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

[Dino944]

Counterpoint to that is that currently the Daytona market is ridiculous. You could always cash in on the hot market and then pick one up again at a later time if you really wanted another Daytona. Of course who knows where they'll be in the next few years and they could inexplicably continue to increase in value even in the face of an increasingly more interesting chrono market (new zeniths, jlc, speedy, etc)

Or you sell and prices continue to go up and you can never afford it again.

I know guys who have owned various watches and sports cars, sold them to buy something else made a little money when they did it, but figured prices would remain constant. Now prices are such they can't afford to get them again.

 

[Earl_Grey]

It's that time again, folks. Name your ideal three-watch collection, please (yes, once more, I'm considering consolidating).

Patek 5711
FP Journe Chronometre Souverain Platinum
Rolex Sea Dweller 43

 

[bdavro23]

I have 8, which is too much. And - yes - I love them all, but sometimes I reach for a watch in the morning, see 8 options, and think to myself: "Dude, what the ****. Too much."

Well to be fair, you were supposed to send me the Patek over a year ago so I could wear it while working in the yard...

 

[Vocans]

Or you sell and prices continue to go up and you can never afford it again.

I know guys who have owned various watches and sports cars, sold them to buy something else made a little money when they did it, but figured prices would remain constant. Now prices are such they can't afford to get them again.

Right, like I said prices could also increase and you're essentially taking a gamble that the current situation is a temporary bubble. If you truly loved the watch then I probably wouldn't sell regardless but if you're on the fence then the current market demand could very well sway a number of people.

 

[razl]

Just got back my still-new-to-me Zenith Chronomaster Moonphase El Primero from a 5 month (ugh!) shop service.

 

[Drek Galloche]

Variety is a spice of life. I am not a big timer when it comes to watches (all are vinatge, mid level brands) but I am quite ok with having 13 of them on offer every day.

 

[classicalthunde]

It's that time again, folks. Name your ideal three-watch collection, please (yes, once more, I'm considering consolidating).

Basic, reasonably attainable set:
Cartier Tank LC (mechanical version)
Rolex Sub 124060
IWC Spitfire

Mid-grade, but still out of reach set:
Patek 5227R
Rolex GMT 126710 BLRO
Omega Speedster Pro (sapphire dial)

"If I hit the lotto" set:
FP Journe Octa Lune
Rolex 116500LN (black dial)
Patek Aquanaut 5968A

*all current production models, excluding any vintage models...

 

[NakedYoga]

If I only get three, there's no way I'm picking two SS

My counterpoint is that there's no situation in which none of those two is appropriate, except of when you need a dress watch.

Right, as long as you have a dress watch, you've got the GMT for travel and a chrono for your tool watch. Don't see how those overlap in a 3 watch collection

In my view, the Pepsi and Speedy have different use cases, although in fairness they do overlap to some degree. Another part of my thought process is that the Reverso is not strictly a dress watch, and it doesn't look out of place in more casual environments. I think those the three watches that I proposed (the Pepsi, Speedy, and Reverso) are all different enough to cover nearly anyone's bases. My response was also limited by (1) only choosing watches I'd seen George Red post on this thread; and (2) beginning with the assumption that the Speedy was a lock due to his previous comments about how much he loves that watch.

All good points. Here's a valid question: Has COVID diminished the need for a dress watch? I haven't been to a wedding in over a year. My tux is collecting dust. When I go to court, I do it by Zoom. Do we need dress watches anymore?

I think need is a strong term. I also haven't been to a wedding in over a year, but I am going to a black tie event in September (yes, I usually wear a small dress watch with black tie--iGent fail). Most of our courts have gone back to in-person hearings, so I do have a use for an appropriate watch (and pants) when I appear.

Practical answer? Yes, there are very few situations where you need a "proper dress watch".

Real answer? You love watches, and you give a **** about wearing something appropriate, so you're going to want a dress watch. Just pick something that can play down more casually (e.g., your Reverso).

Yes, you will always need some form of dress watch. I know you are in a different state, and maybe you are practicing in a different area of law than I do, however our courts are moving back to having in person hearings and trials.

Perhaps your courts will eventually do the same. You may even be invited to weddings going forward. After not having any weddings to attend for a while, I have a few to attend this fall.

Not to mention, for a nice evening out with the Mrs., where you might at least wear a sport jacket - a dress watch that can be is definitely a must have. Something like Reverso or maybe a commissioned Tank (with a dial color, numerals, and hands to your specs) that one can dress up or dress down. Perhaps you have too many white metal watches. Perhaps something in rose or yellow gold to add a bit of variety in terms of color.

+1, totally agree with you both.

 

[Texasmade]

3 watch collection to keep it simple
1. Platinum Patek 5711 - sport
2. Patek Skymoon Tourbillion 5002 - dress
3. JLC Reverso Quadriptyque - casual

 

[Omega Male]

Ugh. Basic.

 

[Neville Southall]

Another one that won’t go anywhere, ever.

 

[jischwar]

Another one that won’t go anywhere, ever.
View attachment 1644912

Looks like you are down to one left. If it's the reverso then my top 3 picks would win!

 

[Nickd]

For you, and given the two you are keeping, I’d add the Reverso and be done.

Starting from scratch, 16710, Speedy and a medium duo face Reverso.

From what I have, Sea Dweller, Monaco and 60s Seamaster 30.

I think about this fairly often, but never actually end up selling any, I don’t need to really. I had to return the Explorer 2 I got, so a replacement for that may be the next buy for me.

In the interim I also like messing about with cheaper watches, to that end I got a brace of 34mm Seiko 5s today for a song, this one is up and working already.

 

[TheFoo]

I agree with every single point you’ve made. The one point I would add is that the fonts are also nicer on the 3448 — slightly more refined and less computerised.

Cumulatively all those small differences make a watch that is poorly designed, for any watch, but especially when compared to the 3448.

There is a pattern with Patek where almost all of the current line up are worse versions of models from the archive. I don’t know how their design team works but it seems it has been institutionalised in a way that systemically leads to bad design outcomes. Perhaps management or the owners interfere in the process too much which stifles the designers? I can’t imagine any good designer actively making design decisions that essentially take an archive model and make it worse.

I posted an article from A Collected Man on watch typography a few days/weeks ago. Very astute and in-depth observations. One could argue, as another poster suggested, that Patek is purposefully choosing very ubiquitous/anonymous fonts. That means something different today versus 50 years ago. Look at the reverse: where the likes of Lange and Hermes come up with their own custom typography. To me, this ultimately gives the impression of a far more commercial and marketing-driven watch, whatever the other aesthetic good and bad. I’d rather the font choice appear more aloof if that means a watch that isn’t over-slick.

The 3448 in question happens to use font consistent across the logo, date read-out, numerals, etc. However, with most vintage Pateks, you’ll find this is not the case.

Overall, I obviously disagree with a lot of what people have said about modern Patek and the 5396 specifically. Much of the criticism, if I had to guess, is more about taking down Patek and less about anything actually wrong. For example, take “finishing quality”. It is commonly lamented that Patek finishing isn’t what it once was. However, nobody who has ever inspected a 3448 or a Patek of similar vintage could honestly say it is, in the totality, better finished than the company’s current watches. Overall, case, dial, and movement finishing in today’s Pateks is far more refined and precise. Not even debatable. For instance, you might see more evidence of machine marks here and there, but the chamfers are sharper and more consistent. Does that trade-off make for better or worse finishing? Holistically, today’s production looks more refined than the old stuff. No Patek has ever been made that would meet the hand-finishing standards that Dufour employs today.

From a design perspective, I see the 5396 as a nicely executed evolution of the 3448. The read-out of the date is harmonized/improved and the addition of a 24-hour indicator is highly useful.

Related to our discussions on Lange and others: https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe...is-proving-critics-wrong-20210722-p58bz9.html

Picking this back up because I think it’s an interesting topic and I think some of the other responses didn’t trace the connection to watches.

There’s no mystery what I think about this urban development project. And I suspect many others here would agree that a fake town with fake buildings and fake history is not tasteful. However, I rarely see folks apply the same judgment to watches. Why the difference? I don’t really see one.

 

[TheFoo]

My only issue with the 3448, is the lugs are not my favorite. However, maybe their more compact and angular appearance works better with the look of the recessed crown. To me it's dial is so much more appealing than that of the 5396.

I do prefer the lugs of the 5396, but maybe its because those are generally the lugs I prefer on a Calatrava. However the dial is a big miss for me. I suppose it's nitpicking, but anything in that price range would need to be perfect for me to pull the trigger on it. The biggest fail for me is that date cutting into the subdial. It just pisses me off. It could have been a really nice nice, but not perfect dial, if they had nixed the 24 hour indicator, and put the date on the subdial. Also it appears as though the subdial is shifted so high that even when the hands are at 10 and 2 they obscure the 24. Sure we all know it's 24, but it seems inelegant and sloppy. While on the 3448, when the hands are at 10 and 2, one can still see most of the number 31 for the date. The minute markers and hour markers are fine, but I'm really preferring the more delicate ones on the 3448. To me they vintage version looks more elegant, although, I'm sure the minute markers are easier to read at a glance on the 5396. I'm also not a fan of how they decided to have a big bolder "Patek Philippe" name at the top, but separated Geneve from it with the day and month windows. Sure, I get that its marketing to have the name be the first thing you see, especially when someone posts it on social medial. But I prefer the smaller more discreet PP with Geneve under it, and its placement on the 3448. In addition, I know some people like a seconds hand, maybe it's generally preferred, but on a watch like this I don't need it. I like the clean look of no seconds hand on a dressy piece.

I strongly disagree on the dial. The date window is actually a big improvement in my book: (1) easier to read, (2) harmonizes the full date read-out (everything in a window rather than windows-and-a-dial), and (3) creates room for the 24-hour indicator (which makes sense to be in a dial format, consistent with the hour/minute/seconds read-out). Not sure why it matters that it cuts into the 24-hour indicator. It cuts approximately halfway though the outer band of the sub-dial, so there’s no awkward spaces or disruption to my eye. Meanwhile, if you’ve ever had to use or set the time on an annual or perpetual calendar, you’d experience the functional benefit of a 24-hour indicator.

The one thing I don’t love is how the ‘24’ in the 24-hour indicator is obstructed by the short ends of the hour and minute hands. However, even if a slight flaw or compromise, I don’t see how it adds up to the laughable failure of design that many are characterizing here.