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

[firenze_rob]



I'm awaiting delivery of a Camile Fournet alligator strap for my Geophysic.  I think the watches have the same lug width.  The Camille Fournet is notably cheaper than the OEM alligator strap.  I'm just scared to death of actually changing the damn strap!  

I've found the Bergeon 6825 to be a good tool that takes the anxiety out of strap changes.

 

[Dino944]

This brings up an interesting question: for everyone out there, how much does accuracy matter in making a watch purchase? Is accuracy a proxy for reliability (vis a vis the Lemania powered Speedys pictured)? Just thinking out loud.

Many years ago when I had just one or two good watches, I would check the accuracy of my watches frequently. My steel 16520 Daytona (with cal 4030) was the most accurate mechanical watch I ever owned. For the 5 years I used it as a daily wearer it was dead on accurate (it never seemed to gain or lose time). However, it has been many years since accuracy has truly mattered to me. I have a Rolex Oysterquartz, which is probably my most accurate watch, but I've never kept track of its accuracy, and I didn't buy it specifically for its accuracy. Granted I don't want a watch that is inaccurate, but I don't care if something is a certified chronometer or is within its specs. Many of the finest offerings from PP, AP, and VC are not certified chronometers. In addition, several of my nicest watches don't even have a seconds hand.

I value design, workmanship/finishing, comfort, and historic impact far more than accuracy these days. Maybe there are professions, or events that do require extreme accuracy, but it simply isn't a requirement to anything that I do.

 

[SteveH35]

Unless it's a total POS movement, accuracy (or more accurately, "precision") speaks much more to the final adjustment and subsequent deviating from the adjusted point in an individual piece than it does to the quality of the movement in general. Any good watchmaker can make pretty much any watch from $2,000-$2,000,000 accurate in a routine service.

 

[BLAUGRANA]

I've found the Bergeon 6825 to be a good tool that takes the anxiety out of strap changes.

Even if it's not a bracelet?

I have a Bergeon 6767 F which I fear is too fine to get a good grip of the spring bar. That said I've been practicing on a larger watch, but getting the strap back on is proving a bit difficult.

 

[Keith T]

The only one of my watches that gains or loses time noticeably is my Accutron. (How ironic. It runs a little fast).

But hey, it's vintage (like over 40 years old)-- and I think it looks really cool, and it's easy enough to adjust.

So I put up with it.

 

[apropos]



They also specifically avoid telling the exact second range. My JLC Deep Sea went for adjustment a few months back, because it was running over +10s / day. After adjustment, it's about half of that and still not as accurate as Milgauss out of the box and mentioned this to the JLC customer rep who called me from Holland to discuss the irregularities in shipment. However, she mentioned that their spec is one minute a week and I can always send the watch back for a re-check if I'm not happy with the result.

If you find somewhere the official JLC party line about the daily error range, please post it, I'd be interested.

I'm really sorry to hear that your watch had that issue. My Reverso had the minute hand contact the inside glass - which eventually left a mark on the inside. This was fixed by CS as well. I guess 999.9 of the 1000 hours was spent on a machine huh?

Re: the -1+6, it's not published anywhere, but was a quote from someone who worked (I think) as head of their QC department in an interview.

That said - IMO, being overly concerned about about the accuracy of a mechanical watch is sort of missing the point completely.

Please note that I'm not saying you shouldn't be worried about +10sec a day when clearly it should do better than that (like kimmo above - you should be concerned), or that your watch isn't reaching COSC spec when it is advertised as handily doing so. I'm talking about the folks who insist on -2+2 and use it as a surrogate of "overall quality", or obsessively measure their watches (yeah they are out there in watch forum land), or worst of all preclude purchasing watches because they are not officially certified "chronometers".

To me, it's sort of like worrying about the fuel economy of a vintage car, the calorie content of an amazing gourmet meal, or the gut transit time of a beautiful woman - yeah, it exists and it's measurable, but it's also sort of completely missing the point. All I'm concerned about is how #1 is going to help me find #3, and whether I'll have enough left over after buying #1 to afford #2.

 

[Keith T]

 

[kimmo]

apropos, agree what you said on general accuracy on mechanical watches. I'm just interested if my example is still excessively out of spec or within margins. I haven't seen anything official from JLC in written format.

I rotate a few watches and don't use a winder, so setting up the watch is still a routine and the daily accuracy isn't exactly an issue

 

[no frills]

The Watch Appreciation Thread - Part two (Rolex, Patek Philippe, Audemars Pi...

AAt this afternoon's gathering of fellow enthusiasts, from NYC's Red Bar Crew:

A few Snoopy Speedmasters and Rolex DBlues; each of these pieces are held dear by the respective owners.

He's achieved some notoriety of late given his involvements in the watch world, but remains incredibly down to earth and is really such an awesome guy all around. One of my closest friends, Adam Craniotes, flashes me his usual skeptical look:

 

[Keith T]

Frilly.

Still baller as ever.

Nice assortment you guys have assembled there!

Joe Cool FTW.

 

[cchen]



If you want the in-house movement, then you might have to wait a while for a good deal used.  But my take on the Pelagos is "no".  Not that I don't like it, but there were a couple of things that bugged me: firstly, I actually didn't like that it's so light.  There's some kind of dissonance in how it feels when it's so utilitarian-looking. I prefer the heft of a steel diver.  And secondly, any all-black dive watch is going to be compared to a Submariner, and a Tudor more than most.  The Pelagos isn't cheap either, so compared to a classic used Sub, the differentiation isn't sufficient.  As for the size, it's a personal thing.  My wrist is barely over 7", but a dive watch is supposed to be substantial so it didn't look or feel odd to me.  That said, it might just be another argument for a classic Sub - smaller case, narrower lugs, just a little bit less in your face.

By coincidence, I was looking at Tudors at Heathrow yesterday, as it was the first time I've seen the Black Bay Black in the flesh.  That's also very vintage-Sub-ish, but cheaper than the Pelagos, pretty sexy, and looks good on a strap.

Sorry am a bit late to the discussion.

I respectfully disagree with @mimo. I'd had mine since 2013. I love that it is lightweight, and the bracelet is one of the most comfortable that I've worn, even compared to higher-end watches. I think it's much more attractive and more low-key than a sub. You have to try it on to appreciate it. I prefer the 1st gen's looks over the 2nd - I don't like the 4 lines of text, and honestly, at this price point for a tool watch, who cares if it has an in-house movement?

I see people selling 2nd hand Pelagos' for as low as $1800 USD, which is a great deal.

 

[TheWraith]

I agree with mimo. When I buy a sport/dive watch like that, I prefer it to have some heft to it. Dress watches should be nice and light, but dive watches (especially chunky ones with HEV)? No, I prefer them to have a certain weight to them but YMMV.

 

[BLAUGRANA]

He's achieved some notoriety of late given his involvements in the watch world, but remains incredibly down to earth and is really such an awesome guy all around. One of my closest friends, Adam Craniotes, flashes me his usual skeptical look:

I've come across him in the past via Instagram. I remember the name. He actually looks to have both of my watches in his collection. I think there's another guy out there who has them both as well.

 

[mimo]

Sorry am a bit late to the discussion.

I respectfully disagree with @mimo . I'd had mine since 2013. I love that it is lightweight, and the bracelet is one of the most comfortable that I've worn, even compared to higher-end watches. I think it's much more attractive and more low-key than a sub. You have to try it on to appreciate it. I prefer the 1st gen's looks over the 2nd - I don't like the 4 lines of text, and honestly, at this price point for a tool watch, who cares if it has an in-house movement?

I see people selling 2nd hand Pelagos' for as low as $1800 USD, which is a great deal.

In some ways I guess it's more subtle than a Sub, despite the size, simply because it isn't a Rolex. And whether you like it light or heavy is just a matter of taste. I like the matte finish on the dial and bezel, and in itself it's a very likable watch - definitely a deal at that price too. Personally as I said, I would find it hard to take one over a Black Bay, or even an older Seamaster in that price range. And a new one versus old Sub is no contest to me. But that doesn't mean you're wrong, it just means you like it more, which is cool.

Variety of opinion, well-reasoned and explained. That's TWAT-quality.

 

[mimo]

@no frills you are a monstrous show off. I've missed you.

Is that a 5146p there? Not quite as major as your top shelf items but it's one I really like. I see they're around for about $40k used, which is a lot of dough in anybody's language, but compared to the price of a new Calatrava makes them positively sensible. Definitely on the wish list.