Horological Meandering

Gary G
3734

• Show profile
• Show other posts

I think that you raise fascinating points

...and I appreciate the considerate way in which you raise them! 

I do believe strongly that "authenticity" exists at all levels of pursuit, as long as the creator is true to him- or herself.  I have had the really great fortune to do well enough in my work that I can afford what I consider to be the "best" things in several arenas, but at one-tenth the price I still think that there are genuine and authentic choices to be had.  I didn't put these watches in this thread, but for instance I own a 1960's vintage Omega Ploprof, which I see as an object of almost other-worldly purity (why would you invent such a thing if not in service of its functionality?), and one of my very favorite pieces (and a long-term keeper) is my JLC Master Ultra Thin, which is so focused on its intent and so beautifully made (my understanding is that the movement is done in JLC's high complications department, and to see it through a loupe is to believe it).  Each of these watches cost me less than $4000, and I plan to keep both of them for a long time.  I also own two of Richard and Maria Christina Habring's watches -- by no means are they gorgeously finished, but they reflect a very clear philosophy that the Habrings have kept true to over time.  Same price points as the two watches mentioned previously.  I have bought two Silberstein watches for my wife, because they truly reflect Mr. S' philosophy that it true joy is to have your passion as your profession, and because they are instantly recognizable and indicative of a specific design philosophy.  Neither was wildly expensive.

Some of the watches that I sold had this same sort of "DNA" (a term I don't like, but I'm running out of terms for authenticity/integrity), but I don't have anything like infinite resources and I needed to sell some to afford others.  Some of that was not part of some quest for the authentic, but simple trading up.

In other realms,  I guess I also have an example or two.  I own several pairs of Tom's shoes, because I really like what they stand for (every time I buy a pair, they give a pair away to the less fortunate) and I like the way that the shoes look and fit -- they are quite distinctive.  That's not so easy to do at $50 the pair!  Sean Thackrey's wines aren't the most expensive, but I love his philosophical approach -- and they taste good! 

But at the same time, at whatever my total budget might be, my bias seems to be to get one really special thing (a Tammy Garcia clay vessel, for instance) rather than 10 lesser items.  That was somewhat true in my youth, and seems increasingly so today.

For better or worse, while in some realms I guess I am looking for the "best" and am fortunate enough to be able to indulge my tastes, in general I think that I am also looking for the "truest."  I understand that this is a loaded term, and that I have no monopoly (and perhaps no insight at all) on what constitutes "truth."  Many people think that Patek is "best," but I've sold the ones I once owned -- to me it's unclear what they stand for, other than being an ultimate luxury brand.  I've never owned a Rolex, but I certainly would -- to me they actually stand for some things -- robust construction, quality materials, and excellent time keeping.  All of this, is of course, terribly subjective.

My ambition in life is to display a certain level of integrity in my dealings with others, and I suppose that this desired (perhaps idealized) self-concept transfers over into the items that I enjoy buying and owning. 

I also agree that my pursuit of "authenticity" is absolutely based in those traits that I find admirable, and that many others have completely different views of what is most admirable (for instance, breaking new ground and challenging convention, or sustaining a tradition as embodied in a specific form of craftmanship) and that their collections will, and should, reflect these different values.  By no means am I trying to promote my values or preferences as universally desirable -- apologies if my writing implies this, because my intent is to share my thinking, not to prescribe how others should think.

I also fully admit that there is a fair chance that all of my high-sounding prose is simply the rationalization of a complete blow-hard trying to justify his purchases to himself, sound erudite to others, or trumpet his self-perceived good taste!  My request for feedback was sincere, and I appreciate that you have taken me up on it.

All the best,

Gary G