Officine Panerai

. . . truly unbelievable. Guille picked up your glove, only to see you retreat. The issue at hand is not the sanctity of the vintage Panerai market, but your cavalier attacks on the judgement and motives of a person from afar without having the decency to retract them.

"Guille, for what it's worth, this was not meant to be an attack against you as a person and it sure saddens me, should you feel offended." The only way I can reconcile this statement with your initial post is to conclude that hypocrisy is another one of your character traits.

You can stand by your issues till the cows come home, sir . . . you are not worth expending an ounce of concern over. Absolved, Art

you have a personal dislike of me from moment one, and I can tell you the feeling is 100% mutual.

I expressed my feelings, like them or not , and while I might have made the final point in my first post with words that might be considered too strong by some, I will not be patronized by you. Asking for an apology does not work by talking down on people or "demanding" it. You accuse me of arrogance, but isn't exactly that the very essence of your initial response, ending with a sarcastic "I look forward to your response ... blah"?

You have picked me as a target for whatever issues you are currently occupied or annoyed with. Your standing in the forum compared to mine, a nobody, made it easy for you to act as ceremoniously as you did. Now you accuse me of cowardice, while you are displaying the typical behaviour for it? The enemy is backing down and the coward comes out guns blazing. Was it hard to wait for that moment? Are you lacking the greatness to let go of me? Your alleged "final blow" was once again merely designed to feed your ego, to satisfy your doubtlessly incredible vanity.

I received an email from Guille that encouraged me to make the previous post. I read it late and I responded to hime late, but with the sincere intention to make peace. It is up to him, and only to him, to accept my lines or not. You do not know and you really do not need to know. However, you could show the decency you so loudly demand and shut up too, couldn't you?

Now have your last word, weigh in, flatter yourself once again and let's be done with it!

Hello Priscilla,

Please keep in mind our Code of Conduct: panerai.watchprosite.com that all members must abide by when posting:

**Tone: Please keep the tone of the posts courteous and respectful. Think of this as a virtual cocktail or dinner party - don't write anything that you wouldn't say to someone in person. The anonymity of the internet is NOT an acceptable excuse for boorish or rude behaviour.**

This is your only warning.

-Dr. M. Woo
MODERATOR

. . . starting with personal dislikes. There's nothing personal involved here, only matters of principle. Period.

You, along with the rest of the community, can express your feelings and opinions as you wish. What you cannot do with impunity is to insult another member of the community. My suggestion that you offer an apology was apparently too much for your pride to accept. Not surprising. I won't bother to respond to any of your specific insults except to say that they represent a textbook case of 'projection'.

Cowardice is manifested in backing down when offered an opportunity to put your money where your mouth is. You might consider yourself as "backing down" now, but without offering Guille a convincingly sincere apology, you are in fact not backing down at all. Your accusations were made in the public forum at Guille's expense . . . his willingness to communicate with you privately speaks volumes about his character, and your inability to offer him a decent apology similarly speaks volumes about yours.

I'm relieved that you've made your peace with Guille. You are mistaken, however, if you believe that you can absolve yourself in private of public sins. Until you are willing to publicly retract your reprehensible statement, my opinion regarding your character will remain. You will notice that your posts have remained on the forum and have not been deleted, nor have you been banished; in any other venue, your intemperate posts would have been removed, and I hope that the significance of this isn't lost on you. Without further ado, Art

No message body

it seems there seems there is a significant amount of self-interest and exclusion, even if it meant by some in a kind way. I would add that I think this is a trait found in a lot of vintage collectors, often to a lesser extent though.

. . . is still generating replies after three years!  No matter - your support is appreciated none the less.

LOL

 

I didn't look at the dates ... to me it was new or at least I couldn't remember

So who brought it up again ?

. . . Buddha Jones that resurrected the conversation . . . 

Kinda puts things into better perspective, for me, if no one else. I'll probably lose those marbles again tomorrow but for tonight, a Panerai is just another watch.

with an electric shaver?....pheew...thanx for the info....i'm going to start engraving all my hommage pieces now......

 

cheers,

adrian

 

Look, I'm becoming a bit peeved about all the rash remarks here.  FOR EXAMPLE!!!!  Volker commented about the bad taste of this post.  I'm only using him as the example, not the scape goat.  But, my observation then is this; the new book is great but why in the heck did Volker add the explicit pics of the inside case of the 3646, the retaining ring, the dial methods of manufacture, and the list goes on.  I was shocked to see all of the close held secrets in the open because NOW, everyone who wants to make a super close fake will have the details to do so.  So, why is Guille's post any more offensive.  At least he only showed a complete looking watch.  He's not pawning it as a fake and if you really want to know, there are no trademarks or stampings on the inside case back so can't say the guy is trying to fool anyone.  The dial is real so who wants to give Guille a caseset?  Come on, let's pony up a case set.  Who's got an extra hanging around???

Scott

 

I haven't checked out the new book yet, but if what you're saying is true, then all those people who had a cow about Guille's posting should be upset at Volker and Ralf as well IMO.

Thanks for bringing this up Scott.

- AT

AT, you hit the nail square on the head.  I don't intend to make waves, and I have not posted enough to do so, but Guille was being attacked pretty hard for showing so little.  Yep, the book is without a doubt the best analysis of vintage Panerai but that came with a sacrifice.  Now, everyone has access to understanding the complexities of their construction.  Here comes a whole new wave of super fakes. 

Scott

Volker put the pics int he book cuz he is trying to sell the book to make money.  Guille isn't looking to make any money, watches are his passion, build the damn watch!!

And for the guy who said "Passion doesn't meet any acccomodation with Fakes, or Hommage..."

What kinda bullshit is that!! If you have a passion for something that is unattainable, such as art, what do you do, you get a print. I love Van Gogh, and there is no way in hell I would ever own one so I buy the prints and hang them. I love cars, the Shelby Cobras from the 60's and the GT40, no way in hell can I buy one of those, so I get the little kit cars for display, all of this to remind me of my passion, as part of my makeup. I love watches, where does one find a vintage Panerai to buy, or Rolex or anything else, so I buy/make on to represent my passion for its heritage and history.

DONE!

 

This message has been edited by amanico on 2012-07-17 13:59:25

I am surprised you guys havent called out angelo bonati for making the PAM372 and PAM390, it seems there are many elites on this forum who believe normal people shouldnt have nice things.

Its hilarious how the monied elite will create new legal, ethical, cultural, customary, or social norms or rules out of thin air to mind control the riff raff thus maintaining their entitled status.  Its even funnier when the elite start actually BELIEVING their own BS.

PS In point of fact, I do remember some grumpy old men loudly complaining on various forums about the PAM372 when it was released, that it devalued vintage luminors and the "fiddy" etc.

This message has been edited by edwardwchang on 2012-07-18 01:02:56

 

I'm not a vintage collector so what I will say might sound stupid  to those who want to pay hyper inflated prices 

And I have the feeling some guys get scared that it is unjustifiable that a 100K watch costed only  5K 15 years ago.

It starts to look like some kind of a Ponzi Scheme.

 

 

The rationale that some of them gave is that it would finalise the "missing" piece of the puzzle. 

I still don't understand the logic internally.

cheers

PAt

before one starts to reassemble...original...parts of a watch, on the way of making an "hommage" "fake" (call it whatever you like), shouldn't one contact Panerai, obtain some sort of authorization to proceed, lest some patents or copyright infringements are perpetrated? Once obtained the go ahead from Panerai, the creation could be then displayed everywhere, shouldn't it?

I don't see how it could be called a "homage" or a "fake". If buy a 1970s Rolex 1675 case, dial hands etc, so long as all of the parts are original (and period) correct, how is the watch I make "fake" or "homage"? It would be indistinguishable from the thousands of 1675 that left the Rolex factory in the 1970s.  However, if mixed parts are used, i.e. non-original Rolex parts then I see the argument for calling such a watch a "fake" or "homage".

On the second point, I don't see why anyone would need to contact Panerai? Especially as, if I am right in my understanding that Panerai only made the dials, Rolex supplied the rest of the parts for the early models.  Surely Rolex, or possibly its supplier, would hold and any patents if they exist? And If there are any patents applicable they have probably expired by now.

No message body