Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Who Watches the Watchmen (Our Chit Chat Thread)
Options
Comments
-
-
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,075 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 59004
I'm wired the same. That kinda thing never bothered me. Even in my teens when you're supposed to give more of a damn about what others feel as you work out your own adult track and personality it very rarely bothered me. *shrugs* Either my ego is so zen and self actualised or I'm quite mad, or both, far more likely the latter. :P :pac:CarProblem wrote: »I honestly didn't care. I have a painting in my hall. I love it, my neighbour loved it when she saw it, my sister and best friend both hate it. I don't care - I like it and it's my house
That said and I hate to break it to you CP, we're not normal. :eek::D No really. Humans are social animals and because of that we need to fit in, to go along with the social culture and contract and jousting for position and yeah to generally go along with the artifice of "luxury" as the society sees it at the time. And that artifice can be extremely abstract. That's a huge part of what makes us human, that ability to abstract value, from personal talismans, through imagery, through religion, through even the very basic notion of handing over pieces of paper for goods or work. Totally daft if you think about it all. But if weren't so daft we'd still be running around in the nip avoiding large hairy things with teeth.
A large majority go along with that or we wouldn't have at one end daubs of oil on canvas that cost as much as a hospital wing, at the other runners and hoop earrings that must only come from a certain brand, in the middle ten grand handbags, Hermes Apple watches, Rolex and in an odd way especially fake Handbags, Hermes and Rolex. The hate for them is obvious on the part of the manufacturers, but a huge part of the hate against fakes by manufacturers and among their customers is that they short circuit the luxury abstraction thing. Doubly so as they get more and more hard to distinguish from the real. The "ah you're only kidding yourself" argument is a small part of it. We kid ourselves all the time. We "fake" ourselves all the time too, makeup, clothes, the trappings of the sub cultures of society we feel, or want to belong to. I personally dislike fakes because they butt up against my notions of fairness and honesty.
(I swear, no Moroccan woodbines were involved in the typing of the above.)
So that's why I say "buy what you like", so long as you don't overpay and/or buy something as a substitute for something else you really want. As for homages? So long as it fits into the previous sentence I say play ball. If watches are man jewellery then look at homages as costume jewellery. You like the look, but don't care about the name, or simply thinking spending twenty times that on the name to be daft.Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,075 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59004
He didn't say no handwinders so... Overruled. Plus it is me, so quartz...You have gone too far this time.....that you would say such a thing....Wibbs come on surely a siteban for this.
...and as it happens because of the cheap placcy quartz Swatches chances are fairly high that mechanical watches including Rolex would be an extremely niche pursuit and pursuit of. Even then it's still a niche pursuit. Apple come out with a watch and have sales figures Swiss brands could only dream of and profit margins to match and can even muscle in on the "luxury" angle too. For a stripped down phone with appalling battery life. Humans. Mad, the lot of us. And a good thing tooI reckon if someone wanted to buy a swatch and the thread went long enough we'd have people telling them to buy a rolex!
Random aside, a while back a mate of mine reckoned Swatch was short for Swiss Watch. It was apparently actually short for Second Watch.Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
In fact, I think if some has to scrimp and save (to the deteriment to having holidays, meals out, other "nice" things) just so that at the end of 20 years they could get a Patek minute repeater they would find that at the end of the day...it's just a watch.
"Luxury" comes with a lifestyle and by definition it remains exclusive and costly - so I totally get what Fitz says when he makes the point that a sub-€1000 watch isn't really "luxury" since many young people spend that or double that for the latest iPhone. Or the other way around - just because you can afford a Sinn/Stowa/Sólás :pac: doesn't mean you can afford to live the "luxury" lifestyle. In some ways a Rolex is too "cheap" to be luxury too - aspirational luxury perhaps?
Luxury in my mind is flying first (if not private hire jets), renting yachts for a Carribean cruise, buying a Ferrari (and being able to afford to maintain it! ). Those people may be wearing Rolexes, or Stowas or Casio F91Ws but more often go for the "Holy Trinity" and the really high end brands costing $20k+.
In Chinese there is a phrase - can afford to buy, can't afford to maintain it - i.e. I could probably buy a castle estate, but could I pay the annual upkeep bills?
MsThirdfox makes a very good point to me about my minute repeater grail - even if I manage to get one for 20-30k (considering an original rrp of 120k) would I be able to fork out the 7k it costs to service it every 5-10 years? So perhaps with my current lifestyle I can't afford a "luxury" watch like a minute repeater...
Also makes the Chinese minute repeater all that more tempting - service cost for a minute repeater is around 300 euro...
I can afford a Maserati (they go for the same price as a Golf or less)...I can't afford to keep replacing the clutch, tires, electronics etc.
...so to go back to my earlier point - which may bemuse some people - I don't really consider a Rolex Sub in steel a luxury watch (heavily marketed as luxurious definitely) - but too many "normal" watch buying people can afford it. Just like Mont Blanc or Caran D'Ache 300-400 euro pens aren't "luxury" but luxurious - because I guess the millionaires and billionaires have the ability to go and buy 10k+ pens which I probably have never heard the names of.
A jewel encrusted solid gold/platinum Rolex would certainly be luxury though - as you would only find them on the wrists of the people who can also own Ferraris, take private jets etc. and live the "luxury" lifestyle. A steel Sub or Speedmaster or Stowa/Sinn etc. wouldn't be exclusive enough to be considered luxury in my eyes.
"Quality" on the other hand - is a completely different kettle of fish - nothing about quality requires it to be exclusive - but I think a definition of luxury is something that is sufficiently exclusive. A G-Shock, Sinn or Stowa are all quality pieces.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,075 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59004
Pretty much F. It was among a tier of "good watches" for the British market and for the average newly minted middle class man of the post war. They got a lift from James Bond in the 1960's after trying to get into the American market for donkey's, even presenting US presidents with them, and largely failing. Their incredible 70's marketing really gave them a boost in that market, but more as a tool watch that was even then aimed at luxury, again towards the suburban accountant class(previously they'd have gone for brands like Longines and Omega and their own US brands). Never mind that they did that in the middle of quartz, which was bloody incredible. They also learned from Bond and dropped them on the wrist of film stars, as Jack Heuer had done(Unlike Connery who had to borrow the directors watch on a placcy strap that kicked off interwebs madness100% Agree, Rolex is a aspirational brand. Its a middle class brand. Rugged watches for working men (and women). I know that its kinda morphed in modern times, but as I am sure Wibbs will attest to the roots. A Rolex is the watch that a "man done good" gets.) In the UK they kinda slipped and started to have the vibe of working class wide boy in a Crombie, two tone Datejust a given, a "president" for the boxing promoter, a Cartier for the dollybird. I suspect that at least some of that is why UK folks got more into the steel stuff over time. Two tone was a bit too Arthur Daley, Harry Loadsamoney enfield and definitely this guy.
I have to admit I still have the hint of that prejudice myself, to some degree. Certainly around two tone. Not so much all gold, so it makes no sense. I see Patek as a "oulfella watch". Well gold three handers anyway. Then again we all have the odd quirky prejudices going on.Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,075 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59004
Lorddrakul wrote: »This thread had been most informative.
I now know that do not own any luxury watches.
Carry on. I'd own a couple that were "luxury" at one time and bloody expensive with it. These days they wouldn't be within an ass's roar of luxury. That's somewhat partially why I sometimes cast a quizzical eye over current trends and fashions. Like the chap in that Pride and Pinion website that claims that steel Rolex never lost value. He likely believes that but it's bollocks. All gold examples retained a lot of their value because of gold(diamonds a bonus) and started to be seen as portable cash to some degree*, but all steel? Nope. They were never cheap as chips, but secondhand were notably cheaper than new(as were gold to a lesser degree) and up until the mid 90's there was the sense you couldn't give Daytonas away. If I only knew then...
*Rolex playing another absolute blinder started to insist in the 70's that their retail prices would remain the same as much as possible worldwide. Other brands like Apple have copied them in that.Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Season 3 Episode 11 'Knight of the Chameleon' Swatch Spring 1984 Sports worn by the character Tonie Baxter played by Kimberly Foster
https://i.imgur.com/Nc5RpKu.jpg
0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,075 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59004
You know, when I think of Rolex, my head says; "Rolex Milsub, all original, fixed bars, Omega handset, circle T, alloy bezel, pseud ref. no. 6540(crossed out, cos I am that anal), wrestled in a pub brawl in 1986 from a diver lad from Essex who wasn't really pushed, but was wondering why his order for a G shock was taking so long. Accept no substitutes dammit!!". Or a first series 31mm Rolex Oyster handwound, in steel, more than slightly bollexed, "California" redial a given, described as "unisex" because it's just so small. And apparently sexist.
But my heart always says "Oyster Perpetual Datejust". That is the Rolex for me. Solid, at work or play, fits denim or bespoke, business meeting or beach, a steel base with the smattering overlay of gold and a nod back tradition to the grooved bezel to tighten down the original Oyster. It is at its heart a picture in metal of a man who did OK enough and knows where he came from and where he is now and what he had to do to get there and wears that on his sleeve without shouting about it. And fair play. They have that narrative nailed like no other brand and that is something special.Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
-
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,075 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59004
I wish. On the financial side anyway. I was offered one in the early 90's. Well when I say offered it was for sale and the guy showed it to me. Sorry went a bit Hoodwinkee there.Thats so specific there has to be a story there... have you owned one of those? Be worth a pretty penny now if so! It was either two grand and I only had one at my disposal, or four and I only had two. I do remember thinking at the time that it was crazy money, especially for such a "basic" watch and it was fairly worn. For that money I expected a rattrapante chronograph, with perpetual calendar, alarm, chimes, moonphase, tidal display and a teamaker driven by my heartbeat. In platinum. He did have a Longines Hour Angle and I was so tempted there, but I would have walked out potless and I remember it being very large. But yeah, a time machine and ten grand back then would make you a millionaire today. Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtoyLPROLZI
Season 3, Episode 16 'Knightliners' Rolex Oyster Perpetual Datejust worn by the character Soltis played by Frank Annese
Advertisement