Who Watches the Watchmen (Our Chit Chat Thread)

david

Wibbs wrote: »

Do not go golfing wearing that.

G-Shocks Only LeCoultre's Forbidden?

unkel

Thirdfox wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3z3XIl2nYfA

Just a reason why I have a love of minute repeaters (and much respect for JLC) - 1050 parts and yet still just 43mm and 14mm thick - 5atm wr too - so I can even take it diving

That's an incredible watch. Amazing. And waterproofness "more than you need"

But bejaysus apart from the beautiful movement it's a very ugly watch. And costs just few sheckels short of a million euro

Wibbs

Joking aside, that is an incredible piece of mechanical engineering and craft, with a sideorder of art, because it introduces a new form in a few ways.

Wibbs

Still.. JLC are famous for being "the watchmaker's watchmaker", with this movement 90% of watchmakers faced with it would be going...

Lorddrakul

I love the engineering, but feck, that's ugly.

Sometimes, in engineering, when form follows function, you can get something quite beautiful, even if it is in a brutish sort of way, but that thing is just ugly.

Sorry.

I'll get me coat.

Wibbs

Oh it's ugly as sin, what art there is exist entirely in the engineering. As an exercise in timekeeping accuracy it's a dead end. It promotes the brand and if some potentate with inadequacies around the dimensions of his organ of generation buys one, all the better for JLC.

893bet

I don’t think it that ugly at all. Was expecting far worse.

I see far uglier watches knocking around here...eye of the beholder...

Fitz II

As an Irishman I dislike that it says Westminister and chimes the Big Ben, but I think its nice lookinjg, very architectural and Grecian . Skeletisation makes sense on a minute repeater. Lot of complications going on here and I for one (and say what you will about my organ) quite like it. This is the style of these supercomplicated watches and I think its a marvel.

Wibbs

893bet wrote: »

I don’t think it that ugly at all. Was expecting far worse.

I see far uglier watches knocking around here...eye of the beholder...

Sure, but when that amount of effort and resources are pointed at something, you expect something better on the beauty score. Compare it to the Lange.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehQ3OiiULdk

Mad money still, but half the price and far more balanced a design. A mix of traditional and brutally modernist.

Wibbs

Fitz II wrote: »

As an Irishman I dislike that it says Westminister and chimes the Big Ben, but I think its nice lookinjg, very architectural and Grecian . Skeletisation makes sense on a minute repeater. Lot of complications going on here and I for one (and say what you will about my organ) quite like it. This is the style of these supercomplicated watches and I think its a marvel.

It looks much better to my eye in that pic than in the video and I'd agree with you.

Fitz II

Wibbs wrote: »

Sure, but when that amount of effort and resources are pointed at something, you expect something better on the beauty score. Compare it to the Lange.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehQ3OiiULdk

Mad money still, but half the price and far more balanced a design. A mix of traditional and brutally modernist.

I agree the Zeit is lovely, but its not trying to fit and display a gyrotubillion and a perpetual calendar. These hyper complicated watches are either huge or have this sort of open heart design.

Cienciano

Lorddrakul wrote: »

I love the engineering, but feck, that's ugly.

For me that applies to 95% of high end watches :pac:

Fitz II

Cienciano wrote: »

For me that applies to 95% of high end watches :pac:

I think that the sort of collector that buys something like that will have had a lot of watches, and their taste will have been concentrated and refined at that stage Its like learning to like fine dining, or drink whisky...take some practice and initially the appeal is not so obvious.

Cyclingtourist

Fitz II wrote: »

I think that the sort of collector that buys something like that will have had a lot of watches, and their taste will have been concentrated and refined at that stage Its like learning to like fine dining, or drink whisky...take some practice and initially the appeal is not so obvious.

I prefer to drink whiskey.

Wibbs

Fitz II wrote: »

I think that the sort of collector that buys something like that will have had a lot of watches, and their taste will have been concentrated and refined at that stage Its like learning to like fine dining, or drink whisky...take some practice and initially the appeal is not so obvious.

True enough. I've noticed down the years that many of the top collectors pass through the supercomplication stage and go back to basics and "simplicity" and look for watches like one off old style handmade George Daniels type pieces and the like.

Fitz II

Wibbs wrote: »

True enough. I've noticed down the years that many of the top collectors pass through the supercomplication stage and go back to basics and "simplicity" and look for watches like one off old style handmade George Daniels type pieces and the like.

Those Daniels watches just hide their complications, half the feckers are in solar/sidereal time which is very complex to achieve...but yeah the collector of this sort of grand complication watch seem to like that aesthetic.

Wibbs

Actually F sidereal time isn't very complex at all. The German military required Heuer to make a small run of sidereal BUND watches. For artillery types. They were originally issued with star charts to determine true north. And they were a flyback chronograph on top. IIRC it simply involves a change to the minute wheel. They run around 4 minutes slow compared to a normal watch. Some have swapped out the relevant wheel t make them more usable. For those weird feckers who want to tell the time.



Now if you're adding perpetual calenders and allowing for the loss of a day per year(IIRC?) that's complex alright, but sidereal time alone isn't.

Fitz II

Wibbs wrote: »

Actually F sidereal time isn't very complex at all. The German military required Heuer to make a small run of sidereal BUND watches. For artillery types. They were originally issued with star charts to determine true north. And they were a flyback chronograph on top. IIRC it simply involves a change to the minute wheel. They run around 4 minutes slow compared to a normal watch. Some have swapped out the relevant wheel t make them more usable. For those weird feckers who want to tell the time.



Now if you're adding perpetual calenders and allowing for the loss of a day per year(IIRC?) that's complex alright, but sidereal time alone isn't.

Meant solar/sidereal time, the man himself though it was the hardest complication and that Tourbillons were masturbation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65Nu-ROLIf8

Wibbs

Fitz II wrote: »

Meant solar/sidereal time, the man himself though it was the hardest complication and that Tourbillons were masturbation.

Ahh now I get you. A solar sidereal calculator. Yeah, that's a whole other level of engineering and complication alright. Sidereal on it's own is basically just a watch with a gear with a different number of teeth.

I never got the tourbillion thing myself. I can understand it in a pocket watch because they tend to stay pendant up most of the time so allowing for positional gravity effects makes sense, but even then it's OTT in a wristwatch these days. It certainly made sense in the 19th century pocketwatch and when they hadn't the materials that came along later which allowed for more tweaking of the positional variability.

Fitz II

Wibbs wrote: »

Ahh now I get you. A solar sidereal calculator. Yeah, that's a whole other level of engineering and complication alright. Sidereal on it's own is basically just a watch with a gear with a different number of teeth.

I never got the tourbillion thing myself. I can understand it in a pocket watch because they tend to stay pendant up most of the time so allowing for positional gravity effects makes sense, but even then it's OTT in a wristwatch these days. It certainly made sense in the 19th century pocketwatch and when they hadn't the materials that came along later which allowed for more tweaking of the positional variability.

Your wrist is a tourbillion unless your arm is in a sling so its totally pointless, however in the mechanical wristwatch world embracing the pointless is often part of the fun. I see them as "Masterpieces" by the haute horology companies to show off and make the limited edition pieces more special....we were having this conversation with thirdfox before regarding the solas tourbillion....I kinda feel an expensive tourb has value like a 100k AP but an affordable tourb kinda misses the point. The omega tourb is a total failure cause Omega just doesnt have the high end chops to pull it off, not the technichalities of making it, but the loyal collectors willing to spend that sort of dosh for something pointless.

unkel

Fitz II wrote: »

human centipede

893bet wrote: »

Kevin you are so deep in level 4 you have your head up unkels arse.

You lads had a cosy movie night together recently?

Saw that film only recently. Jaysus.

Thirdfox

Fitz II wrote: »

Your wrist is a tourbillion unless your arm is in a sling so its totally pointless, however in the mechanical wristwatch world embracing the pointless is often part of the fun. I see them as "Masterpieces" by the haute horology companies to show off and make the limited edition pieces more special....we were having this conversation with thirdfox before regarding the solas tourbillion....I kinda feel an expensive tourb has value like a 100k AP but an affordable tourb kinda misses the point. The omega tourb is a total failure cause Omega just doesnt have the high end chops to pull it off, not the technichalities of making it, but the loyal collectors willing to spend that sort of dosh for something pointless.

But I think there is another level at the "super" affordable tourbillons too - the sub €1000 tourbys (or if you buy from Aliexpress from the factories then as low as sub-€400).

The Tag Heuer 16,000 euro tourbillon doesn't make much sense as it's selling point is "the cheapest Swiss tourbillon" but a 600-800 euro tourbillon (depending on design and other mechanical features) may make sense (we'll see).

Just like taking microrotors/aventurine to below 400-500 - I think there is ample market for people who want a tourbillon not for "the pinnacle of Sólás watchmaking" (which will be the affordable repeater ) - but for people who want to see a piece with hundreds of little parts rotating around in a cage.

"Affordable crystalware" as one podcast who looked at Sólás (positively) said.

Oh and I did like the JLC for the miniaturisation of all those separate elements - the minute hand is also a jumping minute hand too btw - doing it just because they can.

And if I were to spend a million on a watch (ha!) - it would be something like this (or perhaps high art like wood marquetry/cloisonné dial Patek) rather than an "iced out" diamond Jacob & Co/Hublot/Richard Mille.

Cyclingtourist

Some people just love strapping a Faberge egg to their wrist.

Fitz II

Thirdfox wrote: »

But I think there is another level at the "super" affordable tourbillons too - the sub €1000 tourbys (or if you buy from Aliexpress from the factories then as low as sub-€400).

They defiantly exist but is there a market? 200 people backed the starlight at a far more accessible price and a far more conventional genre. What percentage of them will back a off the shelf tourb? I know nobody with one, nobody hankering for one. Can your tourb tastebubs get developed and sated at this level?

Wibbs

Cyclingtourist wrote: »

Some people just love strapping a Faberge egg to their wrist.

That's a good comparison I reckon. Extreme no holds barred, money no object opulence for its own sake. Human history is chock full of such items going back to prehistory made for all sorts of reasons; status, devotion, technical achievement, even I think we can do it so we should.

40,000 years ago a society decided that someone would make this from mammoth ivory.



Something that took many hours a day over many months of work with stone tools carefully cutting and polishing an extremely unforgiving material. More, that person wouldn't be free to do the usual hunting and gathering of food, in an ice age environment where survival was on a knife edge. But that society felt this was all worth it. In many ways that foot high sculpture is more "opulent" and "luxurious" than any Faberge egg or super complication watch. Nobody was risking starving to death to make them. That we are at times willing to risk hardship in the pursuit of such esoteric things is a fundamental part of what makes us modern humans.

Cyclingtourist

Wibbs wrote: »

Something that took many hours a day over many months of work with stone tools carefully cutting and polishing an extremely unforgiving material. More, that person wouldn't be free to do the usual hunting and gathering of food, in an ice age environment where survival was on a knife edge. But that society felt this was all worth it. In many ways that foot high sculpture is more "opulent" and "luxurious" than any Faberge egg or super complication watch. Nobody was risking starving to death to make them. That we are at times willing to risk hardship in the pursuit of such esoteric things is a fundamental part of what makes us modern humans.

We don't really know what function that carving had. It could have had a religious significance or acted as a talisman to bring good fortune to hunters.

Not sure Jacob & Co watches bring good fortune given a certain person's performance over the weekend.

Cyrus

apologies if posted already but i really like the new zenith chronomaster, yes its a ceramic daytona knock off but i give zenith a pass in that regard, has the striking tenth movement, and at 41mm it should wear nicely rather than the little small that the stainless steel daytone does.

My only niggle is the adjustable clasp is a little low rent but better than no adjustment.

ill be getting this at some stage in white

https://www.ablogtowatch.com/zenith-chronomaster-sport-el-primero-3600-calibre/

redlead

Thats actually an interesting point. I guess there is an element of the show off to anyone that commissions art. The difference I guess is that even though an element of it was for personal gratification, something beautiful was created and the public often benefited from it too. What city can build the most magnificent cathedral or town Hall etc. I think the sole reason for buying an iced watch is to show off wealth. Nobody actually likes them do they? Horrid vulgar things. I do cringe anytime I see someone wear a Jacob and co astronomia, but at least they often do something interesting mechanically. I appreciate that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but an iced Royal Oak or president ! REALLY ....

redlead

Cyrus wrote: »

apologies if posted already but i really like the new zenith chronomaster, yes its a ceramic daytona knock off but i give zenith a pass in that regard, has the striking tenth movement, and at 41mm it should wear nicely rather than the little small that the stainless steel daytone does.
]

I don't know, I'm really not a fan of "homage" watches in general. I just have a principled stance on them. Truth be told, I actually think that's nicer than a Daytona but I'm still a bit disappointed that Zenith would stoop to basically ripping it off. Being a former movement supplier doesn't give them a pass imo.

Fitz II

It seems that war has broken out on the internet regarding this new El Primero. Bark and Jack has taken down his vid called it a homage.