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

[TheFoo]

So you guys hate this watch too? Paging @George Red . . .

I am not the biggest fan of the Nautilus, but yes this is a much better looking watch than the Neptune. The organic, rounded-off, tangled look of the Neptune is very 90’s specific whereas the 70’s design of the Nautilus is simpler, more original, more rational, and—therefore—more timeless. The Nautilus 5712 dial also looks a lot better, as their are hour markers around more than just the top half. On the Neptune, as on the 5970P, it is strange and unbalanced that the numerals are entirely absent from the lower half of the dial.

 

[TheFoo]

Sorry, I disagree with that. I think it adds something interesting visually. Anyone can separate a subdial from another dial, it would have been a safe, expected, but boring choice.



Even the time only Neptune was ugly. In addition the Patek Sculpture is another ugly steel Patek. Many years ago, there was a lot of chatter about them on other forums, but it has quickly been forgotten for good reason. Looks like a collaboration with Ebel.

View attachment 1594494

Jeezus that Patek is awful.

We need more boring in watch design. Everything wrong with current watch trends has to do with brands trying to be less boring. See pre-2005 versus post-2005 IWC as a key example.

 

[Dino944]

Here's a watch with all kinds of design "flaws." I think it's one of the most beautiful Pateks ever.

The dial/movement was basically a carry over from the 5015 (modified), and then the 5054. I don't mind the dial, but the hands are boring, the font is boring, and I never liked this case or bracelet. I like this dial much more in a Nautilus 5712 A/1. The only Nautilus models I like are the 3700, 5711 and the 5712A/1. I like the Nautilus and the bracelet is comfortable, but I always found the bracelet felt flimsy.

 

[TheFoo]

If I had to pick just two to live with from the current collection (god forbid):

View attachment 1594420

Man, the FPJ CS is to die for. Particularly in 38mm, if you can find it! One of the best time-only watches, period.

But I have to say I’m not a fan of the Seamaster. The whole mid-90’s Goldeneye look is exactly that. My optimal two-watch collection would aim for more timeless.

 

[Texasmade]

But I have to say I’m not a fan of the Seamaster. The whole mid-90’s Goldeneye look is exactly that. My optimal two-watch collection would aim for more timeless.

Change the bracelet and it looks much better.

 

[ronscuba]

We need more boring in watch design. Everything wrong with current watch trends has to do with brands trying to be less boring.

Curious, do you consider watches a form of jewelry or an expression of personal style ?

 

[TheFoo]

Change the bracelet and it looks much better.

View attachment 1594514

I guess?

But the whole design just rubs me the wrong way. Comes across more as a water-themed watch than a watch for going into the water, where you’d want maximum contrast and legibility, not a wave-textured blue dial and skeletonized hands.

 

[TheFoo]

Curious, do you consider watches a form of jewelry or an expression of personal style ?

Are the two mutually exclusive?

Personally, I think the concept of “personal style” is a bit of a fallacy and certainly a misguiding notion.

Of course, the expression of style is individualistic (i.e. two people can each be very stylish yet dress and carry themselves completely differently), but development of any style worth admiring depends on refinement of knowledge, taste, discernment, etc. In other words, good style is the result of expressing what you learn—it doesn’t manifest in perfect form before that happens.

So, we can reduce every design and watch discussion to a matter of subjectivity, but that would hardly advance anyone’s “personal style”. Far more useful to attempt as much objectivity and rationality as possible.

 

[ronscuba]

Are the two mutually exclusive?

Personally, I think the concept of “personal style” is a bit of a fallacy and certainly a misguiding notion.

Of course, the expression of style is individualistic (i.e. two people can each be very stylish yet dress and carry themselves completely differently), but development of any style worth admiring depends on refinement of knowledge, taste, discernment, etc. In other words, good style is the result of expressing what you learn—it doesn’t manifest in perfect form before that happens.

So, we can reduce every design and watch discussion to a matter of subjectivity, but that would hardly advance anyone’s “personal style”. Far more useful to attempt as much objectivity and rationality as possible.

??? I have no idea what this means. LOL

 

[TheFoo]

??? I have no idea what this means. LOL

Sorry, up on not much sleep. What I mean is simply that knowledge and scrutiny of concepts improve each individual’s style. Hence, we should hold back from closing down aesthetic discussions on the grounds of “personal style” and subjectivity.

 

[ronscuba]

Sorry, up on not much sleep. What I mean is simply that knowledge and scrutiny of concepts improve each individual’s style. Hence, we should hold back from closing down aesthetic discussions on the grounds of “personal style” and subjectivity.

Well you wrote we need more boring watches and the problem with watch design today is designers trying to be less boring.

My opinion differs. If all I wanted was a boring watch, I would have 1 watch bought yrs ago.

 

[TheFoo]

Well you wrote we need more boring watches and the problem with watch design today is designers trying to be less boring.

My opinion differs. If all I wanted was a boring watch, I would have 1 watch bought yrs ago.

I think you misconstrue my meaning. Allow me to further clarify.

First of all, “boring” does not mean “same”. A Calatrava and Submariner might both be boring, but they are aesthetically and functionally distinct from each other.

Second, I am being euphemistic when I say “boring”. To be more precise, I think watches look better when makers focus more on thoughtful, rational, and incremental design than on fashionability and accelerating short-term sales growth.

Third, a watch is just one small component of your style. Even if every such component were in fact boring, the whole might still be very pleasing and interesting. In fact, as with any other accessory, often the more interesting and eye-grabbing unto itself, the more detrimental to the overall good.

Fourth, committing to just one watch might just be the most stylish choice of all. Depends on the watch and depends on you. But style is inseparable from taste and taste is inseparable from exclusion and choice. Having all the watches is to exercise the least taste and express the least style.

 

[ronscuba]

I think you misconstrue my meaning. Allow me to further clarify.

First of all, “boring” does not mean “same”. A Calatrava and Submariner might both be boring, but they are aesthetically and functionally distinct from each other.

Second, I am being euphemistic when I say “boring”. To be more precise, I think watches look better when makers focus more on thoughtful, rational, and incremental design than on fashionability and accelerating short-term sales growth.

Third, a watch is just one small component of your style. Even if every such component were in fact boring, the whole might still be very pleasing and interesting. In fact, as with any other accessory, often the more interesting and eye-grabbing unto itself, the more detrimental to the overall good.

Fourth, committing to just one watch might just be the most stylish choice of all. Depends on the watch and depends on you. But style is inseparable from taste and taste is inseparable from exclusion and choice. Having all the watches is to exercise the least taste and express the least style.

That's a lot of explaining. We have different taste in watches.

 

[9thsymph]

I think you misconstrue my meaning. Allow me to further clarify.

First of all, “boring” does not mean “same”. A Calatrava and Submariner might both be boring, but they are aesthetically and functionally distinct from each other.

Second, I am being euphemistic when I say “boring”. To be more precise, I think watches look better when makers focus more on thoughtful, rational, and incremental design than on fashionability and accelerating short-term sales growth.

Third, a watch is just one small component of your style. Even if every such component were in fact boring, the whole might still be very pleasing and interesting. In fact, as with any other accessory, often the more interesting and eye-grabbing unto itself, the more detrimental to the overall good.

Fourth, committing to just one watch might just be the most stylish choice of all. Depends on the watch and depends on you. But style is inseparable from taste and taste is inseparable from exclusion and choice. Having all the watches is to exercise the least taste and express the least style.

Strong agree....I'm running to buy a lottery ticket before the magic runs dry...

 

[Thrift Vader]

Curious, do you consider watches a form of jewelry or an expression of personal style ?

Where do you separate the two? Aren't they both?