jml_watches
9497
Think I agree with the underlying concept
Hi
Like your thoughts and think I agree with your underlying concept. That the are three big beasts in the watchmaking world - they have supporting evidence from history appreciation by a wide community and their current output supports both of these.
Don't have any problem with you're analysis of other brands either. But as one other commentator alluded to, all these things can be true yet you may not find anything in the portfolios of those three that appeals to you. This very much reminds me of a comment I've read somewhere with regard to malt whisky - just acknowledge that The Glenlivet (& the "The" here is very important) is the best Malt whisky produced & then go and drink what you actually like. It may have been put somewhat more elegantlly, but that was the general gist.
I can appreciate the big three, but for my sins I'm a JLC fan - not sure why, but think it may be like a joke in that it ceases to be funny once you start to understand why it is funny. I have only bought new once and three in the secondhand market - which I have no trouble with & is a very good way of getting something that passed you by earlier. (think this is a bit of a digression, but I think its helpful.)
Would I buy more JLCs - probably, does the fact that they are not one of the big three bother me - not in the least. They do have history & I acknowledge your perception of them and that of IWC. Would I want one of the others - probably not, well not for the more routine watches. A grand complication possibly - I think the only watch I'm aware of that appeals to me out of the three brands is a Patek automatic minute repeater that is really plain and understated. Will I ever buy one - almost certainly never, but its nice to know its there.
There other points I would also make - I'm getting a futurematic serviced and the cost and time is interesting. Is it worthwhile - probably its borderline in terms of what its worth, but for what it represents and the pleasure I derive from it certainly. I don't think our choices in relation to watches, or indeed collections of other things are ever really logical - but then if we purely used logic we would bother with them in the first place.
And despite all the above I think its in our nature to want to classify and grade - everything and anything. Its then all down to points of veiw and discussion and thats where the fun is.
Thanks for your post - its been most interesting
Best wishes
JML
This message has been edited by jml_watches on 2010-02-27 05:55:24
History
By: AndrewD : February 24th, 2010-00:33
Thanks for dredging that up, Art, I think. So we are Peabody and Sherman, making sure that historical events play out as they should? Is this where your interest in history was kindled? I do recall that JLC Masterclass very clearly; a most pleasurable mor...
Absolutely.
By: ThomasM : February 23rd, 2010-19:23
Hi, Brandon, Strange, I had replied to you this morning, but now I don't see my reply! Sorry it might seem like I ignored your reply! "...I took part of your post to mean that in order to really enjoy one's watches, one must know oneself, and understand h...
Practical Purist
By: CaliforniaJed : February 23rd, 2010-22:09
"Just realize that it is a journey, and wisdom, even with the best teachers, doesn't come overnight, wholesale. What might appeal to you, is worth something to you, today, may not be so next year, or a decade from now, or 50 years from now. And that's oka...
Floating the boat.
By: CaliforniaJed : February 24th, 2010-09:26
TM, yes, as a Purist (rather than a retailer) why acquire anything that doesn't float the boat? No need for Rolexes or Pateks (or Dufours of Voutilainens) unless they race one's heartbeat. But if ownership is restricted by budget, isn't the equation made ...
It's easy...
By: BDLJ : February 23rd, 2010-15:18
....Surely the category of the "Big Three" is as arbitrary as any other. So I can ignore it. Done! Why is there a desire or need for this category? What's the purpose of it? It only matters to those that care for the criteria that mark that category. If w...
I was waiting...
By: ThomasM : February 23rd, 2010-15:56
Hi, Ben, Why not "twenty-somethings?" Do they not share some things in common, which they don't share with non-twenty-somethings? How about the fact that they just (likely) graduated college; are most likely early in their money earning careers; are still...
20-somethings...
By: BDLJ : February 23rd, 2010-18:24
aaargh. I pressed the wrong button and lost 10 minutes of furious typing! aaargh. I pressed the wrong button and lost 10 minutes of furious typing! I'll try to piece together my thoughts anew...Many points to address here.... ...as for stereotypes/politic...
Agreed on Keynes . . .
By: Dr No : February 23rd, 2010-22:30
. . . as the most influential person of the last century, evidenced by this thread . . . www.network54.com . . . . from Belles Lettres. Remarkably, we also agree on the value of vintage Omega. As Arte Johnson used to say, "Verrrry interrestingk!"
:-)
By: ThomasM : February 23rd, 2010-18:09
(sly wink that was supposed to be...) Kevin, couldn't resist, couldya? I've glad you chimed in. That's the underlying point (literal words used notwithstanding) - To the West, the Rape of Nanking (and other "atrocities" like the "Armenian Genocide") was s...
I agree, Tony...
By: ThomasM : February 24th, 2010-08:34
especially this last - " Applying this analogy to PPro, I think it's fine for threads to start out firmly and fairly with the use of inclusive language, and then lurch off at more arcane tangents with which readers can sate their thirst for horological (o...
One size fit all?
By: AndrewD : February 24th, 2010-14:01
Yes Jon, we all know there is no right or wrong answer to the Big Three question, who should or shouldn’t be in it, how they are ‘chosen’, or how we even define it. That is what is fun about Purists, although I acknowledge that to some (...