Discussion in 'Classic Menswear' started by gdl203, May 20, 2007.
that is a beautiful watch indeed.
I remember when you were looking for options, and I believe I mentioned the LW. I dunno--i think for a sports watch the LW looks great. It certainly isnt a dress watch but doesnt claim to be.
If I went GO it wouldnt be a sport EVO thats for sure.
the new fangled giant monstrosity not so much.
I am sure I will get flak for saying it, but at this admittedly preliminary point I think I would settle for an homage sub to focus on other things (GO PML, Explorer 1016, or a Reverso TT31 limited for starters).
Sure, if I was of age in the 60s and 70s itd be all about James Bond and Steve McQueen, but something seems...I think disingenuous is too strong a word here but I'm struggling to find a suitable replacement so lets just on "off" there.
commence firing on my position
I can't speak to the quality of these, but from an aesthetics point I prefer them to the current offerings from Rolex:
Agreed again my friend
Well, the LW is just too industrial for me I think. I would do a Sport Evo before I did a Sub, but again, only if I was looking for a sports watch in that vein. I agree that some of the other GOs are far more interesting (but obviously dress watches). I suppose an AP ROO would be a good alternative as well.
A couple of other indie sport watches:
Edox Grand Ocean looks pretty nice too:
I used to feel the same way that Subs and GMTs are just too common. However, after being away from them and seeing them on other people, I just think they have a ruggedly handsome quality to them, and are the quintessential diving watch and GMT watch. I no longer care if something is worn or enjoyed by a lot of people, if its an original and good quality. You can always find different, but different isn't necessarily better. The Nautilus is a great watch, but there are times I like how it looks and times I find it a bit strange looking, especially since someone that is very into watches said, it resembles a 1950s TV with ears. I still like them but sometimes I'm not so sure I'd buy one.
Sorry, I know lots of people love GO. Its great quality, but I find them bland and lacking in originality, identity, and soul. Their Panos look like less attractive Lange 1s, and their sport watch looks generic (your could put any brand name on their Evo...BP, Omega, Tag). While many GOs are a fraction of the price of Langes, they will always live in the shadow of Lange. GO makes good quality watches, and I can get great deals on them, but I have no desire to own any of them.
There is something cool and beautiful about vintage Rolex Explorers. The modern Explorer is bloated and boring.
Homage, replica, copy...they are politically correct terms for fake. Sorry, but I'd rather have a real G-Shock or real timex than a fake Sub. To me, justifying it by saying well then you have money to buy 1016s and Reversos doesn't work. Why not buy a real G Shock, Timex or Swatch and a 1016 or Reverso. If you like the looks of a real Sub enough to want the look, its a good watch so I say buy a real one. Otherwise, it begs the question is one buying a fake Sub to fool other people? More importantly, once you start down the path of buying a fake Sub, because you like the look and want to concentrate on 1016s and Reversos where does it end? Does one then say well I like the look of an AP Royal Oak Offshore but I want to concentrate on buying a boat, so I'm buying a fake RO Offshore, or I love the look of a Patek Tourbillon, but want to buy a bigger home so I'll buy a fake Patek tourbillon. It simply becomes a slippery slope of justifying buying fakes. I've always been someone that would rather have one very good quality watch, rather than lots of variety through buying a few copies...but thats just my 2 cents.
Have you considered a vintage sub? Finding a good example with a nice patina at a fair price is non-trivial.
I hear this lament often, but let's make an important distinction: only a fake rolex is a fake rolex. MKII, Raven, Invicta, Steinhart or whoever else do not commit forgery.
If were talking about slippery slopes, then what say you about the Seiko SKX009 or SKA371? Are those fake watches too?
I guess what I'm really getting at is this: In my humble opinion, Rolex currently suffers from a case of coat tail riding laziness, and I don't want to spend thousands of dollars on their current offerings. Tudor beat them at their own game this year (i.e. dive watches), and are, in my opinion, more deserving of any money I may allocate to that end.
As is abundantly clear, I appreciate some of their older designs (as do many other people), but would rather spend whatever money I have allocated for watches elsewhere as specified above. It's not really a problem for me. I'm not trying to impress anyone else--if I was I don't think I would be admitting any of this on the forum. I could also just pull a Sir F all day to ingratiate my ego. Moreover, the other argument remains unconvincing to me. Just as I appreciate samples in music, or bibliographies, I am comfortable with the fact that any artistic community will share ideas/inspiration--so what?
DINO! Y U NO LIEK!
Haha, Dino, that post contained an impressive amount of contentious issues . I enjoyed it thoroughly, and look forward to some good discussion. +1 to stitchy, and I agree with Cyclon. on this one. Even a Rolex 1016 comes with the baggage, of, well, a 50 year old watch. But that will merit a response tomorrow! Nice points all around.
Cylon, are you joking? If a copy/fake has to say Rolex for it to be a fake Rolex, you have some rather lax standards. Sorry, but Invitas and a bunch of other homage watches are just mediocre copies. Again, I'd rather have a real G-shock than an Invicta copy of a Rolex Daytona, Sub, GMT or a Steinhart copy of an IWC.
I don't like every Rolex out there, but saying Rolex is suffering from laziness in the last few years seems inaccurate. They have revised almost every watch in their line up within the last 7 years or so other than the Daytona. The Sub, GMT, Explorer 2, Explorer, Sea-Dwellers, Day-Date II, Datejust/Datejust II all have revised bracelets, clasps, dials, cases etc. They may not all be our taste (I don't like the new Sea-Dweller or Explorer) but thats not lazy. What would you like them to do that would show they are not lazy with the Sub? What has Patek done with the Calatrava other than increase the case size, give it their own seal, and jack up the prices? Yet people say its a classic...Rolex does that and they are lazy? Part of what many people like about Subs, Calatravas, and Reversos are that they are classics that have evolved over time, rather than watches that have undergone major revisions and look dated in 5 years. Look at all the various models of Seamasters from the 1970's, 80's, and 90s. Today vintage 70s is fun and cool, but so many of their designs look dated, and didn't hold their values as well as Subs from the same time periods (which underwent small evolutionary changes). Regarding, Tudor, I think they came out with a couple of cool watches, but they are essentially modern versions of their vintage pieces...I'm not sure how original that is...besides Rolex their modern vintage watch with the newest Ex2s.
Sampling music is hardly the same as basically copying a Submariner but putting your own name on it. Musicians usually have to get permission or a license to sample or they get sued. If you don't want to spend money on a Sub, why buy a look a like? I'd suggest buying a watch that is distinctive in the price range you want to spend rather than buying fakes. You can be comfortable wearing a fake...lots of people are. I never worry that a person wearing a fake is trying to impress me. It would take more than a watch to impress me. But I see fake watch and sorry I just think poser.
I'm not sure what a Sir F is that you reference?
As for the idea that homages are part of an "artistic community ...shar[ing] ideas/inspiration." Sorry but thats not convincing. There are lots of fake watches some are more blatant than others. IMHO fakes/copies do not have to have the word Rolex on the dial to be a fake.
You'e a good guy, so I'm not trying to pick on you about your homage idea. You said to open fire so I am playing a bit of devils advocate. If you were a close friend of mine, I'd do everything I could to persuade you not to do down the road to homages/replicas. But if you want to buy homages, replicas, copies etc...go for it if that makes you happy.
Hi Stitch, the Senator Chronometer is a handsome watch...but for what it costs there are other watches I'd rather have. As for the chrono you posted, it looks like a generic vintage chrongraph. Nice, but nothing to write home about. A friend of mine has a Zenith chrono that looks about the same...nice but nothing that really captures my eye or heart.
This whole homage / replica topic has been discussed to death on other threads around here, and it seems like most people have strong opinions one way or the other, but since the topic of subs and Tudors came up (and being mindful that this is a watch pr0n thread, after all), where does this sit on the scale between FAKE -- HOMAGE -- REAL DEAL? While the price differential between a Sub and a Pelagos is somewhat less than between a Sub and any other homage/fake, your argument seems to suggest that this is somewhat near the top of the slippery slope. To the uneducated eye, a Pelagos could very easily pass off as a Sub.
Edit - on the topic of Rolex and innovation - not a fan of the look of the new SkyDweller, but the complication is
this holds true in many aspects of life
Separate names with a comma.