Watch Thread Already

i’m really into automatics tbh

1 Like

I used to think brand names and branding were offensive–until I saw Kaneda’s Bike from Akira.

Those stickers and brandings tell a story. You’re looking at history. It’s half of the binomial nomenclature of the item.

2 Likes

I don’t think they are offensive, -i love typography and graphic design- I think they are annoying to look at every day. I can see the history of corporate domination everywhere around me -there are cities in my country where the names of train stations have been changed to those of brands for large sums of money- I just choose not to allow it into my home or my self to the extent that I’m able. It’s precisely because of how much I notice it that I choose to stop noticing it. I’m not looking at history, I’m living my own history and if nothing else it doesn’t look like an ad.

1 Like

I like the silly romantic idea of those bracelets that you swap with someone close to you but far away. when they touch their bracelet it sends a pulse to yours, so you know they were thinking of you. what a world

Wait, that’s a thing?

http://www.taptap.me

while these aren’t quite how I remembered them—they actually look pretty unappealing as things to wear on your person—the idea I still like

1 Like

Same, really

The Apple watch has this built in as well

the history of (e.g.) Rolex is not a history of corporate domination and the victory of branding – in the sense they didn’t buy out something that already existed – they created their own watches, and cases, movements, bracelets, they forge their own steel (!), their own soft iron casings, etc.

that as much as anything is what people are buying. signed crowns, signed buckles, signed/engraved case backs, double signed dials, etc are all features. people will literally pay thousands more for an extra line on the dial or a different color text.

if it didn’t have rolex on the dial people wouldn’t be nearly as attached to it, not just because materialism/showing off (altho there’s def an element of that), but because buying luxury watches – like any collectible, inessential product of craftsmanship – is about more than value add & features, it’s about history and marketing and associations and all the other intangible bullshit.

i think the watches that tend not to have signed dials are like, military issue fliegers and things like that. they’d have one spec and get a bunch of different companies to supply the watches themselves

e.g. http://gearpatrol.com/2014/05/27/best-flieger-watches/2/
http://forums.watchuseek.com/f7/wristwatch-won-world-war-ii-11-american-watch-icon-207560.html

yeahbut

Rolexes are sooo ugly

(to be fair my ideal watch is


and I can’t imagine adding anything more to it

judge my taste accordingly)

1 Like

I don’t own a rolex covered in gaffer tape obviously. I guess OYSTER PERPETUAL DATEJUST communicates something a lot more trashy to me than it does to other people. I’d say managing to make people pay thousands of dollars for an extra line in the dial is definitely a victory of branding. There’s plenty of luxury industrial design, fashion, architecture… that doesn’t need what I’d describe as obnoxious branding to communicate value. But hey, I don’t particularly like Rolex watches so what do I know.

I can imagine removing “swiss MOVADO made”!!!

no doubt

(at least it’s almost invisible in person) (my wife used to sell jewelry so I know more about this and included diamonds than is strictly necessary)

well i would never see myself wearing that. but we’re different people! tastes, subjective, etc ¯_(ツ)_/¯

‘oyster perpetual’ is the case design (waterproof/dustproof case rolex innovation in 1927)
and ‘datejust’ is the model (auto-change date rolex innovation in 1945).
i’m not sure how either of those things are trashy. they are both integrally linked to the history/heritage of the brand, and are therefore desired by people who like those particular watches. the modern datejust looks very much like a vintage datejust so it’s not like they chose to trash it up as a marketing ploy

design sensibilities are individual, it’s fine to not like rolex on design alone. but calling it trashy doesn’t really make sense imo

As I said, everything written there sounds like what you’d see on cheap men-oriented body spray or a rejected variety of energy drink to me.

¯_ (ツ)_/¯ indeed

i think the most minimalist watch i’d enjoy is a cartier tank

love that art deco

1 Like

i just laid out what it has to do with watch history. i mean, you don’t have to care about watches to recognize there is a difference between "we created the first mechanical date-change mechanism"
and “this deodorant smells like grizzly bears”

i feel like i’m coming off like i care about this a lot more than i do, but i think it’s annoying to caricature people who like a certain thing as victims of marketing or whatever. anyone who owns a watch is a victim of marketing if you look at it that way. they’re all inessential

1 Like

That’s what those words communicate to me, I didn’t make any assumptions about the people who like it or it’s basis in history.

I obviously know nothing about luxury watches.