The Watch Appreciation Thread - Part two (Rolex, Patek Philippe, Audemars Piguet, Jaeger LeCoultre,

[chocomallo]

View attachment 1256930

Love it. Just poking the bear for a bit of fun. I need some excitement.

 

[Riva]

I like vintage watches and also, G-shocks, which are not only super functional, but have a ton of streetwear collaborations and style as well.

Real question: why couldn't you resist the completely unnecessary smug insult at the end of that post?

I was talking about my old self. Real answer.

 

[Riva]

Love it. Just poking the bear for a bit of fun. I need some excitement.

But Foo got the perfect sized watch for his profile. Unlike buff guys wearing girly 33mm yellow gold.

 

[am55]

I was talking about my old self. Real answer.

Fortunately you since found more expensive hobbies.

 

[am55]

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I see some of your points. Some perplexities remain though: had Rolex been founded in 1975 with the same mission they had in 1904, would they have bothered with mechanical movements?

Perhaps you’re suggesting that mechanical watches have a greater, multi-generation lifespan. But why can’t quartz be the same? Grand Seiko quartz watches have a service interval of 50 (!) years. And the case, dial etc are all at higher level of finish than any Rolex. Maybe the Citizen Eco-Drive tech is too young for us to know, but the solar cell is supposed to last some 20 yrs, at which point it can be replaced. The case is super titanium with great finish. I don’t see why it shouldn’t last.

I think the answer is that it can't "have been founded in 1975", in the sense that it is because it has such a long track record and it didn't sell out unlike other storied brands that Rolex is valued. There's a lot of parallels with investing in a way. Would Warren Buffett be Warren Buffett if he was 40 and had started 20 years ago? The deal flow that Buffett has access to is also a function of his track record, of his brand. So trying to understand Rolex solely from the point of view of the mechanical aspect misses the point as far as I'm concerned. The intangibles are a huge part of the value and perhaps most of it, whether the huge brand equity built by Rolex over the decades in the general public (which you borrow when you buy and wear the things) or the satisfying feeling of joining a giant chorus that spans generations.

As for the one watch, I hesitated to answer because I think someone who loves watches cannot have a "one watch" almost by definition. Thus I would recommend friends who do not love watches the following according to my perception of their budget, in increasing budget (and that is not just a function of net worth):
- the Casio F91W or A158. It is the cheapest "branded" watch you can trust will last a good decade, and has been made acceptable by plenty of famous people wearing it in high profile occasions, which you can refer to if your law firm gets antsy. My lawyer wears an F91W (yet has drunk multiple mid-20th century Moutons, so go figure).
- a white or silver dial vintage datejust, small diameter (is it 36 or 34mm, I can never remember), with stick dial. Understated, classic. If your family has many wearers of Cartier tanks. Tan strap for casual, black strap with a suit. It's a bit casual but would pass muster in London or Paris. The new DJs are just too flashy, too large, too special. It feels wrong for a DJ (now a President...). I've seen these on the wrists of people ranging from young edgy movie directors in torn black T-shirts to established law firm partners who dabble in politics ("I'm on the outer circle, dear boy, not the power core itself.").
- a no date sub, any year - if your family says things like "Cartier tanks are effeminate". I personally still can't stomach them with a suit even after more than a decade in the new world, but they have always been popular, are the most recognisable SS model, and will probably make you money if you get bored and resell.
- now at the high end my personal belief is that men of means should commission art, not just buy it. And so I would recommend a Roger Smith commission. But a second hand Daniels is just fine as well. I think a lot of the "practical" reasons people give not to buy these watches miss the point. Eric Tabarly's first yacht, Pen Duick, just came out of an extensive restauration. It was built in 1898 and sailed in the 60s. Tabarly and Pen Duick both are written in history and as such extraordinary efforts - beyond what the mechanics require - have been deployed to preserve them and their memory. In fact the article quotes the team as saying they rebuilt the boat exactly as Tabarly had rebuilt it himself, ignoring both the "original" design and "modern" techniques since applied on that class.

 

[Riva]

Fortunately you since found more expensive hobbies.

“I never could see anything wrong in sensationalism; and I am sure our society is suffering more from secrecy than from flamboyant revelations.”

 

[pmeis]

Yea but they wear gigantic like a bigger Panerai.

LOLs, they most certainly do not. (Speaking as someone who has owned a couple Panerais and the SBGV245.)

 

[Scuppers]

Eric Tabarly's first yacht, Pen Duick, just came out of an extensive restauration. It was built in 1898 and sailed in the 60s. Tabarly and Pen Duick both are written in history and as such extraordinary efforts - beyond what the mechanics require - have been deployed to preserve them and their memory. In fact the article quotes the team as saying they rebuilt the boat exactly as Tabarly had rebuilt it himself, ignoring both the "original" design and "modern" techniques since applied on that class.

For no rational reason, all I can picture is MMPs Sea Cloud after the ravages of the US Marines.

 

[Riva]

LOLs, they most certainly do not. (Speaking as someone who has owned a couple Panerais and the SBGV245.)

Of course I was talking about me and my wrist

 

[am55]

“I never could see anything wrong in sensationalism; and I am sure our society is suffering more from secrecy than from flamboyant revelations.”

 

[chocomallo]

But Foo got the perfect sized watch for his profile. Unlike buff guys wearing girly 33mm yellow gold.

Exactly. Perfectly stated. The reason I mock Fooper incessantly is because he is the caricature of someone who claims to buy on an informed basis. But he actually buys based on popularity and notoriety. And he uses brand history and first-in-time among other meaningless metrics to trash all others. He cannot admit that watches are jewelry, and his being the easiest target he deserves ridicule. It’s ridiculous that a new GMT Rolex gets 5 times more likes and fawning than a limited edition Breguet chronograph or whatever. Watches are in fashion at the moment and people will move on to other status symbols in the future.

Prime example, almost every recommendation on this thread is Rolex Explorer regardless of whatever the OP desires. It’s a great watch but whatever. Not everyone wants something so simple.

 

[crazn]

Exactly. Perfectly stated. The reason I mock Fooper incessantly is because he is the caricature of someone who claims to buy on an informed basis. But he actually buys based on popularity and notoriety. And he uses brand history and first-in-time among other meaningless metrics to trash all others. He cannot admit that watches are jewelry, and his being the easiest target he deserves ridicule. It’s ridiculous that a new GMT Rolex gets 5 times more likes and fawning than a limited edition Breguet chronograph or whatever. Watches are in fashion at the moment and people will move on to other status symbols in the future.

Prime example, almost every recommendation on this thread is Rolex Explorer regardless of whatever the OP desires. It’s a great watch but whatever. Not everyone wants something so simple.

hive mind.

 

[Michigan Planner]

I'm
looking for a "one watch" solution, and my thinking is still in flux, so please help me out. I have been going through the following reasoning lately.

I love the Rolex Explorer I. I love the general vision that made Rolex what it is: no frills, innovative, well-finished, reliable, accurate and fuss-free. No need or desire to bother with haute horologerie. To achieve those values in the mid-20th century it made sense to produce steel-cased automatic watches. The Explorer I (1016 and 6610 especially) is my personal favourite: a tool watch, but one discreet enough to just about work with a suit and tie. The pre-Explorers were perhaps even better in this respects, with their applied indices. Icing on the cake: prices tracked production costs, not desirability as a status symbol.

Modern Rolex is a different story. As I see it, it's a relentless, romantic pursuit of perfection in an outdated technology. And prices levitated for all sorts of reasons--they simply are what the market will bear, and the market has changed dramatically, partly as a result of the introduction of new technologies. The modern Rolex vision is admirable and fascinating vision but, somewhat paradoxically, it's different from the original one that put the brand on its exalted pedestal.

The above analysis leaves me with two options: (1) find a vintage Explorer I and celebrate a mid-century achievement and a storied name (and sacrifice some practicality), or (2) find a watch that would be what Rolex would be producing now if they had been established around 1975 and adhered to their original mission.

So here comes my question for the experts on here: if I were to pursue (2), which watches should I consider? My sense is that I should look at top range solar-powered titanium or ceramic HAQ watches that would work on a bracelet, leather strap, and nato strap.

For example, The Citizen Chronomaster Eco-Drive AQ4020-03E reminds me of some pre-Explorers with its matte (paper!) dial (though I don't like the date window). It's as autonomous and fuss-free as they come, it's excellently finished, it's at the forefront of the industry's technical developments. The latest models they presented at Basel are even more cutting-edge but they're dressier, I think. I'm also looking at a few other HAQ options but I think solar power is essential here -- solar is to battery what automatic was to hand-winding in the 40s.

Am I looking in the right place? What else should I consider? Many thanks in advance for your advice!

View attachment 1256705

PS these Grand Seikos also appeal, though they’re not solar -

GS SBGV243, SBGV245 & SBGV247 Review - Timeless Luxury Watches

Grand Seiko may be best known for its highly refined dress and everyday watches, but not only does it have a history of several truly great sports and tool watches, it seems to have been increasingly focused on them lately. No one could ignore … GS SBGV243, SBGV245 & SBGV247 Review Read More »

timelessluxwatches.com

I have the Citizen AQ4020 and absolutely love it. The perpetual calendar and power saving functions are awesome. If I leave it tucked away in the watch roll for a few days, it stops running but when I pull it out it immediately jumps into action and the hands and date start spinning to catch back up to the correct date/time.

I looked at those Grand Seikos that you also mentioned when I was buying the Citizen, but as much as I loved the look of the grey/silver SBGV245, they just wore so much bigger than what the measurements would indicate.

 

[patrickBOOTH]

I'm
looking for a "one watch" solution, and my thinking is still in flux, so please help me out. I have been going through the following reasoning lately.

I love the Rolex Explorer I. I love the general vision that made Rolex what it is: no frills, innovative, well-finished, reliable, accurate and fuss-free. No need or desire to bother with haute horologerie. To achieve those values in the mid-20th century it made sense to produce steel-cased automatic watches. The Explorer I (1016 and 6610 especially) is my personal favourite: a tool watch, but one discreet enough to just about work with a suit and tie. The pre-Explorers were perhaps even better in this respects, with their applied indices. Icing on the cake: prices tracked production costs, not desirability as a status symbol.

Modern Rolex is a different story. As I see it, it's a relentless, romantic pursuit of perfection in an outdated technology. And prices levitated for all sorts of reasons--they simply are what the market will bear, and the market has changed dramatically, partly as a result of the introduction of new technologies. The modern Rolex vision is admirable and fascinating vision but, somewhat paradoxically, it's different from the original one that put the brand on its exalted pedestal.

The above analysis leaves me with two options: (1) find a vintage Explorer I and celebrate a mid-century achievement and a storied name (and sacrifice some practicality), or (2) find a watch that would be what Rolex would be producing now if they had been established around 1975 and adhered to their original mission.

So here comes my question for the experts on here: if I were to pursue (2), which watches should I consider? My sense is that I should look at top range solar-powered titanium or ceramic HAQ watches that would work on a bracelet, leather strap, and nato strap.

For example, The Citizen Chronomaster Eco-Drive AQ4020-03E reminds me of some pre-Explorers with its matte (paper!) dial (though I don't like the date window). It's as autonomous and fuss-free as they come, it's excellently finished, it's at the forefront of the industry's technical developments. The latest models they presented at Basel are even more cutting-edge but they're dressier, I think. I'm also looking at a few other HAQ options but I think solar power is essential here -- solar is to battery what automatic was to hand-winding in the 40s.

Am I looking in the right place? What else should I consider? Many thanks in advance for your advice!

View attachment 1256705

Bolded are extremely wrong-headed imo. The idea that people brought up of "watches are jewelry" applies to you perfectly. You want modern jewelry it seems. Some people want a timepiece and like mechanical analog things. I think Rolex is delivering all of that, but you're stubborn about how it isn't the latest technology.

The solar/battery, auto/manual analogy is stupid. An analog watch can virtually never stop, a solar watch is based on the sun's rays and a battery. This "outdated" technology depending on the criteria can be seen as superior.

Anybody know of nuclear fission watches?

 

[Texasmade]

Prime example, almost every recommendation on this thread is Rolex Explorer regardless of whatever the OP desires. It’s a great watch but whatever. Not everyone wants something so simple.

I never recommend a Rolex Explorer. It's never been my thing. I'm more of an Omega person.