Reply With QuoteTribalism: "not my gang". Extend it a little, and you have football hooliganism especially when there's enough groupthink going around.Originally Posted by markrlondon
In viewtopic.php?f=1&t=187640&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=90 #p1900130 thattallchap labelled all Christopher Ward's (or should I say Chr.Ward's) products as "misdirected fashion tat". Whilst I'm far from a fan of all of CW's design (and the new women's watches are clearly intended to compete as fashion accessories) I think that describing all CW products as "misdirected fashion tat" is over the top. CW's watches seem to be good quality timepieces, albeit with designs that often don't seem 'quite right' to me as a WIS (but which certainly seem to sell well to non-WISs).
So what defines "misdirected fashion tat"? Is it the designs viewed in an objective-as-possible manner? Or is it tribalism: They are not 'our' favourite manufacturer so they must be fashion tat?
I've created this thread so that a venomous argument on CW watches and what defines 'fashion' watches doesn't pollute the thread I started to discuss the new 'Chr.Ward' logo. ;-)
From viewtopic.php?f=1&t=187640&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=90 #p1900130 :
and offer considerably better value these pieces of misdirected fashion tat.Don't forget that Timefactors offers an interesting range of watches at very competitive prices. :-)
Tribalism: "not my gang". Extend it a little, and you have football hooliganism especially when there's enough groupthink going around.
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
From viewtopic.php?f=1&t=187640&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=90 #p1900156 :
Nothing if not predictable.
Here's a few pictures of part of my misdirected fashion tat collection..
I can post more if you'd like. :)
Indeed. It applies to anything where there are groups of people and emotion. Since luxury goods buying is almost entirely driven by emotion I suppose that an element of tribalism is inevitable. Furthermore, the forum environment itself is inherently tribalist within a particular context.Tribalism: "not my gang". Extend it a little, and you have football hooliganism especially when there's enough groupthink going around.
There's a PhD thesis in here somewhere...
The subject was CW - not Rolex :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:Tribalism: "not my gang". Extend it a little, and you have football hooliganism especially when there's enough groupthink going around.
one basic rule - a rubbish movement at or close to the price of a proper one!.
ktmog6uk
marchingontogether!
If someone could pull apart a Christopher Ward watch, or even a ChrWard watch, and demonstrate why it's fashion "tat", then I'd pay attention. Criticism of the re-branding decision is one thing, but this forum has already decreed that whatever badge you stick on a watch, its physical attributes remain the same - has it not? I mean, if Omega was to simply re-brand its Planet Ocean as an O.mega PlanO, it would still be a great watch, underrated, good value, lovely movement, etc.
So until someone can show me that actually inside a CW is not a finished ETA 2895-2 inside with a proper steel retaining ring as they claim, but a Claro knock-off that fell out of a lorry and is held in place by putty, then "tat" will just be provocation with a side order of intolerance, and I will pay it the appropriate amount of heed. Which is to say, none.
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
That sounds like a rather good and objective rule of thumb. Simple ideas are often the best.
I wonder where it leaves some quartz Tag Heuers. ;-)
it is entirely subjective judgement, and not a neccessarily tribalistic one , although it can often appear that way in threads ( remember the good old bremont threads....) if one has a vested interest...
personally i dont see anything wrong with entirely subjective comments in watch talk. youre never going to get a concensus on a definition of what misdirected fashion tat is, at the most you might be able to pick out a general concensus on some distinct elements that people identify as contributing to 'tattishness' , but the way each of those factors are interpreted or percieved by each individual will remain unique.
what im trying to say is that its a question of taste, and taste is personal. corum bubble . need i say more?
Good luck everybody. Have a good one.
Such "rubbish" that CW unconditionally guarantee it for 5 years.
Show me another watch brand that has that much confidence in their products. Imagine sending a 4 year old Rolex/Omega/Breitling/whatever back for repair and being told "Certainly sir, there'll be no charge."
I agree.... Except that a logo is part of the watch. If a logo looks 'cheap' in a purchaser's or wouldbe purchaser's eyes then the rest of the watch might also be devalued in that person's eyes, even though they know that the rest of the watch is the same. Logos matter. There wouldn't be any logos at all if they didn't matter.
Now I should make clear that I do not think that CWs are fashion watches. I can see that they are well designed, good quality watches made to decent standards with good movements. This is true even though I don't like all their designs. Indeed, Christopher Ward watches are quite possibly OEMed by the same manufacturer that does Steinharts, and most people here seem to like Steinhart watches. Nevertheless, the new "Chr.Ward" logo looks to me like something that would appear on a fashion watch brand. To me it devalues the rest of the watch. Even though there are CW watches that I'd like to buy, I would not like to buy them with "Chr.Ward" on the dial; in my eyes the new logo cheapens the watch as a whole. A seemingly (to me) fashion brand logo on a decent quality timepiece is incongruous and devalues the otherwise excellent watch.
Whilst I am not wedded to the old "Christopher Ward London" dial text and "CW" logo, they nevertheless scream better quality (as I see it) than the new logo. The "CWL" branding that has been suggested in the CW Forum seems like a very good alternative to me, if change is needed at all.
As an aside, I said above that "I do not think that CWs are fashion watches" and this would have been 100% true until the introduction of some of the latest women's watches. Clearly these are also high quality timepieces but they are also obviously designed and intended to compete in the market of higher value women's fashion/jewellery items. Indeed, CW has gone as far as to release bracelets without movements inside! I feel that the new Chr.Ward logo would in fact suit these watches. However, although these watches are fashion items, or fashionable watches, I wouldn't call them 'fashion watches' since they (hopefully) are made to the same high standards as the rest of the range. Whether they sell well remains to be seen, just as it remains to be seen if the Chr.Ward logo is successful over the whole of the CW range of watches.
Whilst I'm not a fan of CW in particular they have some fairly pleasing looking watches in their range & I wouldn't put them in the "fashion tat" catagory.
As for "fashion tat" - I think the cheap movement / expensive price is relevant but, so is the "fashion label" branding.
As for the misdirected bit, I think that's got more to do with the buyers that the firms making money from such watches
Andy
Wanted - Damasko DC57
Absolutely. The nature of the subject is that subjectivity and emotion rule.
However, the problem with subjects that have such strong emotional content (like watch brands!) is that the 'debate' can become an argument as people feel that their personal values or themselves as individuals are being attacked (since they are mentally and emotionally invested in the watches and brands they 'love') and then the debate/argument/discourse changes from being about the subject into personal attacks.
This is where active moderation can be useful so as to cut out the ad hominem (or perceived ad hominem) and keep the discussion on track.
(No, I'm not suggesting that Eddie should step in more than he does. The forum as a whole works fine as it is. But there are times when I feel it would be nice if thread/topic OPs had mod privs over their threads/topics which might aloow them to prevent threads degenerating into emotive ad hominem. Then again, some OPs would misuse their threads to censor debate so there is no clear 'best solution'. Of course, anyone can create a new thread/topic so there would be a workaround for censorious OPs).
Followers of certain brands are more vocal than others, some Panerai fanboys go out there way to bash U-Boat watches :shock: but the truth is there is very little between them in terms of quality of components used and fit & finish for base models.
Bremont and Bell & Ross can also suffer in the same way, and yet as with the U-Boats there's not a lot to separate these watches when the brand emotion is stripped away.
fine - but no amount of customer service is going to convince me to buy a watch that i dont actually want in the first placeSuch "rubbish" that CW unconditionally guarantee it for 5 years.
Show me another watch brand that has that much confidence in their products. Imagine sending a 4 year old Rolex/Omega/Breitling/whatever back for repair and being told "Certainly sir, there'll be no charge."
Good luck everybody. Have a good one.
Emotions certainly run deep on these subjects. People certainlty get agitated about every CW debate and other subjects. Guys, it is just watches. Maybe dial it back a little.
If you really believe that, you need to get out more :lol:
There is really no comparison.
PAM - if you do not know, I can not explain :mrgreen:
Andrew, you obviously feel VERY strongly about this subject and you use VERY strong words. As do some other CW acolytes.
But let us not get ahead of ourselves.
I have nothing against CW per se.
I wrote the below in a previous thread and I stand by it:
Deep breath now :wink:
Quite, but the underlying question that lead to the creation of this thread was "Would the 'Chr. Ward' logo make you more or less likely to want any given watch than the same watch with a 'Christopher Ward London' logo?"
Let me put it to you another way: If Christopher Ward bought Seiko tomorrow, would you prefer your favourite Seiko to be rebadged as "Chr. Ward" or as "Christopher Ward London"?
My comment about the 5 year warranty was in response to a (unwarranted) suggestion that CW watches contain "rubbish" movements.
I like the tribalism analogy.
It seems that for a lot of people, buying a watch is like joining a club - but we mustn't forget that the watchmakers are just commercial companies trying to run a profitable business.
There speaks a man who has never actually seen a U-Boat :D I have actually owned two of each brand and my view is an honest opinion, and I respect yours :wink:If you really believe that, you need to get out more :lol:
There is really no comparison.
PAM - if you do not know, I can not explain :mrgreen:
One of my friends owns several CWL watches. He also owns several of Eddie's. I've handled a few & they seem fine "in the hand", but fail the acid test
as a purchase for me: would I wear it? The answer is no, I'm afraid. They're too "meh" for me, whereas I've never met a TF watch I don't like. The new
logo won't change my mind.
As to "misdirected fashion tat", well that's in the eye of the beholder. I like some of the Nixon watches, Corums etc.
______
Jim.
Come now, you can not speak for me and what I have seen :mrgreen:There speaks a man who has never actually seen a U-Boat :D I have actually owned two of each brand and is an honest opinion, and I respect yours :wink:
You speak, as if U-Boats are rare. You DO need to go out more :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
Of course, I have seen and handled U-Boats - they are frequently encountered. How could one not have encountered them.
Many shopping centres stock U-Boats :mrgreen:
GF was out shopping some time ago. She called me and asked what I thought about the U-Boat brand. I told her and she then proceeded to ask, how I then felt about a TW-Steel instead. At that point I just gave up :lol: :lol:
This could rumble on forever without actually answering the original question :wink: .
Without naming names, I would put some very expensive watches in the category of "fashion tat". Expensive doesn't necessarily mean it's good and inexpensive doesn't mean it's bad.
Anyone on here own a Jacobs?
Eddie
Whole chunks of my life come under the heading "it seemed like a good idea at the time".
i wasn't referring to chris ward, i actually think they are pretty good, even if the more recent models leave me cold there is no disputing the quality and before the recent price rises the vfm. i do think the current direction may be a mistake though as he's bringing his brand into direct competition with more established name brands. i do wonder if the logo change has something to do with this as maybe chronoswiss -whose logo is very similar-saw tham as more of a threat as they price higher.
Such "rubbish" that CW unconditionally guarantee it for 5 years.
Show me another watch brand that has that much confidence in their products. Imagine sending a 4 year old Rolex/Omega/Breitling/whatever back for repair and being told "Certainly sir, there'll be no charge."
ktmog6uk
marchingontogether!
As has been said there is certainly people who either a fan or not a fan.
I find the 5 year cover a subject of comfort when I am buying a product that some one feels that strong about that they risk losing their own money if it does not.
What I have seen since I have been buying watches ( not very Long ) is friends who also like watches. Really have their feet set in a camp they like. Then start to keyboard bash the others as if some sort of watch wars by keyboard.
I am not aware of the things being said about the watches being held togeather by gum or what ever was mentioned but I am sure they are assembled perfectly well for the job in hand.. If not then i will be claiming on the extended cover to have it fixed. Also at service they will be the ones that fix them..
Theres some great shots there of these watches. I have bought one new one and 4 others in the sale. All but one is an Auto. I am happy I love the design nothing comes close to the C15 that I liked and that still stands today..
I don't treat them as fashion tat and it's boring seeing the keyboard Warriors tapping away with their guff of hate..boring..
[/quote:bfit3rsp]
I've got a whole packet of them, they make some of the best Crackers on the market today, great with cheese or pate :lol:
Obviously it's entirely subjective but for me any brand that doesn't have its own identity and borrows too heavily and closely from others, tends to get labelled as fashion tat.
Unfortunately the examples posted here, with the possible exception of the orange dialled watch, all fall into this category for me. I would much rather have fewer or preferable no generic watches and put the proceeds towards something original.
Strangely though direct homage watches, like the examples that Eddie makes, I don't have any issues with. To my mind they're not trying to hide their influences, merely making what are either obsolete or extremely collectable pieces obtainable for the enthusiast on a budget. Plus we know that the quality is good.
YMMV but that's my take on it.
Cheers,
Gary
Well you obviously like them Mark. :lol:From viewtopic.php?f=1&t=187640&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=90 #p1900156 :
Nothing if not predictable.
Here's a few pictures of part of my misdirected fashion tat collection..
I can post more if you'd like. :)
I am not a fan of their "designs" personally and have never handled one that I can recall so can't speak to the quality but I do feel that GMT is just a crib of the Rolex and that MKII bit on the bottom of the pilot style is just a bit too much like the IWC MKXVI.
Cheers,
Neil.
Omegary Oh dear the orange faced one is in fact a Quartz watch. Never mind you like it :lol:
To be fair I am buying one of those as a daily from a forum member tomorrow only because I want to see the dial when I am kite surfing.
Actually, it isn't a quartz. The clue is on the dial, where it says "Automatic". :lol:
So going though those
I am not a fan of the Lido
The Mark II aviator I have to say is nice but so many people have a watch like this If I bought one I am not sure it would be a CW one. I have seen nicer ones.
The Pepsi Trident.. too many like it and although the watch is nice loose the bezel it's why I bought the orange dot GMT version..
C15 Henley I think is one of the best watches they have made so far. nothing else as close to it on the market I have seen. They have either been oblong too busy a face or some other reason they are terrible this clean faced eligant watch does it for me.. Nice movement too.. and when I got mine for £137 I really can't grumble!!
C6 Orange quartz nice watch for on the water never seen it with that strap before its the same as I have on my GMT trident does look much better I have to say..
C9????? not sure.. either way I have to say I am a fan of the classic watch alot like this so you would have to be a fan to buy one over other makes but certainly not a bad watch..
Actually, it isn't a quartz. The clue is on the dial, where it says "Automatic". :lol:
Then that's news to me as I was always informed they are quartz watches.. I will find out tomorrow when I put it on my arm. If it's mechanical then even better for me as it was the quartz part that was holding me back abit.. well you live and learn. Always happy to learn more. I will have to buy that strap though to go with it..
1. I didn't say that I liked it (in fact I don't) but that it doesn't appear to be a copy of another manufacturers model.
2. I have nothing against quartz watches.
3. It's actually an auto anyway.
Cheers,
Gary
P.S. Nice porker, is that yours?
I've got a whole packet of them, they make some of the best Crackers on the market today, great with cheese or pate :lol:[/quote:1grbzo4w]
Jacobs Crackers or Howdy's Crackers :lol:
Cackers and the capn - you give me so much to work with, Howdy! :P
You need to do your homework a bit mate. The original C6 is quartz, and a different colour orange. This one is a C60 which was a limited edition of 100 in 2009, basically the same watch, with a 2824-2 inside and a different coloured dial.
Nothing defines it. It's a randomly generated putdown.
While you're having fun, define these:
Structured design eloquence
Freshly designed uniqness
Torturously tedious design
Appeallingly willful playfulness
Misguided trend design
Targetted fashion inspiration
andonandonandonandonandonandon
Gray
Pate? Bloody misdirected fashion foodies. It's a chunk of cheese with your crackers and that's it. Anything else is just *so* pretentious.
;)
Using *star quotes* is just sooo pretentious :wink:Pate? Bloody misdirected fashion foodies. It's a chunk of cheese with your crackers and that's it. Anything else is just *so* pretentious.
;)
Gray
Oh, I know. *Tell* me about it...Using *star quotes* is just sooo pretentious :wink:Pate? Bloody misdirected fashion foodies. It's a chunk of cheese with your crackers and that's it. Anything else is just *so* pretentious.
;)
*Nutters!* :P
I'm very surprised that people have labelled CW as "fashion tat" and I have no idea what that mean by "misdirected". CW are reasonably priced watches with decent movements, this to me is the opposite of what constitutes a fashion watch:- overpriced watches with low quality movements.
citizen eco drive 5 yearsSuch "rubbish" that CW unconditionally guarantee it for 5 years.
Show me another watch brand that has that much confidence in their products. Imagine sending a 4 year old Rolex/Omega/Breitling/whatever back for repair and being told "Certainly sir, there'll be no charge."
Although I've had no first-hand experience with CW watches, I'd agree, based purely upon having considered their range and having browsed through their forum a few times. They seem to care about the history of watchmaking and they clearly respect their customers - that's a big step away from being a brand who just want to put the biggest piece of bling at the cheapest production price possible on their customers' wrists. I'd happily buy one of their watches if one suited my taste.
But then what do I know... I don't even mind their new branding, so don't trust my opinion! :D
Many people said Zeniths from the Nataf era were "misdirected fashion tat"... in which case I seem to be predisposed to, and rather proud of being, a bit of a "misdirected fashion tat" aficionado. 8)
For the record, some of the CW watches pictured in the forum around these latest threads aren't too bad at all, and I say that in regard to various aspects of what they are and what they stand for... and that's from a man who can't abide personal names on watches... :x
A randomly generated put down is just exactly what it is (and a bit vacuous and unoriginal to boot).
That needs qualification - the build quality and materials used were very high-grade (at the price, one would expect no less) but the design of the DEfy range was hopelessly "fashion", superficially looking no different to a huge black Diesel or Fossil. So I don't know about "tat" or "misdirected", which is a nonsensical choice of word anyway, but the designs were child-like, or (perhaps better) cartoon-like. And when you're paying £10,000 or so, you want something that looks like it hasn't been designed on the back of a textbook by an over-excited 10-year-old...
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
No, not really. I feel very strongly about shouting ignorant slogans, of any sort. Until someone can demonstrate that the innards of a CW watch are no better than the zero-jewel, plastic-spacer fashion watches they're compared to, I will ignore them too.
I have to wonder. Some here have extreme feelings towards certain brands that borders on disgust (so, not just talking about CW here!). I wonder what they think about people they come across who wear them?
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
as i said earlier, the innards are fine and very well appointed. in my opinion some of the earlier designs (c15, c8,) are also excellent, its the more recent and pricier stuff that leaves me colder. the c60 although not my taste is a new take on the divers watch looks wise i think also.
for me, i'd like to see them succeed as a small british manufacturer, but i feel they are hitting a crossroads now.
No, not really. I feel very strongly about shouting ignorant slogans, of any sort. Until someone can demonstrate that the innards of a CW watch are no better than the zero-jewel, plastic-spacer fashion watches they're compared to, I will ignore them too.
I have to wonder. Some here have extreme feelings towards certain brands that borders on disgust (so, not just talking about CW here!). I wonder what they think about people they come across who wear them?
ktmog6uk
marchingontogether!
Well, I for for one treat all people with respect, whatever they are wearing, at least initially and until given evidence to do otherwise.No, not really. I feel very strongly about shouting ignorant slogans, of any sort. Until someone can demonstrate that the innards of a CW watch are no better than the zero-jewel, plastic-spacer fashion watches they're compared to, I will ignore them too.
I have to wonder. Some here have extreme feelings towards certain brands that borders on disgust (so, not just talking about CW here!). I wonder what they think about people they come across who wear them?
A person's choice of watch is certainly no reason to despise or otherwise judge the chararcter of a person either.
Now, as to the workings of a CW, I don't care what's in it, how it stacks up quality wise, or what the level of service is, I don't like the brand image or their (to me) mishmash designs. If someone said "I've just bought this" I'd say "Congratulations". If they asked for my opinion - which is just that, my opinion - I'd give it.
Gray
I like some of them. :-) Just for the avoidance of doubt it wasn't me that posted those pictures; it was downer who posted them and I simply copied his post over to this thread since it seemed more on-topic here.Well you obviously like them Mark. :lol:From viewtopic.php?f=1&t=187640&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=90 #p1900156 :
[...]
Here's a few pictures of part of my misdirected fashion tat collection..
The ones I like from downer's pictures are the first one (white dial with blue markers), third (GMT homage), fourth (tonneau), and the sixth (the JLCish dress watch).
The first one with the white dial and blue markers is one of the CW Forum FLEs I think. As I recall I first joined the CW Forum when a few of them were still available and I now regret not buying one when I had the chance. As for the third one (the GMT homage), I'm not sure I'd actually buy it if I had the money spare; I'd probably go for a Steinhart Ocean GMT instead, but I still like it.
Posting Permissions
