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

[mimo]

You win on the Lobbs....it's a disgrace for a proper shoe company to produce something as vile as "sneakers". The Lange...well OK...I never knew they made a hip hop edition tourbillon. But my inner pimp, though acknowledging it's being entirely over the top, cannot see this as a "dog". Lange is innocent. Kind of.

 

[ridethecliche]

You win on the Lobbs....it's a disgrace for a proper shoe company to produce something as vile as "sneakers". The Lange...well OK...I never knew they made a hip hop edition tourbillon. But my inner pimp, though acknowledging it's being entirely over the top, cannot see this as a "dog". Lange is innocent. Kind of.

Yeah. And Zegna and LP suck for making jeans too.

 

[mimo]

No disagreement from me.

Now, another subject if I may: those of elephantine memory might recall my initial mockery of the Cartier Tank Solo XL, before later deciding that it is lovely. And it is. I think I have some more humble pie coming, on the perhaps more divisive matter of what I would call "luxury dive watches". Royal Oaks and Nautiluses (Nautili?) aside for a moment, I refer to the kind that have dive-y bezels and luminous markers, and even a proud dive-y history and a practical woven strap. They really have all the elements of a "proper" dive watch, except they're expensive and you'd cry if you scratched one. I know they make no sense. I have sneered at them. But they are somehow getting to me. I give you:

The JLC Deep Sea Chronograph Cermet



and

the Blancpain Fifty Fathoms Bathyscaphe




The Bathyscaphe has a much more rugged and utilitarian look about it, but it is nevertheless in Daytona price range with sub-Sub capability. It's definitely for posing not diving. And as for the Deep Sea (and yes, it's the smooth lounge lizard Ti-ceramic one that tickles my fancy), it's even more money and as lickable as a matte black Lamborghini. And equally suited for rough terrain.

The Blancpain in particular has proud history behind it, but at the end of the day, they're both pretentious desk-diving indulgences, aren't they? So is it OK to love them? Well, I think I might love them. Both of them. So there. Cast away.

 

[akatsuki]



No disagreement from me. Now, another subject if I may: those of elephantine memory might recall my initial mockery of the Cartier Tank Solo XL, before later deciding that it is lovely. And it is. I think I have some more humble pie coming, on the perhaps more divisive matter of what I would call "luxury dive watches". Royal Oaks and Nautiluses (Nautili?) aside for a moment, I refer to the kind that have dive-y bezels and luminous markers, and even a proud dive-y history and a practical woven strap. They really have all the elements of a "proper" dive watch, except they're expensive and you'd cry if you scratched one. I know they make no sense. I have sneered at them. But they are somehow getting to me. I give you: The JLC Deep Sea Chronograph Cermet and the Blancpain Fifty Fathoms Bathyscaphe The Bathyscaphe has a much more rugged and utilitarian look about it, but it is nevertheless in Daytona price range with sub-Sub capability. It's definitely for posing not diving. And as for the Deep Sea (and yes, it's the smooth lounge lizard Ti-ceramic one that tickles my fancy), it's even more money and as lickable as a matte black Lamborghini. And equally suited for rough terrain. The Blancpain in particular has proud history behind it, but at the end of the day, they're both pretentious desk-diving indulgences, aren't they? So is it OK to love them? Well, I think I might love them. Both of them. So there. Cast away.

I like the looks of the Bathyscaphe - but the date window really bothers me. That and the lack of a metal bracelet.

 

[tifosi]



No disagreement from me. Now, another subject if I may: those of elephantine memory might recall my initial mockery of the Cartier Tank Solo XL, before later deciding that it is lovely. And it is. I think I have some more humble pie coming, on the perhaps more divisive matter of what I would call "luxury dive watches". Royal Oaks and Nautiluses (Nautili?) aside for a moment, I refer to the kind that have dive-y bezels and luminous markers, and even a proud dive-y history and a practical woven strap. They really have all the elements of a "proper" dive watch, except they're expensive and you'd cry if you scratched one. I know they make no sense. I have sneered at them. But they are somehow getting to me. I give you:

Spoiler

The JLC Deep Sea Chronograph Cermet and the Blancpain Fifty Fathoms Bathyscaphe

The Bathyscaphe has a much more rugged and utilitarian look about it, but it is nevertheless in Daytona price range with sub-Sub capability. It's definitely for posing not diving. And as for the Deep Sea (and yes, it's the smooth lounge lizard Ti-ceramic one that tickles my fancy), it's even more money and as lickable as a matte black Lamborghini. And equally suited for rough terrain. The Blancpain in particular has proud history behind it, but at the end of the day, they're both pretentious desk-diving indulgences, aren't they? So is it OK to love them? Well, I think I might love them. Both of them. So there. Cast away.

I think it is totally OK to love them. You can love something without buying it. I like them both, but I would never buy either of them.

 

[jbarwick]

I understand the reasoning behind a date window between 4 and 5...I just don't like it. As for desk divers, you are allowed to love them Mimo.

 

[Dino944]

Now, another subject if I may: those of elephantine memory might recall my initial mockery of the Cartier Tank Solo XL, before later deciding that it is lovely. And it is. I think I have some more humble pie coming, on the perhaps more divisive matter of what I would call "luxury dive watches". Royal Oaks and Nautiluses (Nautili?) aside for a moment, I refer to the kind that have dive-y bezels and luminous markers, and even a proud dive-y history and a practical woven strap. They really have all the elements of a "proper" dive watch, except they're expensive and you'd cry if you scratched one. I know they make no sense. I have sneered at them. But they are somehow getting to me. I give you:

The JLC Deep Sea Chronograph Cermet



and

the Blancpain Fifty Fathoms Bathyscaphe




The Bathyscaphe has a much more rugged and utilitarian look about it, but it is nevertheless in Daytona price range with sub-Sub capability. It's definitely for posing not diving. And as for the Deep Sea (and yes, it's the smooth lounge lizard Ti-ceramic one that tickles my fancy), it's even more money and as lickable as a matte black Lamborghini. And equally suited for rough terrain.

The Blancpain in particular has proud history behind it, but at the end of the day, they're both pretentious desk-diving indulgences, aren't they? So is it OK to love them? Well, I think I might love them. Both of them. So there. Cast away.

Hi Mimo,

I don't mind expensive dive watches, but beyond a certain price range I'm not sure they do the trick for me. I have tried on the JLC Deep Sea Chrono and its nice. I thought I would like it more in person than I did. For me, in person it just fell a bit flat and I wasn't that impressed. Also, while it may have a diving history, unless you can activate the pushers without harming the watch (most watches you can't do that), I'd be concerned about accidentally bumping one of the pushers against something under water and introducing water to the movement...not a good idea. So I don't see it as a real diving watch...but most people (myself included) that own dive watches rarely or never dive with them. Beyond that, most actual divers rely on dive computers not watches. So on some level a dive watch is more a styling exercise as its probably a watch that might at best see use in a swimming pool. It's not that different than having real button holes on the sleeve of a suit jacket. I've never seen someone wearing a suit jacket, open the buttons to roll up the sleeves or for an actual purpose. Still its a nice touch.

The Bathyscaphe is just a watch I find bland and unattractive. I'd rather have one of their other Fifty Fathom models. BP makes nice watches, and I tried on a Fifty-Fathoms in titanium about 2 years ago and it was a beautiful watch. However, in its price range there are almost always other watches I'd rather own. Two former AD's for BP that were near me couldn't give them away. Maybe they are more popular in other parts of the US or the world.

 

[Keith T]

Big fan of the "regular" Fifty Fathoms, and if that watch was more like 42-43mm, I probably would have already purchased one. I especially like the sapphire bezel and of course the history of the watch is also a big draw.

But I really haven't warmed up to the Bathyscaphe yet.

Personally, I don't mind the sailcloth type strap, but the hour markers seem undersized for that dial, and I also don't care much for the hands on that piece. (Reminiscent of the Tissot PRS 516? Not a hater, but I just expect something different on this historically-inspired diver.)

The JLC I do like, but as usual Dino makes a good point about the chrono pushers underwater....maybe Jaeger has engineered a solution there....I haven't the time to research that at the moment.


To mimo's larger point about, shall we say, "evolving views" on certain watches-- or even an entire category of watches: I find myself guilty of same.

Never say never again?

EDIT: punctuation

 

[pfurey]

That JLC is beautiful. It's like a Speedmaster and a vintage Sub had a baby. I'd happily wear one, but would rather spend that much money on other watches.

 

[rnguy001]

Love that JLC. It's frighteningly expensive but such an attractive watch. If it had a date then I'd probably have found someway or another to own one. Like maybe sell a kidney. But sadly my OCD has prevented me from entering the no-date territory. I agree with Dino about the fact that most true divers would likely want a computer or such. I think the JLC would be just fine for recreational water sports, and most people considering owning this watch aren't looking to do any major diving activities I would surmise.

so yes - it is okay to love that watch.

I also agree about the BP. It's a nice enough looking watch if not a bit sterile.. even Sinn-llike. The 4 oclock date also is a bit of contention for me but not the dealbreaker. I admit I haven't seen it in public. I do prefer it to the older BP FF though. Someone once likened the bezel to a toilet bowl cover and I could never get over that imprint in my mind.

 

[Kaplan]

 

[Keith T]

Nice wrist shot Kaplan.

 

[Cleav]

Lovin the strap too Kaplan, great

 

[Belligero]



Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

Hi Mimo,

I don't mind expensive dive watches, but beyond a certain price range I'm not sure they do the trick for me.  I have tried on the JLC Deep Sea Chrono and its nice.  I thought I would like it more in person than I did.  For me, in person it just fell a bit flat and I wasn't that impressed.  Also, while it may have a diving history, unless you can activate the pushers without harming the watch (most watches you can't do that), I'd be concerned about accidentally bumping one of the pushers against something under water and introducing water to the movement...not a good idea.  So I don't see it as a real diving watch...but most people (myself included) that own dive watches rarely or never dive with them.  Beyond that, most actual divers rely on dive computers not watches. So on some level a dive watch is more a styling exercise as its probably a watch that might at best see use in a swimming pool. It's not that different than having real button holes on the sleeve of a suit jacket.  I've never seen someone wearing a suit jacket, open the buttons to roll up the sleeves or for an actual purpose. Still its a nice touch. 

The Bathyscaphe is just a watch I find bland and unattractive.  I'd rather have one of their other Fifty Fathom models.  BP makes nice watches, and I tried on a Fifty-Fathoms in titanium about 2 years ago and it was a beautiful watch.  However, in its price range there are almost always other watches I'd rather own.  Two former AD's for BP that were near me couldn't give them away.  Maybe they are more popular in other parts of the US or the world.  

Not to mention that the markings on the bezel are done in Arial. True to its cheap and nasty roots, it invariably looks cheap and nasty.

It's the official mascot of lame office stuff and it strongly evokes Microsoft — not things I want to be reminded of every time I look at my wrist. There's a reason it's shunned by people with design expertise. I wouldn't consider buying a watch that uses it.

I do find it kind of funny that so many expensive watches incorporate a low-end knockoff of a Swiss typeface, though.

 

[Omega Male]

Mimo, I much prefer the "standard" Deep Sea Chrono which has the advantages of 1) being made out of good old, old-fashioned metal and 2) a more sensible size at 42 mm vs 44 mm.



Consistently high on the kop list!