Horological Meandering

 

"Context is everything.

Everything is context."

I saw a man eating shark.

I saw a man eating shark in a Chinese Restaurant.

I saw a man-eating shark.

I saw a man-eating shark at the aquarium.

Arthur, aka wmclarenf1, if I'm not reading his comments incorrectly, misread the perhaps too subtle irony in most of the posts in this recent thread - click here

The issue of greater context, ie, in the form of the body of posts extant here on PuristSPro and ThePuristS (and elsewhere) should have made the specific posts in the thread clearly "tongue in cheek" (but of course, I accept that "inside jokes" such as they are can be dangerous on an "open format" forum such as this is)

AndrewD has hinted clearly several times that lingo, jargon, slang, generalizations and stereotypes can be very dangerous and especially so on a multinational, multicultural, multilingual open discussion board such as this is (though English is the basic "lingua franca" - here used loosely to mean "universal language among people joined in a common discussion where there is no single common mother tongue")

Chromatic Fugue asked recently about "The Big Three" and much of that discussion veered [or is the implication of "veered" too (mis-)leading?] into simple and subjective "listing..."

Original thread click here

But I have to wonder - how can any discussion about "The Big Three" (or "Top 10" or "Bestest 100" or...) have any meaning without the context of the original use of that term?

Any such discussion needs to have at least two, likely more, levels of consideration - the literal term/phrase itself; and the "short hand" meaning when used among a group of people with somewhat common interests and backgrounds.

The Big Three watch brands among a random sampling of twenty-somethings (with all due respect to exceptions to any "generalized group") would likely end up with Breitling, Omega, and the absolute pinnacle of watch brands, Rolex. (TM: Rolex - wink wink wink. And yes, TAG-Heuer would certainly be in this "group" - thanks, BDLJ)

When "The Big Three" came into general usage - I''ve known about the term since the 1970's, when I first took a serious interest in the world of high end brands, which is not to be confused with "high horology" - often overlapping, but not entirely coincident - and the term could very well have been in common usage long before that, though in my library of industry and general treatments on the subject dating back into the 19th century, I have seen passing references to the term as far back as the late 1950's - there were really only the three: AP, PP, VC.

The Big Three in the context of the 1970's and early 1980's:

Piaget was mostly playing around in the high end quartz arena and high end jewelry pieces;

Breguet was just starting to get a hint of life back into its "caretaker" somnabulent state, though it went through some ugliness along the way with the Chaumet financial fiasco;

Cartier's watch line was mostly an after thought to its jewelry products, despite a long history of interesting and important models throughout the 20th century;

SSIH, later SMH (after merging with ASUAG) and later still the Swatch Group, primarily through Omega, was "saving the watch world" but mostly at the mid range;

Blancpain, Lange, Glashuette-Original; and the myriad other current brand darlings weren't reborn yet;

IWC was playing mostly in the mid- and upper mid-range (as it did for most of its existence);

same for JLC (which produced great movements for the "Big Houses" but produced mainly mid range products under its own name); same for Girard-Perregaux.

Same for UN, before its revitalization under Rolf Schnyder.

How bad was it? Decades of lost or destroyed records, parts, equipment because of unhappy employees who felt abandoned by management who themselves abandoned the market sector as doomed, akin to theater patrons fleeing a burning theater...

And please, before anyone wants to argue with me about the "history," please look at the historical specimen extant - look at JLC branded pieces from the 1960's and 1970s'; look at UN pieces, GP pieces; IWC pieces...as nice as the IWC cal. 89 and cal. 85 were, as highly regarded as they were and are, I hope we don't have to stray in this thread - perhaps in another? - into a flame war arguing how the cal. 89 and 85 are as FINE (remember fine vs great?) as the AP cal. 2001 or 2120 or PP cal. 27SC or cal 12-600 (ref. 2526) (edited by TM - I was typing too fast, mixed ref and cal.).

Rolex? Um...anyone remember what Rolex was in the 1960's and early 1970's? A great watch even then, but a fine watch? I don't think so, and even Rolex themselves, at that time, didn't see themselves that way.

Is "The Big Three" high end watch brands a relevant concept today? Perhaps no more than "The Big Five" accounting firms (from the 1980's) or 6 second 0-60 mph (a big deal in the 1970's and early 1980's)

Or isn't it?

A 3.0 Porsche Turbo from 1976 is no less significant today just because it can be bested in both acceleration and top speed, not to mention survivability factor at the edge, by modern Subarus and Hyundais.

In the absolute context of "here and now, what is the best/fastest/quickest/most reliable/most accurate/most waterproof/most anti-magnetic/blah blah blah" all these things are throwaways; someone will come along and beat the superlative, just because. Jaguar XJ-220? McLaren F1? Can you say VEY-ron? (give me an F1 anyday, by the way...)

In the relative context of history, of context, of art and craftsmanship, of collectibility, which, of course, is entirely individual and personal, EXCEPT when it comes to resaleability and market liquidity and market price, historical place and context IS important. And so a continuous history of consistent positioning, production, IS important. And hence, so is the idea of "The Big Three."

Come back and revisit this in another 100 years; if Lange is still a going concern and focused on its core; if Breguet; if FP Journe; if if if...then someone can rightfully coin then "The Big Five/Ten/100"

Brand is important, or it isn't. History is important. Continuity is important. Consistency is important.

Or they aren't.

You can't have it both ways. One shouldn't say when convenient to one's point, "This is valuable because it has history" and then when not convenient to one's point, "History doesn't matter; it's all a mind wank anyway."

So too with "Brand."

Hugo Boss as a brand has been bastardized by over-commercialization and poor quality control over licensees.

Chanel has not.

Louis Vuitton?

Mouton? Lafite? Romanee Conti?

The funny thing about history - people can fake it. People can try to rewrite it.

But real history - you can't buy it. You can't speed it up.

You can only patiently, humbly wait for it.

And that's why it is pure, and that's why it is valuable.

How valuable?

1 centime?

100 Euro?

1billion Yen?

That's up to the individual; the market makers and those who are lucky enough to know what is important to them, and what it's worth to them.

Without this knowledge, one can only be a follower; one can never take advantage of the arbitrage opportunity of high intrinsic value (subjective) vis a vis low market perceived value (objective, as embodied in "price.")

Without this knowledge, one can never enjoy the greatest "value" and pleasure of all, in all these "luxuries" - that of pride of ownership, that of the the sheer joy of looking at a beautiful work of art  and craftsmanship on one's wrist; that of feeling a connection to Mr. Dufour or Mr. Voutilainen; that of gazing at the sensuous flowing lines of the Lamborghini Diablo and almost shedding tears of joy at the beauty before you, whether the damned thing starts up and runs or not.

;-)

Resale value? Bah, humbug. Focus your energies on that which allowed you to afford these things in the first place; you'll likely get far greater return on investment of your time and energies.

The piece "appreciated" 30% since you bought it?

Um...have you looked at the transaction spread between buy and sell?

The specialists "costs?"

What auction houses charge, not only in fees, but also in buyers and SELLERS premiums?

ummm...who's the greater fool here?

(oh, yeah, there's the free listing services like Collectors Marketplace, Sales Corner, Trading Post, etc. uh, huh. Free, huh? but that's another thread...)

Whew!  I can't imagine anyone sticking with this quasi-harangue all the way here, thanks if you did.

Sorry, I didn't mean for it to go this way. I guess this really isn't a head scratcher...oops...

 

 

This message has been edited by ThomasM on 2010-02-24 10:15:18

. . . damn! Lookin' forward to getting home tonight . . .

I started at 7:30a; it took me over 2 hours!

Flow of consciousness; man, I need to learn to speed type (and proof read!)

. . . the arguments American legal scholars have over the Constitution. Some veer towards interpretation of the Founding Fathers intent, while others contend that it's a 'living document' and that history is more a guide than a prescription. My sense is the distinction between opinion and expert opinion can only be ascertained by (drum roll, please) . . . experts. Or, as Peabody would've said, Plato was right ;-) . . . cordially, Art

film/screendom!

Quite a conundrum, Art, and I'd love to read your considered take on the issue (as well as Harvey's, as a "professional jurist" of quite some experience)

"The Big Three"  - They were, they are.

Those three made more clear, well delineated sense than all the more recent (and I don't mean recent as in recent posts) mash ups of "10 best" or "20 most significant" or....

But in the end, hasn't it always been a Purist tenet to take individuals - people, watches, whatever - unto itself and labels and generalizations and pre-conceptions and stereotypes be damned?

How else can we love (or at least respect, or at least appreciate...) Miyotas, Seikos, Patex Pigueron or Karippe Gaudimann equally?

Isn't that a fundament to our mantra of civility and courteous respect?

Cheers,

TM

. . . I feel more like his boy Sherman. Btw, have you ever noticed the similarity between Sherman and



Andrew? As for the Big Three and historical context, my take is that the term is more an appellation and less a value judgement. PP, AP, and VC have been in the forefront of 'fine' watchmaking for a longer period of time and with fewer changes in ownership than any of the other contenders, both when the term was coined and now, so to describe them as 'The Big Three' is hardly controversial. Best regards, Art This message has been edited by Dr No on 2010-02-23 23:28:52

Andrew looks so cute working at his watchmaker's bench! 

Daos

Actually Daos, my desk at work is set up the same way. Draws some interesting comments.   ;-)

 

Andrew

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 morning, working on the Cal. 875 wheel train whilst wearing a Cal. 875 powered Reverso.

 

A

Is the Constitution a great document, a fine document, both, or neither? ;-)

Best,

Jed

. . . naturally, that's subject to change when the next Justice takes his or her seat ;-) . . .

Sounds like judicial activism!  Should we let the legislative branch decide?

. . . toss a coin ;-) . . .

I call heads

A

In addition to the well conceived points about the big 3 and their historical context, I took part of your post to mean that in order to really enjoy one's watches, one must know oneself, and understand his own watch values (not $ values).  If this is what you meant, I wholeheartedly agree.  I was "in" to watches for 2 years studying and reading before I really found what I value. 

Thanks!

B

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 his own watch values (not $ values).  If this is what you meant, I wholeheartedly agree.  I was "in" to watches for 2 years studying and reading before I really found what I value.  "

You are absolutely right, that was one key point I was trying to make. Thank you for getting it, buried among my ill constructed and overly convoluted rambling! 

The whole point was, for the individual, all the public discourse and politically correct "points of view" aside, the bottom line is, it is entirely personal. What something is "worth" is entirely up to you, and if one can get over third party validations, either some amorphous "market" (as in, "market price") or even the "opinions" of the so-called experts, one is then free to pick and choose what appeals to oneself.

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 okay.

When one understands that, everything else becomes insignificant.

Cheers,

TM

"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 okay.

When one understands that, everything else becomes insignificant."

This is of course absolutely true.  Evolution in taste results in an evolving collection for me.  Here's the thing, though -- you can pull of my muddy boots, clean me up, and learn me real good about fine watches, but the closest connection I'm likely to have to Mr. Dufour or Mr. Voutilainen is through the kindness of a Purist who allows me to take a closer look at a GTG.  I can make pure decisions as to what appeals to me, but if I want to wear what appeals my budget dictates that among the things "important to me" are affordability and the likelihood of decent resale value. The importance of those factors vary with the watch.  I've certainly been lucky enough to experience that "sheer joy" of looking upon a thing of beauty on my wrist, but there are limits, and likely always will be...

Must I wear a scarlet "F" (for follower)?   Can one be a "Practical" Purist?

Best,

Jed

PS if a decent kindergarten education were more affordable in my neck o' the woods, oh the watches I'd have!!! ;-)

Hi, Jed,

I'll try very hard not to slippery slope down the path of token trivial platitudes, but I remember something my father once said to me a long long time ago - try to do what you like. But if life doesn't give you that luxury, like what you do.

Life is all about compromises - make a little more money; a little bigger house; a faster car; more peace and less war; more love and less hate; etc etc etc (I was going to write a hotter girlfriend/wife; a sexier me; smarter more considerate and responsible kids; etc etc etc but I used up all my politically incorrect credits yesterday...

 

One of the "epiphany" moments for me in my life was when I somehow, magically, stopped being envious, covetous, and jealous. (all related but not synonyms) Of course, that's fine for me, but then I've lost one of the big powerful motivators for most people - competitive one upsmanship.  It is really hard to explain to teenagers that one should strive for some abstract standard and not petty grade competition or money earning pissing contests or beauty contests or popularity contests...

What does this have to do with watches, and specifically the practical reality that for most (moi aussi!) watch play money is limited and more often than not one needs to sell to fund and make room for the next buy. So of course resale value comes into play.

But I think an important consideration is being missed, and I'll address it by example - would I buy something I really wasn't in love with, just because I can sell it for a high percentage of purchase price later, when I inevitably get bored with it (not true for me, but for most, yes, most have ADDS and short attention spans; whew, I feel sorry for their significant others!   ) or would I rather get something that really rocks my world, even if, at some nebulous point in the future, I have to sell it for a large monetary loss?

What's wrong with this picture?

And why am I getting either piece at all, in the first place?

dollar for dollar, pound for pound, sure, Rolex and Patek will resell faster and for a higher percentage of acquisition price, in most cases. But, if Rolex and Patek don't float my boat, what is my non-monetary loss for not getting what I really want? 

One can either consider it in the positive - factor in the enjoyment of owning what I really want; or one can consider it in the negative - factoring in the loss in pleasure of not getting what I really want - and the final "equation" is far different than the purely pecuniary.

I know of people who have had absolutely horrible experiences with their Lamborghini, and on top of which they are horrendously expensive to maintain, even if everything works right and one is lucky enough to have a trustworthy, inspired mechanic (not an easy goal!!!)

For those in love with their Lambos, would they trade in their Lambo experiences, multi-10s of thousands of dollars of loss vis a vis Porsche, Nissan GT-R, or even Ferrari aside, for something else?

Not on your life!

Just food for thought...no answers here...

TM

 

This message has been edited by ThomasM on 2010-02-24 08:21:24

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 less pure?  If one truly knows what one likes (a priceless painting) is it more pure to leave one's walls bare and visit the museum on Sunday than to own a work from an artist inspired by the original?

Or is it a false choice entirely? Does the Purist merely continue to seek until the transcendent (art, car, watch, barbecue) is obtainable?

Best,

Jed
This message has been edited by CaliforniaJed on 2010-02-24 09:27:25

Hi, Jed,

Often, one doesn't know whether "the one" is "the one" until after the choice is made.

I remember (warning - Bill Maher moment coming) having a discussion with a few Americans in Cambridge almost 30 years ago (early 1980s) -

One young man was proud that he (and his father before him) was a virgin before getting married, and that the marriage was the one and only and last.

Another, more "liberal" young man, and several ladies in the group chimed in, commented how silly that was, that if one ended up married to a "dud" how terrible would that be, why not try before buying?

Watches are not people of course and it is far less important if one falls out of love (or lust) with a watch.

Ownership will always be restricted by budget, in one way or another, sooner or later (consider Prince Jefry of Brunei)

I think this tributary of the main discussion might be at cross purposes.

-1 to zero to +1 spans the same range (okay, okay, numbers theorists cut me some slack; I know there are more "numbers" between 0 and 1 than between 0 and infinity...) as zero to 2 or 10-12.

In the real world, there is a subjective difference between "the baseline is basic courtesy" and it goes up or down from there, and "the baseline is complete indifference" and it goes up or down from there.

Put another way, do you top up to reach minimum acceptability, or cut back from frivolity?

Hanging a print of a van Gogh (or Titian or Dine) is a perfectly acceptable "compromise" if one likes (read: LOVES) the work, print or original.

It is problematic if one bought it, print or original, only because it has high resale or because someone else (that ultimate expert "everyone") decreed it to be "the one."  If it doesn't resonate with the buyer, the buyer is going through a false exercise and what is likely to ultimately be dissatisfaction.

If it does resonate, it's a non-issue.

The practical problems arise because

a. often one doesn't even know if something resonates until one has lived with it, be it a watch, car, or lover.

b. a above, with added variable of "aging" (see wine notes above in whl's thread) - one can fall in love, or fall out of lust

What to do, what to do?

I don't have an answer, other than that, FOR ME, I've found that I've had more hits (read: higher percentage) of keepers with those pieces I picked due to personal resonance (not 100%!) than with those I picked because "everyone" raved about it, or because "the market" validated it in terms of secondary market "values" (read: prices)

And this doesn't even begin to touch on secondary and terciary "psycho-dynamics" like liking something simply because others like it, or because others DON'T like it...

Cheers,

TM

TM, your post reminds me that one recent instance - i conducted a teaching for a 3rd year class of uni students, as usual, at the end of the teaching course, students will fill in the feedback/comments form. of course i read the students' feedback to see anything that i could improve further for next term of teaching, to my surprise was that one student's feedback which he said "the lecture (i.e. me) did not indicate which part of teaching materials are examinable and which part are not examinable.". however, i was not angry with this particular feedback, just thought "history can tell whether i am a good (may not be great) teacher after all!".

likewise, at the end of the day, history can tell which watches are fine or great!

stefan

history is the final arbitor (yeah, yeah, I know that's could be a meaningless platitude too, but hopefully more readers will know the implied meanings attached than those that don't) and that is why, to some, the sweet victory of historical perspective and vindication is the sweetest of all - it can't be hurried, it can't be "played". Time ticks one second at a time, for everyone, even the rich and famous and powerful...

And yes, it can be completely personal...

Cheers,

TM

....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 watches are about making you happy - which I think is the only justification - then I'd say that amongst those generalised twenty-somethings (why is age involved? why not just non-enthusiast new watch purchaser?) a brand like TAG-Heuer (from what I've observed) tends provides the first swoon of proud watch ownership. A bigger achievement than surviving the peaks and troughs a la PP etc? Not 100% sure, but it is significant and I have far too jaundiced eyes to really evaluate.

That said, I do think history is important, it's certainly lucrative.

As you've mentioned before, it all comes down to intent and context. I'd add that it's authenticity that matters.

Wierd lifestyle-type advertising makes me shake my head but doesn't particulary concern me. If I take that 'happiness' factor into account, the lifestyle-type stuff makes perfect sense, just don't insult my intelligence. As soon as you trumpet your 18th century start-up date while neglecting the 50 years your brand sat in a a drawer...you've lost me. As soon as you trumpet your massive technical achievement and it's not even yours or is unfalsifiable...you've lost me. As soon as you make stupid claims about 1000+m WR, Titanium grade 5 or first xxxxxxxx or aerospace/motosport/,military comparisons...you've lost me. Which leaves me with....vintage....... oh.

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 "young" enough that brands and what other people think is likely still important to them; that "signaling" qualities of a material good are possibly a high priority; that they likely have to stretch to buy that Rolex (unless they are using Daddy - or Mommy's - money) and the PP or AP are really more likely beyond reasonable reach.

This was actually one of the undercurrents I wanted to address in my (almost) diatribe, but I got carried away...

Have we become so damned "politically correct" that real, statistically supportable "generalizations" and "stereotypes" have to be avoided at all costs, polite company pretending that the "demographics" don't exist?

Have we to be so considerate of everyone, in every stripe and color, that even among "enthusiasts" (which we are, as a group, if ever there was one) we still have to tip toe around and avoid terms like "tourbillon" and "beat stability" or have to define what a Guillaume balance is, or heat bluing, every time we use the term or refer to the specific, lest some newbie not follow or understand?

I raised ion channel reuptake, Andrew, being an MD, echoed the (rhetorical?) question of how much we have to avoid jargon. I remember a discussion on Star Trek; yes, Star Trek. The debate was, when the crew brought up their phasers, how necessary was it to make sure the audience understands just exactly how the phaser works, for the storyline to make sense and connect with the audience?

On another track, I understand the concept of using a language at a dinner table that everyone at the table can understand, and avoiding one that even one person doesn't. This is basic courtesy.

The funny thing is? It's more a problem for Westerners who don't speak Japanese or Chinese, than for Chinese or Koreans or Persians who have a hard time speaking English. That is, the one's who complain the most and loudest are the one's who make no effort to learn or appreciate other languages than their own.

Americans traveling to China -duh! They speak Chinese in China, get over it.  I wonder how accomodating those same Americans are to the visiting Chinese who don't speak a word of English...

I'm in Geneva 8-15 times a year; I appreciate the effort of those I am with to speak English with me. I look at it as a courtesy, not a right, and I am not offended in the least if they, on occasion, resort to French or German in order to communicate among themselves more completely and deeply. The onus is on me to learn French and German...

Which, back to this thread, the onus is on ...

You end your post with "vintage..." um, Ben, you are not a twenty-something, and likely remember first hand when some of those vintage pieces were "new." Do you not recall the same amount of marketing fluff (read: bullshit) that went into advertising them?

My point being...well, I'll leave that up to the reader.

 

Cheers,

TM

(ps: Ben, hopefully we know each other well enough to be able to take the effete "politeness" gloves off and say what we really mean, without risking unintended offense.

 

  )

Is it only me, or does anyone else get creeped out by 5 year olds that speak like 60 year olds?

Or twenty-somethings that can barely afford their own gas, but who talk and write like they've owned every car ever made?

Like you wrote, BDLJ, it's about authenticity.

But wait, sometimes, some 5 year old prodigies do think like 60 year old wise men; and some twenty-somethings actually have done something with their lives, and made their own way in this world, etc. etc etc.

Give EVERY individual the benefit of the doubt, but please, let's not get so "touchy feely" sensitive that we have to pretend facts aren't facts - that women, in most cases, do bench press less than men.

(sorry, I'm  not sure what feather got up into my "tender nether regions" today...

  )

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/political correctness. Stereotypes, or more specifically, generalisations are definitely necessary. Without them, ones writing would be so full of explanations, justifications, clarifications and nuance that it would irreparably dilute the point trying to be made in the first place. My comment re: 20-somethings was based on my personal experience, which comes from being shown or questioned regarding watch purchases by friends and colleagues, a majority of whom are late 30's/early 40's professional types , a majority of whom are asking about/displaying TAG-Heuers (not stretching to a Rolex)....TAGs are easy to criticise but they are often (and I think this description is apt) Gateway watches...which intentional or not, is a good thing.

Re: Jargon. Quick comment only, as it's a subject deserving an essay: I also have no issue with jargon, provided it is tailored to the audience and aids communication. A technical discussion amongst peers? Initialism and Acronym away! When the audience is not taken into consideration, it serves to baffle and exclude...egotistical and probably rude. I don't think it's necessary to tip-toe around terms such as 'beat stability', particularly when we'd miss the excellent technical posts from the likes of Suitbert, ei8ghtohms, etc. When they grace us with their knowledge, I don't expect them to have to explain everything in lay terms. Those that are interested will (should?) research anything that eludes them.

Re: Language. Totally agree with you. I participate in several conference calls per week where we have Spanish, German, Swedish, Korean, Chinese and Portuguese native speakers on the line. The default language is English but even when calling the US, you must be wary of your colloquialisms. In all circumstances, we ensure that participants are able to confer in their native tongues before commenting, it's mere courtesy. Same applies to face-to-face meetings. In any case, I try to make an effort to learn a little of each language (if only Hello, Goodbye, Thanks, How much is a beer? and swear-words )

Re: Vintage.

I was waiting to be called out on that comment!

I think the average age of my watches is probably older than me...I'm a Tiger, so you can guess the actual number . So I wasn't around when they were spruiking their snake oil....

In my defence, since these things were bought way after the ad campaigns, I'm not paying for huge celebrity billboards, 2 page magazine spreads that must be amortised into the price (but this is largely true of any secondhand purchase) and since my vintage watch collecting is rather esoteric (interesting movements, working dive watches, some old Omegas), I can't see how marketing bollocks could influence me to great degree (or so I like to think). In any case, if I saw an vintage advert that was laughably woeful or full of shit, then yes, it would probably influence my attitude to that brand (wilful ignorance!). Hmmm, not much of a defence, after all....

B

Oh and yes, we have corresponded enough to be able to risk impoliteness, but thanks for the PS.

...to accept tender of an apology for plagiarism!

Your eloquent response to TM above (which 'crossed' with the similar views expressed in 'second mouthful of the elephant') is further proof of the Antipodean 'great minds' effect!

;-)   ;-)

 

Cheers,

pplater.

...No doubt! After all, don't we both have Rover P2s (ok, yours is a lovely burgundy and black vehicle....mine barely warrants the label...)

Though a recent birthday robbed me of that title, I still have the same collection I did when I was in my 20s, and I hope it does not meet your criteria

A

Hi Thomas,

 

There are clearly well defined horological terms like tourbillon or pinion. True, we could discuss the minutia around the edges of these, but they are clearly understood to most with an interest in horology.

 

However, on PuristS we are prone to waxing lyrical about the emotional and other subjective aspects of horology. It is here that we have to be more careful in defining what we mean. The recent threads on “great” versus “fine” are examples in point. These words are used in general communication, but they clearly mean slightly different things, even to purists. A common language is important at these times.

 

BTW, stereotypes can be a lot of fun to play with, poke at and generally kick around, but everyone playing the game has to know precisely the parameters of the stereotype, otherwise a player may well end up tripping over, scraping his knee and going home hurt.

 

Andrew