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

[BLAUGRANA]

The more I look at the OP41 (blue dial), the more I like it. Thoughts?

I assume you mean the "bright blue", or navy dial? I have to say the picture posted in this thread has me liking it more than I suspected. Not that I ever disliked it, but I think the... opportunity if you will is to get one of the more colorful dials with the current crop of OPs. I love the new OP dial colors. Turquoise blue, yellow or coral are the way to go I reckon. I do like that candy pink too. Even the green. Not a fan of the double indices at 3, 6 and 9 though, but I could live with them. I may move for one, but I'd only get a 36mm. We'll see though as the AD keeps coming through with my list. That said the list is actually starting to get exhausted. I probably owe them one with an OP purchase. Anyway, came across this again the other day and I think makes a good case for someone who wants the stella dial look. This is apparently from Eric Ku's instagram:

that actually wears much bigger than I thought it would, unless you have very skinny wrists.

Probably more the wrist shot itself. Wrist shots taken close up tend to make the watches look larger on the wrist than they actually are.

I’ve never understood the cyclops lens on the sub. The sub is the quintessential dive watch. It’s primary function is to inform the diver of the time he has spent at depth. Any feature on the watch that may interfere with that seems counterproductive.

I used to dive and I can tell you, sometimes visibility is not that great.

The ability to the tell date is non-essential.

The cyclops used to bother me, but now it doesn't at all. That said I never understood the need for a date on a dive watch. I can't imagine someone being on a dive and wandering what they date is because they have something to pick up at the cleaners.

 

[am55]

Now for something different @chocomallo

 

[chocomallo]

Further, even not caring about the above, a watch larger than it needs to be is a compromise to function, being both heavier and bulkier than necessary. People can buy whatever they want and fashions favoring larger versus smaller watches will come and ago, but ultimately functional/rational considerations will persist.

The problem with a 41mm Oyster Perpetual is that it is suboptimal for traditional dress and yet sized for fashionability over function. The only cross-section of buyers left are people who subscribe to short-term trends (namely, towards bigger watches).

So how is your dream 5170G not the same as the OP41 in the context you describe? It fits your description of the 41OP to the T. Feel free to demonstrate otherwise. The 5170G is very large by traditional Patek standards. Explain how Patek made chronos under 37mm for most of its history then suddenly needed to make larger watches for the purpose of proper function.

"a watch larger than it needs to be is a compromise to function"--What a load of ****. Then we would all wear lady Datejusts if we followed your advice.

But call me dumb again. It gives me a hard on. I can't tell if you are autistic or marsupialed. I hope autistic so you at least made some money on Game Stop.

Lower your dose of Adderall and lay off the cuckold fantasies of other members on this thread. You are probably upset that Pornhub deleted your favorite revenge Appreciation videos.

 

[am55]

"a watch larger than it needs to be is a compromise to function"--What a load of ****. Then we would all wear lady Datejusts if we followed your advice.

Funnily enough I've thought about doing this for years after a businessman I knew who often worked in or near warzones and was an all around bearded tough guy, wore a ladies sized, ultra conservative and plain watch on a leather strap on the inside of his wrist. It seemed eminently practical at the time, and I didn't know or care enough about watches to think about it being a ladies' model or remember the brand.

A 31mm Rolesor black or green dial DJ without the diamonds (e.g. 278274) might work, but they do have these polygonal cases and hard thick lugs (proportionally) that would work better with the bracelet.

 

[chocomallo]

Now for something different @chocomallo

View attachment 1544345

If this had FPJ or Voutilainen on the dial, I can only imagine the adulation. It is not the style I prefer, but for the style it is, I think it is fetching. The hour hand and crown are a bit clumsy, but for the style it is as compelling as any other watch of the variety. Who is the maker?

Thanks for bringing it to the forum's attention as well as the crane (BWF?) watch. That watch has generally received negative responses. While not my taste, I think there is a big market for it. Credor actually makes many watches quite similar to that (as I believe you know). Credor is closer to a brand that makes watches like the crane watch than a brand that makes the Eichi. It only takes one visit to a Credor dealer in Japan to realize that.

 

[am55]

Qin Gan, a Chinese independent. I'm fascinated by his blend (crash, really) of Jaquet Droz, Journe and Kowloon Walled City madness (the idea of it as it fermented and boiled over in graphic novels and anime, not the real thing).

 

[chocomallo]

Funnily enough I've thought about doing this for years after a businessman I knew who often worked in or near warzones and was an all around bearded tough guy, wore a ladies sized, ultra conservative and plain watch on a leather strap on the inside of his wrist. It seemed eminently practical at the time, and I didn't know or care enough about watches to think about it being a ladies' model or remember the brand.

A 31mm Rolesor black or green dial DJ without the diamonds (e.g. 278274) might work, but they do have these polygonal cases and hard thick lugs (proportionally) that would work better with the bracelet.

Having spent more than two years in war zones, I can attest that the Casio F-91W is reliable. Unfortunately, I didn't have a Rolex tool watch at the time to make accurate comparisons. The Casio certainly meets TheFoo standards of what a watch should be, although the plastic band did dry rot after three years of never taking off the watch, and I lost it somewhere in Iraq. TheFoo has undoubtedly never made such a juvenile mistake. He was probably strapping a Rolex Explorer. Then again, Rolex has never staked the claim to combat as far as I recall. A missed opportunity.

"If you were a soldier of fortune, you'd wear a Rolex."

 

[TheFoo]

This is a lot of words to portray your opinions as facts. A 41MM OP or Datejust just isnt a big watch anymore, especially when they wear smaller than the measurement. Even you agree with this and are just talking **** at this point. If you didnt agree with this you wouldnt have bought a 36MM dress watch with a movement made for a 34MM watch.

Also, the Submariner is now 41MM for better or worse, so theres that...

The 5296 that you refer to is 38mm not 36mm. The caliber 324 movement inside is 27mm. The smallest watch I’ve seen cased with it was 36mm, which was a tight fit, but maybe you can find a vintage 35mm watch with the caliber 315 (the predecessor movement). The point is that you cannot go that much smaller than a 38mm case. Patek currently cases the same movement in 40-42mm watches.

You are likely confusing my watch for the 5196, which is 37mm (not 36mm), and contains a caliber 215 (22mm). I have criticized this watch many times for the odd sub-dial placement that results from this pairing.

If Patek made a new Calatrava with a 36mm diameter in a style that I liked, I may very well have considered it—but we make the choices we can, not the ones we wish we could.

On the Submariner: the new case is 40.5mm (rounded up to 41mm for marketing), versus 40.2mm for the old. The interior lug width has increased from 20mm to 21mm—but the exterior lug width has decreased from 27.5mm to 26.7mm.

But don’t let facts get in your way.

Do you not consider the lugs on the 5205 as fancy? Between the lugs and the

Did I say I want a 5205 or that I think it’s perfect? I merely expressed that it is a more interesting watch than a Rolex Oyster Perpetual.

So how is your dream 5170G not the same as the OP41 in the context you describe? It fits your description of the 41OP to the T. Feel free to demonstrate otherwise. The 5170G is very large by traditional Patek standards. Explain how Patek made chronos under 37mm for most of its history then suddenly needed to make larger watches for the purpose of proper function.

The 130, 1463, and 530 were 33mm, 35mm, and 37mm, respectively, and were produced for decades through the mid-60s. Then Patek didn’t offer a chronograph-only watch again until 1998, with the introduction of the 5070, which was 42mm. The 5170 is 39mm.

The “sudden need” to change to 39mm was hence a downsizing / reversal of trend and moreover reflected introduction of the new caliber 29-535, Patek’s first ever inhouse manual chronograph movement. The movement is 32mm in diameter. Try fitting a 32mm movement into a 35-36mm watch.

"a watch larger than it needs to be is a compromise to function"--What a load of ****. Then we would all wear lady Datejusts if we followed your advice.

Do Datejusts and Submariners have the same functionality or is one a ******* dive watch?

But call me dumb again. It gives me a hard on. I can't tell if you are autistic or marsupialed. I hope autistic so you at least made some money on Game Stop.

Sometimes I spell things out in excruciating detail. Then people complain that I’m being pedantic or argumentative. Other times I opt to be more terse and euphemistic. Then people complain that I am not giving facts and simply stating opinions.

I take the third path less often, which is to say nothing and let the self-evident speak for itself. Let’s try that one now.

Lower your dose of Adderall and lay off the cuckold fantasies of other members on this thread. You are probably upset that Pornhub deleted your favorite revenge Appreciation videos.

I thought it was clear that I fantasize about Pateks.

 

[Phileas Fogg]

Then again, Rolex has never staked the claim to combat as far as I recall.

It is the preferred watch of mad colonels with private armies.

 

[TheFoo]

If this had FPJ or Voutilainen on the dial, I can only imagine the adulation. It is not the style I prefer, but for the style it is, I think it is fetching. The hour hand and crown are a bit clumsy, but for the style it is as compelling as any other watch of the variety. Who is the maker?

Qin Gan.

From what I’ve previously read, he builds movements based on vintage designs or modifies existing movements. This alone ensures he is outside the league of Journe or Voutilainen—though his finishing work may very well be superior to the former’s (not all that much of a challenge).

That should not take away from what he has achieved and where he might take his craft in the future.

 

[chocomallo]

The 5296 that you refer to is 38mm not 36mm. The caliber 324 movement inside is 27mm. The smallest watch I’ve seen cased with it was 36mm, which was a tight fit, but maybe you can find a vintage 35mm watch with the caliber 315 (the predecessor movement). The point is that you cannot go that much smaller than a 38mm case. Patek currently cases the same movement in 40-42mm watches.

You are likely confusing my watch for the 5196, which is 37mm (not 36mm), and contains a caliber 215 (22mm). I have criticized this watch many times for the odd sub-dial placement that results from this pairing.

If Patek made a new Calatrava with a 36mm diameter in a style that I liked, I may very well have considered it—but we make the choices we can, not the ones we wish we could.

On the Submariner: the new case is 40.5mm (rounded up to 41mm for marketing), versus 40.2mm for the old. The interior lug width has increased from 20mm to 21mm—but the exterior lug width has decreased from 27.5mm to 26.7mm.

But don’t let facts get in your way.



Did I say I want a 5205 or that I think it’s perfect? I merely expressed that it is a more interesting watch than a Rolex Oyster Perpetual.



The 130, 1463, and 530 were 33mm, 35mm, and 37mm, respectively, and were produced for decades through the mid-60s. Then Patek didn’t offer a chronograph-only watch again until 1998, with the introduction of the 5070, which was 42mm. The 5170 is 39mm.

The “sudden need” to change to 39mm was hence a downsizing / reversal of trend and moreover reflected introduction of the new caliber 29-535, Patek’s first ever inhouse manual chronograph movement. The movement is 32mm in diameter. Try fitting a 32mm movement into a 35-36mm watch.



Do Datejusts and Submariners have the same functionality or is one a ******* dive watch?



Sometimes I spell things out in excruciating detail. Then people complain that I’m being pedantic or argumentative. Other times I opt to be more terse and euphemistic. Then people complain that I am not giving facts and simply stating opinions.

I take the third path less often, which is to say nothing and let the self-evident speak for itself. Let’s try that one now.



I thought it was clear that I fantasize about Pateks.

Look bud. You are a moron. You just validated my point. You can’t make a coherent argument to save your life. Downsizing from the 5070. You admit it is an outlier from decades of history. And your dream birthday watch is still significantly larger than that history that you love so dearly. Keep up the mental masturbation.

Are you really so marsupialed to think a Datejust and Submariner have different functions? They both tell the time and date (some Submariner models don’t even bother with the date). Please quote me some history and marketing trope to convince me otherwise.

By the way, restoring your dream 5170 to factory means they will polish it. Which you have vehemently opposed. And according to purists like you irreparably ruins a watch. So what’s it gonna be. You are full of nonstop **** and contradictions and present opinion as fact nonstop.

 

[TheFoo]

Then again, Rolex has never staked the claim to combat as far as I recall. A missed opportunity.

"If you were a soldier of fortune, you'd wear a Rolex."

 

[am55]

View attachment 1544440

Spoiler

 

[chocomallo]

View attachment 1544440

Bro, just cause it is called a “MilSub” doesn’t make it a combat watch. You are a sucker’s sucker. Even by Rolex standards of exaggeration this takes the cake.

 

[TheFoo]

Look bud. You are a moron. You just validated my point. You can’t make a coherent argument to save your life. Downsizing from the 5070. You admit it is an outlier from decades of history. And your dream birthday watch is still significantly larger than that history that you love so dearly. Keep up the mental masturbation.

So, I see I have to spell this out.

Prior to 1998, Patek made exceedingly few chronograph-only watches (see the models mentioned above for some better-known examples). Only in the hundreds, if that, over many decades. In all those instances, the movements were much smaller than the current 29-535. Let me underline again: there were NO chronograph-only watches from Patek for most of the second half of the 20th century. And until the 5070, almost none had any water resistance.

In other words, determining what is “normal” for a Patek chronograph is highly contentious.

Are you really so marsupialed to think a Datejust and Submariner have different functions? They both tell the time and date (some Submariner models don’t even bother with the date). Please quote me some history and marketing trope to convince me otherwise.

Datejust has a depth rating of 100M. The basic Submariner has a 300M depth rating. The most hardcore Sea-Dweller has a 3,900M depth rating.

Also, Datejusts don’t have rotating bezels or helium escape valves.

By the way, restoring your dream 5170 to factory means they will polish it. Which you have vehemently opposed. And according to purists like you irreparably ruins a watch. So what’s it gonna be. You are full of nonstop **** and contradictions and present opinion as fact nonstop.

1. They may replace the case.

2. Re-cutting the case is different from a standard polish. Patek will not re-cut a watch that has already been purchased.