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

that bovet is !

Uh, a check for about $5,400 I guess.

Originally Posted by gdl203

Click to expand...

The FPJ Resonance is actually one of my two dream watches. I love the concept, the execution, the case and dial design. Everything is just perfect IMO.


It's a handsome watch - what are you waiting for?

Originally Posted by zjpj83

Click to expand...

I love the 3974.

I'm back...

Originally Posted by gazman70k

Click to expand...

I disagree with your definition of a watchmaker because you would then have to define what constitutes material advancements in horology.
I suppose everyone's definition of "material advancement" is different... to me it is something that brings a qualitative difference to the movement. A gold rotor would do that ONLY if the mainspring was strong enough that e.g. a steel rotor would not be heavy enough to wind it. Assuming a normal mainspring, a gold rotor equals pointless prettifying.

Your car engine tuning analogy is interesting (but not bad) since I would like to see you apply your advancement logic to car technology. Would everyone after Ford and Benz by just fine tuners of the internal combustion engine? Maybe you should consider me the village idiot and try explaining your point using sock puppets.

Click to expand...

Again, numerous qualitative improvements were made to engines over time. Dual overhead cams, dry-sump oiling, turbo- and superchargers, variable valve timing, &c. -- marked differences, eliminating some weakness in the internal combustion engine design or reducing it to negligible levels, or making something possible that was thought to be impossible in a certain form factor. Of course, often these novelties brought about new issues which were unheard of before (e.g. turbo lag). But all of this is very very far removed from the Ford Model T engine. As far as watch movements go, people came up with better auto winding systems, vertical clutches for chrono movements, constant-force escapements... Simple example -- the coaxial escapement in theory completely eliminates sliding friction, experiencing only rolling friction. (In practice you can only achieve that with ideal precision of parts manufacturing, but even so sliding friction is "almost" not there.) It was not done before AFAIK, and that's watchmaking. Or a vertical clutch chrono that by design eliminates the jerk of the second hand when you activate it -- that's also watchmaking. I am certainly not implying that movement design should be one's only concern. I certainly consider other factors as well. If I don't like the watch visually, the absence of sliding friction in the escapement will not make me buy it.

Originally Posted by gdl203

Click to expand...

I would point out that the more open-minded and intelligent watch amateurs I know can appreciate haute horlogerie and unique independent watchmaking just as much as the value of a proven workhorse like Unitas.
Some of those fine specimens have to convince themselves that a pimped unitas with zero functional difference from the original is haute horlogerie. I wonder why? To "legitimize" the watch and make it worthy of purchasing? That's very open-minded and speaks volumes of one's intellingence As for the narrow-minded and dim-witted me, I just buy watches I like and can afford, appreciating them for what they are.

Originally Posted by Ahriman4891

Click to expand...

Some of those fine specimens have to convince themselves that a pimped unitas with zero functional difference from the original is haute horlogerie. I wonder why? To "legitimize" the watch and make it worthy of purchasing? That's very open-minded and speaks volumes of one's intellingence

As for the narrow-minded and dim-witted me, I just buy watches I like and can afford, appreciating them for what they are.

I don't know WTF you're talking about. Who are you and why are you replying to my post with this gibberish? Very confusing

RULE #3 : There is no meaningful dialogue in Appreciation.

Morning lume ...

Originally Posted by gdl203

Click to expand...

I don't know WTF you're talking about. Who are you and why are you replying to my post with this gibberish? Very confusing
*shrug* Gazman and I are having a conversation about what's an in-house movement. We clearly have different opinions on it, but try to communicate our points of view to each other. As an example of a modified movement, he points me to the Perseus in the Voutilainen -- to which I reply that IMO he is a tuner and not a watchmaker. You grab his link, and start the "more intelligent and open-minded" talk in his support. It's possible that I have misinterpreted your post -- internet communication has its downfalls -- but it looked damn close to you trying to insult me or being condescending in my general direction. Hence my answer. Still confused? BTW your last reply is just as bad. You don't sign your posts with your full real name, so I'm not sure what answer to the "who are you" question you expect. And the forum rules don't say I have to amass 17K posts to be entitled to reply to you. Gazman -- I hope my previous post somewhat cleared my position. Obviously nobody has to adopt my views, but I think now you understand where I'm coming from. I don't like the Voutilainen watches (I think it's the moon hands) but appreciate the looks of Romain Gauthier. It just happens to have a very interesting in-house movement, but I would like it even with a Unitas inside. Sadly the price puts it out of my range.

What is this crap? Post pictures of watches please

enough yappin

Not a fan of the 5102

Originally Posted by Trompe le Monde

Click to expand...

Hail Paul and his macro lens

Originally Posted by Trompe le Monde

Click to expand...

enough yappin

Anyone have a ref. number for this one?

that particular watch is bespoke. based from model Overseas http://www.google.com/products?q=vac...antin+overseas dial is 18k gold

Originally Posted by &Son

Click to expand...

Anyone have a ref. number for this one?

Looks like a one-off Overseas