STYLE. COMMUNITY. GREAT CLOTHING.
Bored of counting likes on social networks? At Styleforum, you’ll find rousing discussions that go beyond strings of emojis.
Click Here to join Styleforum's thousands of style enthusiasts today!
Styleforum is supported in part by commission earning affiliate links sitewide. Please support us by using them. You may learn more here.
Closing in on my first major watch purchase. Kind of wanted to get peoples thoughts on rolex blnr vs deep blue sea dweller.
Sorry, but I'm not sure where your post is going either. Personally, I think your original 2 posts placed far too much value on limited editions, but you that's fine. Much of what I said was merely using examples of why I don't think limited editions are not the answer to the watch industries problems. The fact that you didn't reference specific brands, does not mean that I can't reference them. I don't recall putting anything in my post in quotation marks and then attributing it specifically to you. I merely pointed out what I see as weaknesses companies relying on limited editions to make up for the decline in sales. I never said Blaugrana said, "Making a limited edition puts a watch on par with Patek"...it was simply my expressing an opinion that limited editions don't really mean that much they don't elevate what is truly being offered. The meme thing was more of a joke...since whether you see it or not, your post seemed largely focused on limited editions and I know you like them (and there is nothing wrong with that some are very good watches). Anyway, why don't we just move on because we are not going to see eye to eye on this and what you or I say matters little, as the watch companies will do what they want to moving forward.I'm having trouble with your reply because again you seem to be attributing something to what I posted that just isn't there, and that's after I have already clarified some points
I wasn't saying that limited editions put a piece on par with Patek. I also wasn't saying that being a limited edition elevates a watch or brand. In fact I specifically said that if the piece was must have, and that needs to come first and also suggests it's not just about being limited in production, that the more limited it is the likely they'd realist better margins. Of course you run the risk of missing out on sales if you make it too limited, but that's a mistake that I'm sure they'd be more comfortable with than overproducing a piece and selling at a bigger discount while also being left with excess inventory.
I also didn't refer to more limited editions of pieces we already have. I agree that at some point people generally will say something like "I already have three Speedmasters." I'm not saying make more of those models. I was referring in part to producing new models that are limited editions.
Brands can go back to that price range though. Of course there are ways of doing that and they'd have to be very careful in how they do it, but it could work. Either way I, again, wasn't referring to specific brands but to the industry in general.
Not sure what you're really trying to say and why you're doing down the meme road, but again I never offered limited editions and limiting production as the only answer. However I'd say it's an obvious approach that should be considering as part of an overall strategy. I'd also add that there are plenty of limited editions that have been well done and that are great watches because of what they are and not at all because they're limited.
The gradiant dial is what has me hooked. The watch is massive dwarfed a PAM whenI compared the two. The thickness of the watch was incredible i assume one would need to invest in short sleeve shirts.
Sorry, but I'm not sure where your post is going either. Personally, I think your original 2 posts placed far too much value on limited editions, but you that's fine. Much of what I said was merely using examples of why I don't think limited editions are not the answer to the watch industries problems. The fact that you didn't reference specific brands, does not mean that I can't reference them. I don't recall putting anything in my post in quotation marks and then attributing it specifically to you. I merely pointed out what I see as weaknesses companies relying on limited editions to make up for the decline in sales. I never said Blaugrana said, "Making a limited edition puts a watch on par with Patek"...it was simply my expressing an opinion that limited editions don't really mean that much they don't elevate what is truly being offered. The meme thing was more of a joke...since whether you see it or not, your post seemed largely focused on limited editions and I know you like them (and there is nothing wrong with that some are very good watches). Anyway, why don't we just move on because we are not going to see eye to eye on this and what you or I say matters little, as the watch companies will do what they want to moving forward.
+1 ... could be an instant classic, especially given the pricing.
Also, @mildundklar, I've never been a big Santos guy ( and I do hope that's not a quartz) but I like Cartier as a brand, and I agree that piece makes for a great little combo with the Sub.
You can certainly cover a lot of ground with a pair of watches like that.
You keep saying you clarified your point. It may make perfect sense to you and clearly you be you believe that you clarified what you previously wrote, but I didn't see it as clearer or an improvement. Maybe I've missing something or in person you could explain it differently. However, you see it your way and I see it mine, which is fine.Well I disagree on the focus on limited editions as I clarified my point while also never offering it as some sort of silver bullet, so I don't see how that was placing "far too much value on limited editions." Either way I think it's entirely fair that we disagree on what effect what I proposed might have.
I see it both ways. Sure you're expressing your opinion, but I think in some cases what you're posting while quoting me comes off as attributing to me something that I didn't say and/or it doesn't make sense as a reply. In fact with the bolded part here I see it both ways, but again I don't see why you'd post something like that considering I've very clearly stated that I don't think limited editions are the answer. That's all. At the end of the day I actually agree with some of the points you made as I've already noted and enjoyed some of your commentary.
You keep saying you clarified your point. It may make perfect sense to you and clearly you be you believe that you clarified what you previously wrote, but I didn't see it as clearer or an improvement. Maybe I've missing something or in person you could explain it differently. However, you see it your way and I see it mine, which is fine.
There is a typo in the part of my post that you bolded, It should have said " why I don't think limited editions are the answer to the watch industries problems." The word "Not" didn't belong in that sentence. Sorry if that created some confusion.
I find the whole thing about what you believe I have attributed to you very confusing. I have previously quoted your posts or the relevant parts in a "Gray box" just so it could be read in context and you or others could see what my post was in reference to. Anyone who reads your post and then reads mine can see exactly what each of us have said. I've never seen anyone suggest that by using the "Gray Quote box" above their own post, that that the ideas below the quote box which are in my words would then be attributed to you or someone else. Sorry but I don't see how that is possible. As for you saying "You never said this, or you never as a response to my at in reference to my examples." I have already said that I was the one who basically said,"Making a watch a limited edition doesn't put it on par with Patek." A statement such as that is and was in my own expression as to the lack of value or power that goes with making something a limited edition. It has nothing to do with directly rebutting a specific point you made. However, you seem to be under the impression that any point I make must be a direct rebuttal to something you said. That simply isn't so. I can point out weaknesses even if you never mentioned something as a strength.
I have enjoyed many of your posts and our discussions in the past. However, I think there is nothing either of us will gain through further discussing any of this and I do not want to derail this thread. If you wish to discuss any of this further you are welcome to PM me. Have a great day.
In the post where discussed brands not being elevated to being on par with Patek (through limited editions/limited production)...my paragraph referred to both limited editions and limited/lower production.When I say that I clarified my point, I'm specifically referring to when I said by "limited editions" I largely meant/also meant limiting some production. You still are saying "limited editions" though. That's what I'm referring to.
For me the Patek comment rather illustrates my point. Sure you're not attributing that to me, but all I'm saying is that I don't see it as entirely a sensible reply to my point. I entirely agree with the comment generally speaking, but in reply to what I've said I think it's going overboard. To me it's obvious that won't put them on par with Patek, but then that doesn't need to be the case for them to still benefit from limiting production. That's all I'm saying.
Anyway, just wanted to clarify. I appreciate your input as always. Cheers.
You keep saying you clarified your point. It may make perfect sense to you and clearly you be you believe that you clarified what you previously wrote, but I didn't see it as clearer or an improvement. Maybe I've missing something or in person you could explain it differently. However, you see it your way and I see it mine, which is fine.
There is a typo in the part of my post that you bolded, It should have said " why I don't think limited editions are the answer to the watch industries problems." The word "Not" didn't belong in that sentence. Sorry if that created some confusion.
I find the whole thing about what you believe I have attributed to you very confusing. I have previously quoted your posts or the relevant parts in a "Gray box" just so it could be read in context and you or others could see what my post was in reference to. Anyone who reads your post and then reads mine can see exactly what each of us have said. I've never seen anyone suggest that by using the "Gray Quote box" above their own post, that that the ideas below the quote box which are in my words would then be attributed to you or someone else. Sorry but I don't see how that is possible. As for you saying "You never said this, or you never as a response to my at in reference to my examples." I have already said that I was the one who basically said,"Making a watch a limited edition doesn't put it on par with Patek." A statement such as that is and was in my own expression as to the lack of value or power that goes with making something a limited edition. It has nothing to do with directly rebutting a specific point you made. However, you seem to be under the impression that any point I make must be a direct rebuttal to something you said. That simply isn't so. I can point out weaknesses even if you never mentioned something as a strength.
I have enjoyed many of your posts and our discussions in the past. However, I think there is nothing either of us will gain through further discussing any of this and I do not want to derail this thread. If you wish to discuss any of this further you are welcome to PM me. Have a great day.
When I say that I clarified my point, I'm specifically referring to when I said by "limited editions" I largely meant/also meant limiting some production. You still are saying "limited editions" though. That's what I'm referring to.
For me the Patek comment rather illustrates my point. Sure you're not attributing that to me, but all I'm saying is that I don't see it as entirely a sensible reply to my point. I entirely agree with the comment generally speaking, but in reply to what I've said I think it's going overboard. To me it's obvious that won't put them on par with Patek, but then that doesn't need to be the case for them to still benefit from limiting production. That's all I'm saying.
Anyway, just wanted to clarify. I appreciate your input as always. Cheers.