Louis vuitton and prada

[kalra2411]

Quote:

(kalra2411 @ 15 July 2004, 02:22)

Patek is better???
Much better. Have you even tried the aquanaute ? I do not think so... Talking about just look of a watch, you have 3 differents thing : 1) picture 2) real life 3) wearing on your wrist Many watches look nice in 1) but are ugly in 3) Can I tell you that Patek has not only one model and Cartier neither.
I know there are many models. Actualy the Patek Calatarava and 5036-1J are the only ones that look good, all the rest are terrible. Aquanaut is a vile and disgusting watch. Some Cartier models also look bad: Must 21, Tank Louis Cartier and Roadster.

 

[ernest]

If you thought that I would further argue this, you are mistaken. By the way, Jon, I may also bring to your note, that Lakshmi Mittal does know of more expensive watches than a Patek. Vacheron, Richard Mille and Roger Dubis cost more than Lang, see I know more than you, two can play at the same game. Although, as you, the watch expert that you are should indeed realise, the most expensive production watch is, wait for it, a Patek. Money is very much part of the equation, the Cartier and the Patek shown are at similar price points, with a difference of only about five thousand pounds. I am glad to see that you have said that we are not talking about monetary value of timepieces, even though I brought about the subject, it is so nice to see that you are telling me what I am talking about. It is obviously not like comparing Loro Piana to polyester. It is like comparing maybe a fashion suit, e.g. Dior Homme, to a similarly priced Kiton, which I see nothing wrong with doing. I did realise that the Patek had a better movement, but it looks bad, who cares what it is like inside, that's like saying you would drive a Toyota instead of a Mercedes/Bentley/Ferrari because the Toyota can go faster, and has an engine which is better made. It does not matter that the Toyota looks terrible to you does it? It does not matter that people will still think you are driving a Toyota does it? The point of such products is to get the reaction from others. Ernest thinks that Jaeger Le-Couture is better than Cartier, enough said in terms of a more money buys a better product ideology.

Who cares? Me and many people who loves really nice stuff and not just in fashion, people who wear non fused suits, 7 fold ties, sea island shirts... French Tank is a great watch for design, I have one so I can not tell you it is not. But it does not worth his price because of the poor movement. Many Patek are great watches for design but also for movement. That is funny = you show us Cartier for women (or for sissies&#33

. I can not imagine you think such a watch is nice for a man... If you think so, you are more ridiculious than I thought. Go and learn about watches, Cartier, Patek and JL and comme back...

 

[ernest]

ImageWIS,

Would you agree, that for the money, there are few better finished movements and cases than a basic SS JLC Reverso?

You can find much better for money =

MASTER ULTRA THIN by JL .....

 

[kalra2411]

Quote:

(kalra2411 @ 15 July 2004, 09:23) If you thought that I would further argue this, you are mistaken. By the way, Jon, I may also bring to your note, that Lakshmi Mittal does know of more expensive watches than a Patek. Vacheron, Richard Mille and Roger Dubis cost more than Lang, see I know more than you, two can play at the same game. Although, as you, the watch expert that you are should indeed realise, the most expensive production watch is, wait for it, a Patek. Money is very much part of the equation, the Cartier and the Patek shown are at similar price points, with a difference of only about five thousand pounds. I am glad to see that you have said that we are not talking about monetary value of timepieces, even though I brought about the subject, it is so nice to see that you are telling me what I am talking about. It is obviously not like comparing Loro Piana to polyester. It is like comparing maybe a fashion suit, e.g. Dior Homme, to a similarly priced Kiton, which I see nothing wrong with doing. I did realise that the Patek had a better movement, but it looks bad, who cares what it is like inside, that's like saying you would drive a Toyota instead of a Mercedes/Bentley/Ferrari because the Toyota can go faster, and has an engine which is better made. It does not matter that the Toyota looks terrible to you does it? It does not matter that people will still think you are driving a Toyota does it? The point of such products is to get the reaction from others. Ernest thinks that Jaeger Le-Couture is better than Cartier, enough said in terms of a more money buys a better product ideology.
Who cares? Me and many people who loves really nice stuff and not just in fashion, people who wear non fused suits, 7 fold ties, sea island shirts... French Tank is a great watch for design, I have one so I can not tell you it is not. But it does not worth his price because of the poor movement. Many Patek are great watches for design but also for movement. That is funny = you show us Cartier for women (or for sissies&#33

. I can not imagine you think such a watch is nice for a man... If you think so, you are more ridiculious than I thought. Go and learn about watches, Cartier, Patek and JL and comme back...
My you are in a strange world if you see women wearing chrongraph watches.

 

[ernest]

Quote:

(ernest @ 16 July 2004, 12:39)

Originally Posted by kalra2411,15 July 2004, 2:14

Originally Posted by kalra2411,15 July 2004, 10:03

Actually, Mr. Watch Expert the Cartier Chrono-Reflex has been deemed a far finer movement than most automatic movements on the market, by such esteemed publications as Horology International, Catro D'Vesquela and COSC Bi-Annual Review. Therefore, why you constantly call it an inferior quartz movement also brings me many laughs.

Tell me again how Quartz Cartier's are better than mechanical Tourbillon JLC's...

Shows how much you understand, I said automatic movement, not mechanical (i.e. wound) - a tourbillion is a complication. I would not know why the Chrono-Reflex is better than most automatic movements, but as you should know, three much esteemed publications in the world of watches have said so.
which publications? 3 among how many? 150? paid by Cartier?
Horology International, Catro D'Vesquela and COSC Bi-Annual Review.
which mounth? what did they say exactly? If chronoflex is so good why : 1) Is he so "cheap" comparing the other automatik or quartz Cartier's watches ? 2) Is he so cheap comparing to other automatic movement from Patek or JL? Is Cartier becoming a mecene?

 

[kalra2411]

This is a nice watch?

I can get one that looks exactly the same from any cheap brand for under 10 pounds .

 

[kalra2411]

Quote:

(kalra2411 @ 15 July 2004, 4:46)

Originally Posted by ernest,16 July 2004, 12:39

Originally Posted by kalra2411,15 July 2004, 2:14

Originally Posted by kalra2411,15 July 2004, 10:03

Actually, Mr. Watch Expert the Cartier Chrono-Reflex has been deemed a far finer movement than most automatic movements on the market, by such esteemed publications as Horology International, Catro D'Vesquela and COSC Bi-Annual Review. Therefore, why you constantly call it an inferior quartz movement also brings me many laughs.

Tell me again how Quartz Cartier's are better than mechanical Tourbillon JLC's...

Shows how much you understand, I said automatic movement, not mechanical (i.e. wound) - a tourbillion is a complication. I would not know why the Chrono-Reflex is better than most automatic movements, but as you should know, three much esteemed publications in the world of watches have said so.
which publications? 3 among how many? 150? paid by Cartier?
Horology International, Catro D'Vesquela and COSC Bi-Annual Review.
which mounth? what did they say exactly? If  chronoflex is so good why : 1) Is he so "cheap" comparing the other automatik or quartz Cartier's watches ? 2)  Is he so cheap comparing to other automatic movement from Patek or JL? Is Cartier becoming a mecene?
Catro D'Vesquela - May 1999 Horology International - June 1999 COSC Bi-Annual Review - 2nd Issue 1999 Cheap? 1. Costs more than any other version of the Tank. 2. Cartier cost far more than most similar JL You do not know, you just say things.

 

[kalra2411]

Wait, you hit the nail on the head here

But it does not worth his price because of the poor movement.

YOU ARE RIGHT - BUT PRICE IS NO ISSUE FOR ME

EDIT: You may look for a good value watch, I do not, I like the look of Cartier the best, so I buy mostly Cartier, you look for best quality for best price so you buy PP.

 

[ernest]

Quote:

(ernest @ 16 July 2004, 12:45)

Originally Posted by kalra2411,15 July 2004, 02:22

Patek is better???
Much better. Have you even tried the aquanaute ? I do not think so... Talking about just look of a watch, you have 3 differents thing : 1) picture 2) real life 3) wearing on your wrist Many watches look nice in 1) but are ugly in 3) Can I tell you that Patek has not only one model and Cartier neither.
I know there are many models. Actualy the Patek Calatarava and 5036-1J are the only ones that look good, all the rest are terrible. Aquanaut is a vile and disgusting watch. Some Cartier models also look bad: Must 21, Tank Louis Cartier and Roadster.
Better tell us which Cartier do you like... I like French Tank Tortue + Louis Cartier from private collection. Pasha and most others watch are rather ugly and you just pay for the label. Patek = Aquanaute is great (very original with the grenade dial and rubber strap), you can find nice Calatrava, Ellipse is very nice, Gondolo is great... Why do you think a standard Cartier (not private collection) loose 40% when it just gets out from the shop when you do not loose more than 25% off on a 3 years old Patek? What is you explaination?

 

[bigbadbuff]

THIS IS BEYOND OLD. STOP TURNING EVERY THREAD INTO A DEBATE ABOUT SOMETHING OFF TOPIC.

Really, this is at least 2-3 threads on the front page where people are acting ridiculous...

 

[kalra2411]

Your problem is that you look at it from a value perspective, I look at it from the perspective of what I like. The Cartier I like: Tank Americaine Tank Francaise Pasha Jewlery Watch (not the sport ones) Toutue Panthere Santos (the old one, not the new Dumont, or 100) Cartier I hate: 21 (all) Must (all) Tank Louis Cartier Roadster Tank Divan Tank Vermeil PP I like: 3878 5037-1R 5134J 5036-1J 39981 5022J PP I hate: Aquanaut Golden Ellipse Gondolo Twenty-4 (see PP copy Cartier. . &#33

All others.

 

[ernest]

This is a nice watch?

I can get one that looks exactly the same from any cheap brand for under 10 pounds .

You are free to do what you want, wearing 50 USD suits, - 5 USD ties, eating in 5 USD indian restaurants...that is your life, I do not care. But please do not think you looks like you were wearing a 2 000 USD suit, a 200 USD tie....and please stop telling stupid things about things you do not understand. As you do not know how to judge a quality watch, please do not take your "Third world" guy fantasy (Cartier with diamonds) as a reference.

 

[Classic]

And now for something really crazy.
Why don't we get back to the topic and discuss LV vs Prada?
Personally, while my wife is a LV fan, I believe they are vastly overpriced. But having said that, I do believe that they are far superior to Prada, of which I am not a big fan. So my opinions could be biased.
Nevertheless, the LV products my wife has, seem to be wearing much better than the Prada items, especially the handbags.

Classic

 

[kalra2411]

Quote:

(kalra2411 @ 15 July 2004, 5:01) This is a nice watch?

I can get one that looks exactly the same from any cheap brand for under 10 pounds .
You are free to do what you want, wearing 50 USD suits, - Â 5 USD ties, eating in 5 USD indian restaurants...that is your life, I do not care. But please do not think you looks like you were wearing a 2 000 USD suit, a 200 USD tie....and please stop telling stupid things about things you do not understand. As you do not know how to judge a quality watch, please do not take your "Third world" guy fantasy (Cartier with diamonds) as a reference.
Ohhh nasty, WAIT THERE- INDIA- MORE BILLIONAIRES THAN FRANCE.

 

[ernest]

Quote:

(ernest @ 16 July 2004, 01:01)

Originally Posted by kalra2411,15 July 2004, 4:46

Originally Posted by ernest,16 July 2004, 12:39

Originally Posted by kalra2411,15 July 2004, 2:14

Originally Posted by kalra2411,15 July 2004, 10:03

Actually, Mr. Watch Expert the Cartier Chrono-Reflex has been deemed a far finer movement than most automatic movements on the market, by such esteemed publications as Horology International, Catro D'Vesquela and COSC Bi-Annual Review. Therefore, why you constantly call it an inferior quartz movement also brings me many laughs.

Tell me again how Quartz Cartier's are better than mechanical Tourbillon JLC's...

Shows how much you understand, I said automatic movement, not mechanical (i.e. wound) - a tourbillion is a complication. I would not know why the Chrono-Reflex is better than most automatic movements, but as you should know, three much esteemed publications in the world of watches have said so.
which publications? 3 among how many? 150? paid by Cartier?
Horology International, Catro D'Vesquela and COSC Bi-Annual Review.
which mounth? what did they say exactly? If  chronoflex is so good why : 1) Is he so "cheap" comparing the other automatik or quartz Cartier's watches ? 2)  Is he so cheap comparing to other automatic movement from Patek or JL? Is Cartier becoming a mecene?
Catro D'Vesquela - May 1999 Horology International - June 1999 COSC Bi-Annual Review - 2nd Issue 1999 Cheap? 1. Costs more than any other version of the Tank. 2. Cartier cost far more than most similar JL You do not know, you just say things.
A roaster costs 3 500 euros / A grandpsort cost 5 000 euros The cheapest Cartier costs less than 1 500 euros / The cheapest JL costs more than 3 000 euros As you think level of prices means the BRAND is better, good news as you will admit PATEK is much BETTER than CARTIER, and that JL is better than CARTIER.