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

[Cant kill da Rooster]



You mean you don't know?

A connoisseur of the horologists art would know immediately of who I speak.

I think he is just calling bullshit.

 

[Lovelace]



Who me?

No, I'm just a simple newby.


But please, do feel free to expound a bit, and share your vast knowledge and wisdom.

His name was Dr George Daniels. Died in 2010,

He invented the coaxial escapement used by Omega.

It was said just before his death, that he was the only living horologist able to build a watch completely by hand. That is, make every component and assemble it by his own hand.

Here:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/p...-the-worldrsquos-best-horologist-2067792.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/24/fashion/24iht-acaw2-daniels24.html?_r=0

 

[Lovelace]



I think he is just calling bullshit.

You thought wrong.

 

[dddrees]

His name was Dr George Daniels. Died in 2010,

He invented the coaxial escapement used by Omega.

It was said just before his death, that he was the only living horologist able to build a watch completely by hand. That is, make every component and assemble it by his own hand.

Here:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/p...-the-worldrsquos-best-horologist-2067792.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/24/fashion/24iht-acaw2-daniels24.html?_r=0

As great as he may have been, the art existed long before he was born, and it will continue to prosper long after his passing.

 

[rnguy001]

Hmm - do you mean JLC as a whole is inherently better than IWC?

Or do you mean ANY JLC watch is automatically better than ANY IWC watch? If the latter then I would disagree with this type of blanket statement. Ex: a JLC MC is not automatically better than an IWC Perpetual, just because it's a JLC, and a Patek Calatrava is not better than a JLC Duometre simple because it's a Patek..

Sorry in advance if I'm misinterpreting your statement.

Thus within the limitations of what defines a mechanical watch (and so separates a good mechanical watch from a poor one... which BTW includes care/effort in making) I am absolutely comfortable in saying that objectively my JLC is better than your Tag Heuer or IWC but worse than your patek.

By all means buy what you like regardless of its "merit", I certainly still do. Like I said before it's an emotional hobby. But I still think it's always useful to have at the back of your mind a sort of objective scale to temper your impulses, lest today's infatuation becomes tomorrow's flip!

 

[Lovelace]



As great as he may have been, the art existed long before he was born, and it will continue to prosper long after his passing.

As I said. The last of his kind.

I very much doubt that we will see skill of that level again. This thread confirms that, sadly.

 

[Alan K C]

So a red box arrived today. Guess what was inside?

Love it from the back, the exhibition back that is. Amazing.

 

[apropos]



His name was Dr George Daniels. Died in 2010,

He invented the coaxial escapement used by Omega.

It was said just before his death, that he was the only living horologist able to build a watch completely by hand. That is, make every component and assemble it by his own hand.

Here:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/p...-the-worldrsquos-best-horologist-2067792.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/24/fashion/24iht-acaw2-daniels24.html?_r=0

Eh, 2 newspaper articles hardly qualifies as authoritative fact re the death knell of horology. Sure, there may be no more George Daniels, but I'm sure someone will come along in a bit and fill his place.

It's not as if in the huge gap between breguet and daniels the world of horology died or anything even approximating that.

Ever heard of Roger Smith?

 

[Lovelace]



Eh, 2 obituaries from newspapers hardly qualifies as authoritative fact.

Ever heard of Roger Smith?

Yes, he was Daniels pupil.

Have you even read the articles I posted because if you have, I suggest you reread the NY Times one again. This time more carefully.

 

[apropos]



Hmm - do you mean JLC as a whole is inherently better than IWC?

Or do you mean ANY JLC watch is automatically better than ANY IWC watch? If the latter then I would disagree with this type of blanket statement. Ex: a JLC MC is not automatically better than an IWC Perpetual, just because it's a JLC, and a Patek Calatrava is not better than a JLC Duometre simple because it's a Patek..

Sorry in advance if I'm misinterpreting your statement.

At least compare apples to apples. Is the master Control perpetual calendar better than the Portuguese perpetual calender, well I think so.

Yes, he was Daniels pupil.

Have you even read the articles I posted because if you have, I suggest you reread the NY Times one again. This time more carefully.

Damn, ninja edit didn't come in time.

So, before daniels and after breguet, what state was horology in?

Wait, no, surely not the exact same state it finds itself in now? Chicken little, is the sky falling?

 

[JBLL]

 

[Lovelace]



At least compare apples to apples. Is the master Control perpetual calendar better than the Portuguese perpetual calender, well I think so.
Damn, ninja edit didn't come in time.

So, before daniels and after breguet, what state was horology in?

Wait, no, surely not the exact same state it finds itself in now? Chicken little, is the sky falling?

You didn't read the articles I linked to did you?

You just decided to mouth off didn't you?

Proving to all and sundry that you haven't got a clue what you are talking about.

 

[Dino944]

Dino - I do view watches primarily as design objects (not art) and would identify design as the feature that most stimulates my interest and "emotion" with respect to watches, with "design" encompassing dial/case aesthetics, functions, accuracy, reliability, and possibly the exterior aesthetics of the movement if the watch has a display back. Why buy a "higher end brand"? The main reason would be superior design. Take the 3970 posted above - beautiful dial/case and a compact perpetual calendar/chrono movement that represents great technical achievement. If Seiko put out a Grand Seiko perp calendar chrono with a similarly beautiful dial/case, I could very well prefer it to the Patek, and I wouldn't be influenced by branding, history, tradition, joining a "club", exclusivity, artisanal blood/sweat/tears, etc. Don't believe that prioritizing design/aesthetics over that stuff makes this approach more robotic or less emotional.

Going back to quartz, I just don't find the problem of building an accurate/reliable/beautiful quartz watch to be as interesting as building a mechanical watch with the same characteristics. Would love to have an Ikepod hourglass on my desk, however, and would be interested in any other examples of creatively designed modern hourglasses.

While I understand your functional/design preference...I find it interesting that you use the 3970 as an example of what would meet your criteria in evaluating a watch. Its a fantastic watch, but I think it more likely fullfills criteria that I've discussed (beautifully finished movement, quality, history, tradition, and exclusivity) . There is no proof that a 3970 is any more accurate or reliable than any other Patek, or other brand for that matter...so I can't imagine those factors actually matter or could easily be evaluated in this watch. As for the great technical achievement, is a great achievement but one that has existed for decades (be it from Patek, AP, VC etc). Its design and size are rather traditional (its predecessor looks nearly identical and was made several decades ago), its the recent trend in big watches that has caused manufacturers to "Supersize everything." I agree looks or a design can cause an emotional experience. I guess I would have thought a much more modern, cutting edge watch rather than something quite traditional would be what meets or exceeds most of your requirements (maybe with the exception of appearance).

As for you choosing a Grand Seiko if they offered one with the same beautiful case and dial (particularly if it were the same price as a Patek), I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. However, while Grand Seikos are great watches and lots of people say they would buy one over some other more recognized luxury brand, very few people "Put their money where their mouth is" and actually do that. As for you not being swayed at least slightly by Patek's branding, history, tradition, joining a "club", exclusivity, artisanal blood/sweat/tears, etc...if thats true your will power is stronger than most mere mortals.

I certainly wasn't saying you have to like or be interested in a quartz...simply according to the factors you stressed, a quartz watch could meet or exceed your requirements.

 

[Newcomer]



You didn't read the articles I linked to did you?

You just decided to mouth off didn't you?

Proving to all and sundry that you haven't got a clue what you are talking about.

I read them, and honestly don't know what you are talking about. Horology is in the finest state is has been in in quite a long time. Roger Smith, Kari Voutilainen, Philip Dufour, FP Journe, etc., are all carrying on a tradition starting with Breguet and culminating, with, well, the present. Yes, Daniels was an outstanding watchmaker, who has a hell of a legacy. However, all the aforementioned folks still have the rest of their lives to make that legacy. The art is not 'dead.'

We engage in discussion on this thread. Take your vitriolic statements elsewhere, or, better yet, have a discussion and enlighten us as to why you don't think that we will every see a contemporary to Daniels. Pointing people in the direction of very mundane and generic NYT articles written by people who know little about horology does not illustrate much.

 

[in stitches]



Most modern watches are about jewellery not craftsmanship. Most incorporate mass produced movements.
The last true horological craftsman died a few years back. The last of his kind.

His name was Dr George Daniels. Died in 2010,
He invented the coaxial escapement used by Omega.
It was said just before his death, that he was the only living horologist able to build a watch completely by hand. That is, make every component and assemble it by his own hand.
Here:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/p...-the-worldrsquos-best-horologist-2067792.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/24/fashion/24iht-acaw2-daniels24.html?_r=0

As I said. The last of his kind.
I very much doubt that we will see skill of that level again. This thread confirms that, sadly.

please take your thread ******** elsewhere. for some reason reason it pleases you to think that the world is going to hell in a handbasket. thats fine. dont be a spoilsport.

your statements are wildly absurd. yes, GD was a genius. he was a brilliant man and watchmaker. to think that he was last of his kind is absurd. no, i dont need to bring proof. there are many many many great watchmaking minds producing marvels this very day.

most modern watches are not about jewelry, i dont even know where you pulled that out of, unless you mean something else by jewelry. "most" use mass produced movements? sure, most suits are also fused. most of anything will not be tip top, but there are plenty of watches being made that are not only as great as watches of the past, but even greater. ESPECIALLY in regards to finishing. the finishing of todays top of the line watches blows away that of watches of yesteryears.

and as to "I very much doubt that we will see skill of that level again. This thread confirms that, sadly." seriously? you feel the need to just waltz in here and condescend on the entire thread? just take a heaping dump on everyones head for no reason.

dont be an asshole. if you dont like the thread, dont read it. we are all very proud that you know who GD was. bravo. now go find another thread to be a jerk in, this place is a friendly one.