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 58

post #856 of 3975
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveH35 View Post
 

This GP has become my go-to watch and near daily wearer if I don't need ruggedness. I wanted to dress it down and give it a more vintage look. Custom ordered a grained leather strap from Camille Fournet which I received this morning. What do you think? I probably would have gone one shade darker if I could do it over again, but it's still pretty cool! What do you guys think? The interior lining is a cool blue rubberized leather material for summer.


 

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

 

 

 

 

 

I think it looks great.  Definitely a "vintage" look as I've seen a lot of vintage watches on a similar strap.  Hodinkee sells a similar one and it looks like one of their best by a long shot.  I also think you nailed the color choice.  Darker would have been a poor choice in my opinion and as others have noted it will likely darken over time.  Looks great right now though.  

 

EDIT:  And I just noticed it's a minute repeater.  :wow:

post #857 of 3975
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnFacconable View Post


... I'm very happy with my decision on so many levels.

...I find you ordinarily extremely fastidious about details so I'm curious as to what is informing the quoted opinion above? ...

And might not it be true, to the contrary, that the delrin part is better because it's both self-lubricating (/hroi) and gentler with the wheel it interacts with and that the move was very much substance over form? Now I'm not a watchmaker so I don't know if metal or delrin is better for the chrono brake and as I recall Archer is skeptical that it makes a difference because from what he's seen the part rarely has any issues in the movement, but I still don't see how there could be any cost savings from replacing one miniscule part out of hundreds.

If Rolex were to change a Daytona part to plastic they would probably come up with a new name like OysterPolymer and introduce it as a monumental breakthrough at Baselworld.

Most of what you wrote is clearly a fact or an opinion, but the quoted statement to me is an indication of bias, again unless you have some evidence that the world doesn't appear to be aware of that the delrin part is in fact "cutting corners" or that there are other plastic parts in the cal 1861. By way of example, my previous paragraph is something a Rolex hater would say.
 

Oh how I do love a good "Backhanded compliment."   

 

I am a bit unclear about your question.  Are asking whether the statement of mine you that you quoted is solely on my own opinion/bias?  If that is your question, the answer is no, it is not based solely on my opinion/bias.  I can't take credit for that opinion as I am not a watchmaker or journalist.  However, it was the opinion of a watchmaker (with several decades of experience working on watches...but trying to give you the benefit of the doubt maybe he is a more traditional guy), and in an article I read several years ago.  Those opinions have shaped my opinion on that issue.  

 

Those opinions were expressed to me several years ago, and as with anything involving science and mechanical items, there can always be new discoveries and changes of opinion. So perhaps if I read a few newer articles on the Speedy Pro or talked with other watchmakers stating the use of plastic is a significant improvement, my own opinion would change.

 

Being skeptical something makes a difference isn't the same as definitely saying something does or does not make a difference.  It is an opinion.  In addition, beyond the plastic vs. metal movement part issue, the movement in cal 4130 is still far more advanced than what is in the Speedy Pro (which isn't using a column wheel in the current movement).

 

I have no idea what you are getting at with your Rolex Oysterpolymer statement, or your stating that is something a Rolex hater would say.  

 

Your statement "Again unless you have some evidence that the world doesn't appear to be aware of " seems rather condescending.  

 

If as you say, you are truly happy with your decision on so many levels, that is all that matters.  I've said numerous times that the Speedy Pro is a good watch, and its the only Omega that interests me.  The Speedy Pro is watch I could definitely own in addition to a Daytona, but it wouldn't be my choice in place of one.

post #858 of 3975
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveH35 View Post

 

Really beautiful and I love the texturing of the strap!  It should age beautifully!!!

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BLAUGRANA View Post

 

Great stuff as always!  I was wondering if you could elaborate on the resale values though.  Specifically, what were the approximate MSRPs of both the 16520 and 116520?  I'm actually quite ignorant as regards the Daytona compared to other watches and have sort of... ignored it based on some of the prices I've seen for vintage references.  I tried to find the MSRP for the 16520 and I couldn't find it.  Prices now seem to range quite a bit as well regardless of condition, but then I find "mint" doesn't equate to what I personally think it would/should.  

 

I feel the same about purchasing a watch.  I am still finding watches that I like out there but consistently come back to either the same watch or nothing as it does need to really pull me in and I have to consider my budget.  Great thing about it is I think I appreciate and love what I already have even more.  

I've read that the earliest 16520s came in at around $2,400.   When I started buying Daytonas started looking at Daytonas in 1993/94 a steel one was $3800, then it went to $4350, then went to $5,100,  then $5,500, and the last of them were $6,000.  When the 116520 came out it was the same price as the outgoing model $6,000, then it went to $6,500...and went up bit by bit to its current level.

 

I got into them sort of on the early end of things, and I never paid over list price.  Grays and some ADs were getting premiums of anywhere from $2,000 over MSRP to double the MSRP.  There were some people who would buy one at list from an AD, and then flip it a few hours later to make a tidy profit.  So some AD's would require a deposit to weed out less serious buyers, and some would only sell the person a SS Daytona if they had made other big ticket purchases...buy a gold Day Date and you can then buy a SS Daytona. 

 

In terms of pricing being all over the place, that is very true of 16520s.  To a casual observer they look the same.  However, there are numerous differences over the years...making some rarer than others and more valuable.  Early ones had the word "Cosmograph" separate from the rest of the text, or what collectors call"Floating."  The bezels also were calibrated differently going only to 200 units rather than 400 and had all brushed bracelets, and did not have the safety latch/oyster lock clasps.  Some early 16520 Daytonas used porcelain dials.  There were also changes in the writing/font of the subdials, and some have dials where the color changed (and people pay more for that oddity), and then a change in lum, and the addition of SEL bracelets.  

 

With 116520s, there were changes in hands, changes to the movement, changes to the clasp, the Rolex name and serial got added around the inner bezel area, the lum changed, etc.  For now the market hasn't strongly distinguished between these differences other than people paying more for the newest ones with a warranty. 

 

That'st just sort of a short summary.  There are guys with sites dedicated to the various distinctions and who have tried to collect one if each variation.  Hope that helps.  Cheers!

post #859 of 3975
More Breguet numerals inlove.gif
post #860 of 3975
Checking in to read the discussions here in TWAT v2.0 while waiting for my little ones. #TGIF

post #861 of 3975
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dino944 View Post

Oh how I do love a good "Backhanded compliment."   

I am a bit unclear about your question.  Are asking whether the statement of mine you that you quoted is solely on my own opinion/bias?  If that is your question, the answer is no, it is not based solely on my opinion/bias.  I can't take credit for that opinion as I am not a watchmaker or journalist.  However, it was the opinion of a watchmaker (with several decades of experience working on watches...but trying to give you the benefit of the doubt maybe he is a more traditional guy), and in an article I read several years ago.  Those opinions have shaped my opinion on that issue.  

Those opinions were expressed to me several years ago, and as with anything involving science and mechanical items, there can always be new discoveries and changes of opinion. So perhaps if I read a few newer articles on the Speedy Pro or talked with other watchmakers stating the use of plastic is a significant improvement, my own opinion would change.

Being skeptical something makes a difference isn't the same as definitely saying something does or does not make a difference.  It is an opinion.  In addition, beyond the plastic vs. metal movement part issue, the movement in cal 4130 is still far more advanced than what is in the Speedy Pro (which isn't using a column wheel in the current movement).

I have no idea what you are getting at with your Rolex Oysterpolymer statement, or your stating that is something a Rolex hater would say.  

Your statement "Again unless you have some evidence that the world doesn't appear to be aware of " seems rather condescending.  

The point I was making was that you seem to have every detail nailed for so many watches, yet you are either propagating an incorrect opinion or misrepresenting something someone knowledgeable told you. As far as I am aware the delrin brake is the only plastic part in the watch movement. It's a really minor thing, so your statement about cutting corners came across as biased and, to be honest, a bit petty.

By comparison, Belligero's points are more even-handed and are consistent with what I've read. I would prefer a column wheel movement for the improved chrono action and wish they had improved on the 321 instead of moving to the 861.

I'm not here looking for approval, just trying to bring some clarity to what I believe was an incorrect statement. And again, I don't think the comparison between the speedy and daytona is an apt one as they aren't comparable, as I think you agree.

As for the OysterPolymer statement, I don't know how else to say it but I'm trying to point out that I believe your indictment of the speedy movement appears in part motivated by an unstated bias, just as someone criticizing Rolex for often using marketing to overstate technical innovation could be indicative of bias.

The funny thing is that you and I are almost entirely aligned when it comes to opinions on Rolex and Omega more broadly. The speedy is the only Omega I own and the only one I am interested in owning at this point. But I would prefer to separate factual statements from opinions and aesthetic judgments.

As far as my "condescending" statement, sorry if it came across that way. As it is often said, it can be hard to infer intent from written words. I am inferring intent from your statement about multiple plastic parts cutting corners and perhaps I inferred too much.

I'm happy you enjoy your Daytonas and wish you the best.
post #862 of 3975
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omega Male View Post
 

Right!

 

New fully-lumed Explorer is a nice update

 

Right!

 

Thoughts on the new fully-lumed Explorer dial? Notice they've also quietly fixed the minute hand length. 

 

 

I'm quite shocked by my own reaction, but the subtle changes they made on this totally flipped my opinion on a watch that I've always felt pretty meh about.  Apparently the no lume numbers and slightly small hands were huge deal breakers for me...who knew?  This is the Rolex I would buy right now.

post #863 of 3975
^ I agree completely. I know some people liked it, but I hated the all white gold numerals personally. For what I would want out of the watch, i.e. something extremely simple/sporty/under the radar it's awesome now.
post #864 of 3975
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnFacconable View Post


The point I was making was that you seem to have every detail nailed for so many watches, yet you are either propagating an incorrect opinion or misrepresenting something someone knowledgeable told you. As far as I am aware the delrin brake is the only plastic part in the watch movement. It's a really minor thing, so your statement about cutting corners came across as biased and, to be honest, a bit petty.

I don't think the comparison between the speedy and daytona is an apt one as they aren't comparable

... I don't know how else to say it but I'm trying to point out that I believe your indictment of the speedy movement appears in part motivated by an unstated bias, just as someone criticizing Rolex for often using marketing to overstate technical innovation could be indicative of bias.

The speedy is the only Omega I own and the only one I am interested in owning at this point. But I would prefer to separate factual statements from opinions and aesthetic judgments.

 

 

I'm sorry if my statements were not detailed enough or were inaccurate regarding the Speedy Pro, or that you felt my statements were purely based on bias.  Admittedly, I haven't focused much on Speedy details in a while.  I looked at them many years ago, but it really hasn't been on my radar much in recent years.  I have focused more on other brands and probably remember more about them from reading or interactions at watch events for other brands. I have owned an Omega, but it was not a Speedy.

 

I have said numerous times in my posts and not just on this subject the Speedy Pro is a very good watch and the only Omega that interests me.  I would think you might be pleased that I didn't have lots of criticisms, and that I blanked out on the lack of the column wheel.  

 

As for you feeling that a comparison is not apt as they are not comparable...the OP asked why people would choose a Daytona over a Speedy.  When one is asked why one item over another, comparisons are rather common.  Both are sports watches, with long histories, made by 2 of the largest watch companies, but their approaches, philosophies and designs are drastically different. 

 

You state your preference is to focus on factual statements, and avoid opinions and aesthetics, yet the OP asked why one would choose a Daytona.  Even if one sticks to facts, water resistance, movement specs, type of steel used, or plexi vs. sapphire crystal...there is bound to be opinion and or bias regardless of how unintended or small.  However, if my posts bother you just skip them. 

 

Enjoy your Speedy. 

post #865 of 3975
Curious to see the Explorer l in person. I love my 241270 as the perfect all around watch and I have trouble noticing the new changes from the photos alone.
post #866 of 3975

The Speedmaster Professional (and a vintage 300) are the only Omegas I like. Aesthetically, the moonwatch has the simplest no frills layout for a chrono. Not a fan of the Speedmaster (modern automatic), too busy for my liking.

 

The moonwatch is a classic that can still be bought new. Much like walking in to your Porsche dealer today and getting a brand new 73 RS with warranty. 

post #867 of 3975
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dino944 View Post

You state your preference is to focus on factual statements, and avoid opinions and aesthetics, yet the OP asked why one would choose a Daytona.  Even if one sticks to facts, water resistance, movement specs, type of steel used, or plexi vs. sapphire crystal...there is bound to be opinion and or bias regardless of how unintended or small.  However, if my posts bother you just skip them. 

Enjoy your Speedy. 

I think we're just talking past each other. I agree with 99% of your statements on the subject including that they really aren't competitors. I also understand that BH asked for a comparison to be made and that your post was largely responsive to his request. I'm also not judging you for your opinions or your view. The only minor point I wanted to make was that I thought your statement regarding the use of plastic parts was factually incorrect and perhaps motivated by bias, but again that was an inference based on the fact that you typically have your facts dialed in. The reason I wanted to focus on the facts was that I wanted to address one incorrect fact that it appears you relied on to make a qualitative judgment. Perhaps I'm having a bad writing day but it feels like there's a pretty big disconnect between the two sides of our discussion. My post was meant solely to address one simple factual point and not to anything else so I'm not sure any of this other stuff is really relevant. Because I found one factual claim troubling doesn't mean I should ignore your posts. I think critical reading and discussion is one of the best parts of this thread.

Perhaps you're reading more into my statements than I intended (for example you think I said that your statement was "purely based on bias" which I did not) and perhaps I assumed too much based on your posting history. You have a definitive point of view and I'm not here to challenge your opinions. I enjoy your posts and the knowledge you contribute to this thread understanding full well that I'm 99% a viewer and not a contributor here.

Enjoy your Daytonas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iLuveketchup View Post

The Speedmaster Professional (and a vintage 300) are the only Omegas I like. Aesthetically, the moonwatch has the simplest no frills layout for a chrono. Not a fan of the Speedmaster (modern automatic), too busy for my liking.

The moonwatch is a classic that can still be bought new. Much like walking in to your Porsche dealer today and getting a brand new 73 RS with warranty.

For me this is what I love about the speedy in a nutshell. I'm not generally a vintage watch guy but I love that the speedy looked cool in the 60's and still looks cool now. With the bright white hands and black dial, it's got a very unique look and nothing like my other watches. The history was and utility was a bit of a draw too. By comparison, for me the appeal of the Daytona is entirely different.
post #868 of 3975
Quote:
Originally Posted by tricky View Post

Curious to see the Explorer l in person. I love my 241270 as the perfect all around watch and I have trouble noticing the new changes from the photos alone.

I like mine as well, but also reeaaallyyy want to see the new version, in the metal, side-by-side.

That's the only way to know for sure, and unfortunately, it's probably going to take several months at least.

In the meantime, I'll probably keep wearing mine on different / alternating NATO straps, which I've been enjoying for some time now.
post #869 of 3975
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnFacconable View Post

  Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
The point I was making was that you seem to have every detail nailed for so many watches, yet you are either propagating an incorrect opinion or misrepresenting something someone knowledgeable told you. As far as I am aware the delrin brake is the only plastic part in the watch movement. It's a really minor thing, so your statement about cutting corners came across as biased and, to be honest, a bit petty.

By comparison, Belligero's points are more even-handed and are consistent with what I've read. I would prefer a column wheel movement for the improved chrono action and wish they had improved on the 321 instead of moving to the 861.

I'm not here looking for approval, just trying to bring some clarity to what I believe was an incorrect statement. And again, I don't think the comparison between the speedy and daytona is an apt one as they aren't comparable, as I think you agree.

As for the OysterPolymer statement, I don't know how else to say it but I'm trying to point out that I believe your indictment of the speedy movement appears in part motivated by an unstated bias, just as someone criticizing Rolex for often using marketing to overstate technical innovation could be indicative of bias.

The funny thing is that you and I are almost entirely aligned when it comes to opinions on Rolex and Omega more broadly. The speedy is the only Omega I own and the only one I am interested in owning at this point. But I would prefer to separate factual statements from opinions and aesthetic judgments.

As far as my "condescending" statement, sorry if it came across that way. As it is often said, it can be hard to infer intent from written words. I am inferring intent from your statement about multiple plastic parts cutting corners and perhaps I inferred too much.

I'm happy you enjoy your Daytonas and wish you the best.

 

We've talked about it in the past a bit in the original thread. I never agreed with the POV that derlin brake should be viewed as a step down in the caliber (outside of Belli's post from the 321). I can understand people not wanting "plastic" parts in their watches, but there has been a lot of inference of "cheap" with it, and I never quite got it.

post #870 of 3975
All these people talking about the new Explorer...you're making me want something I can't have wink.gif
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)