- Feb 11, 2007
- Reaction score
There’s just a lot that you don’t understand, which leads you to accuse me of arbitrary opinions.I read that article and found the following interesting (discussing the evolution of Patek's 3940 over a 20-year period:
I will grant you that it's entirely possible that Patek has chosen modern generic fonts, including the much-reviled Arial, out of some sort of purposeful approach but that doesn't mean people have to like it.
You don't appear to be aware of the arbitrary nature of your commentary. You criticize Lange for its flashy finishing without stopping to acknowledge that in 2021 almost the entirety of finishing, beyond the very basic machining done by the likes of Rolex and ETA, is all for show. Pick your Patek - it doesn't have a better service life or performance than the simplest Rolex coming off the robotic assembly line in 2021. If there is a non-aesthetic benefit to Patek's superior finishing in 2021, I don't think I've heard of it. Of course you can choose to eschew gold chatons, blued screws, etc. in favor of the finishing details you like for whatever reason you like, but that's based on your personal priorities. Yet you continue to stridently argue that Patek's finishing choices are somehow objectively superior to Lange and others.
You talk about Poundbury as if the appropriate reference is Lange, but in reality Poundbury represents all mechanical watches built in the last 50 years. There is no reason in 2021 for anyone to produce a mechanical watch, least of all one with the sort of savoir faire that Patek is so proud of. You are certainly more than welcome to enjoy Patek and to prefer Patek to Lange for all the reasons you do, but don't be surprised if other people disagree with your arbitrarily justified positions and have their own arbitrarily justified positions. I know you will return to your stock response that I'm arguing against discernment and any objective criteria, but that's a weak argument and I think you know that by now.
There are many different paths to watch enthusiasm. Everyone else here is fairly transparent about their preferences but you seem to be alone in arguing that whatever arbitrary preference you seem to have at the moment is somehow objectively superior and beyond dispute. If you were sitting on a 3448, I have no doubt that you would reverse your argument in favor of it over the 5396 and would be telling us all about its superior balance, font style and unobstructed dial elements. You are certainly free to prefer the 5396, but don't call it Patek bashing when everyone else prefers the 3448. It often feels like you're on a HS debate team and feel compelled to argue an arbitrary position to the death. It's cool, you do you. But don't be surprised that it's entirely unconvincing.
Rolex finishing is highly functional. Properly finished parts reduce wear, mitigate against corrosion, and increase efficiency and precision. It is not for show. You cannot even see the damned movement in a Rolex.
Lange finishing is not merely “flashy”. What you don’t seem to grasp is that it expresses a falseness relative to their own brand, place in time, and development of the wristwatch that is not true for Rolex, IWC, Patek, Seiko, etc. I have spelled out my critique. It is not dissimilar to a distaste for McMansions. You can like McMansions all you want, and argue it’s all personal preference, but don’t pretend I’ve been vague or unspecific or ungrounded in my position.
As for the 3448–no, not such a huge fan. I would take the 5396 any day from a purely aesthetic perspective. Your assumption that such is disingenuous is exactly that—an assumption. And a boring, pedestrian one at that.
Now, a 2449? That would be a different matter entirely.