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

[Neville Southall]

Didn't you sell one of these last year?

Yes. Sold it. Regretted it. Missed it. Called my AD. Got another.

 

[jischwar]

Yes. Sold it. Regretted it. Missed it. Called my AD. Got another.

Live and learn

 

[Neville Southall]

I’d love it if it were real.

Not to get all metaphysical on you, but just because it’s a Vietnamese knock-off doesn’t make it not real.

 

[TheFoo]

Not to get all metaphysical on you, but just because it’s a Vietnamese knock-off doesn’t make it not real.

Touche, touche.

But did you flip the first knock-off?

 

[TheFoo]

Yes. Sold it. Regretted it. Missed it. Called my AD. Got another.

Implausible to me therefore impossible for you.

 

[NakedYoga]

Is this a type of horological solipsism?

 

[TheFoo]

Is this a type of horological solipsism?

This entire forum is an exercise in solipsism.

 

[mak1277]

This entire internet forum is an exercise in solipsism.

Fixed.

 

[UnFacconable]

I think that ultimate style can only be achieved by someone who doesn’t overthink things and wears their clothes backwards like Kriss Kross. Sorry all you nerds, you should quit the game now because you will never win.

I find it hilarious when people try to create objective criteria to gatekeep something that is largely a subjective pursuit. Especially when that gatekeeping just happens to align with their own perception or peculiarities.

Everything Foo is trying to pass off as some sort of objective truth is merely his self-serving opinion. Of course there are people with awesome personal style, or what have you, who haven’t done the painstaking and completely unnecessary research that many here enjoy.

The idea that you have to know the rules to break them is merely propaganda by rule makers to get rule breakers to stay in line. We’ve all known people who rock great style and don’t dork around on SF or otherwise studying personal style - they know what they like and it works for them. There are many different ways to get it right and many different ways to get it wrong, as we see on SF every damn day. I’ve had friends who have had awesome personal style from the time we were kids and still have it now. And others who are the opposite. You can’t always argue your way to success. That’s life.

The same applies to cars and many other hobbies. It’s pretty obvious that Foo likes to define rules that support whatever position he has chosen as of that moment so he can be self-satisfied at having made the objectively optimal choice. At some point in the future when he goes in a different direction, he will just redefine the objective rules to suit his then current choices. Look no further than the watches he has promoted in these threads over the years to see how that’s the case. He basically has moved across a number of different popular and iconic watches while ******** on everything else. Remember his Panerai phase? Remember when he wanted to buy a big ass wing for his GT3 but now criticizes the new GT3 wing which is objectively superior? The cognitive dissonance is obvious to all.

Just to be clear, I’m not criticizing Foo’s choices. I think what he does works for him and obviously he’s a consumerist who loves noodling on all of this stuff in his own way. What I object to is his sophist arguments that attempt to obliterate anything that doesn’t meet with his own peculiar worldview.

 

[ronscuba]

I don’t think he actually wants to talk about it.

I was responding to your comment about wanting more boring watches.

Visual tastes differ as does how important styling is in a watch.

On my way to the watch store now. Talk later

 

[Thrift Vader]

My favorite watch is a Quartz Fossil I bought on a date with my now wife.
And i guess it will always be.

 

[NakedYoga]

I find it hilarious when people try to create objective criteria to gatekeep something that is largely a subjective pursuit. Especially when that gatekeeping just happens to align with their own perception or peculiarities.

Are you new to the Internet? Just kidding... I agree.

 

[bdavro23]

Boooooooriiiiiinggg.
View attachment 1594608

Is this a Texas Tuxedo?

 

[TheFoo]

I think that ultimate style can only be achieved by someone who doesn’t overthink things and wears their clothes backwards like Kriss Kross. Sorry all you nerds, you should quit the game now because you will never win.

Unsupported claim.

I find it hilarious when people try to create objective criteria to gatekeep something that is largely a subjective pursuit. Especially when that gatekeeping just happens to align with their own perception or peculiarities.

Another unsupported claim, combined with a startling failure in logic.

What is more exclusionary: (1) believing that style is honed through education and refinement or (2) believing that style is not improvable and only optimally expressed by certain people (who the believer himself has designated)?

Further, the importance of talent does not discount the importance of nurturing.

Everything Foo is trying to pass off as some sort of objective truth is merely his self-serving opinion. Of course there are people with awesome personal style, or what have you, who haven’t done the painstaking and completely unnecessary research that many here enjoy.

Another failure of logic. Accidental results don’t disprove the importance of methodology, even if we were to accept the validity of those accidental results.

The idea that you have to know the rules to break them is merely propaganda by rule makers to get rule breakers to stay in line.

Unsupported claim. Ironically, it is potentially as self-serving as what the claim’s targets are accused of doing.

We’ve all known people who rock great style and don’t dork around on SF or otherwise studying personal style - they know what they like and it works for them. There are many different ways to get it right and many different ways to get it wrong, as we see on SF every damn day. I’ve had friends who have had awesome personal style from the time we were kids and still have it now. And others who are the opposite. You can’t always argue your way to success. That’s life.

Catastrophic failure of logic. Even if discourse only helps some and doesn’t help others with respect to style: (1) there is no harm to one group in pursuing discourse that is helpful to the other, (2) it makes no sense for one who does not believe in the importance of discourse to then engage in discourse, and (3) the function of argument can be to validate pre-existing truth, not just to convince others of an opposing opinion.

The same applies to cars and many other hobbies. It’s pretty obvious that Foo likes to define rules that support whatever position he has chosen at his them moment so he can be self-satisfied at having made the objectively optimal choice. At some point in the future when he goes in a different direction, he will just redefine the objective rules to suit his then current choices. Look no further than the watches he has promoted in these threads over the years to see how that’s the case. He basically has moved across a number of different popular and iconic watches while ******** on everything else. Remember his Panerai phase? Remember when he wanted to buy a big ass wing for his GT3 but now criticizes the new GT3 wing which is objectively superior? The cognitive dissonance is obvious to all.

An even more catastrophic failure of logic. Change and evolution support the thesis that information and education influence taste and style, not the opposite.

Just to be clear, I’m not criticizing Foo’s choices. I think what he does works for him and obviously he’s a consumerist who loves noodling on all of this stuff in his own way. What I object to is his sophist arguments that attempt to obliterate anything that doesn’t meet with his own peculiar worldview.

See above.

Ultimately, you either believe that discussion and knowledge improve expression of style or that they don’t. However, it is more rational to act as if the former is true when engaged in discussion—otherwise one should not engage at all. Moreover, a common fallacy is to interpret talent as capability that develops without effort or focus: neither logic nor empirical observation supports this grossly overreaching conclusion.

 

[Neville Southall]

Is this a Texas Tuxedo?

Actually, no. Can’t see it here, but I’m wearing a brown sport coat. So, it kind of breaks it up.