- Aug 20, 2012
- Reaction score
Dude. Yeah, there’s a reason. It’s not performance. It’s money. Those athletes aren’t wearing RM to “go faster” there’re wearing them to be and appear richer.Sure, but aren't all mechanical watches gimmicks in 2022?
I think ReP does alot, but believe a lot is done in house as well. Naturally, this points outh that the comparison to Louis B was hyperbole. My main focus is on the product and focus not the individual(s) responsible.
I mentioned Rolex above for a reason. One could "save a lot of money" with a G-shock (as mentioned above) or a fitness tracker. Of course RM's aren't in any way necessary but my point is that in the context of this consumerist hobby, I think RM is carving out an interesting niche.
I love Rolex and own a few but really don't find their product lines interesting. They essentially have a few different traditional variations of the oyster case. Does anyone have a guess as to when Rolex will release a new interesting design? I think it's somewhere between far in the future and never. They are content to make incremental (and productive) improvements to their movements and marginal changes to the jewelry that surrounds their movements. I think it's hard to argue that Rolex watches are "interesting" at this point. They have a great business and they have a well-defined point of view and brand ethos, but they don't appear to be interested in what I'm talking about.
It might make sense for me to wear my explorer while skiing, but I can't see myself wearing it mountain biking, wake boarding or even mountain climbing, to be honest. If Rolex made a new and interesting watch design, I could consider it, but we all know they won't. The best we can hope for is some minor variation on existing templates or even worse, something like the new air king.
When you partake in this consumerist hobby, you have to decide what you care about and what you don't. It's largely based upon artifice and/or emotions. There is no genuine practical reason to wear a mechanical device. This is the part I struggle with the most. When I look at what's "better", I find I have to draw a pretty narrow set of criteria in order to not throw my hands up at the whole things and question why I even like watches. Everyone has their own set of criteria, and I think that's perfectly ok.
For me - I find that much of high end mechanical wristwatches are ultimately not that interesting because they are based upon a worldview that I largely no longer subscribe to (to the extent I ever did). If you accept that certain elements of traditional watchmaking are requisite or desirable, than you end up defining the solution space. I think that's largely what has happened with most of the traditional watch houses. What I like about RM and others is that they are questioning what that solution space should look like. I don't agree with RM's choices, but I do largely appreciate the approach they're taking - modern technology to solve modern problems, but still requiring mechanical timepieces as the outcome.
Let me give a counter example. We recently talked about the greatest pateks. Some might say that I should aspire to a split seconds chrono because they're hard to make and therefor a test of a watchmaker's skill. Lange might say the same about their triple split. But in both cases the desirability of the product is largely based on the implicit understanding that they are hard to do. If swatch came out with a super simple mechanical version of one of those designs, they would no longer have the same level of interest. I appreciate the challenge involved in designing and constructing those pieces right now but feel that they are only compelling solutions to a problem if you accept Patek/Lange/traditional watchmaking definitions of the problem itself.
RM is interesting to me because they identified a "problem" that I care more about. They obviously still face the same challenge that all mechanical watches face - my $150 solar g shock does it better and is actually built with modern technology.
One of the cool things about RM is that they require their ambassadors to actually wear their watches when doing the things they are known for.
You are ignoring the fact that not all weight is the same. You don't wear a glass of water on your wrist. A heavy watch would certainly impact performance at that level. There is a reason no sprinters wear watches when they run and that marathon runners don't wear heavy watches.
Fucking brand should be called richer mille. Jfc
l mean, guys, by your own logic these athletes would benefit further by simply wearing nothing. And yet...