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

[9thsymph]

Three? How uncouth of you to leave out the other Genta-watch-that-wasn't-actually-designed-by-Genta, the 222!

Touché

 

[Dino944]

Thanks, Dino! I believe the original Laureato was designed by the architect, Adolfo Natalini.

Thanks! I didn't know that! Although, I knew the 222 was designed by Jorg Hysek!

 

[symphvaria]

Alright, as promised, vintage watch shopping at Analog:Shift in NYC. Props to Raymond (apparently one of two Raymonds who works there, somehow) for giving me a fantastic tour of their inventory and some really enjoyable discussion about watches in general.

I walked in with a pretty similar premise to the question I asked on here about a week ago; watches on a bracelet that would fit a smaller wrist. We started off with a pretty unusual watch, a diver from, of all brands, Ming. I'm not overtly familiar with the Ming lineup, but I always new them as a dress watch brand with an exceptionally recognizable and codified design language, so seeing a diver (and one made from titanium no less!) from them was kind of a shock.

As for my actual thoughts on the watch, from an objective standpoint I really find no problem with it save the thickness. It is quite chunky on the wrist, though it's not particularly wide so it doesn't look oversized on my undersized wrist either. I'd just wager that the Ming aesthetic may not necessarily gel with my personal aesthetic and dress, but I have absolute respect for anyone that it does work for.

Speaking of the 222 from earlier...

This was a legitimately pleasant surprise to see, just walking by their display case it caught my eye and I had to ask to be sure I was looking at the real deal. Compared to the 3700 and the 5402, it really is a much rarer watch. I think of all the watches that day, I was the most blown away by the 222 after walking out. The proportions really are nothing short of perfect.

Oh yeah, and since the 3700 was brought up...

Compared to the 5811, I find that the 3700 is a far better fit. The lugs on the 5811 threaten to overhang off the edges of my wrist, and it's a slightly thicker and certainly a much heavier watch. Beyond that, it's hard to say more, other than that it's the world's most sought after watch for a reason.

And now, returning back to earth...

These weren't the only vintage 40mm Rolexes I tried, but they were the two I felt compelled to take a picture of. The Sub in particular I found quite special; between the fading of the bezel perfectly matching the off-black coloration of the dial and the slimmer, less intensely roided proportions of the older Submariner cases, it really made me eat my words regarding disliking the Sub relative to the Explorer. As for the GMT, I've always liked the GMT, and this just confirmed it to me. The very faded blue of the bezel on this particular unit was not to my taste, but these aluminum bezels are readily replaceable enough that it's not something that would get in the way of me choosing to make a purchase.

Here's everything that was on the table at the end of the day. The 3700 went back onto the shelf midway through, unfortunately, but I think it was pretty obvious that I wasn't exactly a prospective Nautilus buyer and that the 222 was a little more realistic for me.

As a whole, it was an intensely enjoyable experience, and it really did open my eyes up to vintage Subs. Though I think if any watch that I tried is in my future, it would be the 222 above all. A vintage one might be hard to swing, but perhaps a Historiques reissue in steel.... one can certainly hope!

 

[9thsymph]

Alright, as promised, vintage watch shopping at Analog:Shift in NYC. Props to Raymond (apparently one of two Raymonds who works there, somehow) for giving me a fantastic tour of their inventory and some really enjoyable discussion about watches in general.

I walked in with a pretty similar premise to the question I asked on here about a week ago; watches on a bracelet that would fit a smaller wrist. We started off with a pretty unusual watch, a diver from, of all brands, Ming. I'm not overtly familiar with the Ming lineup, but I always new them as a dress watch brand with an exceptionally recognizable and codified design language, so seeing a diver (and one made from titanium no less!) from them was kind of a shock.
View attachment 1906869
As for my actual thoughts on the watch, from an objective standpoint I really find no problem with it save the thickness. It is quite chunky on the wrist, though it's not particularly wide so it doesn't look oversized on my undersized wrist either. I'd just wager that the Ming aesthetic may not necessarily gel with my personal aesthetic and dress, but I have absolute respect for anyone that it does work for.

Speaking of the 222 from earlier...
View attachment 1906871
This was a legitimately pleasant surprise to see, just walking by their display case it caught my eye and I had to ask to be sure I was looking at the real deal. Compared to the 3700 and the 5402, it really is a much rarer watch. I think of all the watches that day, I was the most blown away by the 222 after walking out. The proportions really are nothing short of perfect.

Oh yeah, and since the 3700 was brought up...
View attachment 1906875
Compared to the 5811, I find that the 3700 is a far better fit. The lugs on the 5811 threaten to overhang off the edges of my wrist, and it's a slightly thicker and certainly a much heavier watch. Beyond that, it's hard to say more, other than that it's the world's most sought after watch for a reason.

And now, returning back to earth...
View attachment 1906877 View attachment 1906881
These weren't the only vintage 40mm Rolexes I tried, but they were the two I felt compelled to take a picture of. The Sub in particular I found quite special; between the fading of the bezel perfectly matching the off-black coloration of the dial and the slimmer, less intensely roided proportions of the older Submariner cases, it really made me eat my words regarding disliking the Sub relative to the Explorer. As for the GMT, I've always liked the GMT, and this just confirmed it to me. The very faded blue of the bezel on this particular unit was not to my taste, but these aluminum bezels are readily replaceable enough that it's not something that would get in the way of me choosing to make a purchase.

Here's everything that was on the table at the end of the day. The 3700 went back onto the shelf midway through, unfortunately, but I think it was pretty obvious that I wasn't exactly a prospective Nautilus buyer and that the 222 was a little more realistic for me.
View attachment 1906883
As a whole, it was an intensely enjoyable experience, and it really did open my eyes up to vintage Subs. Though I think if any watch that I tried is in my future, it would be the 222 above all. A vintage one might be hard to swing, but perhaps a Historiques reissue in steel.... one can certainly hope!

I'm a big fan of 5-digit Rolex (14060 subs and 16710 gmts are hard to beat).

 

[symphvaria]

I'm a big fan of 5-digit Rolex (14060 subs and 16710 gmts are hard to beat).

Both of those units were 4 digit, but I’m fond of neo-vintage as well. In fact, I think if I wanted to buy something that a little more robust and pristine (and really, I more likely than not would), I would go for a 5 digit.

 

[Kappelan]

and it's a nice change to see something Genta designed at the forum that isn't a Nautilus or RO. Cheers!

That's a common mistake to think that Laureato, 222 and Oysterquartz were designed by Genta. I even read articles stating that.

This is the Laureato designer - Adolfo Natalini.

 

[9thsymph]

Both of those units were 4 digit, but I’m fond of neo-vintage as well. In fact, I think if I wanted to buy something that a little more robust and pristine (and really, I more likely than not would), I would go for a 5 digit.

Right, I was just voting for 5-digit, as I personally wouldn't feel as cautious about them in day-to-day use as I would with the 4-digits...

 

[Dino944]

Alright, as promised, vintage watch shopping at Analog:Shift in NYC. Props to Raymond (apparently one of two Raymonds who works there, somehow) for giving me a fantastic tour of their inventory and some really enjoyable discussion about watches in general.

I walked in with a pretty similar premise to the question I asked on here about a week ago; watches on a bracelet that would fit a smaller wrist. We started off with a pretty unusual watch, a diver from, of all brands, Ming. I'm not overtly familiar with the Ming lineup, but I always new them as a dress watch brand with an exceptionally recognizable and codified design language, so seeing a diver (and one made from titanium no less!) from them was kind of a shock.
View attachment 1906869
As for my actual thoughts on the watch, from an objective standpoint I really find no problem with it save the thickness. It is quite chunky on the wrist, though it's not particularly wide so it doesn't look oversized on my undersized wrist either. I'd just wager that the Ming aesthetic may not necessarily gel with my personal aesthetic and dress, but I have absolute respect for anyone that it does work for.

Speaking of the 222 from earlier...
View attachment 1906871
This was a legitimately pleasant surprise to see, just walking by their display case it caught my eye and I had to ask to be sure I was looking at the real deal. Compared to the 3700 and the 5402, it really is a much rarer watch. I think of all the watches that day, I was the most blown away by the 222 after walking out. The proportions really are nothing short of perfect.

Oh yeah, and since the 3700 was brought up...
View attachment 1906875
Compared to the 5811, I find that the 3700 is a far better fit. The lugs on the 5811 threaten to overhang off the edges of my wrist, and it's a slightly thicker and certainly a much heavier watch. Beyond that, it's hard to say more, other than that it's the world's most sought after watch for a reason.

And now, returning back to earth...
View attachment 1906877 View attachment 1906881
These weren't the only vintage 40mm Rolexes I tried, but they were the two I felt compelled to take a picture of. The Sub in particular I found quite special; between the fading of the bezel perfectly matching the off-black coloration of the dial and the slimmer, less intensely roided proportions of the older Submariner cases, it really made me eat my words regarding disliking the Sub relative to the Explorer. As for the GMT, I've always liked the GMT, and this just confirmed it to me. The very faded blue of the bezel on this particular unit was not to my taste, but these aluminum bezels are readily replaceable enough that it's not something that would get in the way of me choosing to make a purchase.

Here's everything that was on the table at the end of the day. The 3700 went back onto the shelf midway through, unfortunately, but I think it was pretty obvious that I wasn't exactly a prospective Nautilus buyer and that the 222 was a little more realistic for me.
View attachment 1906883
As a whole, it was an intensely enjoyable experience, and it really did open my eyes up to vintage Subs. Though I think if any watch that I tried is in my future, it would be the 222 above all. A vintage one might be hard to swing, but perhaps a Historiques reissue in steel.... one can certainly hope!

I like vintage Rolex watches, but of the bunch you tried on, my favorite watch is the 222. The 3700 Nautilus is nice, but personally, I've always preferred the RO or the 222, to the Nautilus. The only 222 I've seen in person was a ladies model at EWC. My understanding is that over the course of something about 6 years only a few hundred 222s were made, so it's definitely the rarest of the integrated sports watches from "The Big Three." It seemed largely forgotten for many years, but its my favorite VC sports watch. Thank you for the photo tour of your adventure. Looks like you had a lot of fun. Cheers!

 

[symphvaria]

I like vintage Rolex watches, but of the bunch you tried on, my favorite watch is the 222. The 3700 Nautilus is nice, but personally, I've always preferred the RO or the 222, to the Nautilus. The only 222 I've seen in person was a ladies model at EWC. My understanding is that over the course of something about 6 years only a few hundred 222s were made, so it's definitely the rarest of the integrated sports watches from "The Big Three." It seemed largely forgotten for many years, but its my favorite VC sports watch. Thank you for the photo tour of your adventure. Looks like you had a lot of fun. Cheers!

Of the Big Three™ my preferences probably look something like 222 >= Nautilus > Royal Oak. No point rehashing how I feel about the RO, though I find the jumbo much more charming than the 15500.

For the Nautilus, I do find that it’s probably the most unusual and avant-garde of the trio, and I think that, ironically enough, for most of the people chasing it as a hype watch, it looks rather affected and unusual. I think it requires a certain refinement and elegance in dress to really pull off, and one arguably has to not be too masculine in figure and dress or it will again look out of place compared to the Royal Oak. The 3700 also has a really particular look that was lost with the 5711, with the smaller ears and the slightly different dial proportions, and I find it charming. I don’t know if I prefer it overall though.

And yeah, only about 500 steel 222s made and then another 200-300 in two tone, gold and other odd combinations. It’s a legitimately rare watch by any metric.

I don’t know if I’m going to regret not just walking out with this piece, but I do feel like if I bought it I would be incessantly paranoid about it and baby it more than my fully polished dress watches. It’s just too rare and important historically for me to wear daily like I wear my current Datejust. And it kinda sorta is $80k for a time only watch which, historical or not, is insane. I’m really hoping a steel Historiques reissue is in the very near future, because it would unquestionably be my next watch if it really does become reality.

 

[9thsymph]

Of the Big Three™ my preferences probably look something like 222 >= Nautilus > Royal Oak. No point rehashing how I feel about the RO, though I find the jumbo much more charming than the 15500.

For the Nautilus, I do find that it’s probably the most unusual and avant-garde of the trio, and I think that, ironically enough, for most of the people chasing it as a hype watch, it looks rather affected and unusual. I think it requires a certain refinement and elegance in dress to really pull off, and one arguably has to not be too masculine in figure and dress or it will again look out of place compared to the Royal Oak. The 3700 also has a really particular look that was lost with the 5711, with the smaller ears and the slightly different dial proportions, and I find it charming. I don’t know if I prefer it overall though.

And yeah, only about 500 steel 222s made and then another 200-300 in two tone, gold and other odd combinations. It’s a legitimately rare watch by any metric.

I don’t know if I’m going to regret not just walking out with this piece, but I do feel like if I bought it I would be incessantly paranoid about it and baby it more than my fully polished dress watches. It’s just too rare and important historically for me to wear daily like I wear my current Datejust. And it kinda sorta is $80k for a time only watch which, historical or not, is insane. I’m really hoping a steel Historiques reissue is in the very near future, because it would unquestionably be my next watch if it really does become reality.

Holy trin:

 

[Kappelan]

 

[9thsymph]

 

[Keith T]

Alright, as promised, vintage watch shopping at Analog:Shift in NYC. Props to Raymond (apparently one of two Raymonds who works there, somehow) for giving me a fantastic tour of their inventory and some really enjoyable discussion about watches in general.

I walked in with a pretty similar premise to the question I asked on here about a week ago; watches on a bracelet that would fit a smaller wrist. We started off with a pretty unusual watch, a diver from, of all brands, Ming. I'm not overtly familiar with the Ming lineup, but I always new them as a dress watch brand with an exceptionally recognizable and codified design language, so seeing a diver (and one made from titanium no less!) from them was kind of a shock.
View attachment 1906869
As for my actual thoughts on the watch, from an objective standpoint I really find no problem with it save the thickness. It is quite chunky on the wrist, though it's not particularly wide so it doesn't look oversized on my undersized wrist either. I'd just wager that the Ming aesthetic may not necessarily gel with my personal aesthetic and dress, but I have absolute respect for anyone that it does work for.

Speaking of the 222 from earlier...
View attachment 1906871
This was a legitimately pleasant surprise to see, just walking by their display case it caught my eye and I had to ask to be sure I was looking at the real deal. Compared to the 3700 and the 5402, it really is a much rarer watch. I think of all the watches that day, I was the most blown away by the 222 after walking out. The proportions really are nothing short of perfect.

Oh yeah, and since the 3700 was brought up...
View attachment 1906875
Compared to the 5811, I find that the 3700 is a far better fit. The lugs on the 5811 threaten to overhang off the edges of my wrist, and it's a slightly thicker and certainly a much heavier watch. Beyond that, it's hard to say more, other than that it's the world's most sought after watch for a reason.

And now, returning back to earth...
View attachment 1906877 View attachment 1906881
These weren't the only vintage 40mm Rolexes I tried, but they were the two I felt compelled to take a picture of. The Sub in particular I found quite special; between the fading of the bezel perfectly matching the off-black coloration of the dial and the slimmer, less intensely roided proportions of the older Submariner cases, it really made me eat my words regarding disliking the Sub relative to the Explorer. As for the GMT, I've always liked the GMT, and this just confirmed it to me. The very faded blue of the bezel on this particular unit was not to my taste, but these aluminum bezels are readily replaceable enough that it's not something that would get in the way of me choosing to make a purchase.

Here's everything that was on the table at the end of the day. The 3700 went back onto the shelf midway through, unfortunately, but I think it was pretty obvious that I wasn't exactly a prospective Nautilus buyer and that the 222 was a little more realistic for me.
View attachment 1906883
As a whole, it was an intensely enjoyable experience, and it really did open my eyes up to vintage Subs. Though I think if any watch that I tried is in my future, it would be the 222 above all. A vintage one might be hard to swing, but perhaps a Historiques reissue in steel.... one can certainly hope!

Nice field trip summary... appreciate the pics and your thoughts on each of these.

I got my Mark II Speedy from A:S, which was a good experience but handled remotely. Would love to visit someday.

 

[Dino944]

Of the Big Three™ my preferences probably look something like 222 >= Nautilus > Royal Oak. No point rehashing how I feel about the RO, though I find the jumbo much more charming than the 15500.

For the Nautilus, I do find that it’s probably the most unusual and avant-garde of the trio, and I think that, ironically enough, for most of the people chasing it as a hype watch, it looks rather affected and unusual. I think it requires a certain refinement and elegance in dress to really pull off, and one arguably has to not be too masculine in figure and dress or it will again look out of place compared to the Royal Oak. The 3700 also has a really particular look that was lost with the 5711, with the smaller ears and the slightly different dial proportions, and I find it charming. I don’t know if I prefer it overall though.

And yeah, only about 500 steel 222s made and then another 200-300 in two tone, gold and other odd combinations. It’s a legitimately rare watch by any metric.

I don’t know if I’m going to regret not just walking out with this piece, but I do feel like if I bought it I would be incessantly paranoid about it and baby it more than my fully polished dress watches. It’s just too rare and important historically for me to wear daily like I wear my current Datejust. And it kinda sorta is $80k for a time only watch which, historical or not, is insane. I’m really hoping a steel Historiques reissue is in the very near future, because it would unquestionably be my next watch if it really does become reality.

For me, when the Nautilus, RO, and 222 were available at the same time, my order of preference was RO, 222, Nautilus. My current preference is the RO, Nautilus, Overseas (not really counting the current 222 as I don't love the champagne dial).

The Nautilus, is a nice watch, but in terms of design ever since I heard someone say it basically looks like a TV from the 1950s, I haven't been unable to see that image. Overall, I like it, but it can look a bit awkward from some angles, while the RO or the 222, look great from any angle. The 3700's charm to me is the dial and the movement being based on JLC 920. I do find the ears a tad small on the original, but to each his own. My Dad owned a tutone RO and a tutone Nautilus 3800 at the same time. Each was nice, but the RO was always the one that spoke to me.

As for whether something is too precious to wear, is something we each have to decide for ourselves. Although, I think if you have a great watch, or want one, just don't wear it for extreme activities where it will needlessly take a beating. Watches regardless of price or historic value are meant to be worn and enjoyed. Watches that sit in safes aren't really much fun, they have no stories or adventures to go with them, and no memories that make them special to the owners or their family.

 

[9thsymph]

Honeymoon photos (pardon the variety of strange lightings…):