The Watch Appreciation Thread - Part two (Rolex, Patek Philippe, Audemars Piguet, Jaeger LeCoultre,

[benf]

Rotations are overrated. What if you could only have one watch (or maybe one dressier and one sportier, if we have to stretch)? What would it (they) be?

Not a sports watch person but if I've to pick one, probably the Nautilus 5712 (SS).

For a dress piece, a 3970 (understated GC-my favourite). For something eccentric, a voutilainen (rarity and dial finishing).

 

[Dino944]

It may not be in the same league but the Omega Constellation Manhattan born in the early 80s has a similar design language.

Agreed. That watch had slipped my mind. In terms of movement, fit and finish, its not truly a competitor, but in terms of design it definitely shares the bracelet integrated into the case design that was becoming quite popular by the late 70s and a very flat profile. They even had a version with subdials for day and date, much like what became available on RO's of the early 1980s, when many ROs along with the Nautilus shrunk to 36mm.

Actually back in the early 90s, a girlfriend asked me what watch to consider in steel and gold, for a graduation gift from her parents. It needed to be less expensive than a Rolex Datejust and it had to be brand new...I suggested an Omega and she was gifted a gold and stainless Omega Constellation Manhattan.

 

[Keith T]

I love that VC, dino!

And how is it that nobody has mentioned the real Royal Oak-killer: Piaget's Polo S

 

[Dino944]

I love that VC, dino!

And how is it that nobody has mentioned the real Royal Oak-killer: Piaget's Polo S

Thanks Keith!

Yes, how could we all forget the wannabe Nautilus...Polo S.

 

[Texasmade]

Thanks Keith!

Yes, how could we all forget the wannabe Nautilus...Polo S.

Don't forget the GP Laureato which is a Nautilus bracelet with an AP watch.

 

[cyc wid it]

Bulgari Octo

 

[Dino944]

Don't forget the GP Laureato which is a Nautilus bracelet with an AP watch.

I mentioned the Laureato a few posts back.

 

[Dino944]

Bulgari Octo

Well, its a sports watch with a metal bracelet, but I don't think anything they've made has ever been competitive with the RO or the Nautilus.

TBH, I'm not sure who their competition currently is. However, I've never met anyone who narrowed down a possible watch purchase to a RO, a Nautilus, or a Bvlgari. Cheers!

 

[Keith T]

Rotations are overrated. What if you could only have one watch (or maybe one dressier and one sportier, if we have to stretch)? What would it (they) be?

On this question: most guys could just by a Sub and a Tank* and be done with it. But then there would be no TWAT (gasp!). And besides, some of us think rotations are, at the very least..properly rated

*Note: I do not currently own either a Sub or a Tank.

 

[Dino944]

*Note: I do not currently own either a Sub or a Tank.

Blasphemer!!!

 

[atia2]

I don't like the left flange on the Nautilus. Pointless, incongruous, ugly.

 

[TheFoo]

Tank + Submariner would be pretty awesome, but finding a decent Tank is not easy.

I obviously love watches, but I'm increasingly averse to the idea of collecting a "rotation." A good watch is a thing of permanence--changing from one to another day-to-day seems contradictory to that notion. They're not socks. Better one very nice watch than many merely nice ones.

But then, I'm also of the unfashionable opinion that a refined watch should have a nicely finished, solid caseback. Showcasing the innards exchanges the identity of a watch as useful, regular, trusty accessory for gee-whiz spectacle and novelty. It should be enough to know that the movement is well-made and nicely finished, as evidenced through actual use and experience. Anyway, company reputation tells me much more about quality than looking through any display back.

 

[double00]

you don't wear your watch 'inside out' so people can see the rotor instead of the dial?

 

[tim_horton]

I agree that unless you're a true collector, a small rotation of watches (or just one watch) you really enjoy is preferable. If you're only wearing a watch once in a blue moon, are you really enjoying it?

But if there's no display back, what's the point of laborious finishing of the movement beyond the level of what is needed to make the movement accurate and reliable? Only the people who service the watch will see it?

 

[TheFoo]

I agree that unless you're a true collector, a small rotation of watches (or just one watch) you really enjoy is preferable. If you're only wearing a watch once in a blue moon, are you really enjoying it?

Right--it becomes more of a fashion accessory and status symbol, as opposed to well-crafted thing of utility.

But if there's no display back, what's the point of laborious finishing of the movement beyond the level of what is needed to make the movement accurate and reliable? Only the people who service the watch will see it?

Same reason the unseen hand-stitches in a suit should be nicely done--both for function and to reflect pride in craft. As an owner and user, knowing finishing is done well is more important than being able to gaze at it.

Popular opinion seems to be that vintage watch movements were better finished then today's (which I dispute)--but they were all behind solid casebacks.