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

[Scuppers-02]

Agreed. 5205 is too thick. Only downside in my opinion. Just by a tad though.

It’s reductive, Choc. “We can do this but we forgot on this occasion”; oh, was it the birth of a new movement?

 

[Humpty_Dumpty_Rises]

Referring to a post on the closed "Watch Appreciation thread" which was to do with the Longines Master Retrograde Moonphase

Some 11 years later, any experiences of getting this particular watch serviced @wurger or anyone else ?

If yes, was it serviced by an Independent or by Longines themselves? And what was the cost of servicing?

Thanks,

 

[Scuppers-02]

Haven’t seen @wurger‘s name for a while.

 

[chocomallo]

It’s reductive, Choc. “We can do this but we forgot on this occasion”; oh, was it the birth of a new movement?

It’s pervasive across the industry, though, right? Bigger and thicker across the board. Except for Bulgari, thin but broad enough for Hannibal to float an elephant across Gibraltar. Thin Bulgari is known to be unreliable as well.

 

[Scuppers-02]

It’s pervasive across the industry, though, right? Bigger and thicker across the board. Except for Bulgari, thin but broad enough for Hannibal to float an elephant across Gibraltar. Thin Bulgari is known to be unreliable as well.

As a fragile meritorious contest, yes!
I hold Patek in absolute contemp with regard to their “Grande Complication” programme. While the individual comps are of note, the module layering drives me nuts.

 

[chocomallo]

As a fragile meritorious contest, yes!
I hold Patek in absolute contemp with regard to their “Grande Complication” programme. While the individual comps are of note, the module layering drives me nuts.

I do agree with you. Those late 90s and earlier watches are majestic on the wrist whereas all the new stuff is clunky by comparison. The Cartier Tank LC is a prime example. If one hasn’t worn an old F. Piguet ultra thin model, one would never know how thick the current iteration wears.

 

[Scuppers-02]

I do agree with you. Those late 90s and earlier watches are majestic on the wrist whereas all the new stuff is clunky by comparison. The Cartier Tank LC is a prime example. If one hasn’t worn an old F. Piguet ultra thin model, one would never know how thick the current iteration wears.

With the 3615 they could of brought the industry to it’s knees, alas, another modular comp.

 

[pmeis]

@brax @chocomallo

I have done, um, significant reshuffling.

This leaves me with a collection that, on balance, feels really confusing. By EOY, my collection will consist of: 3941; Berneron Mirage; Movado Celestograf; Bulgari OF; JLC MUT Moon; Speedy Pro; Rolex Explorer; Tudor P39.

I might further cull the collection. My Speedy Pro seldom gets wear compared to the Explorer or the P39. But, at a minimum, my sports watches are a dive watch, a "field" watch (or whatever the Explorer is), and a chronograph - covers all the bases. The JLC MUT Moon feels highly derivative of the 3941 and perhaps even the Celestograf. That might be on the chopping block, but I have a soft spot for it. My biggest issue: I really cannot trace a through line through what is now the collection. I almost wish I got the Prussian Blue Mirage just so it would mesh better - but I do believe the Siena is the "best on the board."

I like this approach, maybe because it's a bougier version of what I've ended up with. A couple "flagship" pieces, a couple toolsy watches and a couple, more eccentric pieces. Covers all the basis, not too much overlap, with just enough variety/horological interest. I don't feel I have enough mental bandwidth to fully appreciate much more than this. Doesn't mean I might not upgrade or change out certain watches at some point, but I think the diminishing returns beyond this get to be too much for me.

 

[patrick_b]

Technically, it is a 3941.



I have set it! And haven't taken it off.

View attachment 2250953

While that's nice and all...THIS IS MAGNIFICENT!