Horological Meandering

"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. "

Did you notice that, unlike this odd edition of my Head Scratcher series, the last one that addressed "fine" vs "great" asked more than it told?

That even on the topic of "The Big Three" - that after I laid out the "objective" context of the term, I left it at that and did not try to (misunderstood though my intentions might have been) convince anyone the term is "right" or "important" in some grand, "this is the truth" sort of way?

Cheers, and of course, thanks!

TM

There you go; the importance of defining parameters. Everyone can now see how important it is to define “hump”. Are we talking hills, camels, mood, railroads, or …..? J

 

Thanks again for bringing several threads together in one scratch. There are multiple lines that one could follow in your post, but I will respond to a couple.

 

I think that defining the Big Three, as you have, is perfectly acceptable and reasonable. If consistency and uninterrupted history is the primary parameter, then PP, AP and VC get the ‘prize’.

 

History is important to me and I will happily factor in some $$ for this when buying certain brands. But history is not the only thing that is important. While I still have to factor in $$ when buying a F.P.Journe or Richard Mille, I am buying into something different here (design, materials, single ‘voice’, etc.), but still important to me.

“Real history - you can't buy it. You can't speed it up. You can only patiently, humbly wait for it.”

I absolutely agree with this statement and it has been very interesting to see how great companies, like PP, have steered their course over decades. It takes a very strong CEO/family head to do that, particularly in difficult times, and it deserves recognition and financial return.

There are superficial aspects to be enjoyed in a Patex Pigueron. Someone who knows nothing about watches could pick one up and see some intrinsic value in the design and workmanship I am sure. But there is so much more that makes up these high end watches and the more we know (from reading PuristS and having knowledge of the company philosophy and history), the more there is to appreciate. Surely that is what we hunt for in the pages here? Otherwise I could just post a picture of my Bregeut and write “look at my beautiful watch”. But instead I try and tell you all what it means to me and why I spent $$ on it, and why I love it, even if “the damn thing doesn’t start up and run”. [Actually it’s running OK, but that’s another thread.]

Actually I enjoyed the Big Three discussion very much. Some people get distressed if a topic goes off in unexpected directions, but generally I find this veering and swerving to be quite interesting and tells me more about the people posting and opens up the issues more for me than if the thread follows a (to me) more logical track.

 

Andrew

 

Ps. just as we don’t like to (can’t) limit ourselves to one watch, I am not sure I would like to limit hump-day to Wednesday either. ;-)  A great scratch, TM.

you so kindly emailed me to offer you specialist help. What a kind and thoughtful thing to do, and something I will never forget!

You and Ben (and Kevin) I always look forward to in a thread, because you (and  others like you) ARE sincere; ARE authentic; yet I also sense a basic humanity, a compassion for all.

Hopefully I share some of these values...

The Big Three was not my creation; I have no vested interest in seeing it continue or drop dead from disuse.

Someone asked about the meaning of The Big Three (most recently around here, Chromatic Fugue/Jon); I was simply trying to explain what it meant when originally used and why, in its proper context.

I find it interesting that somehow, some others (not necessarily you or BDLJ) thought it important to disagree with me, or to "disagree" with the term.

What's there to disagree with? It was shorthand, coined by someone sometime for something which, in context, had meaning. At the time.

Hitler, along with Ataturk, and Mao, were the Big Three of the 20th Century.

Big Three how? and why and what? How about in the sheer number of people they directly and indirectly affected.

Can anyone really argue the last statement, no matter how horrific his / their actions, philosophies, and atrocities committed at his.their behest, in his/their name?

I went back and re-read this installment of my Head Scratcher series; it definitely won't go down as one of my better ones. Not because the underlying ideas weren't important or good; in fact, in that regard, I think it is one of my more significant ones.

But oh, how convoluted and poorly presented (and embarrassingly proof-read, sorry!)

I appreciate that you stuck with it all the way through.  I'm sure I left most thinking, "Man, what was Thomas smoking when he wrote that? What fish bone got stuck in his throat last night?!?" (I was going to use the metaphor of a stick and a certain body orifice but I think I've already used up my impolite profanity quota for the week...

Thanks,

TM

At the risk of further derailing the thread.

Hitler, Ataturk and Mao?

I'll see your Ataturk, and raise you a Lenin.

(I have Keynes up my sleeve, Einstein in my cummerbund and Stalin stuffed down the back of my pants)

. . . 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!"

...access Belles Lettres for some reason. Is it still active?

Vintage Omega. I once was satisfied with my few, but I've seen your watches...Still dreaming of a good Constellation.

. . . please send Thomas a pm regarding BL access.

Limits to knowledge, and all that.

Cheers
Tony P

. . . of infinite monkeys theorem fame. A mathematician and a politician . . . not your usual twin-track career path.

...for a good twin-track career, how about Ignacy Jan Paderewski, concert pianist and third Prime Minister of Poland?

Vaclav Havel did something similar in the 90s, but Paderewski was the pioneer.

Cheers
Tony P

I'd trade Lenin AND Mao for Otto Hahn, Mikhail Kalashnikov and a draft pick to be named later....
Neither the cold nor the hot wars of the second half of the century would have been if not for them...

A

The tux is uncomfortable, but at least Stalin is where I can keep an eye on him (boom boom).

I was going to include Oppenheimer, but your Otto Hahn nomination is far superior.

...it is wise to approach the task one mouthful at a time".

First mouthful: "Hitler, along with Ataturk, and Mao, were the Big Three of the 20th Century".

Hmmmmm, perhaps.  Remember Lenin? Stalin? Some might say that each of them (and maybe others) were bigger than Ataturk.

As with political figures, perhaps with watches. Defined parameters to one side, can there really be a universal 'Big Three' in a diverse world (admittedly, much less diverse today than at any time in history)? Would our very many friends in Asia, for example, take the same view as our many friends in Switzerland? Piaget or Seiko might hope not. Heck - Seagull might hope not!

 

Cheers,

pplater.

(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 somehow...less atrocious.

So how does one measure atrocity? by the number of people massacred? the sheer cruelty with which it was executed? the sheer randomness? how "democratically" death was meted out?

Sorry, this was not intended to slippery slope into politics or history in general; the point is, even with "historical facts" context is critical.

Can we agree on that?

Where I get stuck is, to avoid all shorthand is to get slogged down into interminable term definitions and parameter markings;

to use even useful shorthand (The Big Three was the big three for the reasons defined, nothing more, nothing less, and whether that means anything of "value" to any individual, is up to that individual. Though I imagine when the term was coined, it was likely with a commercial agenda - the author was likely trying to exalt AP, PP, and VC as somehow superior to all others and somehow more "worthy" of the consumers' dollars...sigh...) on the other hand opens up its own can of worms...

What do to, what to do?

(I'm crawling back into my cave...)

Cheers,

TM

...played like a bass - hook, line and sinker!

Yes, we can agree 'on that'. On the second mouthful, however...

;-) (sly wink backatchya).

 

Cheers,

pplater.

Sorry, pplater, I hadn't read your post. Feel like a plagiarist now

... it's not like it was a startlingly original thought. Besides, we're kinsmen: we know that great minds think alike...

 

Cheers,

pplater.

The second mouthful:

"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?"

No. There is no need to tiptoe around the terms to which you refer. These terms are not examples of  'lingo', 'jargon' , 'slang' or shorthand'. These are horological or watchmaking 'standards': what we would be entitled to describe as 'terms of art', as that phrase is generally used. A person coming to this table might reasonably be expected to know many of the terms of art, so it is not impolite to use them. As an aside, though, it may be polite to describe or define them if it is thought that it may assist in a broader understanding or if the term, although a term of art, is infrequently used or commonly misunderstood - the propositions are not mutually exclusive.

This particular mouthful is pre-masticated: when last we scratched our heads on point, it was vis-a-vis terms which were are obviously 'jargon' or 'shorthand', and we threatened to return to it (as we now do). We were talking, for example, about acronyms - "IMVHO", "LOL"; neologisms, shorthand and the like. As written then:

"If it is a ‘closed shop’ of a particular species (be it a species of professionals, a species of hobbyists, a species of scholars…), then probably, however large the audience, ‘no harm, no foul’. It is convenient and uncontroversial for one doctor in a hospital to tell another doctor to send the MI patient to ICU for full bloods and an ECG. It is convenient and inoffensive on PPro to advertise your Pt JLC MMR in the CM FSOT as LNIB. It is convenient (and almost obligatory) for Stephen Hawking to write a treatise on quantum physics in an arcane language that no mere mortal can hope to comprehend, for consumption by a few salivating and doubtless envious Nobel laureates each of whom wish they had thought of it first.

This, as you say, TM, is shorthand for specialists; signals to other specialists and insiders which, you imagine, can be (mis) understood [implicitly; by ‘outsiders’] as exclusionary, elitist, snobbish, show-offy, and rude. Why mis understood? If part of the intended audience is not within the magic circle of insiders, then can it not fairly be said that the use of that shorthand is indeed one or more of: exclusionary, elitist, snobbish, show-offy, or rude? Is it not tantamount to speaking to some guests at the dinner table in a language other than the language shared by all guests?"

On that occasion you commented thus (in response to Park):

"Yet the ultimate yardstick, for me, is whether or not common understanding and intended communication is achieved".

Respectfully, that is a worthy yardstick. You have now returned to that question in this thread:

"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 ." [Emphasis added!].

In the context of the current topic (but please feel free to demur) this seems tantamount to agreeing that the use of watch-related 'terms of art' [intended communication concerning common understanding] is not discourteous on a specialist watch-related forum such as this whilst the use of acronyms, jargon, neologisms etc might (not must ) be lacking the basic courtesy to which you refer: poor etiquette; bad form.  

Equally respectfully, what you then go on to write (whilst stimulating in its own right) seems to strike off in a different direction, somewhat:

"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..." [Emphasis added].

As for the nature of the courtesy, we are agreed. As for the balance? Maybe so; maybe so. Whether or not one group complains more than another, whether or not one group is more gracious or polylingual than another, the basic tenet remains unaltered: it is, generally speaking, impolite to converse with some guests at a dinner table in a language other than the language shared by all guests.

To extend the metaphor, at this PPro table there is a common language (the language of watches, expressed in English on this forum, inclusive of watch-related terms of art) and there is a language which may not be common (the acronyms, jargon and neologisms which are perhaps not watch-related, not terms of art and perhaps for that matter not English). Do we not owe the guests at this table the 'basic courtesy' of conversing in the former, but not the latter?

As you might say: "Scratch, scratch, scratch"....

 

Cheers,

pplater.

 

 

. . . the obligation can be followed is dependent upon the audience. I think you'll agree - and correct me if I'm wrong - that the audience of The Purists is more likely to adhere to the discriminating protocol you suggested than the audience of PuristSPro, reason being the strain of pure idealism that characterizes The Purists afforded by it's non-commercial foundation. PuristSPro by necessity aims at a wider audience, so in all fairness the elevated standards of The Purists shouldn't be expected here . . . still, it's a pleasant place to hang one's hat, n'est-ce pas? Cordially, Art

No message body

However, I'm not so sure that this statement doesn't draw too long a generalist bow -

"...it is, generally speaking, impolite to converse with some guests at a dinner table in a language other than the language shared by all guests."

The dinner parties I've been attending lately fail to adhere, in letter or spirit, to this rule, and yet I have little or no problem. These days I tend to find myself at one of two basic types of dinner party: at the first type, after some strained general repartée, the personnel quickly regroup into males up one end of the table, discoursing amongst themselves upon the Big Issues of these times (cars, electronic gadgets and watches), while down the other end can be found a huddle of ladies yapping about mind-numbingly trivial stuff like people's feelings and the ethics of interpersonal relationships. They may as well be speaking another language for all we blokes know or care...

The other type of dinner party involves everybody speaking Mandarin except me; this is fine, as the food tends to be better at this second type of gathering, and I can quietly get on with the enjoyment of eating it (and almost grasping the occasional snippet of meaning from the invariably vigorous conversations swirling around me).

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 (or other) content at leisure. After all, that's pretty much what's happened to this thread...

...and I love it!

Cheers
Tony P

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 (or other) content at leisure. After all, that's pretty much what's happened to this thread...

...and I love it!"

Cheers,

TM

Great posts, Thomas and those who have followed. I think we should not forget that watch companies, being in business to sell watches, will inevitably emphasize their "selling points."  A selling point could be membership in the Big Three, a Geneva Seal, a good price-to value ratio, uniqueness, innovation, a distinctive look, an unusual function, or anything else that would cause a customer to buy . . . including resale value.

A combination of extreme price inflation and the fact that many people are purchasing several watches means that the financial ramifications of buying a new watch may be more important to many watch buyers than they would have been several years ago. The more a purchase seems either "large" or "unnecessary," the stronger a factor resale value becomes in rationalizing the purchase. Therefore it is entirely sensible for marketers who are in a position to cite resale value to do so.

I will certainly agree that pure resale value is not my favorite marketing point, but I don't think it's necessary to ignore its existence. I would also remark that resale value can to some extent be seen as the market's evaluation of some of a watch's other characteristics and can therefore be used as a "shorthand" for evaluating those characteristics (similarly to using the S&P 500 to evaluate the health of the U.S. economy, and equally fraught with potential for misreading).

All good points, mkvc. Even if we don’t intend to on-sell a watch we buy, the ‘markets’ appreciation and ‘value’ of that watch does factor into the purchase equation. It may not be the most important factor (it isn’t to me) but comparative depreciation is something I find myself mentioning to my wife when justifying the next piece!

 

A

Just to be clear about something:  I don't have strong views about who's in the "big three" or whether there should even be a "big three."  I just thought that raising the issue might trigger some really interesting (meandering!) discussion about why we love watches and the highly complex relationship that genuine watch-lovers have with the brands.  And in that I have may have succeeded, if only indirectly, to the extent that this magnificent thread is viewed as a sequel to the thread I started.  Threads like this confirm why the Purists is the best game in town for interesting watch-talk:  if anyone had posted a "who's in the big three" question in some other watch forums I could name, there would have been a lot more heat and a lot less light.  - Jon

. . . much appreciated, Jon. Warmest regards, Art

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 (and several have been honest enough in the past to point it out) this sort of discussion is irrelevant and boring. I guess that’s why there are a multitude of internet watch sites to suit all people.

 

Happy, however, that this one exists.

 

A

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