Reply With QuoteTrolling a bit this morning, are we?
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-
If you don't agree with me (as many won't) that's fine.
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.
Are there many watches which would sell for their current prices without their brandname?
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.
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.
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.
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...
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?
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...
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.
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.
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!
Bless.
I hadn't ever really given them much thought and then saw a 5711 in the metal and gained a strange attraction to them. Its certainly one I'd have with the blue dial if I could procure one a retail but at the massively over inflated prices I'd rather have a few nice watches for variety than just 1 Patek 5711, I have considered selling a few to fund one though!!
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No, not everyone has an encyclopaedic knowledge of watch brands and design. Many years ago I had a cream dialled Guess watch on a brown leather strap, I liked the look of it a lot. Only years later, did I realise that watch was a rip-off of a Breitling Colt. Most buyers of low end watches are buying based on a looks, they have no idea that their Rotary Ocean Avenger is an Omega 300 copy.
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>
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.
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.....£££££££
I agree, Tudor rocks.
Oh what a wonderful confirmation of my points!
THANKS!!!
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.
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 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
Me. As always tho' each to their own...
It used to be a platform for homage watches.
I'm not getting into the Veblen chat because I've been there and done that too often. However, as a double-Nautilus owner I would simply point out that I didn't "get" them until I tried one on my wrist. When I did though I was instantly sold. I call my 5712 the ugly piggy because it isn't good looking in any conventional sense, but I think it is brilliant. So don't knock them till you've tried them. If you have and still don't like, nothing wrong with that.
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.
Add (a) zero to add perceived value.
I'd never spend that much money on a watch, so it's an academic question.
I agree that they don't really look much in photos and I was definitely baffled by the admiration, but having seen one in person I have to agree that the quality of the finish is something special and so I can see why some may choose to spend that much.
Design wise, I'm not totally sold on the Nautilus. I, too, think the slimmer Royal Oaks are better looking.
There are plenty of watches, cheap and expensive that I both like and loathe.
I think there is an element of defence of the expensive watches, purely on the suspicion of envy on the part of someone expressing a dislike or possibly a defensive on the part of owners feeling they need (in some way) to justify the expense. If you likes a watch, who cares, really, what others think?
But equally, not everyone has to like the same watches. I'm pretty ambivalent about many of the forum favourites, but I know that some of my favourite watches would figure pretty far down an all time favourites poll!
But, as I said, there's no way I'd ever spend that much on a watch, so my opinion is probably moot!
M.
Last edited by snowman; 20th February 2017 at 12:28.
Great watches. They feel very different on the wrist to how they look in pictures if that makes sense. I'd like a white dial 5711 and a 5712 in steel.
I recommend you try one on
Whether they're worth the hype. Dunno. Probably not but humans like to feel accepted. And if they have a 5711, they'll be accepted. Would they still be as desirable if they had VC or breguet on the dial? Probably not.
- - - Updated - - -
Then there will be the university fees phase of your life. Then first home, and wedding phase :)
I think that puts it very well. I'm not sure I would describe them as ugly, just not for me. A friend of mine has the moonphase Nautilus and I agree it's a beautifully made watch and I can absolutely see why people like it but it really does little for me.I'd never spend that much money on a watch, so it's an academic question.
I agree that they don't really look much in photos and I was definitely baffled by the admiration, but having seen one in person I have to agree that the quality of the finish is something special and so I can see why some may choose to spend that much.
Design wise, I'm not totally sold on the Nautilus. I, too, think the slimmer Royal Oaks are better looking.
There are plenty of watches, cheap and expensive that I both like and loathe.
I think there is an element of defence of the expensive watches, purely on the suspicion of envy on the part of someone expressing a dislike or possibly a defensive on the part of owners feeling they need (in some way) to justify the expense. If you likes a watch, who cares, really, what others think?
But equally, not everyone has to like the same watches. I'm pretty ambivalent about many of the forum favourites, but I know that some of my favourite watches would figure pretty far down an all time favourites poll!
But, as I said, there's no way I'd ever spend that much on a watch, so my opinion is probably moot!
M.
The Aquanaut, however, I find completely perplexing, there I cannot see the attraction at all. Such a strange shape to my eyes.
However, I also dislike practically every Rolex, so I'm probably in a tiny minority ... ;)
I really/honestly don't think that is the case. There has always been an enthusiasm for the watches, I can't remember a time since I've been on here when the Aquanaut and Nautilus were not liked. What is more prevalent is the number of comments, or indeed threads started by people that either don't own; don't like; used to own and have gone off; etc. etc. Brands like Patek or Rolex, which then increases the amount they are talked about on here.
What you might see is more people talking about trying a different brand. Let's face it an Aquanaut is probably only the same as maybe a Submariner LV, and a GMT, or an Omega DSOTM and PO Chrono in pricing, so of course we are going to see more people trying them.
When I could have bought an Aquanaut on bracelet for just under £10k, I could have bought 4 used Submariners! I think that puts things more into perspective.
Personally, I have an appreciation for most brands.
Last edited by Omegamanic; 20th February 2017 at 15:33. Reason: predictive text!
It's just a matter of time...
Posting Permissions
