The Watch Appreciation Thread (Reviews and Photos of Men's Timepieces by Rolex, Patek Philippe, Brei

[AriGold]

I'm liking this:

Tag Heuer, 50th Anniversary Jack Heuer Carrera 1887:

 

[tricky]



I'm about to pull the trigger on a Stowa Antea KS41 but really stuck on the strap. I found the lower end straps from Stowa rather poor quality. I wonder also if the bracelet would be the better choice.

Any other Stowa owners out there who have experience with the bracelet, croc or napa straps? Are they worth the money. Any other Antea or Tangomat owners who can advise the best strap colour? Thinking maybe navy or DB for versatility.

I upgraded to this medium croc from Stowa when I purchased mine. It's held up well.

 

[ThinkDerm]



me too. i listed it on ebay for work and, and sadly it has a bid. took a whole 5 minutes. i was hoping it would go unsold and i could get it for a steal. i mean sent it to fok.

great news about the main page!!!

what is your company's ebay site?

 

[apropos]

Long post incoming:

Guys, mafoofan has a lot to offer this thread - he has a good breadth and depth of knowledge, which means that unlike some other posters it is at the very least potentially instructive to think about why he has arrived at the conclusions he has.

That said, he (like me, heh) does sometimes come across as a little brusque, so I propose that we all try to focus on the actual content in his posts, rather than the manner it is conveyed... (this applies to me too. )

Spoiler

How does anglage on non-moving plates decrease friction? All the movement of other parts will be lateral to the plates' surface. Perlage and Geneva stripes, on the other hand, are very functional for that reason.

Anglage on gear teeth like you show is not common, even amongst the high-end makers mentioned. Since gears only rotate laterally, I cannot see how that kind of finishing would be helpful. The profile and regularity of the teeth are infinitely more important, and what we look to when judging movement design and finish. You generally want very sharp, defined edges on teeth, not anything rounded off. After all, precision is key. As for other moving parts that go unseen, IWC does chamfer where it is functional.

...

What do you mean by "greater hand-finishing?" Again, there is a difference between the degree of embellishment, and the quality of finish. In terms of embellishment, IWC movements don't really register. They have always verged on a more serious, engineered approach. So, superficial anglage is not to be seen (such as on plates).

I see great merit in this more honest approach. A lot of more eye-catching movements distract you with flourish, but lack in true quality of finish. In contrast, IWC finishing has been known to be painfully immaculate, though more spartan. Does that make IWC finishing less "great?" I don't think so at all. I'm much more interested in how well the finishing applied has been executed. How fine and regular are the cotes de Geneve? Are edges razor sharp or are they burred and pitted under magnification? Is perlage applied with care, such that the "pearls" are equal in size and placed in a regular, consistent pattern, or is it haphazard (such as in the case of Rolex)? Are you more interested in dazzle or quality?

I apologise in advance if you already know any of the following; do not take this as me patronising you:

Yes, anglage has broad cosmetic appeal when done well, but there is a genuine practical reason for its presence. The original intention of anglage was to reduce the amount of square edges on watch parts so that 1. edges would be less likely to be damaged during servicing (a square edge is more susceptible to accidental damage than a rounded one), and 2. you essentially guarantee that the edges are free of burrs or other debris left over from their original make. Another reason which I have heard but am not totally convinced of is that it indirectly testifies to the quality of the metal used as only quality metal can take a good polish.

Taking all the above into consideration, their presence on large fixed parts like bridges, plates makes perfect sense to me. To use an example you may be familiar with, the IWC Jubilee Portuguese had all large fixed parts anglaged beautifully.

With regards to anglage on gear teeth - I was once told by a Piaget watchmaker that thinner movements are subject to a miniscule amount of flex with shocks, and that beveling compensates for that to a degree. That said, I agree that "excessive" anglage on gear teeth will affect their precision as a consequence to the potentially increased amount of play between gear teeth.

If you were however referring to the profile of the gear teeth (I do not think you were), cycloidal gear teeth have always been traditional in watches. Your IWC, my JLC, Dino's Cartier - they all carry cycloid gears.

For another “frippery” you mention, the original intention of Cotes de Geneve/perlage was to provide a surface texture to flat bits of the movement that served to trap runaway oil, along with whatever debris it carried - burrs, dust, etc. Hence their presence, while arguably more conventionally aesthetically pleasing, has a sober mechanical reason as well. I do agree that there is well done/poorly done examples of both (c.f. Rolex), and that one should not equate their presence automatically with "better watch movement". Referring to the example I mentioned earlier, the IWC Jubilee Portuguese has both copious perlage and CdG-ing.

The original intention of blued screws is a little more nebulous to me. From what I have been able to gather it's either 1. just for looks, or 2. a flourish to demonstrate the superior polishing on the screw head. There is a possibility that the latter reason is apocryphal. That said I do not have any preference for/against as I am not against adornment for adornment's sake - which is not the same as adornment covering up for or distracting from suboptimal engineering choices. To use the same example again, IWC's Jubilee Portuguese had no blued screws because there is no tradition of bluing screws in IWC's history, or more specifically in the specific pocketwatches that provided the inspiration for the Jubilee, This makes perfect sense to me. Old Lange on the other hand, had such a tradition, and I do not begrudge new Lange for doing so and citing tradition as a reason.

As for whether IWC could embellish their movements more than they do: as I pointed out above, all the finishing you see on Lange watches was taught to Lange by IWC. However, Lange finishing is far from "honest." The most obvious example of what I mean is the screwed chatons securing the jewels. The screws and chatons are completely without added function. They just look pretty. Nobody else uses them and Lange thought it would be one way to distinguish themselves.

As for screwed gold chatons, I do not hold any particular preference for/against them. I agree that they as a technological development they are obsolete and unnecessary on modern mechanical watches, but if you adopt that frame of mind aren’t mechanical watches obsolete as well, with excellence within the mechanical watch world akin to winning the Special Olympics? Or another more PC example: it’s like handstitching on shirts - obsolete as we have machine stitching now, which is faster/easier to do well, always finer, and finally at least as secure, but handstitching is still “nice” to have when done well.

You’ve repeated the allegation that new Lange is the only company to do screwed gold chatons over and over - there are a few companies aside from new Lange that do screwed chatons, so it’s not a phenomenon specific to new Lange.

You may want to ask yourself who, precisely, is being a "prick" in this conversation. Poor form, sir.

And I agree people should be encouraged to voice their opinions no matter how taboo or harsh it may seem or come across, certainly there are many many guys on here whose knowledge and writing skills blow mine out of the water; but in the end I'm just happy to learn a thing or two here every now and then and contribute when I can. Noob? Maybe. Prick? I highly doubt. I think it's pretty obvious to everyone who the real pricks on the forum can sometimes be.. and I'll leave it at that.

Yikes, I knew I should have appended a or a :tounge: after that line, because it was actually meant to be a bit of a tee hee wink wink nod nod comment, not some serious puritanical indictment of IWC wearers.

I apologise for offending both of you, and to the silent others who may be offended at my lame attempt at humour!

Well you would know about pure bizzaro territory, that much is certain.

I think I've addressed all the points in your original post, and shown how your proposition was without basis in reality. You would be a more useful contributor to this thread if you at least owned your mistakes.

I guess I"m not sure why there's this resentment towards IWC. I understand their current designs and probably their direction as a brand seems to go against their history, but I'm not sure it truly justifies the animosity it sometimes gets. Aside from the huge Hollywood-ish galas, IWC has been great in promoting its watches in general, and yes as polarizing as they can be, I feel they can offer a nice change-up to other more classic models and brands out there. Whether one feels they are over-priced for what they offer is debatable, since hey do sell pretty well in the US and overseas, I do appreciate their role in the watch market as a choice for many watch lovers who appreciate their aesthetic - not good not bad, just IWC.

Popularity has nothing to do with intrinsic, objective, quality and that I think that is what many are reacting against – that IWC has taken or is appearing to take the fastest shortcut to mass popularity. It’s like the kid who everyone knows is brilliant cheating in an exam as opposed to studying – all the more regrettable given he actually has the tools to make it without the shortcut.

Lange today has no genuine heritage. It is a re-imagined company, like Breguet, trying to draw tenuous connections with a distant past. The original Lange never made wristwatches and went defunct before screwed chatons became obsolete. The blued screws are similarly silly.

Moreover, the finishing quality is not as good as the likes of Patek. Viewed closely, it is simply not as fine and careful. It is just more flashy. Like an alligator suit.

I think this depends on the particular Patek and the particular new Lange. Pateks as you are well aware have different levels of finishing, and Lange finishing while qualitatively different (“louder”) than Patek are quantitatively superior to other examples of “loud” finishing, such as say Dornblueth or GO; within the alligator suit spectrum there are still better and worse made alligator suits.

I suspect you are against “louder” finishes in general - which would be in line with your other preferences - so even if a Lange were to finished “as well” as a Patek it would still fall short in your estimation. That said, while I don’t subscribe to that POV, I don’t see anything wrong with that point of view as well.

 

[ahdaeeeee]

A p0rn thread which has so much dialogue... Guess this is the climax.

I'm liking this:

Tag Heuer, 50th Anniversary Jack Heuer Carrera 1887:

Just saw the video on Hodinkee. Interesting piece, but I'm definitely saving up for an IWC Portuguese, has been on my wanted list for a year now...

 

[marvin100]

Hey, stereotypes are for a reason.

I'd rather read someone's real and non-sugarcoated opinion — especially coming from someone with Apropos' depth and breath of knowledge — than the usual mollycoddling drivel that passes for discussion on the forums where everyone is a special flower. The freedom of being able to say what you mean, without condescending and humourless moderation turning the place into a wasteland of clueless noobs, is what makes this the best watch thread on the internet and brings in the heavy hitters who know how to write.

The false dichotomy you present stands in stark contrast to the gentlemanly behavior frequently advocated on this site.

 

[AriGold]



A p0rn thread which has so much dialogue... Guess this is the climax. Just saw the video on Hodinkee. Interesting piece, but I'm definitely saving up for an IWC Portuguese, has been on my wanted list for a year now...

Yeah it's freakin' sick piece. I already have a speedy, so the next watch will have to be something dressy, and I've had my eye on the portuguese forever. If I were in the market for another sports watch, I'd get the tag above if the price was right. Lately Tag has really impressed me, and given the pieces can be had on significant discount, I find it more and more appealing

 

[marvin100]

Thanks, apropos. Apology of course happily accepted. Always appreciate your knowledge, for what it's worth.

 

[ahdaeeeee]

Yeah it's freakin' sick piece. I already have a speedy, so the next watch will have to be something dressy, and I've had my eye on the portuguese forever. If I were in the market for another sports watch, I'd get the tag above if the price was right. Lately Tag has really impressed me, and given the pieces can be had on significant discount, I find it more and more appealing

I just fell in love with Portuguese ever since I saw it. I can always go for the cheaper Portofino, but apparently the difference between these 2 that Portuguese uses the IWC in house machine.

And yes, Tag recent watches are pretty impressive, this one in particular impressed me the most, unfortunately I find the price tag to be a little unreasonable.. Anyhow it's the 300 SLR.



The bronze color is just beautiful!



And the orange leather at the back of the strap, just woah!

 

[Epaulet]

^ I really dig the Portuguese too. I picked up this two-tone model last year, and it's one of my favorites.

 

[nttdocomo]

Gorgeous IWC, Epaulet.

 

[no frills]

^ I really dig the Portuguese too. I picked up this two-tone model last year, and it's one of my favorites.

Hey there, Mike - great choice there.

 

[AriGold]

great choice mike, i almost covered my screen with ****!:foo:

 

[Belligero]



Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

Not at all. Rolex finishing is abysmal. It has improved over the years, but it is not finely executed. Very rough and irregular.

First of all, accuracy in timing is not the same thing as precision. Accuracy refers to how likely the watch is to keep with actual time. So, if watch gains 5 seconds one day, then loses 5 seconds the next, it can be said to be highly accurate, as it's net gain/loss versus the actual time is zero. However, such a watch would be highly imprecise. A watch that gains 5 seconds regularly everyday is far more precise and more difficult to engineer, even if it is less accurate. Rolex has always prided itself on accuracy. But the reason why other finer, higher-end companies can say they build finer, better movements is because they tend to be more precise.

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

That said, you are right: the 50010 movement is not well-regarded for accuracy. But we were talking about finishing quality. Even if a shoe doesn't fit right, we can still judge how well it is finished. So too with watch finishing. Whether you think IWC finishing actually achieves the goals it reflects is a separate issue from how nicely it is done.
Again, you are confusing engineering with finishing. See above.

Quite right about the distinction between precision and accuracy. The classic science-and-engineering-course example illustrates the concept clearly:

However, high-end makers neither claim nor deliver better precision — or accuracy — than their more common counterparts.

Once you can produce a movement that's capable of a consistent rate of plus five seconds a day (precision), it's trivial to adjust/regulate it to stay dead-on (accuracy). Isochronism and rate stability — i.e. precision — is by far the more difficult part, and that's where a manufacturer like Rolex excels.

No high-end company claims to make better movements because of better timekeeping precision; that would be foolish. They're finer and more costly simply because of the amount of skilled labour that they incorporate. A boring ol' machine-finished movement can be made with tighter and more consistent tolerances if the manufacturer is willing to invest in the production resources and quality control that it requires. With the delicate tasks of assembly, truing and adjustment done by hand in the case of Rolex, you get the best of both the mechanical and skilled-labour worlds as far as timekeeping results are concerned.

The empirical results discussed in the "Inside COSC" article on TZ support this, along with COSC director Jean-Pierre Curchod's assessment:

What about those expensive, lovingly handcrafted crafted, pursuit-of-perfection in-house movements? It is possible for such movements to reach chronometer standard, acknowledges Mr Curchod, but at the cost of much expensive and time-consuming tweaking. "It is more difficult and the failure rates are high — as much as 60%."

Since mechanical movements are inherently anachronistic, a certain level of imprecision is accepted. It's remarkable how good the results for the lovely horlogerie movements can be, all things considered. But don't expect them to deliver better timekeeping results than mass-produced ones; that's not what it's about.

 

[RogerP]

I just fell in love with Portuguese ever since I saw it. I can always go for the cheaper Portofino, but apparently the difference between these 2 that Portuguese uses the IWC in house machine.

It depends on which Portuguese you're talking about. The Portuguese chrono (as posted above) does not use an in-house movement. The upside of that is that it is likely to be more accurate. Whether it is foolish to expect your high end watch to run accurately is a question I will leave to you.