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

[pmeis]



I want a titanium Luminor now

They are a lot of fun!

 

[Keith T]

^^Dude, I like your wallpaper. Bold!^^


Re: the Portuguese, as some have mentioned, it's really the thickness that has prevented me from buying one. Or more accurately, just how it sits on my wrist. (Not even sure thickness is the right word).

Truly, I like the concept of it ... the movement, the dial layout, almost everything about it. Power reserve is a great function to have for sure. I can see where it would be a great piece for a lot of guys. Really have enjoyed owning my IWC Pilot, which gets regular wear.

But if forced to pick any one model from that family, I'd probably select the older-style chronograph, as recommended by mimo. And I believe one of the Hodinkee writers did a pretty good review of it too, with some nice pics. A more motivated person could probably find it.

Ah, okay ...here's the link:

https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/the-iwc-portugieser-chronograph-reference-3714

So basically, that one for me (despite having a larger diameter, according to the specs), well, it just feels a little better on my wrist (which is about 7.25"). And I have yet not tried on their newer in-house version as of yet, FWIW.

 

[bigbadbuff]



The first 24 hour Sub-C ownership report - it's a fine watch indeed, all the Rolex Coolaid drinkers were definitely onto something. It definitely relays the sense of solidly built automata and will probably stand to years of normal (careful, but not obsessively so) use nicely. The handsome brushed finish will certainly help to hide the small marks and scratches. The bracelet is a mixed bag so far - the Glidelock design is undoubtedly a brilliant idea but the bulky clasp housing that comes with it I could easily do without. Not that it's very uncomfortable but I am much more aware of it than my other metal bracelet watches. Another funny thing about the bracelet - I actually had to put a bit of silicone lube onto the mounting points where the bracelet joins case and the clasp - they had a low but perceptible squeal of steel on steel when the watch shifted slightly with the wrist movement. That one puzzled me a bit - not that it's a major thing but I haven't seen this on my other watches and definitely didn't expect this from such a high quality watch maker. Another point that will take some time to get used to - the caseback sticks out a fair bit causing the watch sit a bit high on the wrist. It's not absurdly high or anything but coupled with the fairly wide lugs this may be a problem for some people with smaller wrists, at least I notice it on mine having got used to watches that sink nicely into the wrist. The higher watch stance can make it slightly less "stable" on the wrist and make it shift a tiny bit more, creating a feeling of a top-heavy watch or making the bracelet move against the skin on the sides which I don't mind all that much but definitely notice. I am really nit-picking right now though, none of these "negative" points are really significant, but since I have had the watch only for 24 hours I am describing what catches my eye from the get-go.

These 2 things you mentioned- bubble back of the case and heft of the clasp- have been the only things keeping me from the SubC as my next purchase. In the AD, on my wrist for 10 minutes, neither matter. After 8+ hours of wear they very well may. In comparison to something like the GMTiiC, the latter has a flat caseback and smaller clasp and surely wears more comfortably. Most people I assume get used to how the Sub wears, otherwise you would hear about this all the time rather than occasionally. Wrist size/shape and what you are used to surely play a part. I'll be curious to see what you think of it now that it's been a few days of wear instead of 24 hours?

 

[bkotsko]

^^Dude, I like your wallpaper. Bold!^^


Re: the Portuguese, as some have mentioned, it's really the thickness that has prevented me from buying one. Or more accurately, just how it sits on my wrist. (Not even sure thickness is the right word).

Truly, I like the concept of it ... the movement, the dial layout, almost everything about it. Power reserve is a great function to have for sure. I can see where it would be a great piece for a lot of guys. Really have enjoyed owning my IWC Pilot, which gets regular wear.

But if forced to pick any one model from that family, I'd probably select the older-style chronograph, as recommended by mimo. And I believe one of the Hodinkee writers did a pretty good review of it too, with some nice pics. A more motivated person could probably find it.

Ah, okay ...here's the link:

https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/the-iwc-portugieser-chronograph-reference-3714

So basically, that one for me (despite having a larger diameter, according to the specs), well, it just feels a little better on my wrist (which is about 7.25"). And I have yet not tried on their newer in-house version as of yet, FWIW.

Ok,
Jack Forster dictated the article (likely on his phone) and didn't proof read it (or have someone else proof it). That kills me.

"If you’ve been following IWC for the last few years, you know that they’ve taken a somewhat different tack in introducing new watches at the annual SIHH exhibition in Geneva... "
Tact?

" “Wow, Engineered For Men!” (as a matter of fact I’ve seen a fair few quote female clients unquote, who enjoy wearing one)."
"female clients"

Come on?!?

 

[mimo]

Yes. And I'm not sure about the diameter, Keith? That old fella is still 40.9mm I believe, as opposed to 43 on those big bold new boys. Thinner, too. Just an awkward case shape that makes it leap out of your sleeve and ask for attention!

BKo, I think your theory is probably correct and most astute, but "tack" is right. Sailing term, referring to a direction cutting back and forth against the wind, but generic metaphor for direction or vector in common speech. "Female Customers" I don't know - did he mean to highlight the implied controversy, or to suggest that they weren't female in the broadly understood sense? I think we should be told!

Buffy, if you're not sure about the Sub, you could always buy the Sea Dweller. Which wouldn't help, but you could.

 

[bigbadbuff]

The 7 day IWC Portugese is the first nice watch that made we say wow. I think it was a print advertisement. IMO it's a stunning, gorgeous watch. So perfectly proportioned and laid out. Took me years to see one in person, and I was so incredibly disappointed how big it was on my wrist. If it was a touch smaller/thinner it would be mine no question.

 

[Kaplan]

Ode to 14060

or

The First 25 Years​

Spoiler: Warning: Very long and incoherent ramblings

Growing up in the 70's, my first watch was a black digital Casio on a black plastic strap. Next, sometime in the 80's, came a skeletonised Swatch (the one with the transparent strap that yellowed over time and the weird elastic bands you could put on to protect the crystal). And after that came a white dialed moon phase watch on a brown leather strap (which must have been a quartz as well).

Post high school, I was starting to look for a better watch and while what I really wanted was a Rolex, it seemed too costly, so when I got the chance to buy a used Cartier Tank at what looked like a good price, I took it. I'm not really sure what model it was, but I'm pretty sure it was quartz and I don't know if it was solid gold or just plated. It looked like this. Ownership was short though, as I quickly realised that it was too dainty for me (30x23mm I guess?) and that I don't really like to wear yellow metals. Lesson learned: Don't go for 'the deal'. (I still like the design of the Tank, but I'm happy with appreciating it from afar).

And so the search for the right Rolex began. And it had to be right, as this was supposed to be a one time investment - I couldn't imagine buying more watches at that price point, and if you finally managed to get one of those, why would you ever want to wear something else? Also, for me the choice always came down to one of the sports models, and while they obviously have rather different identities, they all felt similar enough to me that it would only make sense to have just one, which would then become *my* watch.

Months were spend combing though the catalogue I'd picked up from an AD. I remember really liking the Pepsi GMT - and if I had to have a GMT function, it definitely beat out the Explorer II to me (and as much as I like the Explorer I now, it was never in the running back then). I've always preferred simplicity though, so the Submariners were the ones that really drew my eye - but which one should it be?

The Submariner Date was nice, but the cyclops bothered me a little. That was of course fixed on the Sea Dweller, but that was also more expensive. And then there was the very clean looking No Date Sub. After much thought it just kept looking better and better - and it was the cheapest of the ones I was considering.

So, the decision made, I soon put down a deposit for a 14060. The price in early '91? $1615 (which I got down to $1535). And after a few months of working and saving up (still in my late teens) I was the happy owner of what I imagined to be the last watch I would ever need to buy.

And I was kinda right. For nearly 20 years it was my only watch, almost never leaving my wrist. At first I was a little unsure if I could safely wear it everywhere, like when I at 20 years old went on Interrail with a couple of friends ('Interrail' lets you travel cheaply through many European countries, jumping on and off trains as you please.) For us it was mostly a ticket to get to the small Greek islands for a month, pretty much partying till we dropped and sleeping wherever - probably not the safest way to break in a new Rolex, but after a little deliberation, I decided that it had been bought to be worn. So I did, and nothing happened.

Over the following years it was a trusty companion, nicely suited for all kinds of stuff, like work, working out, mountain biking, riding snow mobiles in Greenland or horses on a beach in the Caribbean, snorkeling in Thailand, heli hiking and climbing volcanoes in New Zealand and drinking Martinis on Manhattan.

And what's particularly great about it, is that even though I've learned a lot about other options, both from other makers as well as other Rolex models, I've never really found anything else I'd rather have.

Here's how it looks after a quarter century of wear:

So, is the 14060 the perfect watch? Of course not. Or more accurately: It won't be for everybody. For me though, it turned out to be a very good choice, one that I not only have never regretted, but given the chance I would make the same choice again.

Also, I'm guessing that there are very few things that you can actually use daily for a quarter century - without babying it - and yet be able to sell for maybe 3 times what you paid.

Downsides? Well, after diving into the various versions of the Sub, I'll admit that I prefer the aesthetics of the earlier 5513 models (with matte dial and no white gold surrounds on the markers). But I didn't know about the model of the time, so it wasn't really an option. And considering the prices one of these cost now, I'm not sure I would feel as comfortable putting a 5513 through what I put my 14060 through. I'll even go so far as to say that I wouldn't swap mine for a 5513 at this time, as I have a history with mine. And since I don't believe in owning something so similar, the 5513 is another watch that I'm happy with enjoying from afar.

Of course, being exposed to all that's out there (I totally blame this thread ), it can be hard to stay monogamous, so a handful of years ago I added a Luminor Panerai Titanium 177. Perfect timing too, as I soon after went to Napoli, and in much of the material I studied, it was spelled out that you really shouldn't wear a Rolex there - but since I'd just gotten an Italian watch it would've probably been my choice for this trip anyway.

I was actually expecting the warnings to be exaggerated, but to my surprise several locals in Napoli unsolicitedly warned one of my travelling companions that he couldn't wear that kind of watch in the streets of Napoli (he was wearing a Coke GMT). I had of course told him about the warnings before hand, so while we were walking around Napoli he was trying to keep the watch covered by his cuff - but still the locals noticed and took their time to warn him. Nothing happened though. (The Panerai went unnoticed - or at least uncommented.)

About a year or so after that, I added an IWC Mark XV. This is the receipt for the deposit I put down:

That number is obviously just a coincidence, but (opposed to the PAM 177 which has since moved on) the Mk XV is here to stay as well, as my *other* one-watch - expect a post here about that in another 20 years or so ;-)

And as much as I like the Mk XV, if these other additions have taught me anything, it's that I could actually be perfectly happy with just the Sub as an only watch (yes, I'll hand in my TWAT card).

Thanks for the first 25 years of service, here's to the next 25. Or 50.

tl;dr: Some time ago I bought a Sub. I still like it.

 

[bkotsko]

Yes. And I'm not sure about the diameter, Keith? That old fella is still 40.9mm I believe, as opposed to 43 on those big bold new boys. Thinner, too. Just an awkward case shape that makes it leap out of your sleeve and ask for attention!

BKo, I think your theory is probably correct and most astute, but "tack" is right. Sailing term, referring to a direction cutting back and forth against the wind, but generic metaphor for direction or vector in common speech. "Female Customers" I don't know - did he mean to highlight the implied controversy, or to suggest that they weren't female in the broadly understood sense? I think we should be told!

Buffy, if you're not sure about the Sub, you could always buy the Sea Dweller. Which wouldn't help, but you could.

You learn something new every day. Thanks.

 

[ShawnBC]

Ode to 14060

or

The First 25 Years​

Growing up in the 70's, my first watch was a black digital Casio on a black plastic strap. Next, sometime in the 80's, came a skeletonised Swatch (the one with the transparent strap that yellowed over time and the weird elastic bands you could put on to protect the crystal). And after that came a white dialed moon phase watch on a brown leather strap (which must have been a quartz as well).

Post high school, I was starting to look for a better watch and while what I really wanted was a Rolex, it seemed too costly, so when I got the chance to buy a used Cartier Tank at what looked like a good price, I took it. I'm not really sure what model it was, but I'm pretty sure it was quartz and I don't know if it was solid gold or just plated. It looked like this. Ownership was short though, as I quickly realised that it was too dainty for me (30x23mm I guess?) and that I don't really like to wear yellow metals. Lesson learned: Don't go for 'the deal'. (I still like the design of the Tank, but I'm happy with appreciating it from afar).

And so the search for the right Rolex began. And it had to be right, as this was supposed to be a one time investment - I couldn't imagine buying more watches at that price point, and if you finally managed to get one of those, why would you ever want to wear something else? Also, for me the choice always came down to one of the sports models, and while they obviously have rather different identities, they all felt similar enough to me that it would only make sense to have just one, which would then become *my* watch.

Months were spend combing though the catalogue I'd picked up from an AD. I remember really liking the Pepsi GMT - and if I had to have a GMT function, it definitely beat out the Explorer II to me (and as much as I like the Explorer I now, it was never in the running back then). I've always preferred simplicity though, so the Submariners were the ones that really drew my eye - but which one should it be?

The Submariner Date was nice, but the cyclops bothered me a little. That was of course fixed on the Sea Dweller, but that was also more expensive. And then there was the very clean looking No Date Sub. After much thought it just kept looking better and better - and it was the cheapest of the ones I was considering.

So, the decision made, I soon put down a deposit for a 14060. The price in early '91? $1615 (which I got down to $1535). And after a few months of working and saving up (still in my late teens) I was the happy owner of what I imagined to be the last watch I would ever need to buy.

And I was kinda right. For nearly 20 years it was my only watch, almost never leaving my wrist. At first I was a little unsure if I could safely wear it everywhere, like when I at 20 years old went on Interrail with a couple of friends ('Interrail' lets you travel cheaply through many European countries, jumping on and off trains as you please.) For us it was mostly a ticket to get to the small Greek islands for a month, pretty much partying till we dropped and sleeping wherever - probably not the safest way to break in a new Rolex, but after a little deliberation, I decided that it had been bought to be worn. So I did, and nothing happened.

Over the following years it was a trusty companion, nicely suited for all kinds of stuff, like work, working out, mountain biking, riding snow mobiles in Greenland or horses on a beach in the Caribbean, snorkeling in Thailand, heli hiking and climbing volcanoes in New Zealand and drinking Martinis on Manhattan.

And what's particularly great about it, is that even though I've learned a lot about other options, both from other makers as well as other Rolex models, I've never really found anything else I'd rather have.

Here's how it looks after a quarter century of wear:



So, is the 14060 the perfect watch? Of course not. Or more accurately: It won't be for everybody. For me though, it turned out to be a very good choice, one that I not only have never regretted, but given the chance I would make the same choice again.

Also, I'm guessing that there are very few things that you can actually use daily for a quarter century - without babying it - and yet be able to sell for maybe 3 times what you paid.

Downsides? Well, after diving into the various versions of the Sub, I'll admit that I prefer the aesthetics of the earlier 5513 models (with matte dial and no white gold surrounds on the markers). But I didn't know about the model of the time, so it wasn't really an option. And considering the prices one of these cost now, I'm not sure I would feel as comfortable putting a 5513 through what I put my 14060 through. I'll even go so far as to say that I wouldn't swap mine for a 5513 at this time, as I have a history with mine. And since I don't believe in owning something so similar, the 5513 is another watch that I'm happy with enjoying from afar.

Of course, being exposed to all that's out there (I totally blame this thread

), it can be hard to stay monogamous, so a handful of years ago I added a Luminor Panerai Titanium 177. Perfect timing too, as I soon after went to Napoli, and in much of the material I studied, it was spelled out that you really shouldn't wear a Rolex there - but since I'd just gotten an Italian watch it would've probably been my choice for this trip anyway.

I was actually expecting the warnings to be exaggerated, but to my surprise several locals in Napoli unsolicitedly warned one of my travelling companions that he couldn't wear that kind of watch in the streets of Napoli (he was wearing a Coke GMT). I had of course told him about the warnings before hand, so while we were walking around Napoli he was trying to keep the watch covered by his cuff - but still the locals noticed and took their time to warn him. Nothing happened though. (The Panerai went unnoticed - or at least uncommented.)

About a year or so after that, I added an IWC Mark XV. This is the receipt for the deposit I put down:



That number is obviously just a coincidence, but (opposed to the PAM 177 which has since moved on) the Mk XV is here to stay as well, as my *other* one-watch - expect a post here about that in another 20 years or so ;-)

And as much as I like the Mk XV, if these other additions have taught me anything, it's that I could actually be perfectly happy with just the Sub as an only watch (yes, I'll hand in my TWAT card).

Thanks for the first 25 years of service, here's to the next 25. Or 50.

tl;dr: Some time ago I bought a Sub. I still like it.

Cool read! Hard to believe 25 years have gone by since 1991! Wish I could be a one-watch (or 3, tops) guy but that could never happen!

BTW, what's with Rolex being unfit for Napoli streets?

 

[pmeis]

^^Dude, I like your wallpaper. Bold!^^

That's actually the wallpaper at the main lobby of the Maker's Mark Distillery from a couple months back...(highly recommended tour btw.)

 

[Igor01]

These 2 things you mentioned- bubble back of the case and heft of the clasp- have been the only things keeping me from the SubC as my next purchase. In the AD, on my wrist for 10 minutes, neither matter. After 8+ hours of wear they very well may. In comparison to something like the GMTiiC, the latter has a flat caseback and smaller clasp and surely wears more comfortably.

Most people I assume get used to how the Sub wears, otherwise you would hear about this all the time rather than occasionally. Wrist size/shape and what you are used to surely play a part.

I'll be curious to see what you think of it now that it's been a few days of wear instead of 24 hours?

I think I am slowly getting used to the fit of the Sub - I no longer feel it as an odd "foreign object" sensation, it's pretty much melted into my wrist. Still sits high though, especially compared to the 15400. It is a tiny bit more difficult to slide under the dress shirt cuff than my other watches, but not by much.

I actually don't mind the Sub's higher stance - esthetically, the slight visual chunkiness factor added by this is appealing to me and it also contributes to the perceived "heft" of the watch on the wrist. The mass distribution and the higher centre of gravity add to the inertial torque (for lack of a better word) when the wrist is moved around. This contributes to the solid, reassuring feel of the watch.

 

[Kaplan]



BTW, what's with Rolex being unfit for Napoli streets?

They're obviously easy to spot and they attract thieves, who apparently might even try to just rip them from your wrist, with whatever damage that may cause to the wearer or the watch. The guy I talked to at Rubinacci comfirmed what we'd heard in the streets, that wearing a Rolex in the open was ill-conceived.

 

[scottcw]



Ok,
Jack Forster dictated the article (likely on his phone) and didn't proof read it (or have someone else proof it). That kills me. 

"[COLOR=666666]If you’ve been following IWC for the last few years, you know that they’ve taken a somewhat different[/COLOR] [COLOR=FF0000]tack[/COLOR] [COLOR=666666]in introducing new watches at the annual SIHH exhibition in Geneva... [/COLOR]"
Tact?


Come on?!?

Actually, "tack" is correct.

TACK
/tak/
a method of dealing with a situation or problem; a course of action or policy. "as she could not stop him from going she tried another tack and insisted on going with him."
synonyms: approach, way, method.

TACT
/takt/
adroitness and sensitivity in dealing with others or with difficult issues. "the inspector broke the news to me with tact and consideration."

 

[bkotsko]

Actually, "tack" is correct.

TACK
/tak/
a method of dealing with a situation or problem; a course of action or policy. "as she could not stop him from going she tried another tack and insisted on going with him."
synonyms: approach, way, method.

TACT
/takt/
adroitness and sensitivity in dealing with others or with difficult issues. "the inspector broke the news to me with tact and consideration."

yep, caught that from mimo.

 

[Keith T]

Stellar contribution, Kap!

Really enjoyed reading....gives me "the fever" LOL.

That's actually the wallpaper at the main lobby of the Maker's Mark Distillery from a couple months back...(highly recommended tour btw.)

Sweet! That's in Loretto ...near Bardstown, right? I was able to tour Four Roses last summer, and it was really cool. Nice architecture and story behind that brand.

Lovez teh bourbonz. Could easily do a big tangent here, but will try to stay on-topic. (I am actually a native Kentuckian, relocated to Texas in 2001).