Jaeger-LeCoultre

The other point which I tried to explain is the thin line which separates watches with strong roots (or call it heritage) from simple remakes. A modern Porsche 911 has strong roots to the original design but is an entirely new car. That's fine. The watch industry always refers to its (great) past, that's fine too. Where I do have a problem is when an industry goes so far to even make a new product look old... If I take the two watches you mentioned, none crossed this thin line. The GP took over a movement design from a pocket watch but 1.) made a wristwatch out of it and 2.) made the movement visible dial side. These two elements were new. There is a kind of an evolution. The same is true for the Rolex Explorer II. The font, indexes, hands are new/different. The same is true for the size, etc. The watch is the son of the original and not its clone.

What would we think of a painter who would paint today in the cubist or impressionist style? Would he be part of the avant-garde? Would he contribute to the evolution of the art of painting?

I think that all these re-edition watches shows how much we all are nostalgic and sometimes might think that the golden age is behind us.  Watches from previous periods/decades where much more optimistic and forward looking. Maybe I am wrong at the end, these re-editions do tell a story of their own. Not about the actual style/fashion but how nostalgic we all are. That we prefer the past to the present. So watches always tell the story of the period they were produced in... Maybe it is just the story/reality these re-editions tell that I dislike. 

  login to reply