Discussion in 'Classic Menswear' started by gdl203, May 20, 2007.
Yep, those are my exact same thoughts as well.
Can we see a picture of the B&M Capeland Stitches? I'm a B&M fan and I've never seen you post it..
There's no justification necessary; it's a thoroughly no-excuses watch. In the short run or the long run, it's very unlikely that you'd regret getting a Rolex compared to anything else in the same price range.
i like them both.
i like it. not my fave PP, but i wouldnt turn it away.
looks great. great strap.
great new purchase!!!!!
i think i have posted it before, but i will make sure to wear and post it this week. just for you.
Wow, that's pretty insulting. I strongly prefer big watches (up to 46mm, even), and find small watches old-fashioned and even "dainty." Are you genuinely convinced your preference for small watches is somehow objectively correct or superior? Because, um, it. is. not.
Gotta second that B&M curiosity. They make some cool stuff I've only seen in studio shots.
Well, watches today are worn more as an expression of personal taste as opposed to a need for portable timekeeping, and by extension I also feel that there is some currency in the opinion that the large watches of today are a form of compensation for the so-called emasculation of the modern man.
To clarify the point I am trying to make through hyperbole, you have the original He-men of the 1950s/60s who with 33-34mm watches strapped on explored/dominated women/smoked/drank/fucked with abandon, while you have the relatively emasculated Joe Sixpack today picking the kids up from school in the MPV complete with baby seat his wife forced him to buy... with a 46mm Breitling strapped to his wrist.
In other words, consider that you perceive smaller watches as "dainty" (i.e. feminine) because a watch for you is as much expression of your "manhood" as your not wearing a skirt.
While to some degree I appreciate the Panerai aesthetic and think their watches look nice, I think of the brand more as a PR triumph in the sense that they (sorry GDL) managed to parley recased ho-hum ebauches worn by an inconsequential unit in an inconsequential navy in an inconsequential military power (seriously, Italian naval divers???!!) into a global He-man desirable watch phenomenon... IMO JLC and IWC are trying to replicate Panerai's success with that concept today with the Navy Seal and Top Gun LEs respectively.
Just for you and chocsosa, found this in my camera roll. Not the best pic, but gets the job done.
Yes good. Thanks, stitches!
This thread makes me frown at my Seiko Cinco...
On the plus side, it does provide a bunch of reasons to get good grades.
I totally agree with you Apro! The biggest watch I own is 42mm..I like the smaller watches..IMO just elegant and timeless..perfect size watch would be 38mm..but I have a couple that are 34-36mm.. I see those guys with the 46mm watches and the first thing you notice is the size of the watch before anything else.. I feel a watch is supposed to compliment not be the star..but that's just to me though..
Yessir! That is the business right there! lol
Wow, that's the kind of wildly speculative armchair psychology usually reserved for "Men's Rights" misogynists.
I like large mattresses and small whisky glasses, tall loudspeakers and 7" vinyl singles, compact cars and thick books, big asses and small waists, huge megacities and narrow alleys, hefty steaks and baby carrots--which of these should I measure to ascertain my manliness?
"Dominating women/smoking/drinking/fucking with abandon" is a stunted, infantile standard of masculinity. But even by those measures, you have no idea where I stand, and the size of my watch won't tell you. I understand you're whiny about the "good old days" (good for whom? white dudes only, pretty much), but the most "emasculated" thing in this thread is your contention that our belongings are serviceable metrics and reflections of our adherence to some threadbare gender roles that have never been much more than myths and excuses to begin with.
...so why do you consider smaller watches "dainty"? Am honestly curious why.
Because dainty means small and delicate. And they are.
Maybe more importantly, I consider small watches kind of "old-fashioned"--of course all mechanical watches are old-fashioned, but styles change. Just as I didn't pop my collar in the 80's and don't wear skinny jeans now, I don't follow all the trends, but large watches look good to me and look great on my wrist (I'm not a petite dude--I played Div I college rugby), so it's a trend I'm happy to be part of. Your mileage, of course, may vary, and that's great--in no way am I trying to impugn your taste, which may well work wonderfully for you.
"In matters of principle, stand like a rock; in matters of taste, swim with the current." - Thomas Jefferson
Separate names with a comma.