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

[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 **** 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

 

[Neville Southall]

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 **** 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?

 

[Dino944]

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.

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 the vast majority of the high end mechanical wristwatch world is ultimately not that interesting because it is 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 PC 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.

After reading your post, it seems like you wouldn't wear your Explorer to go mountain biking, wake boarding, or mountain climbing (one of the things that made the Explorer famous), because it's not interesting or a new enough design. But I'm not sure what problems a new design would actually solve for you as you go mountain biking or mountain climbing?

Sure, many people, myself included probably consider traditional criteria when evaluating a watch. Design, workmanship, functions/purpose (if it is a diving watch, GMT, chronograph etc), history, etc. I probably consider standard old school ideas as a way a measure a watch against competitors just as I would use certain criteria if comparing suit brands, or other items.

I guess I look at RM and I struggle to see that they solved a problem, beyond you finding them interesting. IMHO, RMs simple time only watch is their best looking watch, most of the others I find relatively gimmicky and unattractive.

Most of my friends think an iphone or even apple watch, does the trick and there is little need for a watch (especially an expensive watch) these days. In some ways they are right, but I can still put on a 10+ year old watch and it functions looks great, and still make sense for my purposes. I've gone through several iphones over the years and the old ones are basically useless today.

 

[9thsymph]

RM is fashion.

Awesome fashion!

Why isn’t that enough?

But that’s what it is.

 

[NakedYoga]

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.

Sounds like a fun project.

 

[TheFoo]

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

Oh, I assume they pick it. F001 would be pretty awesome though.