll play I'm a Blue color guy..... Truck driver
That was my 35th Birthday Present ...
post #2615 of 3927
The gradiant dial is what has me hooked. The watch is massive dwarfed a PAM whenI compared the two. The thickness of the watch was incredible i assume one would need to invest in short sleeve shirts.
post #2616 of 3927
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLAUGRANA View Post
 

 

I'm having trouble with your reply because again you seem to be attributing something to what I posted that just isn't there, and that's after I have already clarified some points

I wasn't saying that limited editions put a piece on par with Patek.  I also wasn't saying that being a limited edition elevates a watch or brand.  In fact I specifically said that if the piece was must have, and that needs to come first and also suggests it's not just about being limited in production, that the more limited it is the likely they'd realist better margins.  Of course you run the risk of missing out on sales if you make it too limited, but that's a mistake that I'm sure they'd be more comfortable with than overproducing a piece and selling at a bigger discount while also being left with excess inventory.  

 

I also didn't refer to more limited editions of pieces we already have.  I agree that at some point people generally will say something like "I already have three Speedmasters."  I'm not saying make more of those models.  I was referring in part to producing new models that are limited editions.

 

Brands can go back to that price range though.  Of course there are ways of doing that and they'd have to be very careful in how they do it, but it could work.  Either way I, again, wasn't referring to specific brands but to the industry in general.  

 

Not sure what you're really trying to say and why you're doing down the meme road, but again I never offered limited editions and limiting production as the only answer.  However I'd say it's an obvious approach that should be considering as part of an overall strategy.  I'd also add that there are plenty of limited editions that have been well done and that are great watches because of what they are and not at all because they're limited.

Sorry, but I'm not sure where your post is going either.  Personally, I think your original 2 posts placed far too much value on limited editions, but you that's fine.   Much of what I said was merely using examples of why I don't think limited editions are not the answer to the watch industries problems.   The fact that you didn't reference specific brands, does not mean that I can't reference them.  I don't recall putting anything in my post in quotation marks and then attributing it specifically to you.  I merely pointed out what I see as weaknesses companies relying on limited editions to make up for the decline in sales.     I never said  Blaugrana said, "Making a limited edition puts a watch on par with Patek"...it was simply my expressing an opinion that limited editions don't really mean that much they don't elevate what is truly being offered.   The meme thing was more of a joke...since whether you see it or not, your post seemed largely focused on limited editions and I know you like them (and there is nothing wrong with that some are very good watches).  Anyway, why don't we just move on because we are not going to see eye to eye on this and what you or I say matters little, as the watch companies will do what they want to moving forward.  

post #2617 of 3927
Quote:
Originally Posted by bespoken pa View Post

The gradiant dial is what has me hooked. The watch is massive dwarfed a PAM whenI compared the two. The thickness of the watch was incredible i assume one would need to invest in short sleeve shirts.


The other plus is you get an arm workout while wearing it!  I have a BLNR and have loved it since the first images I saw from Baselworld in 2013.  The bicolor bezel and blue 24-hour hand give it enough to be interesting without being loud like some Rolex color offerings.  It is not Smurf blue like the white gold Submariner and doesn't stand out like the green on a Sub LV.  While I have not seen a Deep Blue, I have played around with a Deep Sea and it is too big for me personally to wear on a regular basis.  Since this is your first major watch purchase, size and everyday wearability might weigh in on the decision a little more than if it were a second watch or further down the line in your collection.  The Sea Dweller 4000 maybe worth looking at though it does not have the blue accents which I think you are looking for.  

post #2618 of 3927

I went down to Chicago yesterday for a concert and gave myself a little time to look in on a few watches.  A few thoughts, and if you recall my commenting on some of these pieces previously just note that I was looking at them again for the reasons stated:

 

-I really wanted to get a Geophysic Universal Time on the wrist.  For that type of watch and for some of the prices out there in the grey market it's definitely been creeping into my mind.  I want a "World timer" if you will and in terms of "bang for you buck" I can only see one competitor, but the Universal Time's dial looks nice.  The reason I wanted to get it on the wrist though was because of the diameter.  Well upon trying it on it didn't feel too big compared to my Geophysic 1958.  It also didn't feel too big to wear, but still it felt somewhat big if that makes sense.  Sadly I'm not a watch journalist who can enjoy a piece for an extended period of time for review to get a real feel for the watch.  Still it's an interesting piece and to actually be able to try on the gold version was nice.  

 

-While I can't see myself getting one, I actually liked the Geophysic True Second more seeing it the second time around.  It looks better in person and I do like the hands.  Even the date window didn't bug me as much as I thought it would.  Size seemed acceptable too.  38.5mm and no date window and I'm more interested.  

 

-Tried on a Lange Saxonia thin.  The AD said that he felt it was too thin and so the watch could only be worn as a dress watch.  I actually kind of agree with him.  I prefer the standard Saxonia, which I have to say I didn't try on, because I think the slightly thicker case along with the second hands can allow it to be dressed down a bit.  I also think it gives ti some heft despite the smaller diameter.

 

-I popped back into the Omega boutique to have another look at the Seamaster 300m master-coaxial.  This time around I specifically wanted to try on the titanium version.  It too is a great looking watch.  First thing I noticed, and liked, was that the blue was slightly darker than what I've seen in some photos online.  The other thing that I noticed was that on the bracelet it looks different compared to one on a strap.  I'd get it off the bracelet either way as I think it somewhat kills the "vintage" look and feel of the watch.  However I have to say that side-by-side I definitely prefer the black stainless steel version to the blue titanium.  I'm not really a "black" color guy when it comes to clothing.  Heck, I changed my Geophysic strap from black alligator to navy alligator.  Still the Seamaster 300m in black is a fine looking watch.

 

-The other piece I wanted to try on at the Omega boutique was the First Omega in Space.  Actually what I wanted to do was compare it to the Speedmaster Professional again.  Why?  Well after looking at photos online for a while now the hands on the Speedy Pro were growing on me.  Seeing them in person side-by-side again left no question in my mind which watch I preferred.  Once again it was the FOIS.  I still think the Speedy Pro is nice, but there was no comparison.  Oddly enough the one big knock for me about the FOIS is the leather strap it comes with.  I'm fine with a leather strap, but it looks and feels sort of cheap.  Well the SE I was working with had his on and I've now changed my mind about the strap.  I rarely say this anything, but his strap had a great patina to it.  I was suprised at how well it aged.  Not only that though, the strap looked so match better as it darkened some.  Anyway, I can still see why the Speedmaster is so popular consider what you can get one at and what you're getting.   

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dino944 View Post
 

Sorry, but I'm not sure where your post is going either.  Personally, I think your original 2 posts placed far too much value on limited editions, but you that's fine.   Much of what I said was merely using examples of why I don't think limited editions are not the answer to the watch industries problems.   The fact that you didn't reference specific brands, does not mean that I can't reference them.  I don't recall putting anything in my post in quotation marks and then attributing it specifically to you.  I merely pointed out what I see as weaknesses companies relying on limited editions to make up for the decline in sales.     I never said  Blaugrana said, "Making a limited edition puts a watch on par with Patek"...it was simply my expressing an opinion that limited editions don't really mean that much they don't elevate what is truly being offered.   The meme thing was more of a joke...since whether you see it or not, your post seemed largely focused on limited editions and I know you like them (and there is nothing wrong with that some are very good watches).  Anyway, why don't we just move on because we are not going to see eye to eye on this and what you or I say matters little, as the watch companies will do what they want to moving forward.  

 

Well I disagree on the focus on limited editions as I clarified my point while also never offering it as some sort of silver bullet, so I don't see how that was placing "far too much value on limited editions."  Either way I think it's entirely fair that we disagree on what effect what I proposed might have.

 

I see it both ways.  Sure you're expressing your opinion, but I think in some cases what you're posting while quoting me comes off as attributing to me something that I didn't say and/or it doesn't make sense as a reply.  In fact with the bolded part here I see it both ways, but again I don't see why you'd post something like that considering I've very clearly stated that I don't think limited editions are the answer.  That's all.  At the end of the day I actually agree with some of the points you made as I've already noted and enjoyed some of your commentary.

 

As for the meme, for me I just don't see it.  Maybe you have a different experience with people you've encountered who have limited edition pieces that they own, but in my experience I've not seen anyone who has ever really focused on that.  For me personally I consider a piece being limited an added bonus, but I would never buy a piece based on solely on that if at all.  In fact before I bought my 1931 Reverso I actually posted here about considering the standard edition.  In the end I preferred the syringe hands on the limited edition and so I went that route, but that was my reason why.  

post #2619 of 3927
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith T View Post

+1 ... could be an instant classic, especially given the pricing.



Also, @mildundklar, I've never been a big Santos guy ( and I do hope that's not a quartz biggrin.gif ) but I like Cartier as a brand, and I agree that piece makes for a great little combo with the Sub.

You can certainly cover a lot of ground with a pair of watches like that.


Of course it's a quartz-version. The automatic version in 29 mm is not so fun. It's powered by a ETA ladies movement (due to the small size) - I think it is powered by ETA 2761. It's a real train wreck to set time & date - that's why I like the quartz version more. I use my 114060 all the time & it was a bummer when I hade the automatic powered Santos.

 

However... I sold the Santos & replaced it with the beloved Tudor Black Bay (blue). I really, really like the Black Bay, even if it's so close to my 114060. I was two link pieces short & the delivery was about 1-2 months... And the Black Bay is more suitable in my lifestyle. I really like being able to wear my watches wherever I go (gym, beach.)


Take care.:) 

post #2620 of 3927
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLAUGRANA View Post
 

 

Well I disagree on the focus on limited editions as I clarified my point while also never offering it as some sort of silver bullet, so I don't see how that was placing "far too much value on limited editions."  Either way I think it's entirely fair that we disagree on what effect what I proposed might have.

 

I see it both ways.  Sure you're expressing your opinion, but I think in some cases what you're posting while quoting me comes off as attributing to me something that I didn't say and/or it doesn't make sense as a reply.  In fact with the bolded part here I see it both ways, but again I don't see why you'd post something like that considering I've very clearly stated that I don't think limited editions are the answer.  That's all.  At the end of the day I actually agree with some of the points you made as I've already noted and enjoyed some of your commentary.

 

You keep saying you clarified your point.  It may make perfect sense to you and clearly you be you believe that you clarified what you previously wrote, but I didn't see it as clearer or an improvement.  Maybe I've missing something or in person you could explain it differently.  However, you see it your way and I see it mine, which is fine.  

 

There is a typo in the part of my post that you bolded, It should have said " why I don't think limited editions are the answer to the watch industries problems."    The word "Not" didn't belong in that sentence.  Sorry if that created some confusion. 

 

I find the whole thing about what you believe I have attributed to you very confusing.  I have previously quoted your posts or the relevant parts in a "Gray box" just so it could be read in context and you or others could see what my post was in reference to.  Anyone who reads your post and then reads mine can see exactly what each of us have said.  I've never seen anyone suggest that by using the "Gray Quote box" above their own post, that that the ideas below the quote box which are in my words would then be attributed to you or someone else.  Sorry but I don't see how that is possible.  As for you saying "You never said this, or you never as a response to my at in reference to my examples." I have already said that I was the one who basically said,"Making a watch a limited edition doesn't put it on par with Patek."  A statement such as that is and was in my own expression as to the lack of value or power that goes with making something a limited edition.  It has nothing to do with directly rebutting a specific point you made.  However, you seem to be under the impression that any point I make must be a direct rebuttal to something you said.  That simply isn't so.  I can point out weaknesses even if you never mentioned something as a strength.

 

I have enjoyed many of your posts and our discussions in the past.  However, I think there is nothing either of us will gain through further discussing any of this and I do not want to derail this thread.  If you wish to discuss any of this further you are welcome to PM me.  Have a great day.  

post #2621 of 3927
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dino944 View Post
 

You keep saying you clarified your point.  It may make perfect sense to you and clearly you be you believe that you clarified what you previously wrote, but I didn't see it as clearer or an improvement.  Maybe I've missing something or in person you could explain it differently.  However, you see it your way and I see it mine, which is fine.  

 

There is a typo in the part of my post that you bolded, It should have said " why I don't think limited editions are the answer to the watch industries problems."    The word "Not" didn't belong in that sentence.  Sorry if that created some confusion. 

 

I find the whole thing about what you believe I have attributed to you very confusing.  I have previously quoted your posts or the relevant parts in a "Gray box" just so it could be read in context and you or others could see what my post was in reference to.  Anyone who reads your post and then reads mine can see exactly what each of us have said.  I've never seen anyone suggest that by using the "Gray Quote box" above their own post, that that the ideas below the quote box which are in my words would then be attributed to you or someone else.  Sorry but I don't see how that is possible.  As for you saying "You never said this, or you never as a response to my at in reference to my examples." I have already said that I was the one who basically said,"Making a watch a limited edition doesn't put it on par with Patek."  A statement such as that is and was in my own expression as to the lack of value or power that goes with making something a limited edition.  It has nothing to do with directly rebutting a specific point you made.  However, you seem to be under the impression that any point I make must be a direct rebuttal to something you said.  That simply isn't so.  I can point out weaknesses even if you never mentioned something as a strength.

 

I have enjoyed many of your posts and our discussions in the past.  However, I think there is nothing either of us will gain through further discussing any of this and I do not want to derail this thread.  If you wish to discuss any of this further you are welcome to PM me.  Have a great day.  

 

When I say that I clarified my point, I'm specifically referring to when I said by "limited editions" I largely meant/also meant limiting some production.  You still are saying "limited editions" though.  That's what I'm referring to.

 

For me the Patek comment rather illustrates my point.  Sure you're not attributing that to me, but all I'm saying is that I don't see it as entirely a sensible reply to my point.  I entirely agree with the comment generally speaking, but in reply to what I've said I think it's going overboard.  To me it's obvious that won't put them on par with Patek, but then that doesn't need to be the case for them to still benefit from limiting production.  That's all I'm saying.

 

Anyway, just wanted to clarify.  I appreciate your input as always.  Cheers.

post #2622 of 3927
So, still read the 'dink from time to time. And a In-Depth on this watch came up:

https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/vacheron-constantin-cornes-de-vache-classic-chronograph




I got to say, if I had $50k burning a hole in my pocket, this would probably be the first thing I would pick up. I think my favorite release in a long time. Out of reach, certainly, but man is that ever gorgeous.
post #2623 of 3927
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLAUGRANA View Post
 

 

When I say that I clarified my point, I'm specifically referring to when I said by "limited editions" I largely meant/also meant limiting some production.  You still are saying "limited editions" though.  That's what I'm referring to.

 

For me the Patek comment rather illustrates my point.  Sure you're not attributing that to me, but all I'm saying is that I don't see it as entirely a sensible reply to my point.  I entirely agree with the comment generally speaking, but in reply to what I've said I think it's going overboard.  To me it's obvious that won't put them on par with Patek, but then that doesn't need to be the case for them to still benefit from limiting production.  That's all I'm saying.

 

Anyway, just wanted to clarify.  I appreciate your input as always.  Cheers.

In the post where discussed brands not being elevated to being on par with Patek (through limited editions/limited production)...my paragraph referred to both limited editions and limited/lower production.

 

You can feel however you want to about my reply, however I disagree completely with your characterization of it.

 

I see little point to continuing this discussion.  Lets just move on.  Have a nice day!

post #2624 of 3927
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dino944 View Post

You keep saying you clarified your point.  It may make perfect sense to you and clearly you be you believe that you clarified what you previously wrote, but I didn't see it as clearer or an improvement.  Maybe I've missing something or in person you could explain it differently.  However, you see it your way and I see it mine, which is fine.  

There is a typo in the part of my post that you bolded, It should have said " why I don't think limited editions are the answer to the watch industries problems."    The word "Not" didn't belong in that sentence.  Sorry if that created some confusion. 

I find the whole thing about what you believe I have attributed to you very confusing.  I have previously quoted your posts or the relevant parts in a "Gray box" just so it could be read in context and you or others could see what my post was in reference to.  Anyone who reads your post and then reads mine can see exactly what each of us have said.  I've never seen anyone suggest that by using the "Gray Quote box" above their own post, that that the ideas below the quote box which are in my words would then be attributed to you or someone else.  Sorry but I don't see how that is possible.  As for you saying "You never said this, or you never as a response to my at in reference to my examples." I have already said that I was the one who basically said,"Making a watch a limited edition doesn't put it on par with Patek."  A statement such as that is and was in my own expression as to the lack of value or power that goes with making something a limited edition.  It has nothing to do with directly rebutting a specific point you made.  However, you seem to be under the impression that any point I make must be a direct rebuttal to something you said.  That simply isn't so.  I can point out weaknesses even if you never mentioned something as a strength.

I have enjoyed many of your posts and our discussions in the past.  However, I think there is nothing either of us will gain through further discussing any of this and I do not want to derail this thread.  If you wish to discuss any of this further you are welcome to PM me.  Have a great day.  
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLAUGRANA View Post

When I say that I clarified my point, I'm specifically referring to when I said by "limited editions" I largely meant/also meant limiting some production.  You still are saying "limited editions" though.  That's what I'm referring to.

For me the Patek comment rather illustrates my point.  Sure you're not attributing that to me, but all I'm saying is that I don't see it as entirely a sensible reply to my point.  I entirely agree with the comment generally speaking, but in reply to what I've said I think it's going overboard.  To me it's obvious that won't put them on par with Patek, but then that doesn't need to be the case for them to still benefit from limiting production.  That's all I'm saying.

Anyway, just wanted to clarify.  I appreciate your input as always.  Cheers.

Whatever the original disagreement/debate, I think there are some interesting issues touched upon.

Blaugrana, the problem is that a company like JLC or Glashutte Original cannot merely limit production--the market willing to pay their present prices is shrinking, and their prices are currently as high as they are because they were chasing exuberant, less knowledgeable buyers. They need to lower prices, stop making so many high-cost models, and make more low-cost models.

The fundamental principle to understand is that tradition and heritage are of the highest value in watch collecting. No matter what number of $50k+ or $100k+ complicated watches JLC makes, they will never be Patek--simply because that isn't what's sympathetic with the firm's history and long-established character. Collectors will never be willing to pay the same premium and resale values will never be as formidable. It is only because of a 10-15-year spike in market exuberance, led by China and the internet watch blog/forum community, that there has been any appetite for expensive Hublots, JLCs, GOs, Montblancs, etc. It is not by accident that many knowledgeable collectors have fled the new market altogether, as Dino points out. Pricing is not the only problem--the watches being made don't even make sense anymore.

If there is any advice I can give to others in this thread looking to spend hard-earned money on a new watch, understand who the real blue chips are. Some perhaps controversial points of view that I nonetheless standby 100%:

1. Almost any Patek is a good choice. The watches are far too underappreciated here. Yes, they are conservative and traditional and speak softly. That is the point. Think of how you'd approach a fine bespoke suit. For good reason, seasoned watch lovers almost always converge their collections around Patek. For some reason, even stylish men often forget about good taste when it comes to watches and become preoccupied with fad and fashion. Patek is the closest thing to a pure proxy for good taste in watchdom.

2. You can do well with Vacheron and they are willing to be a little riskier than Patek since they are now the clear underdog, but resale and desirability is not at Patek levels. Since they need to try to be different, designs tend to be more hit or miss. Since they are Richemont owned, everything also looks a little more commercial and less old-fashioned and ad hoc. The firm is still trying to re-establish itself, whereas Patek has never really left the top of the heap.

3. Audemars Piguet - there is really only one model worth buying, the 15202. Yes, that's it. Anything else would be a wasted investment in the company's tragic 21st century identity crisis.

4. Rolex is beyond strong. It is resurgent. The pure professional models are no brainers: No Date Sub, new Explorer, GMT II, steel Daytona, etc. Tasteful, understated Datejusts and Day-Dates are also great picks. The new dateless Oyster Perpetual is one of the best buys in the market right now. So good.

5. Lange resale is terrible, but they are still intrinsically excellent watches that may be worth taking a long-term bet on. Much love in discussion forums, but serious collectors are still staying away--even after more than two decades of success. People dabble in Langes, but inevitably switch to Patek when big money is at stake, which elevates the rest of the Patek market. Also, no matter how interesting Lange's story, it has the taint of being a resuscitated brand. Heritage and tradition will never match the Trinity's.

6. Breguet - waste of time. Except the Type XX, maybe. Cool watch and one of the only current models that has any remote connection to Breguet as a modern company. Vintage ones are much, much cooler though.

7. Glashutte Original - also a waste of time. No exceptions, unfortunately.

8. Omega - Speedmaster Professional! Wouldn't really look at anything else.

9. JLC - anything steel and under $10K is nice, though would stay away from novelty Reversos. They cannot seem to help themselves from re-vamping the entire Reverso line every 3-4 years. A mess. Would not want to buy into that kind of chaos myself.

10. IWC - so sad. Used to be my favorite brand. Portuguese 7-days has one of the most perfect dials and cases of all modern watches, but overall, the line-up is tasteless and terrible. Would wait for them to one day get their act together and go back to their roots. Vintage Mark XI anybody?

11. FP Journe is probably the most important and significant of the independents, though it was a much better choice before they killed off the 38mm case. 40mm cases are markedly less elegant. Also, design and style is changing. Pre-2015/2016 watches will be viewed differently, I predict, and worth more. New direction is definitely more commercial, no matter what the man or the company says. The 38mm Chronometre Souverain was almost my next watch. In a hundred years, FP Journe could be the next Patek.

12. Laurent Ferrier - needs more time to prove itself, though early support from collectors and insiders is highly encouraging. Problem is that $50k for a time-only, manual wind watch from a company without a track record for customer service is a scary proposition. Like a new tailor who wants $12K for two-piece suit. Suits look gorgeous but who know's how long he'll be around . . .

13. Panerai - 372, 587 . . . both discontinued. Not sure anything else current worth looking at. Basically, the only watches worth getting are the ones that closely reproduce the originals. Anything else is total rubbish.

14. Cartier does some interesting stuff from time to time, but spotty. Resale is horrendous. However, where else are you going to get a Tank or Santos? Fucking perfect watches when executed at the highest level. Unfortunately, that almost never happens. Usually mediocre and/or overpriced.
post #2625 of 3927
Also, the display back is one of the worst things to ever happen to modern watches.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › The Watch Appreciation Thread - Part two (Rolex, Patek Philippe, Audemars Piguet, Jaeger LeCoultre, Baume & Mercier and more)