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

[DerekS]



Oh no, if I truly wanted to do that I would "just by chance" take a picture while we were at the water park so I'd have my shirt off.............

HAHAHA! ahhh i remember those days. I was bitching to my wife yesterday that I was the one who gained the weight when she got pregnant. now shes thinner than she was before...and im 15 lbs heavier.

 

[apropos]



I only ask that folks who want a lovely, lovingly-designed watch, borne out of the vision of one individual and not designed by committee, and made by hand with sincerity and integrity, find interest in my watch. It is designed with no compromises at all, in the true AHCI sense. And yes, I am collaborating with a Chinese master in the AHCI (the group of master watchmakers that includes Phillippe Dufour and Kari Voutilainen).

Thanks B for your thought out reply. I just read through my previous post and I sound like an asshole. I wrote it in the early hours of the morning (see the timestamp) and was trying to say it all in an off the cuff manner, but whatever my intentions it came across pretty wrong, and I apologise for any offence caused.

Major facepalm on confusing Seagull and BWF. Major facepalm. No walking away from that, definitely have egg on my face.

I appear to have misinterpreted your sig as reading like a spec sheet. It still does to me. Can I ask why you've settled on certain design features e.g. 3/4 plate, SG chatons, and engraved balance cocks? I ask this because there are strong parallels IMO with various German brands and I am curious as to why these deliberate choices were made.

If I may make some more suggestions - link that WUS thread in your sig. IMO avoid negative advertising (i.e. pointing out how the big Swiss manufacturers cut corners).

Finally not sure if this has occurred to you but your logo looks not only like a Chinese tripod cauldron but also a stylised pallet. That is pure awesomeness.

In my view, heritage ad history are consistently THE most overblown and overhyped factors in watch discussions. I throw up just a little bit whenever a particular is recommended because it is 'iconic'. I have never bought into the elf kool-aid, and never will.

Hmm, forgive me for not being completely convinced by your declaration of invulnerability, given you own(ed) or are planning to own a Speedy, a Zenith with an El Primero movement, and a Rolex Sub. I am pretty sure you have a soft spot for the Max Bill watch, JLC, and more than a bit of affection for Omega. It doesn't add up... to me anyway

When it comes down to it, heritage and history are IMO really significant factors with watches.

99% of the "modern" mechanical watches we discuss and salivate over on this thread really are not that different from their vintage counterparts. The format is still the same - all have lugs, crowns, bezels, hands, and come in 4 or 5 different case shapes. Time is still displayed in the same way with swiveling hands. Most bring nothing new to the table horologically, or are variations on a theme - high beat movements, bigger power reserves, etc. The essential layout of the power train hasn't changed - spring, balance, pallet, regulator, wheels all held together with bridges and plates. Nearly all complications are a century old, or older. Your in house movement is really just the wheel reinvented to justify a price increase - most in house movements bring nothing new to the table, and may perform worse in terms of reliability, serviceability and parts availability.

So you are wearing an anachronism, and a paradox ("modern mechanical watch"). Why? Probably heritage and history.

 

[suaviter]

Alex!

 

[in stitches]

i love all the heritage and history of our beloved and storied brands. sadly, imo, most of that went out the window after they have almost all been bought and sold quite a few times, and most fall under the umbrella of one of a few luxury brand corporate conglomerates. not to mention the ones that lay dormant for decades, and we revived in the recent past. most such brands lay a thin claim to any of their old history.

there are few and far between that are independently owned, and even fewer that actually are in the hands of the family who founded the brand. AP might be the only one, and that is barely so, with only a portion of ownership belonging to a direct descendant. feel free to correct me if im wrong, and even if i am, my general statement holds true, thats a fact.

dont get me wrong, i think what the conglomerates and revivers have done is in many ways great, and it probably saved a lot of these brands from disappearing into oblivion forever. and the cash infusions brought the technology and quality control and finishing to levels unheralded. nonetheless, the history and heritage loses most of that fuzzy feeling evocation for me. its a great story, sure. and im sure the present owners have all kinds of stuff in vaults from the early days, from which to draw inspiration, but its mostly just that. inspiration and a nice story. we are not talking about a company whos owners have very much real connection to the past, if any at all, outside of business and a love for watches.

to me, most of that stuff is not much more than an interesting historical read on a topic i find interesting. i place far more weight on beauty/aesthetics, craftsmanship, quality and quality control when it comes to my actual purchases. "heritage" is mostly a fun side note and a self congratulatory pat on the back. which i heartily administer.

 

[RogerP]

Hmm, forgive me for not being completely convinced by your declaration of invulnerability, given you own(ed) or are planning to own a Speedy, a Zenith with an El Primero movement, and a Rolex Sub. I am pretty sure you have a soft spot for the Max Bill watch, JLC, and more than a bit of affection for Omega. It doesn't add up... to me anyway

I seek to convince you of nothing, least of all of my personal priorities when making a watch purchase. My affinity for the watches you mention has everything to do with the quality of the product today and the price / value equation they represent in a bountiful and competitive market. It has little or nothing to do with fanciful reminiscence of the past history of the manufacturers in question. I leave others to rhapsodize and romanticize about brand history and get all wrapped up and carried away by the story. I have bought more watches than I care to admit, and never once found any history in the bag when I got home - just a watch - which stands or falls on the technical merits of design and execution. F&ck the elves.

 

[Keith T]

Okay I just typed up a longer response, but it got lost in the posting process somehow.


First of all let me say ~B~ I appreciate your contributing here and I hope you take whatever sincerely constructive comments you get, in the spirit that they were intended.


And frilly for the love of God don't hurt yourself.



Regarding brand heritage/history/tradition....there is a whole lot of ground that could be covered here, but I will say that for me, it is most definitely a factor. Not perhaps the overriding factor, and if I were doing a pie chart, I'm not sure how big of a piece it would be exactly...but it IS a factor.

To use one example from my quote-unquote collection....I've got a reissue version of the so-called Steve McQueen Monaco, and I really like it, and wear it in regular rotation with my other watches. I've had it for maybe 4-5 years now.

I understand that in many respects it is an unremarkable Tag chronograph. Yes I do like it's squareness, and its blueness, and it looks great on a couple of different straps.....so I suppose it does fill a niche in a several ways when compared to others that I own.

But let's face it, you had me at McQueen on that one.

Hello?! It's Steve McQueen! In a f*cking race car?! Just take my money.

(Quick aside: I understand that Mr. McQueen mainly wore a 5512 Sub in his off-screen life, and also.... when I say "heritage" we all know this example only goes back maybe 40 years ago...so we're not talking about Vacheron making pocket watches for centuries or whatever).

But regardless....and just being honest ....if my Monaco were a $50K watch, instead of a fraction of that, then I probably wouldn't have saved and shopped and ultimately purchased one. So certainly, purchase price is another piece of the pie when it comes to these kinds of decisions. I'd say for many guys, that would be the single biggest factor: what can I afford?

Of course there are lots of other factors involved in any watch purchase personally (case size relative to my wrist size, accuracy and reliability of the movement, potential repair costs and/or resale value, overall legibility of the dial....all pieces of the pie). So yeah, I'm sure people have all kinds of different criteria for these decisions, but undoubtedly in my case, "brand heritage" certainly does play a role, FWIW.

 

[Hayward]

I think ultimately there are many reasons why someone will buy a particular watch, and there's nothing wrong with that.

I do think however that at least IMHO if heritage/history were your overarching criteria, there is really only one choice:

Think about it. The wristwatch is pretty much an accessory of the 20th Century. As time moves on, more and more people will regard it as an anachronism, much as many now consider the pocket watch as such. Meanwhile, the Moon Landings will likely represent the pinnacle of historical and technical achievement during the 20th Century, and this watch is best known for going along on that ride. We should not be surprised if in some far future, would one were to look up the entry for "wristwatch" in some future ontological application, that this watch would be the first and perhaps only image they see.

Yet as we all know, there really isn't much remarkable about the Speedmaster as a watch technically or otherwise. I have one, I love it, but if I were limited to only one watch, it would not be "the one." I don't think I've figured out which one would be, personally.

 

[jbarwick]

According to Hodinkee, most people would choose a Rolex Daytona if they were to only have one piece. I know it is a topic to debate for a while but I assume if only allowed to have one watch, most TWATers would pick a Chrono of some sort. I will give honorable mention to the G-Shock Frilly mentioned he enjoyed as it had a ton of functionality for the price.

 

[DerekS]



According to Hodinkee, most people would choose a Rolex Daytona if they were to only have one piece.  I know it is a topic to debate for a while but I assume if only allowed to have one watch, most TWATers would pick a Chrono of some sort.  I will give honorable mention to the G-Shock Frilly mentioned he enjoyed as it had a ton of functionality for the price.

I've wrestled (wrassled if you're in the south) with this for awhile. I really thought I could be a 1 watch guy. I thought my last purchase would be the last for awhile. Nope. I just will never be content with only one. Which I guess is ok. I'm fine with it. Guys like me are why they make owe variety packs of cereal. Sure I fuckin love lucky charms. But every day forever?? Nah. Frosted flakes are good too. Grrrrreat even.

I used to use this analogy for why I went thru girlfriends. Can't do that now that I'm married so it fits here too.


But I do think a Daytona would be a perfect choice for those who are a 1 watch kind of person. Fills lots of needs...truly fantastic watch.

 

[Hayward]

Ideally, my one watch would be something that does all the things this one does;

But looks more like this:

 

[terrapen]

 

[mimo]

Interesting theory about the "one watch". In reality, I am pretty close to "one watch" at the moment because I wear the same one most of the time - a simple three-handed manual wind. There are plenty of chronos and other complications I'd like, but actually I have a different requirement for my new watch: I think it might be an automatic dive watch for exercising and the beach.

The Daytona, as I think we discussed a few months ago, is a pretty sound choice on the face of it, as it looks pretty dressy. I'd say that a Sub or GMT might add that bit of robustness for the weekend, though. But if the Daytona it is - no question that it looks great with a suit, especially the white dial - then perhaps it has some other competitors: a steel Royal Oak chrono is a thing of beauty, though for me it would have to be the smaller, older 39mm version. Perhaps even the chrono version of the Nautilus, if you had the dough?

But for me, I think at this point I have to say stuff practicality, and any watch with a second hand is a chrono if you want it to be: I can live with taking my watch off for the beach, just for the joy of having it the rest of the time. And I think a perpetual calendar is for me. Of course that could also be combined with a chrono or other functions. But my "one watch" if I can ever afford it, and however nonsensically, is still this: practical automatic, useful perpetual calendar, and...well, it's a platinum Lange so **** everyone. And it does look great on me, doesn't it? Did I mention that I have an inexplicable love for this watch? Oh yeah...I did

 

[dddrees]

Interesting theory about the "one watch". In reality, I am pretty close to "one watch" at the moment because I wear the same one most of the time - a simple three-handed manual wind. There are plenty of chronos and other complications I'd like, but actually I have a different requirement for my new watch: I think it might be an automatic dive watch for exercising and the beach.

The Daytona, as I think we discussed a few months ago, is a pretty sound choice on the face of it, as it looks pretty dressy. I'd say that a Sub or GMT might add that bit of robustness for the weekend, though. But if the Daytona it is - no question that it looks great with a suit, especially the white dial - then perhaps it has some other competitors: a steel Royal Oak chrono is a thing of beauty, though for me it would have to be the smaller, older 39mm version. Perhaps even the chrono version of the Nautilus, if you had the dough?

But for me, I think at this point I have to say stuff practicality, and any watch with a second hand is a chrono if you want it to be: I can live with taking my watch off for the beach, just for the joy of having it the rest of the time. And I think a perpetual calendar is for me. Of course that could also be combined with a chrono or other functions. But my "one watch" if I can ever afford it, and however nonsensically, is still this: practical automatic, useful perpetual calendar, and...well, it's a platinum Lange so **** everyone. And it does look great on me, doesn't it? Did I mention that I have an inexplicable love for this watch? Oh yeah...I did

Awesome looking watch, great choice.

 

[jbarwick]

Looks good! Is that the strap end in the background? If so, you may want to look at a shorter strap so it doesn't look like you are wearing someone else's watch.

 

[DerekS]



Looks good!  Is that the strap end in the background?  If so, you may want to look at a shorter strap so it doesn't look like you are wearing someone else's watch.

No. thats how its supposed to look. VIntage panerais had very long straps to fit around the wrists over the wetsuit. If you check out some vintages with the original strap and GPF Mod Dep buckles, they all have a long tail...

hard to tell from the pic, but im assuming thats an original. replacing the strap on that would be punishable by death.