...or is it just me? I am referring to the 57.... and 37.... series.
They are obviously very popular with many, but in all honesty would these sell for the prices they do without the PP name?
Does amyone else find the Patek Philippe 'sports' watches really ugly?
...or is it just me? I am referring to the 57.... and 37.... series.
They are obviously very popular with many, but in all honesty would these sell for the prices they do without the PP name?
Trolling a bit this morning, are we?
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
I wouldn't really say ugly but I certainly can't understand the attraction.
Neither did I, until I bought my first one ;-)Originally Posted by -Ally-
Well that's probably true but as the prices of them have gone silly I'm priced out to be honest. I'd like to try a 5711 blue at RRP but I do realise this ain't gonna happen.
Why not? Get your name on a list and call around. You might have to wait a while but it's not impossible. The 5711 blue was the Patek that changed my mind. Worth a try. The poor cousin aquanaut is also very nice. For what I remember of your watches, our taste is pretty similar. I'm confident you'd love a Nautilus or aquanaut.
If you don't agree with me (as many won't) that's fine.
Oh come on.
If you write that, why not on the endless stream of stunned simpletons who have seen the Rolex light?!
I for one THANK the OP for the courage to express a non fluffing opinion.
My answer to him is that the price is a Veblen one. The Veblen thing has become soooo obvious that Ikea has made it a theme of an ad campaign.
As to taste; well there is no discussing that but it must be observed that the Veblen thing also ensures that the objects of desire cannot be thought ugly by the aspiring crowd. The other side of the same coin is that value for money watches from say .... Seiko must be despised as plebeian and not even worth the reasonable money the are priced at.
For the rest; to whom the shoe fits.
Photos don't do the Nautilus justice. They really need to be seen and handled, better still worn! For me the blue dials are mesmerizing.
Isn't hating watches because they're expensive just as shallow as "despising" Seikos because they're "plebeian"?
(Not that I believe many on here "hate" Seiko on that basis - in fact most of the evidence I see is to the contrary.)
And re: the PP, I certainly don't find any of them ugly. Though the ones where you appear to have to guess the time for about three minutes of the hour owing to the subdial placement would probably do my head in a little.
It's all down to personal taste isn't it?
I think that the way Patek dials play with the light is fantastic and not something I've seen from any other manufacturer bar Moser.
That said, my preference is for the plain dials of the 3 handers.
This isn't to say that I find the complications ugly at all, I don't. They're fine watches.
Everyone raves about the omega seamaster, I think that's ugly and a bit of a dog. Doesn't make me right and everyone else wrong. :)
Much as I'd love to get involved with the poo poo-ing Veblen Patek Rolex rant it appears to be coming from someone who recently vaunted some mucky discoloured bit of plastic with a few soldered wires as beautiful so respectfully - <snort>
Oh what a wonderful confirmation of my points!
THANKS!!!
Perfect, just perfect. This comment has made my day verv :)
Simon
I used to think the design of the Nautilus was not for me, but I now love them. The more I look, the more I see.
Great thread OP.
As an aside, that sounds really interesting. I tried Google but no joy, any chance you might be able to link to the campaign?
A couple of pics showing their quality.
A couple of pics showing their quality.
Some more:
Hmmm. This is a very alluring piece. Beautifully shot too.A couple of pics showing their quality.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXqljvgcnGk
Are there many watches which would sell for their current prices without their brandname?
This & THIS. It's amazing how watch prices have skyrocketed this last couple of years...it's a shame for mere mortals like a few of us here.
I had a strange sense of deja vu when I saw this thread and now I know why...
http://forum.tz-uk.com/showthread.ph...s-these-models
Over two years on and I still love my "inelegant, clumsy, marketing exercise Austin Allegro Fossil" watch...
Thanks for reminding me!
I had totally forgotten about that thread. At least I'm consistent! :) My query now was sparked by the recent significant increase in prices.
I had a strange sense of deja vu when I saw this thread and now I know why...
http://forum.tz-uk.com/showthread.ph...s-these-models
Over two years on and I still love my "inelegant, clumsy, marketing exercise Austin Allegro Fossil" watch...
Bless.
Thanks for reminding me, I was about to write a reply but apparently I've already said everything I'll ever need to on the subject a couple of years back. In summary, it doesn't have to be beautiful when it's that sexy.
Next up, perhaps another discussion of why the Royal Oak has hexagonal screws in the bezel, or perhaps on what's wrong the Rolex cyclops.
Well if anyone want a 1970's throw back then how about this 2014 beauty.
It is a fair question....after all, these watches get plenty of praise, so why not some criticism? Personally, I find the 5711 pleasant enough. But as Patek start to crowd the face, it all goes downhill fast.
Prices in the sector I shop in haven't skyrocketed, other than the devaluation of the pound last year, but at no price point is a brandname valueless. The most extreme example I can think of is Daniel Wellington: £150 with the branding, £5 without. Similarly, what price would you get for a sterile version of a IWC design with the same Sellita / ETA movement? How much cheaper are G-shock wannabes? What's the difference in price between a Rolex and the best quality Sub homage? And so on.
Watches and how we perceive them are *so* much more than mere specifications etc, so that to single one brand out for having difficult to justify prices is bordering on absurd.
Let's put the price to one side for now...
Based purely on looks/ aesthetics, I am wondering who else find these watches really unattractive?
I think Gerald Genta hit the nail on the head with the original Royal Oak- beautiful design and I love the bracelet......
But having said that I'd still prefer a Nautilus taking residuals,cache etc into account.
They are beautifully finished and from that perspective a joy to handle, but I don't personally find the majority of them attractive designs and it wouldn't be where I'd spend, (what would be to me), a decent chunk of my hard earned cash. It's a good thing we have varying tastes however and if they do appeal aesthetically, I'm sure they are a joy to have in the collection.
I don't find them "really ugly" but they don't 'do it' for me.
AP Royal Oak = yes
Plain Nautilus = maybe I'd wear it if given one.
Aquanaut or Nautilus with complications = no way.
I do appreciate that they're superbly built but I just don't like them.
I agree. They have never appealed to me in the slightest. I'm sure they're beautifully made and will be around ticking away nicely long after I'm gone, but I find the dials crowded and unattractive.
I have always wondered about the result of a fantasy experiment where you could clear people's minds of acquired watch knowledge then change the names around on watch dials, show them photos of the watches and gather opinion. Put, for instance Raymond Weil on the Pateks, Bulova on the Rolex, Ball on the Omega etc. and let everyone comment on the looks, aesthetics and attractiveness. I think it would be a fascinating experiment!
It would but I think you can already tell which designs are aesthetically pleasing based on the 'homages' available. For instance, there are many Submariner styled watches from tons of different brands because that design is very easy on the eye. Same with a tri-compax chronographs, like the Speedmaster and early Cosmographs, there are tons of similar styled watches.
Wrong.
That is a combo of the Veblen, the aspirating and me too things. ALL about the instantly recognisable 'trade mark' design and the myth following of the original product.
When compared to the rest of the PP range, and all of the elegant timepieces they produce which manage to have more complications than anyone could need, but still look attractive and uncluttered, i'd say the sports watches look the most bland. That doesn't mean I dislike them, but were I in the fortunate enough position to be in the market for a PP, i'd go for the more traditional and elegant looking pieces.
Me. As always tho' each to their own...
I've often thought this - I find most of the Patek Philippe model designs bulky, ugly, fussy or blingy.
A simple Calatrava is my idea of a classic tasteful Patek Philippe wristwatch.
The shape and look is stating to grow on me but PP is far beyond my means so it's something I'll net need to worry about!
I'm not remotely wealthy enough to buy one but from a design point of view I question the Nautilus' bezel - that thick expanse of brushed plain metal looks bland to me (and likely a scratch magnet?). I've never actually seen one in real life though so it may be very different in the flesh.
There are several higher end brands that struggle to excite me design wise, most notably Breitling.
I'm not convinced a Breitling in the flesh would convert me as it's the busy dial design of many of their watches I dislike.
I suspect a PP in the flesh may have more chance as I find their designs neither exciting nor offensive.
I find the Richard Mille designs v unappealing.
Design wise Rolex does it for me yet I've been content with my many sub homages.
The brand I most consistently admire, however, is Tudor. Not seen one of theirs I didn't like!
Must admit they don't do anything for me either.
ktmog6uk
marchingontogether!
I had the 5711 Blue dial, the grail for alot of people. I think I bought it because everyone wanted one and it was so desireable but it did absolutely nothing for me....I sold it and havnt regretted it really. I think the white is so much nicer but didnt have the "courage" to get the white at the time because its not THE ONE to get. I find the 5990 also very very cool but the price is.....£££££££
Humans being the social group animals they are, the group thing IS a thing.
It is a very curious and powerful phenomena.
The dizzy heights to which the blatantly obvious* Veblen thing is rising shows how powerful it is.
* I soooo love the Ikea pun on it:
It not only is as clear as it can possibly be, it also makes it main stream at the fat part of the population pyramid.
I think that they are beautiful....a grail that I will buy once the school fees stage of my life is finished.
I agree, Tudor rocks.
Without looking back to confirm, I seem to recall that the Nautilus & Aquanaut were not well-liked on here in years past.
Now they are. Hey-ho.
______
Jim.
I think that's more a reflection of the changing dynamics on this forum over the past 2-3 years. Far more emphasis and enthusiasm for overtly expensive watches than used to be the case.
Paul
It used to be a platform for homage watches.
I am newish, so can't comment on that. But the most 'fun' part is the Friday pictures of unusual , often fairly priced, watches. Against them the regular expensive stuff can seem a bit disappointing. I would say that a high percentage of the likes of Seiko, Sinn. ....anything really....is the key attraction. Some of the stuff that pops up is just amazing. It is never just about money.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
