Independents

ThomasM
[PuristS]
14331

• Show profile
• Show other posts

It seems this whole brouhaha can be distilled into a few basic points

Hi,

Is imperfection, on a case by case basis, possible? Yes.

probable? yes.

Would a watchmaker with the integrity of KV correct it if it were brought to their attention? Yes.

Was Bart right in pointing out the possibility that there may be defects in KV pieces? yes

Has Bart amply and substantively demonstrated his two points -

1. a sample KV might have the problem noted - possibly, but look at Allen's refutation

2. that the problem, such as it is, is repeated and systemic in all KV products - no, no, no.

(2) is further weakened by Bart's declarations of CONCLUSIVE statements that KV's hands are die cut, which Don Corson, a fellow WATCHMAKER who has actually made a watch with his own hands (contrary to many "academics" who claim they can and want to, but never have) has refuted with his own experience and viewing. I and others who have visit KV, but who are not watchmakers, would support the statement that KV's hands are NOT die cut.

When confronted with this, no reasonable rebuttal has been offered, no mea culpa, no apologies for being wrong (so far, nothing on this but the repeated statement, NO, IT IS DIE CUT.)  Tacks like this further serve to reduce credibility (not an ad hominem attack, this is a meta-rhetorical point)

Again, there is no issue with pointing out imperfections, and whether imperfections are "charming" or "egregious errors that are unacceptable" are up to the individual, but broad sweeping statements that DEMAND agreement in principle are either signs of some gross misunderstanding that even the well intentioned discussions that has already taken place have not been able to address head on, or some other agenda that hints of trollishness.

Dogma is not wanted here, either of the positive, worshipful, god-making "they are perfect, and when they are not, it is okay because it is still perfect" sort;

or its opposite, the haranguing criticism(s) that ignores facts and evidence presented to the contrary, relying on pre-formed assumptions ("those hands are die cut, no question about it") based on facts not in evidence, and despite evidence to the contrary.

TM