Tag Heuer Aquaracer battery change
Bill Jones
For the past 20 years, I've been wearing a stainless Victorinox diver's
watch with stainless band. Amazingly, I got this watch at a Marshall's
department store for $29 back in the late '80s. I can't identify the model,
but here's a really horrible picture of it:
http://pages.cthome.net/billj/images/120-2062_IMG.JPG
Even though you can't tell from the picture, it still looks great. And I
love this watch. It looks a lot more expensive than it was. The case is
about 40 mm in diameter and 12 mm thick, and the watch is really heavy.
Almost too heavy, but I've grown used to it, and I want another big watch
now, but maybe just a little thinner and lighter.
Anyway, I've pretty much settled on the Tag Heuer Aquaracer quartz. Not
sure if I want the all stainless with white face, model WAB1111.BA0801, or
the black dial model WAB1110.BA0800. So I went to an authorized Tag dealer
in a local mall, and he let me try on a couple different Aquaracer models,
and I really like them. But then he scared me off a bit with some
information that I didn't know. He said that I would have to bring the
watch back when it was time to change the battery, and they would send it
off to a Tag service center, which would take about 2 weeks and cost about
$100...
Now, I'm used to $5 batteries that I changed myself with the Victorinox. I
would simply pry the back cover off with a razor knife, replace the battery,
and press the cover back on, and never had a problem. I didn't really keep
track, but I'd guess it needed a new battery every 18-24 months? I'm sure
prying the back off with a knife isn't recommended, but like I said, I never
had a problem, and I've gone swimming with the watch many times over the
years (mostly in fresh water pools, but several times in the ocean too).
The jeweler estimated that the Tag batteries might last somewhere between 2
and 5 years. Even if they did last 5 years, the thought of being without a
watch for two weeks is something I don't like at all. I wear my watch every
day, and on the rare occasion I forget it, I'm constantly missing it. I
told the jeweler that I wasn't comfortable at all with that, not to mention
the $100, but he said there was no other alternative since it was not only
changing the battery, but pressure-testing the watch to make sure it was
still waterproof.
So I didn't know what to do, because I wanted the battery model. I went to
another Tag jeweler last night, and this one had a slightly different story.
This jewelry store was Lux Bond & Green. He said the watch did indeed need
to go out for about two weeks for battery change and pressure testing, but
his price was only $45. Not only that, but if I didn't care about the
pressure testing, they could change the battery in the store for $10. He
said the watch wouldn't be reliably waterproof for diving, but if I'm not
diving anyway, I might choose to go that route.
Does anyone have an opinion on this?
Thanks,
Bill J.
Jack Denver
than your Victorinox.
Get something nice like a MarcelloC automatic watch and never worry about
battery changes again.
http://www.marcelloc-watches.com/watches/divers/1.2.html
There's no reason why your watch would need to go off to Tag Heuer for a
battery change -that's ridiculous. And the jeweler will mark up the cost of
the change double, just like he's marked up your Tag when he sold it to you.
Find a local watchmaker who will change the battery and pressure test the
watch while-u-wait and for 1/2 the cost.
"Bill Jones" <bi...@stang.snet.net> wrote in message
news:Cny1h.18131$TV3....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
sqidbait
> You seem set on it, but the Tag Aquaracer is a big waste of $ - no better
> than your Victorinox.
>
Unless it's the watch he really, really likes. Considering he's
used a $29 dollar watch for the past 20 years, it's probably
not the end of the world if he splurges this time. Say 700-800
for the Tag, and 20 years out of it - that's 20 bucks a year
in watch costs between the two. I'd be ecstatic if I could
satisfy my watch jones for only $20 a year...
> Get something nice like a MarcelloC automatic watch and never worry about
> battery changes again.
> http://www.marcelloc-watches.com/watches/divers/1.2.html
Still have to maintain it every 5 years, and that probably won't
be a while-u-wait service. Sounds like the OP should get a
quartz.
-- Michael
Revision
"Bill Jones"
> Now, I'm used to $5 batteries
> Does anyone have an opinion on this?
I think you need to broaden yer choices. High dollar quartz are
generally for fools. Buy a Seiko 5 and a Casio Sco-drive. Great watches
that you can afford to drop down a drain pipe without having to tweak on
how expensive your watch is. Jack has even better advice.
"You seem set on it, but the Tag Aquaracer is a big waste of $ - no
better
than your Victorinox.
"Get something nice like a MarcelloC automatic watch and never worry
about
battery changes again."
http://www.marcelloc-watches.com/watches/divers/1.2.html
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Revision
"Revision" > Buy a Seiko 5 and a Casio Sco-drive.
That is Citizen Eco-drive. Pulsar, Seiko, Seiko Perpetual Calendar,
Zodiac, and Casio Tough Solar are other good quartz options.
http://www.dealingtime.com/upload/files/79/seiko%20perpetual%20calendar%20sm.jpg
http://www.dealingtime.com/upload/files/79/pulsar%20rr%20and%20lume%20picture.jpg
http://www.dealingtime.com/upload/files/79/zodiac-vwolf-blue-diver.jpg
http://www.dealingtime.com/upload/files/79/casio%20triple%20sensor.jpg
dAz
> The jeweler estimated that the Tag batteries might last somewhere between 2
> and 5 years. Even if they did last 5 years, the thought of being without a
> watch for two weeks is something I don't like at all. I wear my watch every
> day, and on the rare occasion I forget it, I'm constantly missing it. I
> told the jeweler that I wasn't comfortable at all with that, not to mention
> the $100, but he said there was no other alternative since it was not only
> changing the battery, but pressure-testing the watch to make sure it was
> still waterproof.
>
> So I didn't know what to do, because I wanted the battery model. I went to
> another Tag jeweler last night, and this one had a slightly different story.
> This jewelry store was Lux Bond & Green. He said the watch did indeed need
> to go out for about two weeks for battery change and pressure testing, but
> his price was only $45. Not only that, but if I didn't care about the
> pressure testing, they could change the battery in the store for $10. He
> said the watch wouldn't be reliably waterproof for diving, but if I'm not
> diving anyway, I might choose to go that route.
>
as the others have said I don't think the Tags are worth that sort of
money, specially the quartz,
http://www.watchesplanet.com/cgi-bin/shop.pl/SID=3a6bd0300290/detail=WAB1111.BA0801
watch like this would have quartz movement worth between $20 to $50, so
you are paying for the name more than anything, the cases and bands are
nice but not $1150, $300-$400 on the outside.
anyway about the pressure testing, it doesn't matter if you never dive
with it, pressure test will ensure the water will stay out of the watch,
pressure from a garden hose is enough to force water past the seals in a
30metre watch.
and I don't know what the consumer laws are like where you are but in
Australia we are required to make sure the watch is water resistant or
make the customer sign a stat dec to wavier any claims, otherwise the
customer can claim damages by law in repair or replacement of the watch.
as to the cost of pressure tests, well $100 is a rip off, unless they
are fitting a new battery, new gaskets, new crown and case pipe included.
if you take it to someone and all they do is stick a battery in and
stick it in a pressure tank and say its passed then to me thats a $20
job, if they take the time to check the seals, clean and grease them,
new battery, pressure test, then $30 $35 is fine, this shouldn't take
any more than 20mins to do, depending on how busy they are.
if the shop has to send it away then you are paying for the postage
costs too.
Longfellow
> I've never owned a luxury watch, but have been wanting one for a long time.
> For the past 20 years, I've been wearing a stainless Victorinox diver's
> watch with stainless band. Amazingly, I got this watch at a Marshall's
> department store for $29 back in the late '80s. I can't identify the model,
> but here's a really horrible picture of it:
I'm not a WIS, just a newbie, but I'll share some of my most recent
insights (stuff these guys have known for decades, probably).
You might stop and think about the idea of a "luxury watch". It seems
to me that "luxury watch" is a rather misunderstood concept, especially
these days.
Originally, really expensive watches had the value of being more
accurate timekeepers. Remember that obtaining the "correct" time was a
good deal more difficult not all that long ago. It was available from
the RR station that had a telegraph, and then from the telephone
company, and finally from the radio. But it certainly was not available
automatically.
And mechanical watches were all that were available, of course. Comes
the quartz revolution, and suddenly there is a good deal more
consciousness of timekeeping precision. Where railroad men needed
time precision to the minute, and had to have timepieces that could maintain
that accuracy, most of the rest of us were perfectly satisfied if the
thing managed to hold within a few minutes every few days.
But with quartz, everyone could have time precision to seconds per
month! And with the advent of effortless regulation, now everyone can
have at hand the correct time, precise to fractions of a second.
At that point, the entire practical value of expensive luxury watches
disappeared in a puff of smoke.
Now, that value has become 1) status, and 2) jewelry.
A rather large jewelry watch company has successfully instilled status
consciousness as the primary measure of watch value in the minds of the
"masses" (those who don't know or care about watches in their own
right). It has built for itself a mythos that allows it to extract much
money from each purchaser, over and above the fair market value of the
item. And this has pervaded the entire watch industry now.
Where once those who could afford it would spend extra money to obtain a
more functionally valuable time piece, they now spend the extra money to
obtain status potential and jewelry value (whatever that is...). If
that's what you really want, go for it.
But there is another point of view, which is held in this forum. It is
an appreciation of these devices in and of themselves, and it is an
informed appreciation. These guys here can talk authoritatively about
some indeterminate range of minutae, and they do so with a certain
passion; it really matters to them. For these guys, a luxury watch is
one that is truly worth (in relative terms, of course) their price tag;
the worth is defined as design and manufacturing excellence, the
standards of which are quite rigorous.
The point of all this is that "luxury watch" means rather different
things to different people. Here, it's a matter of demonstrable value,
where in general it's a matter of... well, uncritical (knee-jerk)
response to marketing hype, I think.
So you might contemplate where you stand in these regards: are you
responding unaware of the marketing hype foundation of what you seek, or
are you knowledgeable enough to recognize and appreciate true value? I
suspect the former, because otherwise you would not be asking your
question.
Because you asked, you now have a notion about the real issues. And if
I'm wrong, these guys will have my lunch... lol!!
All that said, here's where I've gotten to.
The old values for a fine watch presumed certain things. 1) Anyone who
cared that much was almost certainly a "gentle person", whose ability to
use fine quality items in reliably safe circumstances was taken for
granted. What that meant is that most watches were what we would now
call a "dress watch". 2) Watches were not rugged enough to withstand
hard usage, where there was a constant danger of their being damaged,
and so there was developed a special type of watch (milspec) for
military use. And it was designed for maximum usability, not for
appearance.
So there arose two different types of watch wearer, which resulted in
our current sport vs dress watch. And now the majority of users are
those who expect ruggedness. Think GShock, etc.
So this redefines the "fine watch", at least it does for those who have
learned about all this. The old definition is now optional, competing
with a more recent definition that includes ruggedness as well as fine
craftsmanship, etc. Effectively, then, there are almost mutually
exclusive definitions, and one has to chose which one is relevant.
In the older definition, watches such as are made by Patek Phillipe,
etal are fine (high end) watches. In the newer definition, watches made
by Sinn etal are fine watches. I find myself more suited to the latter,
because my lifestyle does not conform to the requirements of the former.
Note here that I've substituted "fine watch" for "luxury watch", and
I've done so because I now know enough to determine what is and is not a
fine watch. At least for my purposes.
So now I'm thinking about such watches as the Ball Fireman Ionosphere,
or one of several Damaskos, and the like. And I'm thinking about them
in terms of their actual capabilities, not their status value.
I'm dreaming about being able to acquire a brand new Sinn/Tutima 5100
based chronograph before there are no more to be had. The reason for
this? The Lemania 5100 chronograph movement has, a) the reputation as
the most rugged mechanical chronograph movement now in use, and b) a
center column minute counter (practical usage value). I'm not dreaming
about acquiring a Zenith El Primero, even though it is accounted the
finest chronograph movement of all (not rugged enough, I fear).
Would I wear a Rolex if I was given one? Sure, but not as a daily
watch, and not as a serious timepiece. I'd wear it with a certain
amount of cynical amusement as I observed the reaction of those who saw
it and recognized it as a "real" Rolex. I would not buy one, because
for me, a "fine watch" stands on the original definition: one with the
highest functional value.
Finally, here's another point of view, briefly outlined: There are very
many places in the world where watch batteries are not available,
contrary to the assumptions of just as many people ;). For those
places, a rugged and dependable automatic mechanical watch is the most
practical choice. Seiko has responded to that need by producing a line
of watches, most of which cost <$100US, that are designed to last 20
years without servicing, that are designed to require only time and date
adjustment as needed, and that provide the most commonly required watch
attributes.
It's called the Seiko 5. The "5" reflects that the watch 1) winds
automatically, 2) is water resistant, 3) is shock resistant, and 4)
displays both date, and 5) day.
For those folk, this is truly a fine watch! Needs time adjustment once
every week or two, date adjustment as required, normal continuous wear
to keep it wound, and that's all! And some of them are not all that
plain looking, ;)
Okay, that's my Very Long Post for the next few days/weeks. Hope it was
useful.
Longfellow
Tony Stanford
wrote
>Even if they did last 5 years, the thought of being without a watch for
>two weeks is something I don't like at all.
But you would still need to have a mechanical watch serviced at the same
interval as a quartz needs a battery change, so this consideration,
which I see here frequently, is a constant on both sides of the
equation. (Unless you buy a Seiko 5, which can be abused in this way.)
But what everyone else says about high-end quartz being a waste of money
is quite true, of course.
If you don't like being without a watch when it is serviced or has a
battery change, why not have a couple of watches? You are not allowed to
be a member of this group if you have fewer than six! ;-}}
--
Tony Stanford
Moka Java
from Tag probably includes things like new seals, crown, case tube and
freshly luminescent hands as needed. The TH service center has this
stuff in stock. Yeah, you could get a cheaper job done or buy a case
wrench and do it yourself.
R "I'd do it myself" TF
Mark
> It's called the Seiko 5. The "5" reflects that the watch 1) winds
> automatically, 2) is water resistant, 3) is shock resistant, and 4)
> displays both date, and 5) day.
>
> For those folk, this is truly a fine watch! Needs time adjustment once
> every week or two, date adjustment as required, normal continuous wear
> to keep it wound, and that's all! And some of them are not all that
> plain looking, ;)
>
Where's the best place to research the different models and buy a Seiko
5 (from the USA)?
Longfellow
The Poor Man's Watch Forum has a "Shop" that is connected to the site.
Proprietor Reto Castellazzi offers a variety of watches for less than
$1000US, most of which are from the orient. The Seiko 5 appears to be
one of the most popular lines, and has its own pages.
http://www.pmwf.com/Watches/WATCHSALES/SeikoFiveSalesTable.htm
There are other sellers, such as a fellow by the name of Boris:
http://www.seiko5ers.com/SEIKO%20-%20All%20the%20Best!.htm
That should get you started, I think.
Longfellow
Tony Stanford
>Where's the best place to research the different models and buy a Seiko
>5 (from the USA)?
>
--
Tony Stanford
Bill Jones
"Longfellow" <n...@this.address> wrote in message
news:12kdtui...@corp.supernews.com...
> On 2006-10-31, Bill Jones <bi...@stang.snet.net> wrote:
>> I've never owned a luxury watch, but have been wanting one for a long
>> time.
>> For the past 20 years, I've been wearing a stainless Victorinox diver's
>> watch with stainless band. Amazingly, I got this watch at a Marshall's
>> department store for $29 back in the late '80s. I can't identify the
>> model,
>> but here's a really horrible picture of it:
> <snip>
>
> I'm not a WIS, just a newbie, but I'll share some of my most recent
> insights (stuff these guys have known for decades, probably).
>
> You might stop and think about the idea of a "luxury watch". It seems
> to me that "luxury watch" is a rather misunderstood concept, especially
> these days.
Wow Longfellow, this is really a great, well-thought reply, and a lot more
info and insight than I expected. Thanks for the history lesson and
perspective!
Actually, there were a lot of great replies to my post. Unfortunately, I
may be more confused now than when I posted to the newsgroup! ;-) As some
pointed out, I was pretty settled on the Tag Aquaracer, but now I am having
second thoughts for sure.
I could be using the wrong term when I say luxury watch. I don't really
know what the correct term would be. I meant a watch that's a bit out of
the ordinary - maybe it is overpriced, and therefore a luxury.
I'll admit I don't know much about watches, but I do know what I like as far
as looks. And since you've pointed out that even a $10 quartz watch keeps
good time, the watch-buying decision mostly boils down to appearance for me.
For my tastes, a Rolex Submariner is almost the perfect watch as far as
looks. The watch itself is classy and great looking, but almost equally
important to me, the band (bracelet?) is substantial and just looks
expensive. But, a Submariner is WAY more than I want to spend, and for me,
the idea of me buying a Rolex is *almost* a bit too pretentious. I mean,
the owner of the company I work for drives a new Maserati Quattroporte, and
I'm not sure what brand of watch he wears, but it wouldn't surprise me one
bit if it were a Rolex. It would fit him and his lifestyle perfectly. By
contrast, I drive a Mustang GT, so I am more into bang-for-the-buck, but my
stuff still has to cool and sporty to a degree...
So anyway, I am looking for a watch that looks like a Submariner, is less
than $1000 U.S., but is not your ordinary Timex or Casio.
> Where once those who could afford it would spend extra money to obtain a
> more functionally valuable time piece, they now spend the extra money to
> obtain status potential and jewelry value (whatever that is...). If
> that's what you really want, go for it.
Yes, that is part of the reason I was looking at the Tag. It's a popular
enough brand that everyone knows what they are, yet everyone also knows that
they're a bit more pricey than your average nice Seiko, Citizen, Bulova,
etc. I saw an Invicta diver's watch in a store, and really liked the look
of it, and the price, but who knows what an Invicta is? I mean, even though
my Victorinox was only $29, there's a name recognition factor with it (and
Swiss Army), where people just assume it's a couple hundred dollar watch.
And everyone laughs when I tell them the watch was $29. :-)
Someone else replied that I should look at something like a Marcello C, and
he provided a link. Holy sh%! That watch looks EXACTLY like what I would
want in a watch! I'll repeat that I know little about watches, but even I
could see that the Marcello is a super high quality watch. It's not even a
watch - it's a timepiece I guess... The only problem is the name
recognition. It's weird to say this, but if I'm spending $700 on a watch, I
would want people to know I spent $700 on the watch. With the Tag, they
know that, without me having to say how much it cost. With the Marcello? I
wish I didn't think like that, because that Marcello really rocks!
> So you might contemplate where you stand in these regards: are you
> responding unaware of the marketing hype foundation of what you seek, or
> are you knowledgeable enough to recognize and appreciate true value? I
> suspect the former, because otherwise you would not be asking your
> question.
Well, I'm shallow and superficial here. I want a watch that's going to be
obvious to people that it's a nice watch, out of the ordinary, and a bit
more expensive than your typical watch. Not quite extravagant, but on the
verge. If that means having a name like Tag on the face, then that's what
it is.
> Note here that I've substituted "fine watch" for "luxury watch", and
> I've done so because I now know enough to determine what is and is not a
> fine watch. At least for my purposes.
I'm still a bit confused, but I know I am not really after a "fine watch".
I'm more of a sporty person. I have a desk job, but I don't wear a suit. I
don't wear jeans to work either, however. But a couple of my co-workers do
own what I would consider "fine watches" that are very dressy - one is an
Ebel and the other is a Movado. The Movado is so simple that it's elegant.
No numbers or markings - what could be more simple? Yet, it just looks
fancy, and looks great with a suit. The Ebel is even more of a fine watch,
but definitely a dress watch. I do outside chores like mowing the lawn,
snow-blowing the driveway, etc. with my Victorinox always on. Maybe I take
it off when I change the oil in the Mustang, but I probably have changed the
oil with it on too... :-) So, I'm not looking for a delicate watch.
> Would I wear a Rolex if I was given one? Sure, but not as a daily
> watch, and not as a serious timepiece. I'd wear it with a certain
> amount of cynical amusement as I observed the reaction of those who saw
> it and recognized it as a "real" Rolex. I would not buy one, because
> for me, a "fine watch" stands on the original definition: one with the
> highest functional value.
I would wear it too (if it was a Submariner), and I would also point out to
those who asked, that I didn't think it was actually worth the $4000, but
that I was only wearing it because it was given to me. But I would
definitely consider it a serious timepiece - this might show my ignorance
again - but how could a $4000 watch NOT be a serious timepiece?
> It's called the Seiko 5. The "5" reflects that the watch 1) winds
> automatically, 2) is water resistant, 3) is shock resistant, and 4)
> displays both date, and 5) day.
>
> For those folk, this is truly a fine watch! Needs time adjustment once
> every week or two, date adjustment as required, normal continuous wear
> to keep it wound, and that's all! And some of them are not all that
> plain looking, ;)
I looked at the Seiko 5 watch since you have mentioned it. The Sports
Automatic Atlas Diver model SKZ207 is a great looking watch - very much like
I am looking for. It definitely seems to be a great value, and is ruggedly
practical. It's just not a Tag though. And I know that sounds bad, but I
can't get past that.
As I read my own writing, I realize that I am looking for a status symbol,
and if it's also a great watch, that's cool. But it doesn't really have to
be a great watch...
Bill J.
SWG
Basically, a change of battery every 5 - 6 years must be accompanied by
a change of the case back gasket, as well as by a change of the crown
(for a new crown gasket). The crystal gasket being less "stressed" can
last longer, as long as neither the bezel nor the crystal have been
damaged. The the watch must be carefully watertested as per the NIHS
norm.
Lux, Bond & Green are reputed dealers, and as such perhaps need some
time to obtain the necessary spares. I would ask them about their
procedure and try and make up an appointment at a date where they would
have all the spare parts available and some watchmaker's free time, in
oder to shorten the waiting to a minimum.
Mind you, it is true that some independant watch repairer can do the
same job very reliably, cheaper and quicker, provided they obtain the
right spares!
What is your policy with your car? Do you have it serviced through the
official service network, or outside? What are the costs involved
comparatively in %ige?
Good luck!
Bill Jones
"Jack Denver" <nunu...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:uIednYA3XuA3XdvY...@comcast.com...
> You seem set on it, but the Tag Aquaracer is a big waste of $ - no
> better than your Victorinox.
Is that really true, that a $1000 Tag is literally no better than my $29
Victorinox? Common sense tells me that can't be right.
What do you think would really be a fair MSRP for the Tag Aquaracer that
lists for about $1100?
> Get something nice like a MarcelloC automatic watch and never worry about
> battery changes again.
> http://www.marcelloc-watches.com/watches/divers/1.2.html
That looks like an INCREDIBLE watch. I want one! The small picture doesn't
really do it justice, but you can really see the quality when you look at
the closeups in some of these pictures:
http://www.marcelloc-watches.com/about/ That watch looks a lot more
expensive than $700. I actually just sent them an email asking some
questions, and am seriously considering it. They have some awesome looking
diver's watches.
The only thing is, like I mentioned in another reply, I'm a bit snobbish
about name recognition. Yes, I admit that part of my motivation for getting
a relatively expensive watch is for the status symbol aspect of it. And Tag
definitely has the name recognition. For sure, they have to be overpriced,
considering Tag is paying a lot to Tiger Woods and Maria Sharapova for
endorsing them, so much of the price is paying for that endorsement. Even
with that, I think when the average person thinks of the Tag Heuer brand
name, they think it's a pretty nice watch.
The Marcello? Obviously, now that I read about it on the website and look
at the pictures, it's an awesome watch. But I had never heard that name
before. Could be that the watch is even more impressive in person than in
the pictures, and the average person would be able to tell it's a quality
watch that probably cost a lot of money just by looking at it.
So now I'm trying to decide if I want to pay for a name that people will
recognize ("it's a Tag, so it must be expensive and nice"), or have an
amazing-looking watch like the MarcelloC that is much less recognizable.
Bill Jones
sqidbait
[snip]
> So anyway, I am looking for a watch that looks like a Submariner, is less
> than $1000 U.S., but is not your ordinary Timex or Casio.
One thing to be aware of is that the Sub design is one of the most
popular for diver-style watches, so there are choices at different
price points.
You saw the Marcello, so that's the high end of your range.
You can get a Sandoz for about $250:
http://www.pmwf.com/Watches/WATCHSALES/SandozSINSub40BlackBlackAug03/SandozSIN40BlackBlackAug03.htm
( I have one: it's a brilliant watch for the price. )
You can snag an Invicta for about $100:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=190046464947
( I've got one of these as well. It's also a great buy. )
Or you can get an Alpha for $50:
http://www.alpha-watch.com/details.php?myid=26
( Yeah, I've got one of these. Fun watch. Hmmn, maybe
I have impulse control problems? :-) )
And these are all mechanical watches. If you want quartz,
there's many more to choose from.
For an example of a "name" quartz watch that is not completely
derivative of a sub:
That one is less than $200.
So if you like the sub style and are not completely sold
on the TAG, you may want to shop around a bit more.
[snip]
> As I read my own writing, I realize that I am looking for a status symbol,
> and if it's also a great watch, that's cool. But it doesn't really have to
> be a great watch...
That's cool - you have to buy what makes you happy. And I wouldn't
worry about not having a great watch. In all likelihood the watch you
choose will be just fine. Now it may not be the best value, but who
the hell cares? You only live once, right?
-- Michael
Bill Jones
"Tony Stanford" <tonyst...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:yQW6jQBr...@dsl2.net...
> On Tue, 31 Oct 2006, at 02:18:10, Bill Jones <bi...@stang.snet.net> wrote
> If you don't like being without a watch when it is serviced or has a
> battery change, why not have a couple of watches? You are not allowed to
> be a member of this group if you have fewer than six! ;-}}
> --
> Tony Stanford
LOL.
Having backup watches is the obvious solution to that problem. All along I
had been wrongly thinking that I'll be replacing my Victorinox, but there's
really no reason to replace it. Even after 20 years I still love it, and I
prefer it to most watches I see in the jewelry store cases. So, whatever I
get as a new watch, when it's time for service, I'll just pull the backup
Victorinox out of the drawer and slip it on again, for old times sake. :-)
sqidbait
> > Where's the best place to research the different models and buy a Seiko
> > 5 (from the USA)?
>
> The Poor Man's Watch Forum has a "Shop" that is connected to the site.
> Proprietor Reto Castellazzi offers a variety of watches for less than
> $1000US, most of which are from the orient. The Seiko 5 appears to be
> one of the most popular lines, and has its own pages.
>
> http://www.pmwf.com/Watches/WATCHSALES/SeikoFiveSalesTable.htm
Reto rocks - he's one of my favorite sellers.
>
> There are other sellers, such as a fellow by the name of Boris:
>
> http://www.seiko5ers.com/SEIKO%20-%20All%20the%20Best!.htm
Also check out:
http://www.roachman.com/seiko/automatic/seiko-automatic.html
http://chronograph.com/store/index.asp
And ebay. I've bought a lot of watches from "pokemonyu", but
anyone with a high rating with thousands of feedback will be
a good bet.
-- Michael
Bill Jones
"SWG" <swissw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1162346036.0...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Yes, they are reputed dealers, and I noticed they charge the full retail
price, at least for the Tags I looked at. The Lux Bond & Green store I went
to was in the Mohegan Sun Casino in CT. 10 miles away, at a long-time
jeweler in a mall, the same watch was $200 less. But the mall jeweler was
the one who quoted me the $100 price for battery change/service, while the
Lux Bond & Green battery change/service quote was $45. Go figure.
> What is your policy with your car? Do you have it serviced through the
> official service network, or outside? What are the costs involved
> comparatively in %ige?
Well, it's a 2005 Mustang GT that was delivered in Mar 2005, and now has 13K
miles on it. Fortunately, it has not had a single problem yet that required
service, so it has not been back to the dealer once! I change the oil every
3K miles (Mobil 1 synthetic) and rotate the tires every 6K miles myself, and
that's the only maintenance so far that's specified in the manual.
But in general my policy is not to have car maintenance done at the dealer,
other than warranty work, because it is unnecessarily more expensive than at
an independent garage. If I had a high-end car, I would probably have a
different policy. There is a trustworthy garage near me where I have had
work done on my previous cars, and once my warranty is over, I will go to
him again.
Jack Denver
goes into the product or buy the product where all the money is spent on
advertising?
More below:
"Bill Jones" <bi...@stang.snet.net> wrote in message
news:2uT1h.20841$GR....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>
> "Jack Denver" <nunu...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:uIednYA3XuA3XdvY...@comcast.com...
>
> Is that really true, that a $1000 Tag is literally no better than my $29
> Victorinox? Common sense tells me that can't be right.
>
> What do you think would really be a fair MSRP for the Tag Aquaracer that
> lists for about $1100?
OK, I exaggerated a little. A "fair" street price for a Swiss quartz diver
with a sapphire crystal would be around $250 say...
that would get you this Victorinox:
http://cdiwatches.com/product/B0006UBMAG/Merchant/Men-s-Swiss-Army-Officer-s-Scu.htm
The overall cost to make this watch is little different than a Tag - the
movements inside are likely to be highly similar or possibly even identical.
>
>
> The Marcello? Obviously, now that I read about it on the website and look
> at the pictures, it's an awesome watch. But I had never heard that name
> before. Could be that the watch is even more impressive in person than in
> the pictures, and the average person would be able to tell it's a quality
> watch that probably cost a lot of money just by looking at it.
Anyone who knows what a quality watch is would know by looking. Anyone who
can't tell, you shouldn't care about.
>
Jack Denver
>
>
> So anyway, I am looking for a watch that looks like a Submariner,
MarcelloC
is less
> than $1000 U.S.,
MarcelloC
but is not your ordinary Timex or Casio.
MarcelloC.
Longfellow
>
> "Longfellow" <n...@this.address> wrote in message
> news:12kdtui...@corp.supernews.com...
>> On 2006-10-31, Bill Jones <bi...@stang.snet.net> wrote:
>>> I've never owned a luxury watch, but have been wanting one for a long
>>> time.
>>> For the past 20 years, I've been wearing a stainless Victorinox diver's
>>> watch with stainless band. Amazingly, I got this watch at a Marshall's
>>> department store for $29 back in the late '80s. I can't identify the
>>> model,
>>> but here's a really horrible picture of it:
>> <snip>
>>
>> I'm not a WIS, just a newbie, but I'll share some of my most recent
>> insights (stuff these guys have known for decades, probably).
>>
>> You might stop and think about the idea of a "luxury watch". It seems
>> to me that "luxury watch" is a rather misunderstood concept, especially
>> these days.
>
> Wow Longfellow, this is really a great, well-thought reply, and a lot more
> info and insight than I expected. Thanks for the history lesson and
> perspective!
You're quite welcome. Happy to note that the WIS (plural) were able to
at least tolerate the post. :)
> Actually, there were a lot of great replies to my post. Unfortunately, I
> may be more confused now than when I posted to the newsgroup! ;-) As some
> pointed out, I was pretty settled on the Tag Aquaracer, but now I am having
> second thoughts for sure.
Well, that's what happens when one eats a full meal: digestion time!
> I could be using the wrong term when I say luxury watch. I don't really
> know what the correct term would be. I meant a watch that's a bit out of
> the ordinary - maybe it is overpriced, and therefore a luxury.
Luxury watch is a marketing term, basically. The WIS term is probably
something like "high end", if indeed a term is appropriate.
You want a watch that's out of the ordinary? Take a look at a Rado
Diastar!
> I'll admit I don't know much about watches, but I do know what I like as far
> as looks. And since you've pointed out that even a $10 quartz watch keeps
> good time, the watch-buying decision mostly boils down to appearance for me.
Jewelry value. You need to know that jewelry value is as old and as
venerable as mankind! Displays of personal accessories intended to
define oneself are basic to virtually all cultures across the world and
down through time. So that is a very personal value, and cannot be
gainsaid by anyone.
The caveat is that what you display defines you in the eyes of others.
In a very practical sense, there are a significant number of business
situations where a Rolex is taken as a token of business status, which
confers a rightful claim to a subtle deference from others. And that
claim is honored even by those who aren't really aware that they are
doing so. Rolex, then, can be a business asset.
> For my tastes, a Rolex Submariner is almost the perfect watch as far as
> looks. The watch itself is classy and great looking, but almost equally
> important to me, the band (bracelet?) is substantial and just looks
> expensive. But, a Submariner is WAY more than I want to spend, and for me,
> the idea of me buying a Rolex is *almost* a bit too pretentious. I mean,
> the owner of the company I work for drives a new Maserati Quattroporte, and
> I'm not sure what brand of watch he wears, but it wouldn't surprise me one
> bit if it were a Rolex. It would fit him and his lifestyle perfectly. By
> contrast, I drive a Mustang GT, so I am more into bang-for-the-buck, but my
> stuff still has to cool and sporty to a degree...
The Rolex Submariner has defined itself as classy and great looking.
The media is the advertizing that displays the model, and the message is
driven home very effectively. Given that the proportions are decent
(acceptable), the design simply shouts "I'm a rugged outdoorsman who
really *needs*....", and that's all! Yes, the Rolex Sub is accounted a
beautiful watch, but that is because we've all seen it all too many
times presented with large graphical art values. Brainwashing,
actually. Or very smart marketing, depending on one's point of view.
The guy with the Italian 4-door sedan that will clock 150mph
effortlessly and handle at that speed as well is probably not wearing a
Rolex. He's probably wearing a real "high end" watch, PP, APROO, JLC,
UN, and the like. (Ah, that's Patek Phillipe, Audemars Piguet Royal Oak
Offshore, Jaeger LeCoultre, Ulysse Nardin...). Those are equivalent to
the Maser QP.
> So anyway, I am looking for a watch that looks like a Submariner, is less
> than $1000 U.S., but is not your ordinary Timex or Casio.
And there are a number of very nice options, and that are every bit as
good or better that the TH.
>> Where once those who could afford it would spend extra money to obtain a
>> more functionally valuable time piece, they now spend the extra money to
>> obtain status potential and jewelry value (whatever that is...). If
>> that's what you really want, go for it.
>
> Yes, that is part of the reason I was looking at the Tag. It's a popular
> enough brand that everyone knows what they are, yet everyone also knows that
> they're a bit more pricey than your average nice Seiko, Citizen, Bulova,
> etc. I saw an Invicta diver's watch in a store, and really liked the look
> of it, and the price, but who knows what an Invicta is? I mean, even though
> my Victorinox was only $29, there's a name recognition factor with it (and
> Swiss Army), where people just assume it's a couple hundred dollar watch.
> And everyone laughs when I tell them the watch was $29. :-)
Know what the ultimate display of class is? Check this out: Wear a
really nice looking but slightly outre designed watch, and a brand that
is not known at all. And wear at least a middle value model if not the
best of the brand.
Somebody notices the watch and says something like "Cool watch! What
kind is that?" (What they're asking is the brand name, of course).
Answer in an offhand manner, giving the brand and model. Now, this
somebody has already indicated they think the watch is remarkable (they
remarked on it already, and so now have a stake in the pot, as it were).
So now this person has to figure out how to discover what he perceives
he doesn't know... I mean, not knowing what one considers cool can be a
sign of (horrors!) ignorance, dontchaknow lol!
So they reply something like "Never heard of it." with an inflection
that indicates that they are prepared to belittle what they don't
recognize, but would really like to be put "in the know" without being
perceived as asking for it. Sound like human nature?
Your reply is something like, "You like watches?" asked with a genuine
and inviting smile (like you're accepting him as an equal in this
matter). He gets it that he might score here without paying any dues.
He's already got the stake in the pot: he's expressed interest. So
what else can he say but "Yeah, yada yada.."
You can leverage that into the observation that learning about watches
is a fun and cool thing to do, and then he'd understand why what you are
wearing is appreciated by those "in the know". If he responds
positively, and the chances are that he will (women don't play this
game, usually), you will have established an amount of class for
yourself that cannot be otherwise matched. And it's real; no fakery at
all.
In reality, this exchange goes down in a matter of a few seconds,
usually, and any observer would consider it something like passing the
time of day. You know something he doesn't, which confers real status
on you, and you are happily willing to share it with him without any
judgment of him, and he goes away with the certain conviction that you
are a "class act".
Simple, actually.
And if you get a negative reaction, he will have set the tone for his
own failure to show equal strength (possession of useful information),
and you will have done absolutely nothing to warrant that. Which means
he's free to turn around and ask something like, "So what's so special
about that?" which you can then leverage as before. Anyway at all, you
win. And so can he.
Make sense?
> Someone else replied that I should look at something like a Marcello C, and
> he provided a link. Holy sh%! That watch looks EXACTLY like what I would
> want in a watch! I'll repeat that I know little about watches, but even I
> could see that the Marcello is a super high quality watch. It's not even a
> watch - it's a timepiece I guess... The only problem is the name
> recognition. It's weird to say this, but if I'm spending $700 on a watch, I
> would want people to know I spent $700 on the watch. With the Tag, they
> know that, without me having to say how much it cost. With the Marcello? I
> wish I didn't think like that, because that Marcello really rocks!
So get the Marcello C, and discover why it is a special and worthwhile
"time piece". That way if it really is a show stopper such that people
might inquire, you're off and running as above. Essentially, let the
obvious quality of the watch speak "Big bux" instead of the brand name.
>> So you might contemplate where you stand in these regards: are you
>> responding unaware of the marketing hype foundation of what you seek, or
>> are you knowledgeable enough to recognize and appreciate true value? I
>> suspect the former, because otherwise you would not be asking your
>> question.
>
> Well, I'm shallow and superficial here. I want a watch that's going to be
> obvious to people that it's a nice watch, out of the ordinary, and a bit
> more expensive than your typical watch. Not quite extravagant, but on the
> verge. If that means having a name like Tag on the face, then that's what
> it is.
Nope, as I said, it's not the brand that does this, it's the watch
itself. They will not be able to see the brand name nearly as well as
they will the quality of the watch. Thus: "Hey, that's a really cool
watch? What is it?, and again, you're off and running like above.
>> Note here that I've substituted "fine watch" for "luxury watch", and
>> I've done so because I now know enough to determine what is and is not a
>> fine watch. At least for my purposes.
>
> I'm still a bit confused, but I know I am not really after a "fine watch".
> I'm more of a sporty person. I have a desk job, but I don't wear a suit. I
> don't wear jeans to work either, however. But a couple of my co-workers do
> own what I would consider "fine watches" that are very dressy - one is an
> Ebel and the other is a Movado. The Movado is so simple that it's elegant.
> No numbers or markings - what could be more simple? Yet, it just looks
> fancy, and looks great with a suit. The Ebel is even more of a fine watch,
> but definitely a dress watch. I do outside chores like mowing the lawn,
> snow-blowing the driveway, etc. with my Victorinox always on. Maybe I take
> it off when I change the oil in the Mustang, but I probably have changed the
> oil with it on too... :-) So, I'm not looking for a delicate watch.
Note how I defined "fine watch". Old and new definitions, from old and
new (very dissimilar) paradigms. Both are valid, and so are not
mutually exclusive; simply difficult to resolve in a single watch. A PP
is a fine watch. So is a Sinn U2, but for very different reasons.
Ebel is a sleeper brand, and those who know apparently have excellent
reason to appreciate them. So Ebel is a candidate, although not what
you're looking for. Movados with the black dial and a single bright
stone at the 12 position are called Movado Museum something or other.
The design won an award and a museum (probably MOMA) has displayed it
accordingly. Doesn't mean anything now, I fear.
Neither are appropriate for you, of course.
>> Would I wear a Rolex if I was given one? Sure, but not as a daily
>> watch, and not as a serious timepiece. I'd wear it with a certain
>> amount of cynical amusement as I observed the reaction of those who saw
>> it and recognized it as a "real" Rolex. I would not buy one, because
>> for me, a "fine watch" stands on the original definition: one with the
>> highest functional value.
>
> I would wear it too (if it was a Submariner), and I would also point out to
> those who asked, that I didn't think it was actually worth the $4000, but
> that I was only wearing it because it was given to me. But I would
> definitely consider it a serious timepiece - this might show my ignorance
> again - but how could a $4000 watch NOT be a serious timepiece?
Don't get me wrong here: the Rolex is a *very* good watch. It simply
isn't as valuable as the price suggests. Some Rolexes used the Zenith
El Primero movement, somewhat modified though just how I don't know.
Nothing at all wrong with an El Primero movement in whatever brand one
finds one.
There are many anecdotal tales of the indestructable Rolex, though just
how many are factual, one can't tell.
Okay:
I dropped by the local Ben Bridges this afternoon (shopping for clothes
... arrghhh!). The watchmaker there is becoming an acquaintance because
I display enthusiasm in that direction, so I've reason to drop by other
than as a potential customer.
This time I stopped at the Rolex counter and took a serious look at an
$8kUS Submariner (blue bezel and gold case). Eric took it out of the
case and handed it to me, and I hung it on my wrist. Serious
substantial weight and it did sit gracefully (didn't fall off one side
or other even though the bracelet was a tad loose). Gave it a few
shakes and it was off and running. Yes indeed, the fit and finish left
nothing (without an eye-piece, of course) to be desired.
Yes, the proportions did appear beautiful and elegant. But how much of
that is conditioning? Don't know. Suspect the blue and gold color
"match" was a contributor.
So now I know, at least I know as much as I'm able to appreciate at this
time, I suppose. And yes, I was unable to appreciate the watch as worth
$8kUS. Right next door were the Omegas, and the Speedy there was just
as nice looking, though in a different way, and at a third of the price
or less.
Is it a serious time piece? Intrinsically, probably so, but not for the
price. It simply is not $8kUS worth of seriousness.
>> It's called the Seiko 5. The "5" reflects that the watch 1) winds
>> automatically, 2) is water resistant, 3) is shock resistant, and 4)
>> displays both date, and 5) day.
>>
>> For those folk, this is truly a fine watch! Needs time adjustment once
>> every week or two, date adjustment as required, normal continuous wear
>> to keep it wound, and that's all! And some of them are not all that
>> plain looking, ;)
>
> I looked at the Seiko 5 watch since you have mentioned it. The Sports
> Automatic Atlas Diver model SKZ207 is a great looking watch - very much like
> I am looking for. It definitely seems to be a great value, and is ruggedly
> practical. It's just not a Tag though. And I know that sounds bad, but I
> can't get past that.
A Seiko 5 is definitely not a fine watch *for you*, even though it very
much is for the folk out there in the batteryless wilds. OTOH, there
are Seikos that are seriously fine watches, fine enough to go head to
head with the "high end" Swiss brands. Check out the Grand Seiko, and
the King Seiko, though neither offer a sporty model.
The thing about Seiko is that they really are on the cutting edge of
modern horology. Check out the Seiko Spring Drive. There is a
mechanical watch with an electronically controlled mechanical
escapement, driven by current generated by the movement of the
escapement wheel itself. Near as I can tell, it would not be difficult
to duplicate the electronics themselves, and all the rest is mechanical.
You see, horology is constantly evolving, redefining itself as the art
and study of time keeping. Old standards are appreciated by the
cognoscenti and for very good reason, but those standards will not stand
alone; they will be modified by the addition of new technology as it
matures and reaches a level of excellence worthy of consideration as
"haute horlogerie". And there is nothing the cognoscenti of the present
can do about it (the best of them know this, of course, and look forward
to new advances...).
So Seiko has a good deal more density of real excellence than TH.
Consider TAG Heuer: TAG is "Technique Avante Garde", added to the old
Heuer name. Old Heuers were very fine watches indeed, although probably
not at the really high end level. TAG Heuer is playing on those
laurels, with a large dash of glitz confered by its association with
motor racing (the TAG bit...). So TAG Heuer is really a marketing
entity, by and large.
What you can't get past is your own perceptions of "class". Don't try
to get past those perceptions, just modify them with a bit of knowledge.
> As I read my own writing, I realize that I am looking for a status symbol,
> and if it's also a great watch, that's cool. But it doesn't really have to
> be a great watch...
>
>
> Bill J.
>
Sure, you're looking for a status symbol, and that is a time honored
human endeavor, not to be denigrated. But consider what you regard as
status. The brand name of the watch does not confer status: Any fool
with a credit card can buy and wear one. What does confer status is the
ability to choose and wear a really great looking quality watch,
regardless of the brand. The added fact that you know enough to
recognize that quality without brand cues confers even more status, and
your willingness to share same just adds much lovely whipped cream. ;)
So that means that an Invicta doesn't cut it, and neither does a Seiko
5. That lets out the Orients, I suspect, but it might well include a
Singapore Sandoz. Sandoz is a old Swiss name (Henri Sandoz, no
relationship to the pharmaceutical company). Sandoz cultivated
relationships with the far east early on, and the heirs have capitalized
thereon by moving their production facilities there via licensing. The
Singapore Sandoz sport (genuine Swiss) ETA movements (at least 2824-2, I
gather). The fit and finish is said to be excellent, and Sandoz offers
a Submariner homage (as do several other legitimate brands).
Not $700US price tag, but...
Then there are the German watches, and they truly are very fine quality
watches. The Glasshutte Original, the A. Lange und Sohne, and a few
others stand with the very best that Switzerland has to offer.
Especially the Lange. That said, there are several other lesser known
German brands that just exhude quality, and some of which are nearly
indestructable as well. Sinn is probably out of reach, though Tutima
may not be, for example.
And then there is the entire realm of older watches. A beautiful Omega
176.0012 with calibre 1045 (Lemania 5100) is probably going to cost more
than $700US, but there are damn few watches that carry more status,
including the "Moon" Speedies. Or so I think. That's just an example,
and a favorite of mine.
The ability to recognize and appreciate fine older watches (when they
really were of legendary quality, before the advent of quartz and the
downfall of Swiss watch integrity, blah blah blah) automatically confers
great personal status. Some of them are gorgeous in ways modern watches
no longer match, and you don't have to tell anyone that you didn't buy
it brand new. Perhaps a relative bought it brand new and you realized
how great a watch it was and coveted it madly, such that it was willed
to you...
Check this out! You want serious status? How about a watch with
tritium tube hands and markers that glow brightly in the dark and glow
noticeably even in dim light: Military specifications and ruggedness
out the wazoo. Wear it on a NATO strap and give off all kinds of Clark
Kent vibes (a trip to the telephone booth turns you into a special ops
merc, dontchaknow). And all you have to say is that you really prefer a
watch that you don't have to worry about. Marathon, Luminox, Ball (now
*there's* a brand for you :) )
And on and on. The more you learn the more there is to appreciate.
The point is this: *You* define the class! And being able to back it
up with a smile confers class on you that no accessory can match: it is
*not* the sort of class that shouts "Snobbery!" And it's that which
will give you status, and of more substance than what you now seek, I
think.
But then, I'm just a crotchety old geezer with way too many opinions,
dontchaknow... lol!!
Longfellow
Tony Stanford
etc. Then a good waterproof one for the club, swimming. A dress watch
that may be more fragile, hence worn only on civilized occasions. And
you can't wear the same everyday watch every day, so you need a couple
of those ... My, how those watches mount up! And how necessary they all
are!
:-}}
--
Tony Stanford
Nate Nagel
Why are all the MarcelloC's so large? I find the aviator watches
appealing, but the smallest ones are 38mm in diameter! Wearing one of
those would make my wrist look like a little girly man wrist, or more
likely, like I'd stolen my dad's watch for the day.
nate
--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
Jack Denver
some brands (Panerai) the MarcelloC's are not particularly large. Most are
comparable to Rolex in size and in todays market are considered "average"
sized.
"Nate Nagel" <njn...@flycast.net> wrote in message
news:eia1...@news2.newsguy.com...
N8N
Longfellow wrote:
<snip, hack, slice>
> The point is this: *You* define the class! And being able to back it
> up with a smile confers class on you that no accessory can match: it is
> *not* the sort of class that shouts "Snobbery!" And it's that which
> will give you status, and of more substance than what you now seek, I
> think.
>
> But then, I'm just a crotchety old geezer with way too many opinions,
> dontchaknow... lol!!
>
> Longfellow
what a post! Sorry I had to delete most of it, but I just wanted to
say that I agree with you 100%, even though I'm far from being a
connoisseur of watches.
FWIW, I get into far more conversations with strangers when driving my
old Studebaker than when driving the Fabulous BeaterPorsche, so at
least in an automotive context, I agree with your point. Few people
have ever heard of a Studebaker so they're more forthcoming if they're
curious about it; I guess Porsche drivers must have a snobbish
reputation or something (even 944 owners?) I've only ever had one
person comment on the watch I was wearing (it was a 1957ish Longines
FWIW) but then again I wasn't wearing it to impress anyone, I was
wearing it because a) I like being able to tell the time without
pulling my cellphone out of my pocket and b) I personally like the
design of it.
In short, quality (and an attractive design) is worth more than a
fashionable brand name, IMHO. Now that could start a whole 'nother
discussion about "what is a quality watch" and I'm probably not
qualified to give a definitive answer to that but lurking on this NG is
a good way to get some examples.
nate
Longfellow
>
> Longfellow wrote:
>
><snip, hack, slice>
>
>> The point is this: *You* define the class! And being able to back it
>> up with a smile confers class on you that no accessory can match: it is
>> *not* the sort of class that shouts "Snobbery!" And it's that which
>> will give you status, and of more substance than what you now seek, I
>> think.
>>
>> But then, I'm just a crotchety old geezer with way too many opinions,
>> dontchaknow... lol!!
>>
>> Longfellow
>
> what a post! Sorry I had to delete most of it, but I just wanted to
> say that I agree with you 100%, even though I'm far from being a
> connoisseur of watches.
Thanks!
> FWIW, I get into far more conversations with strangers when driving my
> old Studebaker than when driving the Fabulous BeaterPorsche, so at
> least in an automotive context, I agree with your point. Few people
> have ever heard of a Studebaker so they're more forthcoming if they're
Oh lord, what year? I remember a '47/48 that was such a sweet little
car with this absolute jewel of a six banger. Remember the bullet nose
'49 Starlight (?) Coupe with the panoramic rear window, *and* a
humungously fast V8/overdrive combo (eat ya heart out, Oldsmobile; you
weren't the only one that year...)
Had a nice '51... and then there was the Raymond Loewy designed '53, and
the Hawk series a few years later, and then there was the Avante R1 R2
(the latter with supercharger, IIRC). And a few years later... Poof!
The death of the Packer-baker, two very fine American marques.
Earl and Opal Pickles, whatever else can be said of them, drive a
Studebaker, dontchaknow... lol!
> curious about it; I guess Porsche drivers must have a snobbish
> reputation or something (even 944 owners?) I've only ever had one
Entrepreneur status symbol, at least in Silicon Valley.
> person comment on the watch I was wearing (it was a 1957ish Longines
> FWIW) but then again I wasn't wearing it to impress anyone, I was
> wearing it because a) I like being able to tell the time without
> pulling my cellphone out of my pocket and b) I personally like the
> design of it.
Einstein had a Longines, so you're in good company. ;) And a *very*
nice watch they were/are.
> In short, quality (and an attractive design) is worth more than a
> fashionable brand name, IMHO. Now that could start a whole 'nother
> discussion about "what is a quality watch" and I'm probably not
> qualified to give a definitive answer to that but lurking on this NG is
> a good way to get some examples.
>
> nate
Quality is what cannot be quantified; it's a subjective matter. That
said, quality is reflected in excellence of design and manufacture,
regardless of the item. Quality people display excellence in behavior.
Quality in a watch reflects the same parameters, and probably varies
somewhat according to the nature of the watch.
Like perlage is sorta meaningless in a watch with a solid back, intended
to be an indestructable time keeper tool. For instance, the Lemania
5100 is venerated and mourned, even though it is generally regarded as
an ugly movement. But it is incredibly tough (not to mention the center
minute counter...), and that virtue was/is its expression of quality.
OTOH, with a display back, perlage is visually edifying. Where it is
found, it indicates care on the part of the designer/maker, and suggests
the existence of other less tangible attributes (finely finished,
painstakingly fitted and adjusted, etc).
I mean, one can spend an inordinate amount of time creating something,
but if the result doesn't reflect the value of the time spent, it's
meaningless... like the year that it takes to build a Rolex.
I imagine that you, like most of us, have a pretty good grasp of the
significance of quality; with the requisite knowledge that grasp can be
applied to virtually anything, including watches. ;) I've hung out long
enough to be able to rattle off a long list of quality watches, and
generally why they are so. I'm a very long way from being able to
critically assess any of these, but I can get the jist nonetheless.
I suspect you can too.
Longfellow
Longfellow
<snip>
> Yup. And then you need a cheapo watch for the gardening, oil-change,
> etc. Then a good waterproof one for the club, swimming. A dress watch
> that may be more fragile, hence worn only on civilized occasions. And
> you can't wear the same everyday watch every day, so you need a couple
> of those ... My, how those watches mount up! And how necessary they all
> are!
>:-}}
Same reason women have all those dresses and stuff in the closet: a
knowledgeable sensitivity and appreciation of sartorial
appropriateness... does one refer to women's apparel as sartorial?
Probably not.
It's just a matter of educated appreciation, and that's what enables one
to reap so much more from life.
What's the message here? Simple! "Lotsa watches are GOOD for you!"
So there, all you naysayers. LOL!!!
Longfellow
Nate Nagel
> On 2006-11-01, N8N <njn...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Longfellow wrote:
>>
>><snip, hack, slice>
>>
>>>The point is this: *You* define the class! And being able to back it
>>>up with a smile confers class on you that no accessory can match: it is
>>>*not* the sort of class that shouts "Snobbery!" And it's that which
>>>will give you status, and of more substance than what you now seek, I
>>>think.
>>>
>>>But then, I'm just a crotchety old geezer with way too many opinions,
>>>dontchaknow... lol!!
>>>
>>>Longfellow
>>
>>what a post! Sorry I had to delete most of it, but I just wanted to
>>say that I agree with you 100%, even though I'm far from being a
>>connoisseur of watches.
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>>FWIW, I get into far more conversations with strangers when driving my
>>old Studebaker than when driving the Fabulous BeaterPorsche, so at
>>least in an automotive context, I agree with your point. Few people
>>have ever heard of a Studebaker so they're more forthcoming if they're
>
>
> Oh lord, what year?
'55... follow linky in .sig if you really want to have a look at my
automotive obsessions. The funny thing is it looks like a rolling trash
heap (as what interior remains is hideous, and generally full of tools
and leftover parts whenever it leaves its home) although the body is solid.
> I remember a '47/48 that was such a sweet little
> car with this absolute jewel of a six banger.
Commander? The "big" six was an absolute stump puller.
> Remember the bullet nose
> '49 Starlight (?) Coupe with the panoramic rear window, *and* a
> humungously fast V8/overdrive combo (eat ya heart out, Oldsmobile; you
> weren't the only one that year...)
50-51 were the bulletnoses; 51 introduced the V8 (previous years had a
choice of small or large flathead six cylinder) the "Starlight Coupe"
with the window you describe was available from '48 all the way to 51
(or 52? don't remember)
>
> Had a nice '51... and then there was the Raymond Loewy designed '53, and
> the Hawk series a few years later, and then there was the Avante R1 R2
> (the latter with supercharger, IIRC). And a few years later... Poof!
> The death of the Packer-baker, two very fine American marques.
Ayup. and the funny thing is by all accounts, it was the '53 models,
which were IMHO the prettiest American cars ever made, or at least
post-WW2, that started the downward spiral. The Avanti was another
unmitigated disaster from a corporate financial perspective, cool as
they were... Does that mean that making an uncharacteristically good
car is bad for your corporate health?
>
> Earl and Opal Pickles, whatever else can be said of them, drive a
> Studebaker, dontchaknow... lol!
>
>
>>curious about it; I guess Porsche drivers must have a snobbish
>>reputation or something (even 944 owners?) I've only ever had one
>
>
> Entrepreneur status symbol, at least in Silicon Valley.
>
A 944 a status symbol? Maybe 20 years ago...
Robert Pirsig, eat your heart out :)
Tony Stanford
>Same reason women have all those dresses and stuff in the closet:
That's what I keep telling my wife! She says, 'You can only wear one
watch at a time, so why do you need so many?'
So I say, 'You can only wear one pair of knickers at a time, so why ...'
But she sniffs and walks away...
--
Tony Stanford
Longfellow
ROFLMAO!!!
The moral of the story: Never try to engage a woman in rational
argumentation; they are above such things: Just ask them!
But then, is watch addiction rational? The only rationale I can think
of is that it's nice to have an automatic at hand when the battery runs
out on the quartz. Other than that, perhaps changing nickers when
they're soiled is more understandable than changing watches because the
strap is sweaty or the bracelet is...
Nah, we guys have to stand up for our own sensibilities, dontchaknow!
LOL!!!
Longfellow
honestjohn
"Longfellow" <n...@this.address> wrote in message
> The moral of the story: Never try to engage a woman in rational
> argumentation; they are above such things: Just ask them!
>
>
> Nah, we guys have to stand up for our own sensibilities, dontchaknow!
> LOL!!!
>
> Longfellow
>
Could you compose a Ballad for "us" to follow, that would inspire "us" in
our darkest hour, give "us" courage in the face of a ferocious female's
onslaught?
Have mercy on "us", O great Bard of legend!
H.J.
Longfellow
<snip>
>> Oh lord, what year?
>
> '55... follow linky in .sig if you really want to have a look at my
> automotive obsessions. The funny thing is it looks like a rolling trash
> heap (as what interior remains is hideous, and generally full of tools
> and leftover parts whenever it leaves its home) although the body is solid.
Oh, now that is class! A true working machine, still in harness...
>> I remember a '47/48 that was such a sweet little
>> car with this absolute jewel of a six banger.
>
> Commander? The "big" six was an absolute stump puller.
Torque was the strength of the in-line engines, true of Studebakers as
well, I imagine.
>> Remember the bullet nose
>> '49 Starlight (?) Coupe with the panoramic rear window, *and* a
>> humungously fast V8/overdrive combo (eat ya heart out, Oldsmobile; you
>> weren't the only one that year...)
>
> 50-51 were the bulletnoses; 51 introduced the V8 (previous years had a
> choice of small or large flathead six cylinder) the "Starlight Coupe"
> with the window you describe was available from '48 all the way to 51
> (or 52? don't remember)
Aha! I'm off by a year. So...
>>
>> Had a nice '51... and then there was the Raymond Loewy designed '53, and
>> the Hawk series a few years later, and then there was the Avante R1 R2
>> (the latter with supercharger, IIRC). And a few years later... Poof!
>> The death of the Packer-baker, two very fine American marques.
it wasn't a '51. Checked google pics: it was a '52. Google shows that
'52 offered the Starliner Coupe, "hardtop convertible". Wonder why the
name change?
Uh oh. It was a '51 _Plymouth_ that I drove from NY to Fla to Cal.
Acquired a '53 Mercury and a '52 Studebaker, and a '53 Chevy. IIRC,
paid $50, $20, and $10 respectively, all good runners!
> Ayup. and the funny thing is by all accounts, it was the '53 models,
> which were IMHO the prettiest American cars ever made, or at least
> post-WW2, that started the downward spiral. The Avanti was another
> unmitigated disaster from a corporate financial perspective, cool as
> they were... Does that mean that making an uncharacteristically good
> car is bad for your corporate health?
No question. Don't know anyone who doesn't regard the Raymond Loewy
designs as a real peak in automotive design, although I know of a few
who simply detest the "no straight lines" look.
Corporate disasters stem from short-sighted financial decisions, by and
large, and this was one of those. Dumping Packard was probably
inevitable, I suppose, especially after the horrendous design treatments
that terminated the line.
Ever see the movie of the Ayn Rand novel "Fountainhead" (IIRC) starring
Gary Gooper as John Galt? The plot was that he'd designed a building to
help another architect, the price being that it had to be built as
designed. Turned out that when it was built, it was all ginger-breaded
up with ticky-tact. Galt blew the building up! Brought to court and
won his case...
Sometimes I think that is what should happen to some automotive designs.
Ford was fairly successful a couple of times: '49-'51 and '52-54, but they
sure as hell weren't with the '57-'59 series. Same for Chrysler those
years. And GM too. Yuck!
Corporate short-sightedness.
Ummm... were we talking about His Lordship NJH, Emperor of Swatch? No?
Well, we shoulda been, I think.
Longfellow
SWG
> Torque was the strength of the in-line engines, true of Studebakers as
> well, I imagine.
Studebaker is being re-started again by its present owner
Lindell V. Riddle, President
NAWCC Internet Horology Chapter 185
http://nawc...@adelphia.net
Phone: (440) 461-0167
I am sure that he shall be pleased to be contacted by a genuine
Studebaker fan!
Besides "classics" in the car industry, there are also classics in the
Watch brands, e.g. my favoured one:
Omega Constellation
http://o.seston.free.fr/Watches/Images/ConstellationFace.jpg
Please come up with your own favourites.
SWG
SWG wrote:
> Studebaker is being re-started
as a watch brand
> again by its present owner
> Lindell V. Riddle, President
> NAWCC Internet Horology Chapter 185
> http://nawc...@adelphia.net
> Phone: (440) 461-0167
>
> I am sure that he shall be pleased to be contacted by a genuine
> Studebaker fan!
American Brand as an American watch brand, by an American!
Chapter 185 leads also very interesting forums about watches, horology,
etc.
Check!
Longfellow
ROFLMAO!!!!
Longfellow is a metaphor for my real name. I share nothing with the
gent named Henry Wadsworth, especially with regard literary talent.
Would I could, I would!
Longfellow
honestjohn
"Longfellow" <n...@this.address> wrote in message
H.J.
Longfellow
Interesting! A vintage auto watch! lol!!
The URL is confusing. I wound up at Adelphia.net under 'nawcc-ihc' as the
login name, but found nothing I could identify as useful.
Also checked the NAWCC site and found nothing for IHC (ihc) 185.
As for being a genuine Studebaker fan, I dunno... I liked them well
enough, and a buddy of mine back then... hmmm... interesting story.
This guy was the only son of a wealthy Northern California couple (her
money, her house, built by her parents, etc). When he was a kid, his
mother decided that she really liked the new 1953 Studebaker and ordered
a coupe from the factory, to be picked up at the factory. Well, she
arrived one Sunday morning, so the story goes, and her car was waiting
for her. Only she got the wrong car!
She had ordered a blue coupe without radio, manual transmission with OD,
in short a plain jane that I gather she intended to dress out with other
accessories. What she got was a car intended to be tested by some state
patrol. It wasn't until she got the thing home that she discovered what
she'd gotten. Studebaker sent her a letter offering to trade a top of
the line whatever, in order to get the car back.
Well, this gal (I knew her pretty well...) spent the requisite vacations
and other down time in Europe (her husband was French), and among other
things she learned how to drive in Europe. With touring machines.
Fast, very fast, touring machines. Grand Touring machines! IOW, she
learned how to drive very fast on windy mountain roads. She had some
interesting German cars when I knew her.
So she was not about to let Studebaker have this car back; she knew that
she'd gotten an "export model" which meant all sorts of
"emergency/service vehicle" parts, like heavy duty suspension,
ruggedized power train, all the things that would make a car safe for
high speed pursuit, and the like.
By the time I met my buddy, his mother had given him the car.
So the blue Study coupe had been bereft of all chrome, had been very
tastefully sorted out so that the stock body was not changed but the car
now had a distinct edge to it. Motor was stock... well, it was what
came from the factory, actually. It turned 2200 rpm at 70 mph, had an
easy 6k rev range with no valve float and would push the thing well past
120 on the clock. Verified via the measured mile, etc.
Suspension parts became available in 1957 in the Hawk series, IIRC.
Barry and I put some good touring miles on this machine, and he'd been
taught to drive by his mother. In Europe, that is. And the Study was
perfectly willing to smoke through the back roads of Northern California
with great panache. He could row that stick and OD through five
distinct gear ratios with double clutching to shift box and OD at the
same time, and smooth as silk.
I wasn't as smooth as he was, but not bad. I'd learned competition
driving at Masters Field in Miami FL, and he liked my style well enough
to have me spell him on long trips. And I can tell you, that was one
very nice touring machine! No Maser QP, or D Jag, or the like. But it
was smooth and predictable, with enough power to drive at the limit of
the then available pursuit tires. Flat out remarkable for a Studebaker
that close to stock, and for it to be a Raymond Loewy coupe was just
whipped cream!
So yes, I've some Studebaker memories, probably unlike anyone else is
likely to have had.
And I think that the 1939 Studebaker convertible (red, please...) was as
pretty a car as was made back then, FWIW.
Also like Packards, but will spare you a Packard story.... lol!!!
------------------
So what about Studebaker watches?! Got a better URL?
A genuine Studebaker watch, designed and manufactured in the USA, would
be something to own in any case. So yes, I'm interested. Can you sort
out the citation, please!
Longfellow
gpsman
> Besides "classics" in the car industry, there are also classics in the
> Watch brands, e.g. my favoured one:
>
> Omega Constellation
> http://o.seston.free.fr/Watches/Images/ConstellationFace.jpg
You call that "classic"?! HA!
Here's a Classic: http://www.interwatches.com/pics/17448486_30552.jpg
-----
- gpsman (thinks a new thread would have been more appropiate)
SWG
Longfellow wrote:
> So what about Studebaker watches?! Got a better URL?
>
> A genuine Studebaker watch, designed and manufactured in the USA, would
> be something to own in any case. So yes, I'm interested. Can you sort
> out the citation, please!
>
> Longfellow
Very interesting story. Yes please tell us the Packard story, as well
as any other about vintage cars, which made history on a separate
thread! Mind you, most of them had a Waltham clock on board: linking
your new to come thread with watches and clocks: participants can start
telling us the story of their vintage car clocks and send us pictures
sites!
Chapter 185's forum:
http://nawcc-ihc-mb.infopop.cc/eve/forums/
please check: HOROLOGICAL ITEMS "WANTED TO BUY OR TRADE"
a chapter 185 friend of mine has posted your post there.
the other address was the Lindell V. Riddle's email!
Hopefully he and you get in touch and be able to keep us informed here.
Fozzie: Oh, I'm so nervous. If I'm not funny, I won't be able to live
with myself.
Dr. Bunsen Honeydew: Well, then you'll have to get another apartment,
won't you?
Fozzie: Ahh, a bear in his natural habitat - a Studebaker.
Bernie: You, you with the banjo, can you help me? I seem to have lost
my sense of direction!
Kermit: Have you tried Hare Krishna?
[afterthe Electric Mayhem paint the Studebaker]
Fozzie: I don't know how to thank you guys.
Kermit: I don't know WHY to thank you guys.
Fozzie: You can come with us.
Gonzo: Where are you going?
Fozzie: We're following our dreams!
Gonzo: Really? I have a dream, too.
Fozzie: What?
Gonzo: You might think it's stupid.
Fozzie: No.
Gonzo: Well, I want to go to Bombay, India to become a movie star.
Fozzie: You don't go to Bombay to become a movie star. You go where
we're going, Hollywood.
Gonzo: Well, sure, if you want to do it the *easy* way.
Memorable Quotes from
The Muppet Movie (1979)
SWG
Longfellow wrote:
> On 2006-11-02, Nate Nagel <njn...@flycast.net> wrote:
> Torque was the strength of the in-line engines, true of Studebakers as
> well, I imagine.
Interesting sites about Studebaker, with lots of pictures available of
each single model made:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studebaker
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studebaker_National_Museum
http://www.studebakermuseum.org/
Find some friends:
http://www.studebakerdriversclub.com/aboutsdc.asp
"Every passion borders on the chaotic, but the collector's passion
borders on the chaos of memories."
Walter Benjamin
(German Theologian, Writer and Essayist. 1892-1940)
Nate Nagel
I've been an SDC member for maybe 5 years now. just got back from the
swap meet in Reedsville last weekend. But you've reminded me of
something. Supposedly "Studebaker" pocket watches and to a lesser
extent "South Bend" pocket watches were actually something special,
according to Studebaker partisans. What's the opinion of a group of
unbiased (heh) watch fanatics? I don't really have an opinion one way
or another; while I like Studebaker cars, a pocket watch just really
isn't my style.
John S.
Longfellow wrote:
> On 2006-11-02, Nate Nagel <njn...@flycast.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >> Oh lord, what year?
> >
> > '55... follow linky in .sig if you really want to have a look at my
> > automotive obsessions. The funny thing is it looks like a rolling trash
> > heap (as what interior remains is hideous, and generally full of tools
> > and leftover parts whenever it leaves its home) although the body is solid.
>
> Oh, now that is class! A true working machine, still in harness...
>
> >> I remember a '47/48 that was such a sweet little
> >> car with this absolute jewel of a six banger.
> >
> > Commander? The "big" six was an absolute stump puller.
>
> Torque was the strength of the in-line engines, true of Studebakers as
> well, I imagine.
>
More a function of engine size, timing, bore/stroke config and gearing
than the alignment of cylinders. The 6 cylinder flathead motor used in
the Champion produced adequate power for the car as did flathead inline
6 motors from Plymouth, Dodge, Pontiac and a few others. The much
larger Hudson flathead 6 moved that streamlined car quickly in stock
form and in modified form was a force on the tracks.
germ
<bi...@stang.snet.net> wrote:
> "Jack Denver" <nunu...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:uIednYA3XuA3XdvY...@comcast.com...
> > You seem set on it, but the Tag Aquaracer is a big waste of $ - no
> > better than your Victorinox.
>
> Is that really true, that a $1000 Tag is literally no better than my $29
> Victorinox? Common sense tells me that can't be right.
No, it's not true. That's just Jack's (and some other regulars' of this
NG) personal opinion. I can see where they are coming from: They
consider the movement the end-all and be-all in a watch. Because your
typical quartz movement only costs tens of dollars, so the argument
goes, the watch is overpriced.
Personally, I take a slightly different tack. As you already mentioned,
there is more than just the movement to a watch. Some other factors:
- unique design
- quality of the case, dial, glass, bracelet, etc.
- "name recognition", as you call it
- resale value (if you care)
- YOUR OWN PERSONAL TASTE
- etc.
I value the design in a watch more than perhaps others on this NG. For
example, I like the Omega Seamster line for their unique style and nice
quality. They come with both mechanical and quartz movements. Do I
think one type of movement should make up half the cost of the watch?
No. So I am comfortable buying either version.
Jack and others are right that part of the famous brand's watch price
subsidizes brand marketing. That's true for almost all consumer
articles. Just because BMW does the same, it does not mean I would not
buy their (arguably overpriced) cars.
>
> What do you think would really be a fair MSRP for the Tag Aquaracer that
> lists for about $1100?
That's an impossible question to answer. My answer is: Whatever the
market will bear is a fair answer.
Couple more points:
1. Jack suggested the Marcello C diver. That's a fine watch, and if you
like it, you may go for it. Personally, I really do not like brands
that COPY a famous design (in this case, the classic Rolex). This
happens all the time. Even second-tier Swiss brands "copy" the most
famous designs.
Heck, even Hublot copied AP with their Big Bang. I would never buy one.
2. I also do not like the Aquaracer, for the same reason: Some of the
models are Omega knock-offs IMHO. But that's just another personal
opinion. Ignore it and go with what your guts tell you.
--
germ Remove "nospam" to reply
Longfellow
>
> Longfellow wrote:
>
>> So what about Studebaker watches?! Got a better URL?
>>
>> A genuine Studebaker watch, designed and manufactured in the USA, would
>> be something to own in any case. So yes, I'm interested. Can you sort
>> out the citation, please!
>>
>> Longfellow
>
> Very interesting story. Yes please tell us the Packard story, as well
> as any other about vintage cars, which made history on a separate
> thread! Mind you, most of them had a Waltham clock on board: linking
> your new to come thread with watches and clocks: participants can start
> telling us the story of their vintage car clocks and send us pictures
> sites!
Oh, the Packard story is quite short.
When I was young, lean and iterant, I travelled up and down the West
Coast in a '63 Land Rover 109"; five inches of foam on a platform even
with the back seat, and all my gear underneath (not all that much, tools
clothes and guitar).
I was staying at a house in south Berkeley, and a friend sent a fellow
to me that had a very nice '53 Packard, with a busted piston! Short
story was that I made arrangements to rebuild the motor in the garage
next to the house. Ordered a set of pistons w/rings from a Studebaker
dealer down south, tore down the motor and found the cylinders just
fine. Honed them out, pulled the lifters from the side of the block and
cleaned them, and fitted 8 new pistons. Lotsa feeler gauge work,
blueing for fit, and such involved. Bearings all good, journals
pristine, fitted new inserts, and after much checking and double
checking, I buttoned it up. Replaced the water pump with a new one.
Lit it off and it just purred. Ran it around town, and ran it through
the hills, changed oil and filter. Ran it some more until it ran cool
with the timing up to snuff, changed oil and filter once more and gave
it pack to the guy. Made a few hundred bucks but gave him an excellent
price; he was happy and I was happy.
So then he takes it out on a trip. For whatever reason, he decides to
change oil and filter before starting out (I'd told him he was good to
go with fresh oil, etc). Has it done at some service station.
He's just a few miles down the road and the thing blows up! I mean it
throws a rod through the side of the crank-case!
He's upset, to put it mildly and calls my friend who calls me and we set
out to see what's going on. I'm not really worried because I'd driven
it until it was ready to go (900 miles or so), but my friend is scared.
He's had it towed to another gas station so that's where we meet him.
He's all purple faced and threatening and foaming at the mouth, so my
friend starts talking him down and I go pop the hood. Sure enough, oil
everywhere on the manifold side where the hole in the block has scrap
metal sticking out of it (sickening, I tell you!).
On the other side is the stand alone oil filter canister, and it has oil
dripping down the sides and all over the firewall and fender shroud and
such. Oops... So I call the guy over and point to the canister, tell
him I hadn't touched it so that he could see it. The center bolt that
holds the lid on is loose enough for me to unscrew it with my fingers,
and the inside of the lid *has no rubber gasket*!!!
Took the guy a few minutes to grasp what had happened... well, he paid
me for my trip out with apologies all over the place, tears streaming
down his face (well, I'd cry too if my beautiful Packard had lunched its
motor thus!).
Heard later that he sold the car...
Oh, and I do recall the clock. I *think* it was a spring mechanical
movement that ran two minutes or so and a solenoid pulled the spring
tight again. I know it didn't run the battery down. But it did run
well enough that I set it and it kept time as long as I had it.
> Chapter 185's forum:
>
> http://nawcc-ihc-mb.infopop.cc/eve/forums/
Aha, a new forum to check out!
> please check: HOROLOGICAL ITEMS "WANTED TO BUY OR TRADE"
Have to register with NAWCC to get in? Dunno, I'll check it out,
though.
> a chapter 185 friend of mine has posted your post there.
>
> the other address was the Lindell V. Riddle's email!
>
> Hopefully he and you get in touch and be able to keep us informed here.
Aha, okay. See what happens there.
Thanks for all that!
Longfellow
Longfellow
<snip>
>> Torque was the strength of the in-line engines, true of Studebakers as
>> well, I imagine.
>>
>
> More a function of engine size, timing, bore/stroke config and gearing
> than the alignment of cylinders. The 6 cylinder flathead motor used in
> the Champion produced adequate power for the car as did flathead inline
> 6 motors from Plymouth, Dodge, Pontiac and a few others. The much
> larger Hudson flathead 6 moved that streamlined car quickly in stock
> form and in modified form was a force on the tracks.
Yep, Hudson Hornet! Genuine 100mph+ car in stock trim, or so that ads
said. Won races to boot!! I was shocked to discover it did *not* have
a V8, which is why I remember it well.
Oh lord... then there was the daughter of the local Lincoln-Mercury
dealership, who was the school's "mysterious miss", read poetry and sure
would liked to have been a beatnik, I suppose. Gorgeous but
unattainable. Took a brief liking to me, and we ran around in her
Hudson Commodore sedan! Step down into the foot well, IIRC. She drove
with panache, booting that thing around like it was a hot-rod. No
matter what she did with it, it just responded as if it were the Queen
Mary doing a stately court dance before birthing.
Large speedo, chrome knobs, fake wood dash, big white plastic (little
checks and cracks) steering wheel, three on the tree, and seats like a
living room couch! Maroon, if memory serves. Like her lipstick...
Old cars are fun stuff to recall. And then there was the '49 Lincoln
Cosmopolitan with a Ford truck moter, three speed and OD, not much off
the line but in the long haul would walk away from much else...
Ummm... HotRod Lincoln!
Don't recall the clock, though.
Okay, that's enough about cars in this forum. I'm standing down.
Longfellow
Frank Adam
wrote:
>> Have mercy on "us", O great Bard of legend!
>>
>> H.J.
>>
>
>ROFLMAO!!!!
>
>Longfellow is a metaphor for my real name.
>
Ahhh, so your real name is Richard Black ? ;-)
--
Regards, Frank
claude girardin
On SWG's request, here is Lindell's answer and my reply.
"Hi Lindell,
Please try the underneath address for the thread "Tag Heuer Aquaracer
battery change" at alt.horology:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.horology/browse_frm/thread/6cc17ffcdb31f390?scoring=d&hl=en&
The posts are signed "longfellow" starting with the one on Sat, Nov
4 2006 5:23 am
Appreciating reading your post in alt.horology a near future. You can
also initiate a new thread, e.g. "Studebaker watches: relaunch".
Regards to Dr. Debbie
Claude
Le 4.11.2006 22:18, « nawc...@adelphia.net »
<nawc...@adelphia.net> a écrit :
Hi Claude,
Those are very interesting posts.
I cannot figure out where they are, but if you could either post or
eMail me a link I'd like to know more about them.
The easiest link to our site is simply:
That is our "Welcome Page" with buttons to click such as:
"Go Directly to Main Page"
<http://nawcc-ihc-mb.infopop.cc/6/ubb.x?a=cfrm∓mp;mp;mp;mp;s=3206049661>
Thanks for your help,
Lindell
:)
Looking forward to reading your exchanges both on our NG as well as on
Chapter 185.
Jack Denver
"germ" <germi...@nospam.fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:041120061559153621%germi...@nospam.fastmail.fm...
>
> No, it's not true. That's just Jack's (and some other regulars' of this
> NG) personal opinion. I can see where they are coming from: They
> consider the movement the end-all and be-all in a watch. Because your
> typical quartz movement only costs tens of dollars, so the argument
> goes, the watch is overpriced.
We'll that's not all of my argument, but it's certain a good starting point
since without the movement a stainless watch is just a piece of costume
jewelry for which nobody would pay even $100. Traditionally (at least until
the invention of the quartz movement) the reason for paying a lot of money
for a watch was that it had a high quality, high precision movement inside.
The quartz revolution kinda took the wind out of that argument, but luckily,
just in time, Swiss makers discoverd that they could substitute marketing
glitz for substance and the public would still bite.
>
> Personally, I take a slightly different tack. As you already mentioned,
> there is more than just the movement to a watch. Some other factors:
> - unique design
True, but design does not have to be expensive.
> - quality of the case, dial, glass, bracelet, etc.
True again, but a Tag case and bracelet is not notably (to my eyes at least)
better than a Victorinox. Tag probably has these made in the Far East as do
most Swiss makers nowadays. Arguably Victorinox has more experience in
working stainless steel (though in truth they probably have the cases made
under subcontract too). Again, a high quality case, bracelet, etc. can be
sourced to retail for no more than a couple of hundred $ - believe me that
you are not paying for the cost of the housing when you buy a TAG. The TAG
people are laughing into their millions if you are dumb enough to think that
you are.
> - "name recognition", as you call it
Personally I don't pay for "names", only substance, but YMMV.
> - resale value (if you care)
Tags generally have poor resale value. You could certainly expect to lose
1/2 or more of the value almost immediately. This is much more than the
entire value of a Victorinox even if you couldn't get a cent for it used.
> - YOUR OWN PERSONAL TASTE
True, but isn't price a factor? If there are two wines that taste equally
good to you in a blind tasting, shouldn't you buy the cheaper one? Or are
you the type of person that wants to impress others and overpays for Lafite
to impress your friends?
>
> Jack and others are right that part of the famous brand's watch price
> subsidizes brand marketing. That's true for almost all consumer
> articles. Just because BMW does the same, it does not mean I would not
> buy their (arguably overpriced) cars.
>
I think that "marketing" makes up a much bigger percentage of the cost of a
Tag than a BMW. If I thought another brand of auto was as well engineered as
a BMW I'd buy it. If BMW's had the same engines as Kias would you still buy
one?
>>
>> What do you think would really be a fair MSRP for the Tag Aquaracer that
>> lists for about $1100?
>
>
> That's an impossible question to answer. My answer is: Whatever the
> market will bear is a fair answer.
It's true that is what Tag should charge (and they do). But that doesn't
mean I have to buy one. There is such a thing as "overpriced" as you allude
to re:BMW. If every product that was sold "at the market" was a "good
value" by definition, then Consumer Reports, the auto magazines, etc. would
go out of business. I don't mention the watch magazines because they are
just cheerleaders for their advertisers.
>
>
> Couple more points:
> 1. Jack suggested the Marcello C diver. That's a fine watch, and if you
> like it, you may go for it. Personally, I really do not like brands
> that COPY a famous design (in this case, the classic Rolex). This
> happens all the time. Even second-tier Swiss brands "copy" the most
> famous designs.
> Heck, even Hublot copied AP with their Big Bang. I would never buy one.
You refute yourself - there are no "original" watch designs since the time
someone (lost in the mists of history) invented the twelve hour dial (even
that was copied from the sundial) and the minute hand - almost all watches
are copies of something else to one extent or another. In the rare cases
when they aren't, they just look wierd and are hard to read.
SWG
Dear Jack, I am just wondering whether you apply your above philosophy
to all the realms of your life, or is it just being applied for
watches? Everything you buy has a cost structure where the intrinsique
aggregated value of the material and workmanship do not amount to more
than perhaps 20 to 25% of the retail value, the rest covering the cost
of managing, marketing, distributing and offering general and after
sale services.
How do you value the fees of consultants, attorneys and other liberal
providers of imaterial services and their overal profits compared to
those of manufacturers?
Jack Denver
materials cost, as a rule of thumb. Where I draw the line is something like
a Tag, where I'm guessing (based on the fact that you can get other watches
with virtually identical materials for much less) that the gross margins on
Tag are much, much higher than this.
"SWG" <swissw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1162761352.0...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
germ
<nunu...@netscape.net> wrote:
> "germ" <germi...@nospam.fastmail.fm> wrote in message
> news:041120061559153621%germi...@nospam.fastmail.fm...
> >
> > Couple more points:
> > 1. Jack suggested the Marcello C diver. That's a fine watch, and if you
> > like it, you may go for it. Personally, I really do not like brands
> > that COPY a famous design (in this case, the classic Rolex). This
> > happens all the time. Even second-tier Swiss brands "copy" the most
> > famous designs.
> > Heck, even Hublot copied AP with their Big Bang. I would never buy one.
>
> You refute yourself - there are no "original" watch designs since the time
> someone (lost in the mists of history) invented the twelve hour dial (even
> that was copied from the sundial) and the minute hand - almost all watches
> are copies of something else to one extent or another. In the rare cases
> when they aren't, they just look wierd and are hard to read.
I am curious why you think this way. While a Rolex Submariner, an Omega
Speedmaster, and a Patek Calatrava all obviously have a 12h dial, each
of them also has a very distinctive and original design (which has been
imitated many times).
Jack Denver
Otherwise their dials are beautiful but not particularly original. Even the
hobnail bezel was, I'm pretty sure, not invented by Patek but something than
has been done in gold jewelry for hundreds of years.
Likewise the turning bezel was not first used on the Sub, nor was the
Speedmaster the first chronograph. It really depends what you mean by
"distinctive" and "original" - each one of them has certain styling cues
which have been widely copied and become identified with those models but
that doesn't mean that they did not in turn copy them from other (often
lesser known) models first. As I said before , a watch that is truly
"original" is usually truly "unreadable" also because we depend on familiar
cues to read the time quickly.
"germ" <germi...@nospam.fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:051120062148159376%germi...@nospam.fastmail.fm...
Bill Jones
I was fairly sure I would be getting a Tag Heuer Aquaracer as my first step
into the luxury watch market, albeit the low-end of the scale. Some posters
replied that if it makes me happy, then a Tag is okay, but most of the
replies were pretty adamant that Tag is very overpriced for the quality of
the watch. One reply went so far as to say that a quartz Aquaracer that
lists for over $1000, (but sells on amazon.com for $725), is really no
better than the 20 year old $29 Swiss Army Victorinox I currently own. He
did back off that a little when pressed, but not a lot. ;-)
So here it is 16 days or so later, and I still haven't come to a decision.
Right now, I still have the black dial Aquaracer quartz in my amazon.com
shopping cart, along with a $15 link removal tool, for a total of $740. And
I've been back to the jeweler's twice to put the Tag on my wrist, scrutinize
it close-up, compare it head-to-head with my Victorinox, and basically just
gawk at it. To me, it's a nice looking watch. The big difference in looks
between my watch and the Tag is in the quality of the bracelet - the
solid-link Tag bracelet is much nicer, and makes the Victorinox look quite
cheap in comparison. The watch itself doesn't really look any better to
me - in fact I prefer the way the Victorinox face is deep-set in the watch,
well below the crystal. You can see what I mean in this picture (sorry
about the camera shakiness):
http://img172.imageshack.us/img172/2504/1202063imglt4.jpg
After thinking about it for a couple weeks, I can now address a few points
that were previously mentioned - see below:
"Longfellow" <n...@this.address> wrote in message
news:12kgi19...@corp.supernews.com...
> On 2006-11-01, Bill Jones <bi...@stang.snet.net> wrote:
>>
>> "Longfellow" <n...@this.address> wrote in message
>> news:12kdtui...@corp.supernews.com...
>>> On 2006-10-31, Bill Jones <bi...@stang.snet.net> wrote:
>> For my tastes, a Rolex Submariner is almost the perfect watch as far as
>> looks. The watch itself is classy and great looking, but almost equally
>> important to me, the band (bracelet?) is substantial and just looks
>> expensive. But, a Submariner is WAY more than I want to spend, and for
>> me,
>> the idea of me buying a Rolex is *almost* a bit too pretentious. I mean,
>> the owner of the company I work for drives a new Maserati Quattroporte,
>> and
>> I'm not sure what brand of watch he wears, but it wouldn't surprise me
>> one
>> bit if it were a Rolex. It would fit him and his lifestyle perfectly.
>> By
>> contrast, I drive a Mustang GT, so I am more into bang-for-the-buck, but
>> my
>> stuff still has to cool and sporty to a degree...
>
> The Rolex Submariner has defined itself as classy and great looking.
> The media is the advertising that displays the model, and the message is
> driven home very effectively. Given that the proportions are decent
> (acceptable), the design simply shouts "I'm a rugged outdoorsman who
> really *needs*....", and that's all! Yes, the Rolex Sub is accounted a
> beautiful watch, but that is because we've all seen it all too many
> times presented with large graphical art values. Brainwashing,
> actually. Or very smart marketing, depending on one's point of view.
>
> The guy with the Italian 4-door sedan that will clock 150mph
> effortlessly and handle at that speed as well is probably not wearing a
> Rolex. He's probably wearing a real "high end" watch, PP, APROO, JLC,
> UN, and the like. (Ah, that's Patek Phillipe, Audemars Piguet Royal Oak
> Offshore, Jaeger LeCoultre, Ulysse Nardin...). Those are equivalent to
> the Maser QP.
Well, it turns out that our company is relatively small with about 50
employees, and I am on very friendly terms with my boss who owns the
Maserati. So I sent him an email to see if he had an opinion on nice
watches, and what his preferences were, and asked what watches he personally
owned. His response was very enthusiastic and insightful, although he
admitted that he is far from a watch expert. In fact he said that it
sounded as though I already knew more about watches than him, simply from my
lurking around the alt.horology newsgroup, and doing whatever research I did
on various websites. But he does appreciate nice things, and even mentioned
that besides Italian cars and nice watches, he also likes cigars and wines.
:-) To get to the point, however, I think he's 40 years old or so, and he
said that until somewhat recently he never wore a watch at all. Now he has
3 nice watches, and he always wears one of them now. He has a Rolex (Air
King), a Breitling 1884, and a Baume & Mercier. His wife just bought him
the B&M for his birthday, so that's his newest one, and he thinks all of
them were in the $3-5K range, but doesn't recall exactly. heh.
So, admitting that he wasn't a watch expert, he said that his advice was
"largely stylistic." He said I should just get the Rolex. I'll quote his
reasoning here as I'm sure he won't mind me doing so:
"In the long haul, a few $K difference is not going to matter, assuming you
don't often splurge like this. The upside is that you get in your own mind
the very best watch, the one you really want, the one that is really
impressive to you. A Rolex is something to be proud of. If quality
matters, then Rolex is one of the top made and most solid watches in the
world. Mine is awesome. Rolex has everything, the brand, the look, the
quality, the exclusivity."
He goes on to say that in his opinion, the more mass marketed watches like
Tag, Omega, even Movado are "faddish and unimpressive." He reasoned that
any watch that has Tiger Woods hawking it is probably not going to be top
end - because top end people have a smaller market segment to look after
than that. He did say that this was his own opinion and admitted that none
of it is necessarily fact, but when I thought about it, the analogy I came
up with is that Tiger is also hawking Buick, which is definitely NOT a top
end car line. I don't know if this means that Tag is the Buick of watches.
LOL.
But anyway, the final statement in his email really summed up the situation,
where he said "If you get the Rolex, you'll probably never wish you had
gotten a Tag instead." Now I know by saying that, he's really saying that
if I get a Tag, I'm probably going to wish I got something else instead, at
some point.
He's actually put me in a bit of a spot, because now if I get the Tag, I
will have basically ignored his advice! How is that going to look at the
Christmas party? j/k...
> Know what the ultimate display of class is? Check this out: Wear a
> really nice looking but slightly outre designed watch, and a brand that
> is not known at all. And wear at least a middle value model if not the
> best of the brand.
>
> Somebody notices the watch and says something like "Cool watch! What
> kind is that?" (What they're asking is the brand name, of course).
> Answer in an offhand manner, giving the brand and model. Now, this
> somebody has already indicated they think the watch is remarkable (they
> remarked on it already, and so now have a stake in the pot, as it were).
> So now this person has to figure out how to discover what he perceives
> he doesn't know... I mean, not knowing what one considers cool can be a
> sign of (horrors!) ignorance, dontchaknow lol!
>
> So they reply something like "Never heard of it." with an inflection
> that indicates that they are prepared to belittle what they don't
> recognize, but would really like to be put "in the know" without being
> perceived as asking for it. Sound like human nature?
>
> Your reply is something like, "You like watches?" asked with a genuine
> and inviting smile (like you're accepting him as an equal in this
> matter). He gets it that he might score here without paying any dues.
> He's already got the stake in the pot: he's expressed interest. So
> what else can he say but "Yeah, yada yada.."
>
> You can leverage that into the observation that learning about watches
> is a fun and cool thing to do, and then he'd understand why what you are
> wearing is appreciated by those "in the know". If he responds
> positively, and the chances are that he will (women don't play this
> game, usually), you will have established an amount of class for
> yourself that cannot be otherwise matched. And it's real; no fakery at
> all.
>
> In reality, this exchange goes down in a matter of a few seconds,
> usually, and any observer would consider it something like passing the
> time of day. You know something he doesn't, which confers real status
> on you, and you are happily willing to share it with him without any
> judgment of him, and he goes away with the certain conviction that you
> are a "class act".
>
> Simple, actually.
>
> And if you get a negative reaction, he will have set the tone for his
> own failure to show equal strength (possession of useful information),
> and you will have done absolutely nothing to warrant that. Which means
> he's free to turn around and ask something like, "So what's so special
> about that?" which you can then leverage as before. Anyway at all, you
> win. And so can he.
>
> Make sense?
Yes! Absolutely it does. And you have really explained it quite
eloquently. A Tag is not a conversation starter at all. I mean, maybe it
is in that it's not a Timex, but it's been fairly well established at least
in this newsgroup, that quality-wise, a Tag is not really to be mentioned
with other watches in the $1-2K range. You can perhaps compare it favorably
to say a Seiko, but even there you may have trouble convincing someone.
> So get the Marcello C, and discover why it is a special and worthwhile
> "time piece". That way if it really is a show stopper such that people
> might inquire, you're off and running as above. Essentially, let the
> obvious quality of the watch speak "Big bux" instead of the brand name.
Where I stand right now is that I'm probably going to get the Marcello C.
It seems to be the best value in a $700 watch, and it has the qualities you
mentioned above, where it should be easily recognized as a quality watch,
but at the same time, could work as a conversation starter - since most
folks will be wondering what the heck a Marcello is.
> Nope, as I said, it's not the brand that does this, it's the watch
> itself. They will not be able to see the brand name nearly as well as
> they will the quality of the watch. Thus: "Hey, that's a really cool
> watch? What is it?, and again, you're off and running like above.
There is a Marcello reseller in Long Island. I live 2 hours away in CT, but
we go to NYC each year the day after Thanksgiving just to walk around, do
some shopping, see a show, and get a nice meal. I think this year, we're
going to add a trip to the jewelry store to the list of things to do. I
hate the idea of buying a watch over the Internet, physically unseen. I
need to hold it at least, and feel the weight. The Marcello website forum
has some incredible close-up photography of the watches, much larger than
life-size, but still, I need to see the watch in person before buying it.
So, if the Marcello blows me away in person (which I expect), I will be
wearing one in little more than a week from now.
> This time I stopped at the Rolex counter and took a serious look at an
> $8kUS Submariner (blue bezel and gold case). Eric took it out of the
> case and handed it to me, and I hung it on my wrist. Serious
> substantial weight and it did sit gracefully (didn't fall off one side
> or other even though the bracelet was a tad loose). Gave it a few
> shakes and it was off and running. Yes indeed, the fit and finish left
> nothing (without an eye-piece, of course) to be desired.
If I was a bachelor and didn't have to answer to anyone else, then what my
boss said makes sense - I should just get the Rolex because deep down, it's
what I've always lusted after. Every watch I'm actually thinking of getting
is inspired by the Submariner, but cheaper versions of course. The Rolex is
the real thing. But I'm not a bachelor, and we live within some sort of
loose budget where we don't often splurge unnecessarily. So, it wouldn't
really be fair of me to inform the Mrs that I'm going to spend $4K on a
watch. And I'm just more practical than that by nature. Even $700 for a
watch is almost unfathomable to me, but I've rationalized it to being a
once-every-20-years thing. I think my boss will be far more impressed with
Marcello than he would have been if he saw a Tag on my wrist.
> But then, I'm just a crotchety old geezer with way too many opinions,
> dontchaknow... lol!!
>
> Longfellow
Well your opinions are much appreciated, and are helping me a great deal in
this agonizing decision. It shouldn't be this hard. ;-)
Now if I get the automatic Marcello, I'm going to stress about the
maintenance it might need 5 years down the road, or however frequent it is
that they need to be serviced... Oy!
sqidbait
Bill Jones wrote:
[snip]
> So here it is 16 days or so later, and I still haven't come to a decision.
> Right now, I still have the black dial Aquaracer quartz in my amazon.com
> shopping cart, along with a $15 link removal tool, for a total of $740. And
> I've been back to the jeweler's twice to put the Tag on my wrist, scrutinize
> it close-up, compare it head-to-head with my Victorinox, and basically just
> gawk at it. To me, it's a nice looking watch. The big difference in looks
> between my watch and the Tag is in the quality of the bracelet - the
> solid-link Tag bracelet is much nicer, and makes the Victorinox look quite
> cheap in comparison. The watch itself doesn't really look any better to
> me - in fact I prefer the way the Victorinox face is deep-set in the watch,
> well below the crystal. You can see what I mean in this picture (sorry
> about the camera shakiness):
Keep in mind that there are tons of quality aftermarket
bracelets out there, so you can always toss the stock
one that came with your Victorinox and replace it with
something you like more.
[snip]
> So, admitting that he wasn't a watch expert, he said that his advice was
> "largely stylistic." He said I should just get the Rolex. I'll quote his
> reasoning here as I'm sure he won't mind me doing so:
>
> "In the long haul, a few $K difference is not going to matter, assuming you
> don't often splurge like this. The upside is that you get in your own mind
> the very best watch, the one you really want, the one that is really
> impressive to you. A Rolex is something to be proud of. If quality
> matters, then Rolex is one of the top made and most solid watches in the
> world. Mine is awesome. Rolex has everything, the brand, the look, the
> quality, the exclusivity."
>
Feh. Rolex makes decent watches and charges a premium for them.
How else are they going to pay for their advertising budget?
Rolex has built up their brand to the point where the average
joe thinks that they are the ultimate in terms of watches.
They aren't.
Someone else can probably point you to the production
figures, but Rolex makes about a million watches a year.
So they are not particularly exclusive either.
> He goes on to say that in his opinion, the more mass marketed watches like
> Tag, Omega, even Movado are "faddish and unimpressive." He reasoned that
I'd take an Omega over a Rolex every day of the week, and twice on
Sundays. :-)
[snip]
> But anyway, the final statement in his email really summed up the situation,
> where he said "If you get the Rolex, you'll probably never wish you had
> gotten a Tag instead." Now I know by saying that, he's really saying that
> if I get a Tag, I'm probably going to wish I got something else instead, at
> some point.
>
The point is basically sound - you need to buy the watch
you really want.
[snip]
> There is a Marcello reseller in Long Island. I live 2 hours away in CT, but
> we go to NYC each year the day after Thanksgiving just to walk around, do
> some shopping, see a show, and get a nice meal. I think this year, we're
> going to add a trip to the jewelry store to the list of things to do. I
> hate the idea of buying a watch over the Internet, physically unseen. I
> need to hold it at least, and feel the weight. The Marcello website forum
> has some incredible close-up photography of the watches, much larger than
> life-size, but still, I need to see the watch in person before buying it.
> So, if the Marcello blows me away in person (which I expect), I will be
> wearing one in little more than a week from now.
>
Just FWIW : check out the poor man's watch forum:
One of the posters "Matt V", either works for or owns the
US Marcello distributor I believe. In any case, he also
owns tons of Marcellos. :-)
-- Michael
SWG
Bill Jones wrote:
> I first posted to this newsgroup a little over two weeks ago.
Bill, you are quite a wonderful man, a good husband & family member, a
reliable employee, a fine citizen and a very thoughtful individual,
judging from your expressed consideration, feelings, as well as your
careful approach to a major buying in your budget!
My advice to you is: POSTPONE your spending any money! Do not intend to
buy anything at all now: you are not ready as you have not found YOUR
watch yet.
Basically, as down deep at the bottom of your heart, YOUR wish is a
genuine Rolex, do not go for anything else, any "look alike" at all.
Stick to wishing getting the real Mc Coy and wait until you encounter
YOUR Rolex.
I am pretty sure that someday, by chance, you shall meet with it, at a
price, which you & your wife can afford & accept, and in a quality
equal to new (as Rolex is the only brand having a very active high
quality "second hand market").
Time is on your side, please look around and enjoy your unhurried
search, as you are going to learn a lot about watches in general and
The Rolex of your wishes in particular. There are watch forums aplenty
where you can gather information about the Rolex of your dreams, visit
the Rolex website, request catalogues, email them your questions, etc.
Look for individuals who would like to part with their Rolex for one
reason of the other, watch the deals on the internet, etc...
Until the day where you encouter YOUR (genuine) Rolex just go on
wearing your today's watch: it is much better to have a yet unfulfilled
dream, than to wake up one day with the nightmare of having not taken
the right decision!
Comes to the very worst case, should the search never end and should
you die of very, very old age before, at least you shall meanwhile have
lived a long and very happy in the pursuit of your dream!
As an alternative, you could consider buying an mechanical selfwiding
SWATCH, the Rolex of the low price end of Swiss watches, which does not
cost a lot of money and already shall give you the feel of some
originality and exclusivity.
Looking forward to reading on and on your further messages.
Respectfully and friendly Yours.
gpsman
> I first posted to this newsgroup a little over two weeks ago. At the time,
> I was fairly sure I would be getting a Tag Heuer Aquaracer as my first step
> into the luxury watch market, albeit the low-end of the scale. Some posters
> replied that if it makes me happy, then a Tag is okay, but most of the
> replies were pretty adamant that Tag is very overpriced for the quality of
> the watch. One reply went so far as to say that a quartz Aquaracer that
> lists for over $1000, (but sells on amazon.com for $725), is really no
> better than the 20 year old $29 Swiss Army Victorinox I currently own. He
> did back off that a little when pressed, but not a lot. ;-)
Simplify. The larger the timepiece, the better it is, everybody knows
that.
Buy a quartz grandfather clock, spray paint it gold, strap it to your
wrist with some zip ties and BlingBling, you've reached the pinnacle of
social status.
Whatever makes -you- happy is ok...
-----
- gpsman
SWG
Oh, I forgot, BTW smoking cigars, drinking pure malt, a Maserati and
all those status symbol do not make people any happier, they just
mostly compensate for something they are missing, which you have: loved
ones, nice family and good friends as well as a sound & happy
personality and good common sense. Do not run after mirages!
Tony Stanford
costs, and these will not be infrequent - ask at the shop how much.
Ditto for Omega, Tag, but they will require servicing slightly less
often, in practice.
In general, servicing costs for 'premium' watches are very high,
particularly if you do not live somewhere where there is a watchmaker
willing to do them. They then go back to the manufacturers, and do they
sting you. Sometimes it is impossible to get an independent watchmaker
to service them, because the manufacturers will not supply the parts (at
least, here in the UK) to independents. And those you are 'approved'
charge almost the same as the manufacturers.
In the UK, a Rolex service is about 300ukp. Thing about running costs.
They are not optional.
--
Tony Stanford
SWG
Tony Stanford wrote:
> If you don't like being without a watch when it is serviced or has a
> battery change, why not have a couple of watches? You are not allowed to
> be a member of this group if you have fewer than six! ;-}}
By your standard, I cannot remain on this NG as I do not own more than
just one single watch: a vintage Am. Waltham. The few other watches
were loaned out to me for wearing by the various Brands I have been
working for.
If I had to buy a watch for myself, I would buy the "Patek Philippe &
Rolex" of the price low end: Swatch Irony Automatic:
http://legendsinc.stores.yahoo.net/swatiraut1.html
have a look round. All Swatch watches are fun, they have an excellent
ratio price/quality, dispose of a very good after sales service and
allow you also good "talking points", recognition and exclusivity in
the ocean of Japanese / Chinese makes.
Tony Stanford
I'm disillusioned, SWG! I thought that my obsessive chronographical
tendencies were perfectly respectable if someone of your taste and
knowledge shared them. Now I shall have to find another justification or
just admit to the truth that I am obsessive.
Incidentally, I know the Japanese lower end movements - 7S26/36, 8200,
etc, but I'd be interested to know the ETA automatic movement that goes
in the lower end Swatch. Not 2824s at $99, presumably?
--
Tony Stanford
SWG
interesting and worthwhile living. Appreciating one thing or the other
to the point where one does not consider the other options does not yet
make an obsession, especially when one still realises it.
I think that it is a "simplified" 2824. Somewhere I have one tucked
away by my wife. I'll have to check.
Incidently, you know who invented, who accepted to launch the Swatch
and who develop the still today successful marketing plot? Please do
not answer: BigN. He just followed through.
How do you like the neologism: swobsession (Swiss Watch Obsession) :-)
Tony Stanford
>How do you like the neologism: swobsession (Swiss Watch Obsession) :-)
It's a nice neologism, SWG. But half of my watches are Japanese, which I
suspect is true of many people in this group. Wabsessive might be
better.
No, I don't know who invented/launched the Swatch idea. I don't actually
like them.
Don't you ever covet some of the beautiful watches you see? Want to own
a nicely crafted timepiece?
--
Tony Stanford
SWG
I have a few watches at my disposal (I do not own them, as the have
been "loaned" for a lifetime to me) , I could easily buy - for my
exclusive private use - one or the other at factory prices. I would go
for:
1) Art Deco Reverso in red Gold,
2) one or the other Ulysse Nardin time zone in SST,
3) a IWC Mark XI,
4) an Omega bi-axial,
5) a vintage Omega Moon Watch
6) a vintage Bulova Accutron
7) a vintage Tissot Astrolon
8) a vintage 1930/1940 Rolex Oyster
9) a vintage Am. Waltham Maximus pocket in solid gold
10) a vintage Elgin Curvex
My love for watches is of esthetical & "spiritual = search for
Excellency" nature, much stronger than the urge of "collecting" them.
Similarly I am very keen on most of the visual Arts: paintings,
sculpture, architecture, design furniture, Oriental rugs.
My particular love goes for Art Nouveau and its American adaptation:
Art Deco. Many U.S. citites are troves for beautiful Art Deco Building.
In U.S.A., my main pilgrimage places are the Hoover Dam and the Argyle
Hotel in Hollywood, next to the SFO, LA & NYC Momas for their contents.
IMHO, what counts is the "spirit" and not the ownership, hence my
previous answer to Bill: you must agree with me that he indeed has the
right spirit.
Cheers!
Bill Jones
"sqidbait" <sqid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1163656007.0...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
You know, that's an excellent point, and one I hadn't even thought of! I
might be happy simply upgrading the bracelet. It would be a hoot that the
bracelet would cost more than the watch, but maybe that's not that odd?
What's a good bracelet that would look like the Submariner band? Mine looks
like it's exactly 20mm between the lugs.
>> So, admitting that he wasn't a watch expert, he said that his advice was
>> "largely stylistic." He said I should just get the Rolex. I'll quote
>> his
>> reasoning here as I'm sure he won't mind me doing so:
>>
>> "In the long haul, a few $K difference is not going to matter, assuming
>> you
>> don't often splurge like this. The upside is that you get in your own
>> mind
>> the very best watch, the one you really want, the one that is really
>> impressive to you. A Rolex is something to be proud of. If quality
>> matters, then Rolex is one of the top made and most solid watches in the
>> world. Mine is awesome. Rolex has everything, the brand, the look, the
>> quality, the exclusivity."
>>
>
> Feh. Rolex makes decent watches and charges a premium for them.
> How else are they going to pay for their advertising budget?
The price is probably set by the market. I read in a couple of places that
Rolex sells every watch they make. So why lower the price?
> Rolex has built up their brand to the point where the average
> joe thinks that they are the ultimate in terms of watches.
> They aren't.
Well, my boss isn't the average Joe, because the average Joe doesn't drive a
$120K car, and have 3 watches that cost over $3K each. He did admit that he
doesn't know everything about watches, but I wouldn't underestimate him to
think that he thinks a Rolex is the ultimate watch. He said it's one of the
top watches. The other thing is, it's obvious the cost isn't that important
to him. He said he can't even recall how much the watches actually cost...
>
> Someone else can probably point you to the production
> figures, but Rolex makes about a million watches a year.
> So they are not particularly exclusive either.
Among the circle of people I've known in my life, I've known exactly 3 who
owned a Rolex. I really don't see many of them at all, except under the
glass at jewelry stores.
> Just FWIW : check out the poor man's watch forum:
>
> pmwf.com
>
Thanks for the link - great site!
Bill Jones
You are indeed very perceptive, and not wrong in your assessment - I have
not yet found my watch. It's stunning that I didn't really see that myself
until you pointed it out.
One other reply had the excellent suggestion of simply upgrading my bracelet
with a quality aftermarket one, and that might be the answer for now. It
makes a lot of sense. I have strong likes and dislikes when it comes to
bracelets - they make or break the watch for me. Deciding on a new bracelet
should be a lot less agonizing than trying to replace a watch that's like an
old friend.
Thanks for the help!
"SWG" <swissw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1163663011.5...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Bill Jones
>
> SWG wrote:
> Oh, I forgot, BTW smoking cigars, drinking pure malt, a Maserati and
> all those status symbol do not make people any happier, they just
> mostly compensate for something they are missing, which you have: loved
> ones, nice family and good friends as well as a sound & happy
> personality and good common sense. Do not run after mirages!
I won't run after them I promise.
But, I hope I'm not painting a bad picture of my boss. He really is an
awesome guy, and not pretentious at all. I've worked with him for two years
now, and it's been unlike any experience I've ever had in my life. He
actually hangs out with us worker bees fairly regularly, like twice a month
or so. Our group is about 12 people, and he'll casually send us an email
invite to a nearby bar on a day he happens to be in town, and of course
he'll pick up the tab for a meal and drinks. And he'll stay as long as
anyone else wants to stay. He's brought board games, or his portable chess
set, and he'll talk about whatever you want to talk about. He doesn't act
superior to anyone at all, though of course there is that implicit respect
we all have for him considering he's our benefactor. And until I asked
about the watches, I never knew he had a Rolex, or a Breitling, or a B&M.
He doesn't flaunt anything. Yes, the car is flashy and he admits that's
part of the appeal. But it's also a great performance car, a lot less
refined and more raw than you would think, and he loves that. It backfires
like a muscle car when you back off the throttle at higher rpms. It's 400
horsepower, and it's Italian. I talk cars with him all the time, and he
knows things about Mustangs that even a lot of Mustang guys don't know. He
works hard, has a lot of money to show for it, and he enjoys life. He
really is a great guy, and a great boss.
sqidbait
Bill Jones wrote:
> "sqidbait" <sqid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1163656007.0...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Keep in mind that there are tons of quality aftermarket
> > bracelets out there, so you can always toss the stock
> > one that came with your Victorinox and replace it with
> > something you like more.
>
> You know, that's an excellent point, and one I hadn't even thought of! I
> might be happy simply upgrading the bracelet. It would be a hoot that the
> bracelet would cost more than the watch, but maybe that's not that odd?
>
> What's a good bracelet that would look like the Submariner band? Mine looks
> like it's exactly 20mm between the lugs.
>
Look for an "Oyster" band.
http://www.pmwf.com/Watches/BraceletDifferences.htm#Overview%20of%20popular%20Bracelet%20styles
[snip]
> >
> > Feh. Rolex makes decent watches and charges a premium for them.
> > How else are they going to pay for their advertising budget?
>
> The price is probably set by the market. I read in a couple of places that
> Rolex sells every watch they make. So why lower the price?
>
Sure, but that doesn't make them the ne plus ultra of watches.
> > Rolex has built up their brand to the point where the average
> > joe thinks that they are the ultimate in terms of watches.
> > They aren't.
>
> Well, my boss isn't the average Joe, because the average Joe doesn't drive a
> $120K car, and have 3 watches that cost over $3K each. He did admit that he
> doesn't know everything about watches, but I wouldn't underestimate him to
> think that he thinks a Rolex is the ultimate watch. He said it's one of the
> top watches. The other thing is, it's obvious the cost isn't that important
> to him. He said he can't even recall how much the watches actually cost...
>
So he doesn't know much about watches, and cost isn't important
to him, yes? Hmmn.
> >
> > Someone else can probably point you to the production
> > figures, but Rolex makes about a million watches a year.
> > So they are not particularly exclusive either.
>
> Among the circle of people I've known in my life, I've known exactly 3 who
> owned a Rolex. I really don't see many of them at all, except under the
> glass at jewelry stores.
>
How many people do you know with a UN or AP?
:-)
> > Just FWIW : check out the poor man's watch forum:
> >
> > pmwf.com
> >
>
> Thanks for the link - great site!
Yeah, it's a fun site. If you ask a question about bracelets
there you'll get lots of responses - with pictures!
-- Michael
Mij Adyaw
vehicles as a result.
"gpsman" <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote in message
news:1163663294.0...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Mij Adyaw
any of the brands that you mentioned.
Mij Adyaw
are out there. There are so many damn fakes most folks will think your Rolex
is fake. Also, many folks that purchase Rolex make the purchase because
Rolex projects the "I have money" image. You know, like the sleazy used car
salesman, or Gweedo the Mafia Dude. In reality most folks that purchase
Rolexes buy them on a credit card and pay for them over 30 years. Folks that
really have money buy a brand like A-Lange, AP, Patek, Jaeger Le Coulter,
Zenith, Vacheron, etc. These watches do not make a statement except to
another watch enthusiast. Therefore, what you really need to think about is
what kind of image are you trying to convey and do you really care.
"Hey Gweedo, I some protection money for you this week" :-)
"SWG" <swissw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1163663011.5...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Longfellow
A few points to consider:
1) Rolex has a real value as part of the successful executive uniform,
and if that uniform works for you, then you should seriously consider
getting a Rolex. Otherwise, you need to justify to yourself why you
really want one, I think.
2) You have fallen into the WIS water, and now you will have to learn to
swim. Once in, you will never again be satisfied with an uninformed
choice. So you now need to discover what it is about watches that
originally fascinated you; there was an original fascination or you
would not have undergone this much angst. If you don't do that, it will
eventually surface at some point, and the question will be whether or
not you will subsequently be happy with the choices you have already
made.
In this regard, I suspect that it is just this that drives the WIS/WAS
syndromes: correcting for obsolete appreciation by buying yet another
watch! (WIS/WAS: Watch Idiot Savant / Watch Acquisition Syndrome.)
This is not a trivial matter, as many here will attest! ;)
3) One of the classiest of choices is a really fine, rare, "previously
owned" watch. Buying new is increasingly becoming just another option.
The point is that mechanical watches today are quite different in
several ways from those produced before the "quartz revolution". For
instance, Omega is now said by some to be nowhere near the quality of
watch it once was, thanks to its continued exploitation by the Swatch
Group. Obviously, some real knowledge is required here, but that is
surprisingly easy to come by as you may well discover.
4) Another observation is that it can really pay to be ahead of the
curve: The old traditions about which watches were, and were not, the
top of the heap are changing. Swiss watches are now under a difficult
burden on several accounts, and they no longer merit the acclaim they
once felt entitled. It probably won't be too long before the Far East
will be giving them a run for their money. And the Germans have already
shown themselves able to compare well with the best Switzerland has to
offer.
This is not to say that the very best the Swiss produce is not a real
candidate for king of the hill, but there is competition from elsewhere,
and there will be more.
A. Lange und Sohne can already go head to head with any of the top Swiss
brands. And other German marques can readily fill in against some of
the second tier Swiss watches. What they lack is consumer recognition,
and that will change as German marketing become more effective.
Another example from the Far East: The Grand Seiko, and the Orient Star
Royal, although staid in design, equal the second tier European watches
quite handily. From Seiko, the Spring Drive may be the harbinger of a
real revolution in horology, although the purists tend to foam at the
mouth at the very mention of that thought. :D
5) What would you do if you suddenly discovered yourself perceiving a
watch as an encased movement? That can happen, you know. Like, what
watches use the El Primero? What happened that got you to that point?
Do you know what you can do to avoid getting there? Do you really want
to?
Think about cars: drive train and chassis/suspension are what cars are
really all about when it comes time to drive them, are they not?
Spoilers on the trunk lid are "cool" until one discovers just how fast
one has to go for them to be any sort of factor at all. And then they
tend to look ridiculous, do they not?
Well, you don't go around collecting Mustangs, even though you know a
good deal about them. Same for watches, UNLESS... are you an addictive
personality? LOL!!!
6) Is this a really expensive matter? You decide: I've now spent a
total of just over $200US on four watches, each of which provided me
with real value. The first was a Clinton dress watch for $37.50, NOS
from a decade or so ago. Very tasteful fluted case, white dial, black
three hands, cabochon crown, etc. I can strap that on and one does have
to look closely to discern that it is in fact a very inexpensive watch.
If one is not really knowledgeable, that is.
Then I decided I'd really like to try a Triple Date, one of the more
common "complications". Paid $60.99US delivered from Hong Kong for an
Alpha (Chinese watch). Turned out to be a good bit more substantial
watch than one would expect. Reliably turns out +6/7 s/d when worn
24/7. I discovered I really didn't like it for several reasons. Too
much conflicting stuff going on. The date chapter just outside the
minute chapter was confusing to the extreme; dates are *not* minutes!
Why do I really need to know the month? Day/date is useful; day/month
is not.
So the next one was an Alpha Explorer homage. Again, not bad for
quality. Turns out +30/32 s/d quite reliably worn 24/7. I discovered
that I really did like the readability, and that the day/date was not a
constant necessity although often useful. Paid $39.99 for that one.
And lastly I picked up an old LeCoultre, from about 1942, for $60.00.
Nice old LeCoultre 11L (vxn) movement cased and timed in the U.S.
Probably paid more than it was worth, but maybe not. I learned that
those old watches are really fragile: Curvex glass crystal that somehow
now has some chipping, even though I've taken care with it. Worn it
three times now, and the Clinton once.
Each of these watches taught me something I wanted to know. This has
allowed me to narrow my requirements for the "real thing", and they have
given me a real sense of the important issues, for me at least. One
thing is that a titanium case is high on the list, those stainless steel
watches can be heavy enough to be uncomfortable at times, and I really
don't need the weight to feel like I'm wearing something substantial.
But then I tend to do things that way, because learning about things is
one of the abiding joys in my life. Will that work for you? Dunno, but
it's something to think about, perhaps.
However all this turns out for you, watches will never again be a
trivial matter. Is that a good thing? Well, it is commonly the only
piece of jewelry a man may wear, if he wears anything at all (rings seem
to be on the decline, dangerous to wear around machinery, etc). So
maybe a watch really does express something about the wearer.
You already have discovered that there is more to deciding these things
than you once thought. Let the process be a joyful one for you!
Longfellow
sqidbait
Mij Adyaw wrote:
> I would get a Zenith Chronomaster or a Chonoswiss Opus. They are better than
> any of the brands that you mentioned.
Ok, but I was talking exclusivity, compared with Rolex - I wasn't
trying to get the OP to buy an AP.
Personally, I'd rather buy a SpeedyPro or Citizen Nighthawk
than a Rolex, UN, AP, Zenith Chronomaster or Chronoswiss Opus.
So there!
:-P
-- Michael
SWG
On Nov 17, 12:30 pm, "sqidbait" <sqid_b...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Mij Adyaw wrote:
> > I would get a Zenith Chronomaster or a Chonoswiss Opus. They are better than
> > any of the brands that you mentioned.Ok, but I was talking exclusivity, compared with Rolex - I wasn't
> trying to get the OP to buy an AP.
>
> Personally, I'd rather buy a SpeedyPro or Citizen Nighthawk
> than a Rolex, UN, AP, Zenith Chronomaster or Chronoswiss Opus.
>
> So there!
>
> :-P
>
> -- Michael
But you one side does not exclude the other: one also get and enjoy the
best of both sides: my wife and I own and drive simultaneously (and
alternatively) an Audi A8 and a Honda Jazz (the smallest car in the
Honda line), both with great pleasure.
N8N
Mij Adyaw wrote:
> You might have just started a trend. Folks will also be purchasing larger
> vehicles as a result.
*snort*
you owe me a keyboard.
nate
honestjohn
"Mij Adyaw" <m...@TheBitBucket.com> wrote in message
> "Hey Gweedo, I some protection money for you this week" :-)
>
Haaaay! Nice pinky ring!
H.J.
SWG
"It's no good trying to keep up old friendships. It's painful for both
sides. The fact is, one grows out of people, and the only thing is to
face it."
W. Somerset Maugham