Reply With QuoteOriginally Posted by robert75
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Just saw a video on the Federique Constant High Life (I know a dumb name).
But if VC overseas is a potential alternative to AP RO, how about this as a very cheap alternative to the VC? Has the interchangeable integrated watch strap system also.
I particularly like the two tone version, seems like great value.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
There is also the Maurice Lacroix AikonJust saw a video on the Federique Constant High Life (I know a dumb name).
But if VC overseas is a potential alternative to AP RO, how about this as a very cheap alternative to the VC? Has the interchangeable integrated watch strap system also.
I particularly like the two tone version, seems like great value.
When it comes to the high end watches from the holy trinity (or similar), I don't think you can ever get 'the same' for less. And even if you could, you wouldn't. Apart from the quality/finish, you are buying the name, the history, prestige and pride of ownership... and none of those aspects can be had 'for less'. Whilst I happily wear a variety of more modest Seikos and even Timefactor watches which all keep superb time, none of them mean remotely anything to me what my Rolex or Pateks do - in terms of the effort and sacrifice required to attain them and the value/pride of ownership as a result.
I see it as horses for courses. A few years back I asked about an Aquanaut at an AD, they said they didnt have it in stock and it would be a few months wait (I think it was about 12k at the time) I left them with my number and went about my way. Within about half hour I got a call from them saying they could get one within a month (No mention of deposit, waiting lists etc) Didnt take them up as wasnt all that interested but it honestly makes me cringe when I read about people near offering their first born son just to get on a waiting list for a Rolex or Patek or worse still paying near double for one.
Same goes for Rolex, my purchases have always been trouble free if they were anything different I would have just walked out the shop I certainly wouldnt start endless watch forum threads ranting about the evils of the Swiss and Rolex in particular.
I hear what you are saying with all the "Pride of ownership" Stuff but in my own personal experience my purchase of pretty much any of these "Iconic watches" Was pretty much "Is that it?" I certainly didnt think I had somehow entered the worlds elite perhaps its because in reality there is nothing "Special" about owning any one of these high end watches other than what personal joy it gives to the owner and pretty much any watch can give you that. There is also the factor that for every Rolex for example there is a watch of higher build quality, likewise for Patek. A trip to the Patek museum in Geneva and many of the Breguet watches were a whole lot better than the Patek and the Nautilus was an utter eyesore.
Do I love wearing my Rolex? Yes. Does it have any comparable value to me as my battered old Seiko? Nope.
Except of course they can. You can go vintage and get the actual watches that established the name, the history and the prestige. By their very nature these watches are actually rare, not pseudo rare and slightly more limited edition than anything rolling off the production line today. Of course, back in the day, an obsessive level of hand finished and fettled detail was simply what you had to do to get and keep exceptional timekeeping.
Very good point, there was a lovely vintage 18ct VC on sales corner a while back
I'll add that the bracelet on my Minase Divido was BETTER than the one on the Royal Oak I used to own. And actually by some distance. Sure the watch itself had an ETA movement and styling isn't for everyone but from a fit and finish perspective, just the polishing, case construction and bracelet manufacture alone a Minase Divido at £4.5k is better than an AP Royal Oak.
I am not saying the watch itself is better (it isn't due to the amazing AP movement) but the craftsmanship on the metalwork is above anything I've ever handled.
Fratello agrees also https://www.fratellowatches.com/hand...e-divido/#gref
I'm with spareparts on this one. I've got Seikos and G-Shocks which I really enjoy and do the same job as a Rolex but pride of ownership is a factor for me as is knowing what's gone into it. There's a difference between buying a Seiko for £700 on a whim Vs saving up for a Rolex or Omega etc.
It's the same with my Seikos. I like them a lot but they don't compare to the SLA MM300 I had before. They don't come with the same pride of ownership the MM300 did.
This is subjective however as some people will be able to afford a Rolex on a whim without a second though whereas others will have to save and plan for a Seiko Turtle.
Last edited by wileeeeeey; 18th May 2022 at 08:17.
Not about that watch specifically, but does it annoy anyone else when reviews like the one linked above don't manage a single photo of the entire watch?
Every photo is zoomed in, angled etc. Very artistic but I would just like to see the whole darn watch at least once please!
I didn't want to bring in the awful AD process of buying a Rolex/Patek into the topic per se, although it somewhat adds to the perceived desirability and can unreasonably build expectations... and a sense of achievement in being able to actually secure such a piece? (at least at RRP). And ownership certainly does not assure 'elite' status (whatever that may be). Like any piece of jewellery, I think watches are always very personal to the wearer/owner irrespective of social stature. Whilst Breguet is a fine brand, I don't think many would ever put it into the same class/level/category as a Patek/AP.
I think the issue raised by the OP of "Getting the same for less" is easily debated - what exactly is one looking to acquire that is 'the same'? Functionality? Quality of finish? Engineering? Desirability? Prestige? Functionality-wise, my most functional timekeeper is either a Garmin or iPhone lol.
JLC Master Control - Montblanc Heritage. I think they’ve changed it a bit now, but it was almost a homage originally. Trouble is, something that’s too similar will suffer from the comparison (eg Tissot vs Rolex, Frederique Constant vs Patek). Really you need an alternative that does the same job but has its own identity and integrity.
I’d love to see some viable alternatives to the best dress watches, but it’s surprisingly hard. Only vintage gems and the odd GS get anywhere near really, cheap copies always end up looking like exactly that.
More vz. Less
Rolex Deep Sea vz OceanX Sharkmaster
TBH - I don't know how they get away with it!
More vz. Less
Rolex Deep Sea vz OceanX Sharkmaster
TBH - I don't know how they get away with it!
When I saw the thread title I thought this ^^
I have a Sea Dweller and an Ocean X....
I have to say the Ocean X is amazing value for money..... and feels real quality
I think Breguet, in terms of functionality and finishing can easily compete with PP and AP. Across all the top brands such as PP, AP, Breguet, VC, ALS, JLC, GP, Blancpain, etc; when comparing pieces from equivalent positions in their portfolio, belong in the same class/ level/ category. Fit, function abs finishing are similar.
BW,
Chi Kai
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Might as well do it properly.
Did I say that all homages are as good as crap fakes? Oh, well...
Everyone I see on TZ who talks up Ocean X seems to own a DSSD. Must be really good watches.
Like Gullers, I too thought of OceanX when I saw Ryans thread. I don't however own a DSSD but my blue OceanX Sharkmster is a fantastic watch even if it is quite a chunk of a thing at 44mm/17mm. If OceanX did an SD43 in the same shade of blue as my OceanX I may just sell everything and be content.
Burn the 2nd watch now please. My eyes hurt! :)Might as well do it properly.
Did I say that all homages are as good as crap fakes? Oh, well...
Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
That's your next watch picked then, an Ocean X Cameron
I'm not one for branching out, too set in my ways. I've got 3/3 G-Shock slots full and 2/3 Seiko slots full. I need to swap out the Sumo for something else and add in an SLA MM300 again before I look at other makes. I am a bit curious though.That's your next watch picked then, an Ocean X Cameron
I agree - was there some reason (aesthetics apart) that Omega went with them.
Interesting thought on your closing statement... The person who saves for their Turtle will appreciate the purchase far more than the casual pop in and spunk 10k on a willy waving trinket on a whim. I bet the Turtle owner would be far more proud and have far more appreciation of his watch. I can relate to that.. some of best times In my life were when I had very little disposable income and I’d buy something new. It might have only been a pair of Mission speakers back in 1994 but I did love em. Next I’d have to save for a bloody CD player.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Last edited by Stilgoe1972; 28th December 2020 at 23:17.
Ha:-) Very accurate.
What these people are saying is the cheap copy of the very good watch they have is actually a good copy.
You only say that because you do not perceive a watch that costs 10k to be of sufficient value - to be worth saving up for. To you there is a price point transition where a watch becomes a “”willy waving trinket””.
Conversely, for those with greater wealth, there is a reason why they choose to not buy a Citizen watch thinking of them as cheap rubbish. Whereas I remember a time as a young kid saving up my pocket money to buy a Swatch which was of great value to me at that time.
Just because YOU can’t afford something, does not mean one denigrates a buyer’s motive as “willy waving” if they can. Value to a buyer is all relative to what they can easily afford vs what takes sacrifice.
Affordability may well be the key criteria when something is common but expensive. However, when something is actually rare but historically significant, from specific military or historical Rolex to early aviation, exploration and space race stuff, then you need more than money to be able to own one.
I'm reminded of our resident Smiths loving Vicar who has a collection studded with watches that no amount of money can buy as he's got the only known one, for example. Here, the criteria goes beyond mere knowledge and into maintaining connections that mean he'll be in the room when something interesting just might be available.
The satisfaction of getting something beautiful and historically significant that's not (yet) been pimped on hodinkee is a feeling you just can't buy. There are plenty of watches out there, at every price point, that are effectively unobtainable without doing the legwork. Money can't buy you everything.
Last edited by M4tt; 29th December 2020 at 11:06.
Ahh..."The Pride of Ownership", I seem to recall once sailing across a stretch of shallow, ugly water in an unremarkable ferry of that name!
Just as it's pissing in the wind to justify a luxury purchase, it's unworthy to opinionate on the choice of others.
Thanks Adrien - you saved me a couple of minutes there.
In a general sense there does seem to be a tendency by some to denigrate others who happen to have enough disposable income to buy watches that offer less inherent value and more brand value (and even then the balance is often misunderstood IMO). It's rude and is just reverse snobbery in action.
I think you may have misinterpreted his post.
To me at least, I think he’s making the point that saving up and working hard for something has value in itself. His post could equally apply to someone saving up for a Rolex versus a multi-millionaire casually buying a diamond encrusted AP on a whim.
Last edited by M1011; 29th December 2020 at 12:06.
It was derogatory, but the context reads differently to me - "appreciate the purchase far more than the casual pop in and spunk 10k on a willy waving trinket on a whim"
I'm sure we'd both agree that there are plenty of people that use watches to display wealth with not much further thought beyond the price. That's the type of person who would 'pop in and spunk 10k', and in that sense I agree they probably enjoy them less than an enthusiast with a less expensive watch. Even the most affluent members on here no doubt put considerable thought into their purchases. (or at least blame alcohol!)
I didn't say they had to. In fact I think I was agreeing with you - there's more than one set of criteria and more than one way for something to be hard to get hold of. Don't get me wrong, I'm wholly in favour of stupidly expensive watches, at least those who justify their stupidly expensive price by trying very hard to push the envelope of perfection even the tiniest bit further. Watches that are expensive just because they are expensive I am less excited about. However, just as there are quite a lot of modern watches, there are rather a lot of vintage watches and I find it hard to understand anyone who doesn't like at least some vintage.
Last edited by M4tt; 29th December 2020 at 13:00.
Sounds like a marketeers wet dream to me.
For me the enjoyment comes from the watch itself not some kind of perceived value or prestige attributed to the watch.
This is why I love vintage, go off brand and there are many great watches from long gone brands where marketing or perceived value is now irrelevant.
Is it just me or did anyone else check out that Laurent Ferrier, check the price and then start doing some man maths? :)
I agree and there is quite a lot of this, my point below was simply that for me I have probably reached a point where I will buy a watch for a significant reason not just as the next one on the list. A cheap Seiko I have has more personal value to me than more expensive watches that I own but thats just because of the memories associated with it. Likewise of someone has worked hard to obtain a certain watch (Be that a Seiko Turtle or a Patek) Then it should rightly have a bond with them as an achievement. Many of us here are quite happy to admire watches on display on this forum regardless of the price attached and enjoy the story behind them.
A few years back another forum member made a very good point regarding watches that once you reach a certain price point its more down to minor details (Fit, finish, polish, bracelet etc) That makes one watch stand out above another.
Back to the thread in question I dont think its a bad thing to bring up the FC Highlife or the MC Aikon and compare them to the VC overseas or AP royal oak. FC and MC have clearly took some time into the bracelet works and personally, looking at them they are a bracelet style I prefer as diver bracelets I always find uncomfortable. Granted they can never compete with the movements of a AP or VC but one has a tried and tested movement and the other has a movement with a great deal of work done to it in house, both companies also offer their own in house movements. Some may see it as cheapening the VC or AP but then the AP has never interested me the VC a little but for the price I would be more inclined towards other brands but thats just a personal opinion. I have never owned a Steinhart but I doubt any Steinhart owner seriously thinks the watches are comparable to a Rolex and likewise, I can in all honesty look at my sub and say this is not a 30x the price watch but unfortunately, that is what the market dictates so its entirely up to the customer what they choose to spend their money on.
Guinand Vs Sinn seems to be a decent comparison, both have the same design DNA but one seems to have caught the customer gouging bug while the other at least for now staying true.
IWC Pilot Vs Muhle Pilot both use an outsourced movement, both modify in house.
Given that there's only one on C24 and it's $99,000, I imagine it was just you. I can, though, point you in the direction of some pretty decent EQ For Beginners courses.
Hmmm. I'm not entirely sure what's brought on this particular tirade but whatever it is I hope it passes soon.
If you think that's a tirade then I'm not posting enough!
This is how I see things.
I don't imagine I'll ever own a Rolex, because I find very few of their watches attractive or even interesting.
I can't say I like many PPs either, but I do find many VCs very attractive.
I do like Omegas, but feel their glory days were probably the 70s, although I admire the engineering of many of their current models.
I'm sure many would find a lot of my watches horrible, but they give me pleasure, whether (relatively) expensive or cheap.
This started out as an interesting thread, but has strayed off course, as threads are wont to do.
M
Sent from my ASUS_X00PD using Tapatalk
Last edited by snowman; 29th December 2020 at 15:12.
Breitling Cosmonaute 809 - What's not to like?
This thread again illustrates the fact that so many here are so defensive about their choices and collecting habits that they constantly feel the need to denigrate the choices of others. A touch sad.
Tirade? That’s genuinely funny :)
My point was that you demonstrate a lack of both self-awareness and of empathy. You’re right, though, in hinting that my current frame of mind prompted the response, although it’s probably also a hangover from another, somewhat longer thread.
No offence intended, albeit that it probably was, a bit. Sorry about that.
No probs. I should have articulated my answer a bit more in so far as I did do the man maths, but sadly the price I could get for my kidneys is not yet sufficient. There's always the Lotto however :)
I’d like to think I enjoy watches for what they are rather than what they represent, but it’s not always so easy to separate the two. We are hard wired to see the desirable and rare as a little bit shinier.
Quite probably! For any commercially sold item - it is impossible to separate the product from its marketing and perceptions of its target market. I don't think any TZer can look as stoically objective at any brand of watch - especially vintage - without some correlation to the brand's marketing efforts - be that current, historically, or as it has evolved over time. Rolex's marketing from the 70s/80s is just as relevant to how it has affected our perception of its brand image today (at least for those who remember the old/vintage marketing).
Absolutely, I also enjoy seeing/reading about other watches here regardless of their price.
I suspect every Steinhart owner does think their watch is comparable to a Rolex. Else why buy what is so blatently a copy? Champagne taste, lemonade budget. When it comes to homage brands, I do have an issue. Imho, they are nothing more than expensive commercially justified replicas. One step removed from a Bangkok back alley 'thirty dollar' fake. Arguably, one could say similar to the myriad of Pilot watches - although I think we are now at the stage where it is clearly a style of watch and not a replica.
The acid test has to be: if every person who could afford (and acquire) a Rolex as easily (and at no financial sacrifice) as they could a Steinhart replica, would they still choose the Steinhart?
I think there is space for both in a watch collection: There are some watches which are horological masterpieces which deserve a place in any serious watch collection for their engineering novelty, as there are many which provide a sentimental or emotional memory. I regret selling my old Zenith El Primero (first watch I bought after starting full time work, and had spent several months wages on!) but I also value the Striking 10th with the Foudroyante which was horologically fascinating in the same way the Defy 21 with 1/100th accuracy.
So reverting back to the OP's topic of 'getting the same for less', I still contend that the topic is debatable and am unsure one would really want to, if you could, unless it were simply the same watch... on sale.
How about the speedy pro vs the Seiko Pogue, or are we only talking new watches?
I could be wrong but I thing the Pogue is the only watch actually chosen by an astronaut as his personal flight instrument of choice.
Not sure about the Pogue (it's a 6139 isn't it?), but the 6138 makes a good case for itself.
I paid £1700 for my Speedmaster and £125 for my 6138-3002. The Omega is a nicer watch, but the Seiko is a strong Chrono in its own right.
M
Sent from my ASUS_X00PD using Tapatalk
Breitling Cosmonaute 809 - What's not to like?
Homage watches have existed for decades and have their place in the market. In the 60s and 70s it was common for different brands to use the same cases and movements and thus nearly identical watches were available on the market with the only difference being the branding and pricing.
A watch is an emotional purchase and we all have different motivations for our choices. I have little interest in branding and prestige, instead my main interest is in a particular style of vintage chronograph.
I have some original vintage chronographs, some modern re-editions and some modern homages in a similar style. I enjoy all of these watches and in no way feel that the homages are inferior watches.
Buying a heavily marketed watch like a Rolex will always incur an opportunity cost in terms of the other quality watches that could've been bought with the same money.
This was my experience of Rolex ownership a few years ago, I liked the watches but not enough to justify the opportunity cost. In these cases a homage with a similar style for a fraction of the cost of a Rolex may be enough to "scratch the itch" (for want of a better phrase), freeing up the remaining funds to purchase a few other watches that provide more enjoyment overall.
To me spending £20k on one watch in no different than buying twenty £1k watches or spending £20k on something else like a home improvement. Why should choosing to buy the £20k watch bring some sense of prestige to the owner?
Most Steinhart owners would be able to afford a Rolex if they really wanted to, they simply choose to spend their money on other things.
None of this is meant to be a slight on Rolex and Patek owners. I hate both snobbery and reverse snobbery. Many find the appeal of these watches to be enough to overcome the opportunity cost.
For me what's important is buying a watch for the right reasons regardless of whether it is £200 or £20,000. If the intention is to portray a level of wealth or status though, that is pretty sad, whether it's a fake, homage or orignal.
Correct, the Pogue is a 6139. I chose it because William Pogue wore both the Speedy on one wrist and the 6139 on the other. However, it was the 6139 that he actually used.
The 6138 is also a great watch and for £125 what a bargain, that must have been a long time ago.
Posting Permissions
