Harry Winston

For what it is worth...I have been thinking that to own one, may just add a certain "completeness" to my collection.

In fact, it may boost my collection's carnival status...I mean this in the most positive light!

So far, the team has been working on an even MORE ambitious and awe inspiring project...Opus 3, and it is about time to see it. My hats off to the guys behind both Opus 8 and 3.

Here is a new updated picture!

 

There are many other selections out there that could complete your collection and still add "color".

You know in medicine sometimes we have to trust our instincts... Your initial instincts were so strong that I somehow doubt this would be what you spend your hard earned money from.

I look forward to hearing how you are going to convince yourself about this HW purchase.

Best, Mike

I had a tad more conversation with many watch people, mostly industry.

I would reveal that 8 out of 9 hate the watch, and are not "with" it.

But you know...I am that kind of guy that just because 1 man...and that man is from Harry Winston, but not a part of the design team, believes in it...I am already tempted to relook this case.

MOST of all..it is because Frederick, the same man responsible for Opus 8...which I still see as a modified music box made to play crystals instead of tines (chimes), is working on Opus 3!!!!

Now, that gets more of my respect.

If he can make Opus 3...I will eat a hat (of my choice) in Geneva, in front of an audience.

I owe him this much of an apology, as well as some form of self punishment!

if " 8 out of 9 hate the watch, and are not with it"  then something is very wrong.

I think everyone agree that HW and Frederick have achieved something unique technologically in the Opus 8.  But the implementation fell flat. 

If HW is not be happy with the reception that the Opus got this year then they probably should sit down and ask themselves where things went off course.   Imho the wrong attitude would be to sit there and say to themselves " 90% of the people are wrong...we are right. The Opus 8 is perfect, we just have to convince the 90% that they are wrong" 

Well Bernard, like I said, it will be very interesting to read your re-evaluation of this Opus. 

 

Cheers, Mike

  On my vision, the main difficulties with aesthetic of  watches such “digital” and “modern sci-fi” type is harmonization of asymmetrical design, what usually deals with complexity and size of mechanics.

  Last time I also thought about sci-fi design. And only hour indicator mechanics should occupy more than the half of the watch dial (if to trust to paper modeling).

   So I understand why Opus 8 is such.

 

Vadim.

I get the retro idea and all that..but I don't get or am convinced by the cost.

   But I want hope that HW and other watchmakers will continue the theme with not traditional displays. On the moment this is practically blank field, but ideas simply fly and needs only to catch them.

then it is not right because everything is relative to the price.  We can talk about all the efforts taken but ultimately, it is the perceive value to the buyers.  Hence if it is priced too high, then simply it must be 'passed'.

There is no shortfall of other beautiful creations out there with more perceived value to each individual. Lets wait for Opus 9 .......

I really hope it is price of URWERK 103 or MB&F 2
But as for Bernard, I do see this piece fits perfectly in your collection.
Lovesss*CL

It is really "ex" as we say in chinese.

It makes me feel extremely disappointed by it.
Lovesss*CL

Hi Bernard,

 

I realise that you enjoy the cutting edge of watch design and particularly like identifying seminal watches and new directions, but while I find the Opus 8 interesting conceptually, the execution, particularly the minute display, still lacks something to my eyes. The value-price ratio also doesn’t stack up. For me I would wait to see what direction the De Grisogono Meccanico and Opus 8 takes future design, but I doubt that is in your nature!

 

It’s a challenging watch, and in the end that may be the overwhelming reason to have it in your collection.

 

As I often say, it is the journey that is more important than the destination, and this journey is certainly a challenging and stimulating one. Enjoy it…

 

Kindest regards

 

Andrew

1) When you hear bird-song, it  is more likely to be a sparrow than a nightingale.

(i.e. common things happen commonly)

 

2) If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck and smells like a duck-shit  --  then duck shit it is!

(no explanation needed)

 

3) KISS

(keep it simple, stupid)

 

4) If 8 out of 9 data-points show one result, no amount of massaging can make an outlier  -  the mode...

 

Don't sell out; or lose all credibility.

 

Regards,

MTF

. . . I have as you can imagine followed this thread with some interest, and without expressing an opinion on the watch, I can't quite credit that you genuinely think an anecdotal reportage of 8 out of 10 'not being with it' (whatever that means) constitutes a robust data set.  In any case we are speaking of a subjective evaluation of a design object; one of the things I always liked about ThePuristS was the general community and specifically moderator resistance to the suasions of conventional wisdom, and the recognition that personal opinion is exactly that.

We all have our reasons for liking and disliking, and especially justifying, the expenditure of our hard won gains on our watches, but I find it hard to believe that either of you gentlemen, whom I have known for years and whose taste I respect tremendously, actually intend to suggest there is anything resembling an objective justification for the purchase of luxury objects in general, and watches in particular.

Cheerio,

Jack

Dear Jack,

Appreciate your points.

My comments were NOT directed at the Opus 8 because that is already old news and as you said  -  commentary on subjective "liking" of a "design" is a futile exercise.

My commentary was about Bernard going against his advisors and reconsidering the piece for "completeness of his collection".  That may actually be a valid reason to acquire something that has been summarily lambasted by industry chiefs in private, and other people in public.  I am assuming that when Bernard asked 9 people to opine, they were not your average Joe

I am assuming that they were 'interested parties' with decades of exposure to horology  -  designers, watchmakers, marketeers, collectors, design art critics, brand executives  -  people whose opinions that he respected over the years and that have served him well in the shaping of his collection so far.  In that situation, the weighting of those opinions is much heavier than that from 9 random people plucked from a poll list. Conventional tenets of statistics do not apply here  -  accumulated wisdom outweighs sample size.

My concern was that Bernard was reconsidering the watch because he wants to be controversial and "go against the flow" rather than for the love of it. That may also be a valid personal reason but it has to be explained to people who come upon the discussion without background. It's like a chinese guy I know who went through a phase of collecting serial number 4 (against conventional chinese numerology taboos).

Joe Public needs to know that the 'about-turn' is for more subtle reasons than liking the watch at that price point or pressure from having to be contradictory. It's to complete a quirky anti-establishment theme collection.

Current marketing positioning

Indonesian magnate: "So  -  why do I need to buy watch XYZ?"

Salesman: "Because YOU can, sir!  You are rich enough to do what you like"

Indonesian magnate: "I like the sound of that, boy. Go against the riff raff opinion of mere plebians on 2 horology websites because I can......yup that's for me."

Opus 8 will be successful because of PuristS discussions; more page views than any watch at this price point -  from Basel/Geneva 2008.

It only needs 1:1000 as buy : viewed ratio to be commercially successful i.e. even if 1 in a 1000 persons that see it, actually buy it.......the production will sell out.   Move on to Opus 9......

Best regards,

Melvyn

. . . I assumed, I admit, that Bernard was being rhetorical rather than literal when he said 8 out of nine surveyed disliked the watch (and my experience too has been that it is far from universally admired in some quarters, I have heard some disappointed remarks from people whom I think we would all reasonably feel comfortable calling experts that the watch is a disappointment.)  I also understand that the, shall we say rather spectacular price point brings its own expectations along with it.

This is an interesting phenomenon though.  In a general sense I think you will agree that as the price starts to climb into six figures, horology price to value ratios start to become even more deranged than usual (and they were pretty deranged to start with ;-) . )  I think the issue here is perhaps (and bear with me while I draw what may seem at first an almost meaninglessly fine distinction) not so much whether or not the watch is worth the asking price in any absolute sense (and I don't know any serious Purist who takes the idea of absolute value seriously anyway.)  I think rather it is perhaps -and I'm speaking not from a finish standpoint, which I'm not in a position to evaluate having not seen the watch) perhaps, the watch does not conform to our expectation of what a watch costing in the low six figures should look or feel like.  And they're not quite the same thing.

In the first case there would not even be any need for taste, as there would be an absolute standard of taste (which can never be) which allows us to say, and always agree, whether or not anything is worth the asking price.  In the latter case however, if we introspect enough to admit that what upsets us is the overturning of the apple cart of our expectations, then perhaps we need to ask ourselves if the problem is the object we are contemplating (Opus 8 in this case) or our expectations. . . or some combination of both, it's always a good idea in philosophy to remember that the two horns of a dilemma are less often irreconcilable differences than they are merely endpoints, and moving ones at that, on a continuum of subjectivity.  Ha ;-) .

Expert opinion merely reflects the consensus of an ad hoc community brought together by accidents of geography, economy, and preferred mode of discourse and being members of a learned majority certainly does not guarantee a reliable data set, if I may say so.  Look how often learned scientific bodies have been dead wrong in matters of fact of science, or how often (to reference your own professional realm) conventional wisdom expert opinion has been dead wrong.  From 'noble pus' to mammary artery ligation the history of medicine is replete with an overwhelming expert consensus as impressive in its ubiquity as it was total in its wrongheadedness.  The means by which we argue the veracity of our claims frequently play us false as we commit inadvertent category errors -witness your automatic equating of the developed taste of a group of watch enthusiasts with the scientific consensus of a group of scientists on a point of science.  Rhetorically they seem close enough to be interchangeable, but they are in fact almost totally unrelated methods of arriving at consensus -in fact, that they arrive at consensus is the only thing they have in common.

And I won't bore you with examples from the art world of expert consensus which have ended up upon the dustpile of history ;-) .

So if expert consensus is no guide to absolute value, then what is it a guide to?  It's a guide to the social context in which one deploys such watches, which, since these are primarily minimally functional or even counterfunction objects, exercise primarily the function of social signalling. 

In that context Bernard's reaction becomes interesting, and is completely justifiable on its own terms.  Exclusivity is Bernard's nectar and to be exclusive, one must exclude.  Given that we establish identiy as consumers in a group by often making counterfunctional choices, it actually might have been predicted with a near certainty that Bernard would seek to maintain the perception of the keeness -and yes, the exclusivity, of his taste and collection -once the derision had risen to a high enough level to provoke an anti-consensus reaction.  Thus, he re-establishes his essential position, at which his activity as a collector seeks to locate him: an expert, an iconoclast, and one with a unique vision others do not share.

And in participating in such discourses as these, I get to re-establish my position as an insufferable, superciliious smart-arse ;-)

Cheers,

Jack

.

nt

not to jump on this one Bernard. keep the dosh for something more worthy.. there are of course many more watches to come and this is a forgettable blip in horology .. and at that price... 'what were they smoking?'

cheers
raph

someone let's just for the sake of discussion say Bernard .0)

one day owns all Opus pieces except 8

tormenting in the horizon just my 2HRK

so my decision would be to buy even that piece I

dislike just to have whole Opus collection

 

Best

 

My 2 cents, dear bernard, go for it if you don't feel the pinch about the price.

The watch itself is radical, iconoclastic, and i gather it's like you, since you like the mickey.

I would get the watch even if it's without the HW brand, because it's special, a conversation starter, a tribute to the digital watch era, a mockery to horology's status-in-quo.

Many lay-men would simply think of it as a timex incarnation, but the watch community knows, because of the mixed emotions that abomination cast into our minds.It's a technical wonder, yet ridiculous, yet ingenious.

Not many watches can stir such feelings in connoiseurs, not a patek, not a rolex.

If you're looking for something different, go for it.

Now, it's your turn to make a decision.

Yes, I loved every of the OPUS up to the 7. Of course, some more than others, but I allways appreciateted their originality as well as technical nature.

This one surely has the originality, but they might have gone slightly too far in taking some rough early-80's calculator aesthetics. It doesn't look classy to me when, I beleive, all the 7 others have succeed to mix it with highly original display.
Technically speaking, digital display is an old fantasy to me too. I dreamt of mechnically driven 7-segments for years and the main challenge is in actualizing them. dGrisogonno is proposing a solution, that we're not sure about reliability these days, but at least, there is a lead, something that is doing it, would it be for couple of hours, and despite chronometric performances. Years of R&D new materials and new means of machining could make it possible. In the Opus 8, they are not actualized, but even more, the user has to bring the energy to read. To me, this is a huge shortcut to the digital display and its technical interest. A big trick that doesn't make it, in my humble opinion.

So, to me, exit Opus 8... well, if I can say so...

Christian.

Thanks Christian.

 

You make an important point about manual activation of the Opus 8 to view the time. There are other examples of course: Opus 7, Thomas Prescher, but emotionally I don’t particularly warm to that idea.

 

Thanks for the new insight.

 

Andrew