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

[9thsymph]

Rocking the pilot watch!

View attachment 1742861

The leaping puma logo helps him psychologically pass other drivers. Look, every little bit counts. I don’t make the rules...

;-)

 

[9thsymph]

Gonna go feed my soul with Lange chrono case back images...

 

[NakedYoga]

How do you see a SS Tank Must as a daily rocker?
ALternatives??

I think it's a great daily wear.

Yeah, fingers crossed. I think $20K is the low end and $30K is the high end. Either okay with me.

Are they not going to give you at least a specific estimate/quote before they begin work? Or is it such that they believe you can and will pay whatever they eventually charge? And they'll just present you with an invoice when the work is complete and you take delivery?

And the added weight of having a metal Rolex on vs a RM can be huge when sprinting and throw off your technique.

Another big factor is how tight the watch is on your wrist and whether it jangles around. It messes with rhythm, muscle memory, etc. This is one reason why I really only where a $40 Casio digital watch when I'm golfing. It's might and tight in the wrist.

Not commenting on the issue of whether these athletes wear these watches for "performance" or just for money.

I'd like to see Phil Mickelson wear his ubiquitous Cellini during an actual tournament and not only for the cameras when he lifts a trophy.

When you partake in this consumerist hobby, you have to decide what you care about and what you don't.

Very well said.

Doesn’t Max Verstappen wear Tag H? For performance? Give me a fucking break...

On his Instagram apparently he often wears a Daytona.

 

[9thsymph]

I think it's a great daily wear.

Are they not going to give you at least a specific estimate/quote before they begin work? Or is it such that they believe you can and will pay whatever they eventually charge? And they'll just present you with an invoice when the work is complete and you take delivery?

Another big factor is how tight the watch is on your wrist and whether it jangles around. It messes with rhythm, muscle memory, etc. This is one reason why I really only where a $40 Casio digital watch when I'm golfing. It's might and tight in the wrist.

Not commenting on the issue of whether these athletes wear these watches for "performance" or just for money.

I'd like to see Phil Mickelson wear his ubiquitous Cellini during an actual tournament and not only for the cameras when he lifts a trophy.


Very well said.


On his Instagram apparently he often wears a Daytona.

BUT HE WEARS TAG H AT THE RACE BECAUSE PERFORMANCE!

 

[9thsymph]

Omg...people:

Nobody. NOBODY wears a luxury watch to perform better. Nobody!

NOBODY!

They look cool. And they have varying ways of performing relative to each other in that context.

 

[mak1277]

Golfers put on their Rolexes after their rounds because they are required to but they're not wearing them while playing

I love that Mickelson wears his Cellini while playing.

 

[9thsymph]

In other news:

did some moon related shit today and thank god I had my speedy on...that was a close one...

 

[TheFoo]

Are they not going to give you at least a specific estimate/quote before they begin work? Or is it such that they believe you can and will pay whatever they eventually charge? And they'll just present you with an invoice when the work is complete and you take delivery?

Next step is an initial price quote and confirmation of specifications. Then they provide a mock-up of the watch. You get two rounds of revisions before details are locked in and the price is finalized. You pay half upfront, which is non-refundable, and pay the balance on delivery.

I’ve heard of instances where clients receive sample dial blanks to choose between, but I don’t know if they’re going to do that for me.

Also, fun stuff: the watch gets its own unique reference number.

 

[dan'l]

I mean, I like most of @UnFacconable ‘s posts and follow his logic WRT Richard Mille, with RM defining the confines of what his watches are designed for, etc. However, allow me to present exhibit A:

I don‘t know what sort of problem his team imagined needed to be solved here and the associated boundary conditions, but this thing is a mess.

 

[9thsymph]

I mean, I like most of @UnFacconable ‘s posts and follow his logic WRT Richard Mille, with RM defining the confines of what his watches are designed for, etc. However, allow me to present exhibit A:

View attachment 1742879

I don‘t know what sort of problem his team imagined needed to be solved here and the associated boundary conditions, but this thing is a mess.

Problem: how to extract 1m+ from dumb asshole

 

[George Red]

Omg...people:

Nobody. NOBODY wears a luxury watch to perform better. Nobody!

NOBODY!

They look cool. And they have varying ways of performing relative to each other in that context.

@Omega Male and I use the tachy scales on our chronographs to measure how quickly we can go from cool to super-douche.

 

[Leiker]

@Omega Male and I use the tachy scales on our chronographs to measure how quickly we can go from cool to super-douche.

Also known as the Richemont scales.

 

[UnFacconable]

In other news:

did some moon related shit today and thank god I had my speedy on...that was a close one...

Oh cool, I knew exactly what the moon phase was which, combined with my split seconds chrono, made my lunch time baking operation a cinch.

The point isn't that RM watches are providing some much-needed operational functionality that we otherwise couldn't live without. The point I've been making is that RM is pretending to solve problems that may be actually relevant to people (specifically me) in 2022. All of the other high end watch brands are pretending to solve problems that haven't been relevant for centuries. When people talk about the complicated watches they purchase, they almost never speak to anything other than eyecandy or bling. It's virtually impossible to pretend that any real complications are meaningful to purchasers because of the functionality they bring to the table. There are obvious simple exceptions like GMT, date, power reserve (on a manual wind) and a few others (perhaps simple chrono) but that's not what we are talking about here.

I mean, I like most of @UnFacconable ‘s posts and follow his logic WRT Richard Mille, with RM defining the confines of what his watches are designed for, etc. However, allow me to present exhibit A:

View attachment 1742879

I don‘t know what sort of problem his team imagined needed to be solved here and the associated boundary conditions, but this thing is a mess.

Thanks and yes, this one is terrible. I don't love RM's tonneau case shapes, but man most of his round watches are even worse. As I mentioned in my original post, I don't really like his design language and the execution in this example is just bad. I'm not pretending that people buy RM for the "right" reasons or that there are really any universally "right" reasons.

I can't argue with a straight face that someone should prefer an RM with a movement hanging by a steel cable to their split second monopusher PC nor could someone ever convince me that the latter is something the world truly needs.

I think that framing the conversation is important to the outcome. Patek and other similar watch mongers attempts to frame the conversation based on some rose-colored version of history. If we were talking about cars, a new Patek is like Ford's 2005 GT. What I appreciate about RM (more than the the jewelry and execution) is that they reject that framing and arrive at the 2017 Ford GT. There are reasons why people might prefer the 2005 one (or the original 60's version), but that doesn't mean that it's perfectly valid for people to prefer the 2017.

I've never had any pretense here. My sole purpose in fostering this discussion is to highlight that we don't need to take for granted what the watch industry tells us we should care about and to stake a position as to why I appreciate the idea behind RM product. More than the product itself, I like the thought that went into it.

Perhaps this is the best way I could say it.

 

[9thsymph]

Oh cool, I knew exactly what the moon phase was which, combined with my split seconds chrono, made my lunch time baking operation a cinch.

The point isn't that RM watches are providing some much-needed operational functionality that we otherwise couldn't live without. The point I've been making is that RM is pretending to solve problems that may be actually relevant to people (specifically me) in 2022. All of the other high end watch brands are pretending to solve problems that haven't been relevant for centuries. When people talk about the complicated watches they purchase, they almost never speak to anything other than eyecandy or bling. It's virtually impossible to pretend that any real complications are meaningful to purchasers because of the functionality they bring to the table. There are obvious simple exceptions like GMT, date, power reserve (on a manual wind) and a few others (perhaps simple chrono) but that's not what we are talking about here.



Thanks and yes, this one is terrible. I don't love RM's tonneau case shapes, but man most of his round watches are even worse. As I mentioned in my original post, I don't really like his design language and the execution in this example is just bad. I'm not pretending that people buy RM for the "right" reasons or that there are really any universally "right" reasons.

I can't argue with a straight face that someone should prefer an RM with a movement hanging by a steel cable to their split second monopusher PC nor could someone ever convince me that the latter is something the world truly needs.

I think that framing the conversation is important to the outcome. Patek and other similar watch mongers attempts to frame the conversation based on some rose-colored version of history. If we were talking about cars, a new Patek is like Ford's 2005 GT. What I appreciate about RM (more than the the jewelry and execution) is that they reject that framing and arrive at the 2017 Ford GT. There are reasons why people might prefer the 2005 one (or the original 60's version), but that doesn't mean that it's perfectly valid for people to prefer the 2017.

I've never had any pretense here. My sole purpose in fostering this discussion is to highlight that we don't need to take for granted what the watch industry tells us we should care about and to stake a position as to why I appreciate the idea behind RM product. More than the product itself, I like the thought that went into it.

Perhaps this is the best way I could say it.

I’m not going to argue. I would, however, ask you to read your own comment a few times and ruminate on it...

 

[Texasmade]

Also, fun stuff: the watch gets its own unique reference number.

Do you get to choose it (within reason) or is it assigned automatically? Like if you wanted F00 #1 would they allow it?