# Very, Very Expensive Watches...



## Doctor Varney (Jul 21, 2007)

> QUOTE(Doctor Varney @ Oct 9 2007, 07:36 PM) *
> 
> I'm not sure who wrote this now, but... (with regards to the UN model pictured)...
> 
> ...


This isn't specifically aimed at Potz, or anyone for that matter. I'm just a curious sort, and posted this in the interests of healthy debate. To anyone I might have offended earlier, I apologise for the precise wording. This time, I'm just interested to discover your opinions as watch collectors. I hope this discussion might result in insight and be kept within reasonably polite boundaries.

Well, I'm in no doubt that it does take many resources and a lot of skills to make a fine watch. However, some companies manage to keep their prices to within the grasp of the ordinary man, without compromising quality. But some guys just are not happy being that 'ordinary man'. I'm sure the fact their acquisition is unattainable by the average Joe, must appeal to some people. In some circles, this is regarded as snobbery. A person like myself, who researches things, before he buys, can pride themselves on owning the right thing, which is most suited to their taste/purpose. To me, that is enough to make that person quite extraordinary enough, without having to prove anything, other than taste and a little knowledge about the workings of something fine. Maybe I'm a snob, too?

I wonder how many Rolex owners even have time to think about the inner workings and resources gone into their watch? For instance, I read, from a reputable source, the theory that many people imagine their Rolex to have been made by some dusty, old man, in a little chatteux in Switzerland - when in fact, the Rolex factory is alleged to employ quite normal and modern production methods. The romantic notion, to me, is likely to be quite false and perhaps true of all these major 'hype' brands. Yes, they are rather nice (if you like that style, which I don't, particularly).

I do maintain that companies like Rolex, Omega etc, must use the powers of market forces and brand hype, to keep their price-floor exclusive. A lot of it is about joining a club. To my reckoning, it's about people with money, who like the idea of owning a fine watch, but who don't want the trouble of knowing anything about them, particularly.

"Nice watch? Suits _you_, sir... Oooh!"

"Is it good?"

"They say it's the best!"

"Thanks, that'll do..."

And not even stopping to ask who "they" are...

I'm inclined to think they assume it will be good, because it was expensive and also, popular among members of high society (or anyone else they aspire to be/ mix with).

Let us also not forget the sad tale of the poor bloke in here, earlier, whose wife bought a Â£900 Omega chrono that did less than a Â£100 watch could, only to have the more expensive replacement break down on him and seep in moisture. Are we to assume his wife poured over watch journals before she bought it? I think it's more likely a salesman may have convinced her it was the best thing since sliced bread; perfect for a gentleman - yet allegedly, did not perform as well as expected. What do you think?

Interestingly enough, many collectors who seem to know their stuff, seem to like collecting less expensive watches as well. I wonder why this is? Could it be that they are finding some extremely fine workmanship and performance at lower price brackets? It's certainly worth thinking about, isn't it.

Regards,

Doctor Varney


----------



## JoT (Aug 12, 2003)

What a load of rubbish Doctor V


----------



## Rinaldo1711 (Apr 11, 2007)

I'm sure people do buy watches on brand hype, image, celeb endorsement, etc. However, most WIS folk buy for different, not always rational or logical, reasons.


----------



## JTW (Jun 14, 2007)

If I were collecting watches purely as an investment I would in all probability ONLY collect very very expensive watches, concentrating on Pateks.

But I'm not and I'm unlikely to make any money, overall I will probably lose, not much if I am lucky. I am a collector and I buy what i like, occasionally I will be fortunate enough to acquire expensive watches, though not often. This adds to the enjoyment and owning 1 or 2 slightly exotic watches just increases the pleasure of owning the remaining pieces in my "collection".

It's great to own a "reasonably priced" watch that encapsulates a degree of quality, manufacturing skill and looks, it's brilliant to admire the design and finish on an "upmarket" piece and it's wonderfully interesting and satisfying to own some vintage watches.

Don't look for too much rationality though!

Ian


----------



## Running_man (Dec 2, 2005)

Doctor Varney said:


> Interestingly enough, many collectors who seem to know their stuff, seem to like collecting less expensive watches as well. I wonder why this is? Could it be that they are finding some extremely fine workmanship and performance at lower price brackets? It's certainly worth thinking about, isn't it.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Doctor Varney


Interesting Post Doctor V.









I'll go along with what Chris said; There's no logic to collecting at all, as far as I'm concerned anyway. I have a small (to some) modest collection of watches that I've purchased because they've taken my fancy and have a certain appeal. For example I love my old, slightly weathered Seiko Quartz because of it's everyday, inconspicuous appearance. My RLT69 is hand winding, has a simple, traditional look and was created by a small independent watchmaker in the North of England. Then there's my G10 for it's hardiness, comfort and accuracy. These are just three examples but I have others in my collection which I love to alternate, all of which were purchased because some part of my subconscious fell for something that I can't put my finger on.

No part of my collection is in any way related to financial value and when I'm gone (hopefully not for not for many decades!) I hope my two daughters cherish my collection of watches and say, "you know, Dad loved these, didn't he?"

Jesus, that's brought a lump to my throat!


----------



## JoT (Aug 12, 2003)

Doctor Varney I don't like the tenor of your post, I have read and re-read and it seems to suggest that if you buy a high end watch you are either stupid or a snob; but that you are somehow superior because you "research" and own the "right thing".

I know many "average Joe's" who own an expensive watch and who have researched and saved and appreciate greatly what they have. I don't dispute that there are also people who respond to an advertisement or marketing and buy a Rolex but what is wrong with that? They know they are buying a fine watch and why should they have to know about the inner workings or worry about the resources which have gone into the watches?

A company like the Swatch Group which owns many higher end brands including Omega make an operating profit on its jewellery and watches of 19% of net sales, this is not excessive by any means given that out of this taxes have to paid and investments funded.

You asked the question "Maybe I'm a snob to?" I don't think you are a snob but in "some circles" your views could be regarded as inverted snobbery 

The sad tale you referred to; I didn't buy that story, I am not saying that things don't sometimes go wrong, but this is the exception not the rule. the quality of all the Omegas I have owned has been exceptional as has the customer service.

I have high-end watches and I also have Â£25 Vostoks and most price ranges in between, you find reasonable performance from a Vostok but I am not overwhelmed by the "extremely fine workmanship" as my watches get more expensive so does the quality of the workmanship, now isn't that strange?


----------



## stevio (Sep 30, 2005)

This thread is quite ironic as I am usely only a browser and not an inputter.

I was going to ask today if members thought I should sell up my collection to concentrate on buying two 'Holy Grail' watches, one for work and one for 'Best'.

The problem is that as I look at my collection I can always think of an excuse to keep this or that watch, some of which I have not even worn!

This from a bloke who had a classic car and used it every day because 'a car is for driving and not keeping in a garage'.

In honesty I think the author of this thread has got it wrong, if you collect things be it art, cars, stamps, watches or even beer mats, you do it for the fun of it. Yes it can become expensive I have several Seiko's, whose total value would have allowed me to buy a nice Rolex but I don't want a Rolex. I collect because I like it.

I was in my watch repairers the other day trying to decide whether to waste money on a second hand Omega (its the sales hype that does it) when a bloke came in to get a battery for his watch. During the conversation he said to me 'The thing is there is something magical about watches, I dont know what', and that has it in a nutshell, if you want a watch to tell the time buy youself a casio quartz (advice from my watch repairer), they are accurate and when they break for Â£20 you can buy another.

If you can afford it enjoy yourself and buy what you can, as far as I am concerned even if it isn't made by elves in Switzerland as long as I am happy thats all that matters.


----------



## JoT (Aug 12, 2003)

stevio said:


> This thread is quite ironic as I am usely only a browser and not an inputter.
> 
> I was going to ask today if members thought I should sell up my collection to concentrate on buying two 'Holy Grail' watches, one for work and one for 'Best'.
> 
> ...


Great post ..... we can close the thread now!

Your last two paragraphs say it all in my opinion.


----------



## Steve R (Sep 29, 2007)

potz said:


> Just a little addendum:
> 
> Rolex is a foundation set up in 1944 after the death of his wife by Hans Wilsdorf (who never had any children) and the Aegler family to support charities helping children worldwide. According to foundation documentation, the Rolex SA company can never be sold, nor traded on any stock market.
> 
> So everytime anyone buys an (expensive) Rolex that person also supports charity work for children worldwide.


Is that so?! That's the nicest reason for buying a Rolex I've ever heard - they should make that much more widely known!







I still don't like any Rolex with the boggly date-eye though - I don't like the presumption that I'm partially sighted, or indeed that the most important thing I need to know from a watch is the date. Just my personal preference though - don't hit me!









I've not commented on this thread previously because I simply have no view on the matter - if someone can afford it, they like it, and it harms no-one else, they can spend as much as they like on anything they fancy so far as I'm concerned! I see nothing to differentiate the purchase of a Rolex over a Timex from that of a Mercedes over a Focus. They both do 90% identical jobs, and whether the subtleties of the remaining 10% are worth the extra expense is just a matter of personal preference.

I reluctantly also agree with the "magic" comment, though it does seem only a small step from there to fairies and train spotting..(I'm not sure why!). I like watches because they are many things. They serve an obvious practical purpose, they are attractive, complex, remarkably clever little machines which I don't really understand but find interesting... and they quietly, accurately and determinedly mark out time (or maybe that's Time) - pretty much the biggest concept in the universe (I'm now laying on my back gazing at the stars you understand... in my head at least! )

Anyway enough of that claptrap - certainly collecting anything beyond what you actually need is a weird-ass thing to do, but at least watches are useful and don't take up too much space!









S.


----------



## Robert (Jul 26, 2006)

Doctor Varney said:


> Interestingly enough, many collectors who seem to know their stuff, seem to like collecting less expensive watches as well. I wonder why this is?


I consider myself an enthusiast not a collector. I have several pairs of jeans (or substitute anything else you can wear) - does this make me a jeans collector.

The enthusiasm makes you want to try out different examples, models, brands. The less expensive they are, the more you can experience.


----------



## Robert (Jul 26, 2006)

stevio said:


> I was going to ask today if members thought I should sell up my collection to concentrate on buying two 'Holy Grail' watches, one for work and one for 'Best'.


Slightly off topic but ....

I sold several (and added cash) to buy a moonwatch. Traded it a few months later for cash plus two watches. The grail stops becoming a grail once you have it. A holy grail will probably just be replaced by another in time, and so on, and so on.


----------



## neilg77 (Oct 2, 2007)

I think a lot of this is also down to a sense of personal achievement.

Once I had worked for 10 years, bought my first house, owned the first good suit, etc, etc. I wanted to own a good watch. When it came to what I wanted, I had always lusted over the big named watches (being relatively uneducated about watches). Hence, my first expensive watch was a JLC. I've changed my mind several times over the years as to what I'm drawn towards but I always buy a watch that I view as an achievement to own and a joy to look at.

I only buy perhaps once a year but that usually signifies my level of achievement for that year and I buy myself something which I can afford and want. That might be a watch which is 'cheaper' but which I am interested in or it might be a more expensive watch which I have seen in the magazines, shop windows, etc and just can't get out of my head.

I like watches but keep clear of learning too much about them (for fear my watch habit might grow a bit fast!).

It would never enter my mind to judge what someone has spent on a watch as in their own mind, the price was warranted. Everything we own can be viewed as commercialism in practice, there is no need for anyone to own a 10 bedroom house (unless they're very active at family planning ;-) or to own a Bugatti Veyron but both of those things will be viewed by the owner as an achievement.


----------



## Doctor Varney (Jul 21, 2007)

_*"What a load of rubbish Doctor V"*_, said Jot.

Now now, JoT... not all are... Some Rolexes are quite nice











> Doctor Varney I don't like the tenor of your post


Perhaps I touched a nerve, or perhaps you are taking it all too seriously; I wouldn't know about that, would I?



> I have read and re-read and it seems to suggest that if you buy a high end watch you are either stupid or a snob


Then try reading between the lines, this time...



> ...but that you are somehow superior because you "research" and own the "right thing".


Preferable to me, personally, than to buy blindly, on the saleman's recommendation alone. I never said superior. Right thing for: my purpose. Right thing for me. It will differ from person to person.



> I don't dispute that there are also people who respond to an advertisement or marketing and buy a Rolex...


Glad that's settled then...



> but what is wrong with that?


Depends how you look at it. My point being, that there are many other fine watches out there, other than the houshold names. We live in a very 'consumer driven' world. I prefer to remain conscious of it and to widen my choices.



> You asked the question "Maybe I'm a snob to?" I don't think you are a snob but in "some circles" your views could be regarded as inverted snobbery


That's fine with me, but I didn't come here to hurl insults... Just to discuss what you thought about very expensive watch brands and hype. I can have pride, yeah, but my definition of snobbery is 'looking down'. If I know something, then I'd share it with someone who asked, rather than look down at them, for not knowing. We all learn from each other, in this world. The same does not always follow, with money and status. Inverted snobbery would be, I think... _Snobby about not being a snob...?_ Well, I think Potz made a very good point, where he encourages us to appreciate the non-rational side of all this.



> The sad tale you referred to; I didn't buy that story


I don't believe everything I read, but it didn't appear to me, he came here to deliver a pack of lies. It hasn't made me any less admiring of some Omegas, but potentially, I could bear it mind, if ever I should come to own one.



> the quality of all the Omegas I have owned has been exceptional as has the customer service.


Then that is your experience and that's very good. It helps our knowledge, when people share it. Could it be, you took exception to his posts, because you own Omega and this challenges your brand loyalty? Personally, I felt for the guy (unless of course, he was a compulsive liar...) but it wasn't enough to ruin my day. I felt it was a shame that some people turned on him, because he was expecting some value for money from what was a very expensive purchase, by most people's standards.



> Great post ..... we can close the thread now!


Now that's just arrogant.



> Your last two paragraphs say it all in my opinion.


All? Or just your side of it? We don't need to concentrate on 'snobbery' so much, now that you've brought 'selfishness' along for the ride.









So is it all still a load of rubbish, or has this thread brought out some interesting points about the high end watches and the 'magic' involved in owning them? Personally, I'm satisfied that is has, so far... and yet, we don't all have to agree, in order to exchange views and knowledge. Let's not just close it, because it gets on your udders a bit though... Let's see what others have to say, eh? Besides, I still have such a lot to learn about watches...

Kind regards,

Doctor Varney.


----------



## SharkBike (Apr 15, 2005)

I like turtles.


----------



## stevio (Sep 30, 2005)

Me thinks Dr Varney is having fun spending more time winding up the members of this forum than his watches.

Also POTZ I'm not sure but I think it,s still against the law to make love to your dog









Although I'm not sure about turtles.


----------



## JoT (Aug 12, 2003)

Doctor Varney said:


> Then try reading between the lines, this time...
> 
> Preferable to me, personally, than to buy blindly, on the saleman's recommendation alone. I never said superior. Right thing for: my purpose. Right thing for me. It will differ from person to person.


So that's where I have been going wrong







why didn't you say whatever it is between the lines in the first place?

Let me remind you what you said _"To me, that is enough to make that person quite extraordinary enough, without having to prove anything"_ Your clarification of what you REALLY meant is very different from what you said .... that's the trouble with having to read between the lines it's so hit and miss 



Doctor Varney said:


> Depends how you look at it. My point being, that there are many other fine watches out there, other than the houshold names. We live in a very 'consumer driven' world. I prefer to remain conscious of it and to widen my choices.


That's up to you; but you didn't answer my question, what is wrong with buying a watch after being influenced by advertising? Isn't it all about personal choice?



Doctor Varney said:


> That's fine with me, but I didn't come here to hurl insults... Just to discuss what you thought about very expensive watch brands and hype. I can have pride, yeah, but my definition of snobbery is 'looking down'. If I know something, then I'd share it with someone who asked, rather than look down at them, for not knowing. We all learn from each other, in this world. The same does not always follow, with money and status. Inverted snobbery would be, I think... _Snobby about not being a snob...?_ Well, I think Potz made a very good point, where he encourages us to appreciate the non-rational side of all this.


You are the person who brought up the subject of snobbery, you asked a question that maybe you were a snob, I simply pointed out that in "some circles" (your phrase) that you views may be considered inverted snobbery. Your original post mentioned nothing about sharing knowledge, and what do you mean when you say "the same does not always follow with money and status" ..... hmmmm ....







.. reading between the lines as you requested .... and of course I could be wrong because trying to second guess what people didn't say is notoriously difficult .... you now seem to suggest that people with money and status look down on people. *On this forum there are people who could be regarded to have "money and status" and you will not find any examples of them looking down on members for example who have a more modest budget or even no budget at all*. Unfortunately there have been a few contributors who seem to have a problem with people who have "money and status" or who buy expensive watches, to me you fall in this category. Let me remind you what else you said _"I'm inclined to think they assume it will be good, because it was expensive and also, popular among members of high society (or anyone else they aspire to be/ mix with)"._ and _"To my reckoning, it's about people with money, who like the idea of owning a fine watch, but who don't want the trouble of knowing anything about them, particularly."_ and _"But some guys just are not happy being that 'ordinary man'. I'm sure the fact their acquisition is unattainable by the average Joe, must appeal to some people"_



Doctor Varney said:


> Then that is your experience and that's very good. It helps our knowledge, when people share it. *Could it be, you took exception to his posts, because you own Omega and this challenges your brand loyalty?*


No it doesn't challenge my "brand loyalty" I have owned Omegas in the past, I have also gone through periods with no Omegas, I have recently bought a pre-owned Omega so I am an Omega owner again. With the exception of Glycine I don't think I have any brand loyalty, although I don't own a Glycine at present so maybe I am not so loyal after all!



Doctor Varney said:


> > Great post ..... we can close the thread now!
> 
> 
> Now that's just arrogant.


You really should read between the lines







"Perhaps I touched a nerve, or perhaps you are taking it all too seriously"











Doctor Varney said:


> > Your last two paragraphs say it all in my opinion.
> 
> 
> All? Or just your side of it? We don't need to concentrate on 'snobbery' so much, now that you've brought 'selfishness' along for the ride.


Hmm ... I have touched a nerve haven't I?







if having an opinion is selfishness then we are all selfish not so?



Doctor Varney said:


> So is it all still a load of rubbish, or has this thread brought out some interesting points about the high end watches and the 'magic' involved in owning them? Personally, I'm satisfied that is has, so far... and yet, we don't all have to agree, in order to exchange views and knowledge. Let's not just close it, because it gets on your udders a bit though... Let's see what others have to say, eh? Besides, I still have such a lot to learn about watches...


You have taken my comments on closing the thread far to literally, perhaps you should practice what you preach and read between the lines.

I think you just have a problem with people who buy expensive watches as you have clearly demonstrated in other posts on the forum.

http://www.thewatchforum.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=24665


----------



## VinceR (Oct 21, 2005)

I really do not understand the point of this thread, for me if I like a watch (and can afford it) I buy it, irrespective of the make. I've owned Rolex, Seiko & a lot of stuff inbetween, but nothing in the highend class for a couple of reasons (1) probably cannot afford it & (2) Have not seen anything that makes me want to part with that much cash.

As with everything my tastes ebb & flow, so what I like today I may not tomorrow & for that there's always the SC!

Also, I do not care if someone buys a watch to impress someone, that is their business, but I would feel for them nevertheless. I have a few watches which can be seen as flashy but I just like them! And then I have a few watches which do not gather any attention - that's fine with me as *I know* what they are and _*I like 'em!*_

/vince ..


----------



## JoT (Aug 12, 2003)

potz said:


> I love Rudi ...


Rudi is a great dog potz







....... although I suppose some might say that as he is an expensive dog you were influenced by the hype or perhaps you just assumed he was good because he was expensive









Anyway pics of Rudi always welcome!


----------



## Stan (Aug 7, 2003)

Get some work done the lot of ya!


----------



## JoT (Aug 12, 2003)

Stan said:


> Get some work done the lot of ya!


Yes corporal


----------



## gallch (Jan 7, 2007)

My turn, before it all gets really really silly....

I am a very inexperienced collector and my collection includes 3 watches, a Cyma, an Omega and a Longines, all about 50 years old and all of which I inherited from much loved family members, so I enjoy owning and wearing them for all sorts of reasons besides their characteristics as watches. I can't see myself ever getting rid of any of those 3.

I could afford an expensive watch (at least of the sort you have all been talking about) but don't want to spend that much money unecessarily - in other words I can get the same level of enjoyment, good feelings about myself, seeing other people notice what I have on, opportunities to strike up conversations etc etc without spending Â£Â£Â£Â£. Same reason why my BMW 5 series is 9 years old and I didn't buy it from new.

I do have a Rolex, a 1968 Precision, which I bought because I wanted to see what the fuss is all about without spending too much. It's a nice piece - though the bracelet isn't in great condition - and it looks attractive, but I have to say that although they have both been serviced recently, it keeps time less well than the slightly older and quite similar looking Cyma, which I guess would fetch about 10% of the price of the Rolex if I were to sell....go figure.

I've slightly lost track of what I'm trying to say....I had a colleague who was desperate to get her boyfriend to buy her a Patek Philippe, much more than he could really afford, just because she had decided it was the ultimate watch and she wanted to trump her friend who had "only" been bought a Chopard by her husband. That's not good. What we are doing in our hobby is just innocent enjoyment, surely?


----------



## mjolnir (Jan 3, 2006)

JoT said:


> you will not find any examples of them looking down on members for example who have a more modest budget or even no budget at all


Thats probably the best thing about this forum.

Regardless of cost, each watch can be appreciated for its own qualities.

Buy what you like and you can't really go wrong.


----------



## SharkBike (Apr 15, 2005)

Stan said:


> Get some work done the lot of ya!


Only if you show us that very, very expensive red one of yours again.


----------



## jaslfc5 (Jan 2, 2007)

dogs in glasses or funny hats ,it doesnt get any funnier than that does it .

ok sorry if i got the wrong idea about this but, form what i can see doctor v you are basically out to wind people up and youre doing a really good job .

sorry if i dont have my facts right, but there has been a few posts recently about expensive watches and how they are wrong and we should be donating it to charity [email protected]@cks quite frankly charitys waste so much money. im currently in a fight with a really big charity over a premises im trying to rent ,which they have had empty for 2 years and have another 3 yr lease paying 20k a year and they dont seem to care about the amount of money they are wasting.

so if i want to work hard and spend my hard earned on a watch that i really like ,im not going to care about what anyone thinks really ,the same as last year i went and had a hand made suit made for me and ok it cost 5 times more than an off the peg one i had a few weddings coming up and ive always wanted one.

the great thing about this forum is the fact that when the fri,sat,sun show us youre watch threads go on you can have omegas followed by vostoks followed by seikos and so on and nobody gets ripped to shreds or feels embarressed nor should you.

i just enjoy watches doesnt really matter how much they cost or what you have on youre wrist it is after all a bit of fun. and yes i do go along with the magical thing ,it must be because why else can i find the same amount of enjoyment out of a 20 pound vostok as i do from seeing a seamaster.

rant over ,if im way off just ignore me - but i hate controlling wind up merchants who push their opinions on you i get enough of them knocking my door i dont need it from a watch forum that i enjoy frequenting.rant really over im off to calm down now.

jason.


----------



## PhilM (Nov 5, 2004)

JoT said:


> potz said:
> 
> 
> > I love Rudi ...
> ...


John, the only reason Chris bought Rudi was for the designer specs


----------



## MarkF (Jul 5, 2003)

mjolnir said:


> JoT said:
> 
> 
> > you will not find any examples of them looking down on members for example who have a more modest budget or even no budget at all
> ...










What about JonW then? Time after time he posts watches I can't afford, he just doesn't think, that bloke is taking the piss.


----------



## jaslfc5 (Jan 2, 2007)

MarkF said:


> mjolnir said:
> 
> 
> > JoT said:
> ...


i have to agree with you there he has the best watches , and im usually looking for things to sell after his posts .


----------



## Stanford (Feb 10, 2007)

Jeez - I wish I could access this forum at work - it is so much more interesting!

Anyway, shops are shut now, otherwise I'd be straight out to buy the most expensive, heavily marketed and inappropriate watch I could find









Maybe tomorrow


----------



## SharkBike (Apr 15, 2005)

Stanford said:


> Jeez - I wish I could access this forum at work - it is so much more interesting!
> 
> Anyway, shops are shut now, otherwise I'd be straight out to buy the most expensive, heavily marketed and inappropriate watch I could find
> 
> ...


I'll gladly sell you one today.


----------



## Stanford (Feb 10, 2007)

SharkBike said:


> Stanford said:
> 
> 
> > Jeez - I wish I could access this forum at work - it is so much more interesting!
> ...


Thanks, but please don't - I'm far too easily led astray


----------



## tertius (Jan 30, 2007)

I agree with JoT.

HTH


----------



## Russ (Feb 7, 2006)

Things are worth what people are prepared to pay for them, it's how our society works. Interesting to read the opinions surrounding this basic fact and lots of factors come into play. One thing I did pick up on his thread was something I wanted to comment on earlier but the thread was closed. Forgive me for the following Stan!

If a Chronograph starts by engaging a moving gear and jumps a third of a millimetre from time to time, it will make sod all difference to the time measured. If it was good enough to fly a crippled space ship back to earth it should be good enough to time an egg.

If you slam a 900 quid watch around, jam a chrono button and then throw your arm in a sink then yes it will let water in it.


----------



## JonW (Mar 23, 2005)

jaslfc5 said:


> MarkF said:
> 
> 
> > mjolnir said:
> ...












To be honest, I cant really afford them either... hence why I keep selling stuff! Tho I do know whats inside them - lots of scary cogs and stuff...!
















Oh and yeah I am one of those snobs I guess... I dont get the Alpha thing or fakes, or all the sub clones... but Im cool with Seikos, citizens and russians, go figure


----------



## Stan (Aug 7, 2003)

potz said:


> JonW said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...


That's part of forum life, I'm afraid.


----------



## James (Jul 17, 2006)

SharkBike said:


> I like turtles.


Thought the gators ate em all down there









Read the thread and don't get it, simply don't get it maybe I am stupid but don't see the point to the thread. I like expensive pieces my best having the word Portugese Chrono in it. Have 40 buck pieces too that I actually wear more, maybe its the bargain factor to it. See some bashing of Rolex again, dunno, like em, tried em on many times at my watchmaker, and yet today arrived a really nice Coral Reef which actually turns me on more. If it were the early 1900's we would have 1 choice of car (watch) in 1 color, how boring that would be, imagine all of us come Saturday watch and Sunday watch thread, all post the same watch, hmm, kind of glad we all seem to have different choices, me taking the more unusual and off beat


----------



## Doctor Varney (Jul 21, 2007)

VinceR said:


> I really do not understand the point of this thread
> 
> /vince ..


I do. But then, I made it, so you'd kind of expect that, wouldn't you? For one thing, I found out this:



VinceR said:


> Also, I do not care if someone buys a watch to impress someone, that is their business, but I would feel for them nevertheless. I have a few watches which can be seen as flashy but I just like them! And then I have a few watches which do not gather any attention - that's fine with me as *I know* what they are and _*I like 'em!*_


...about you.

Also, one or two things about one or two others. Many of the replies, just like your own, I can accept, even admire, as perfectly reasonable. Others... well...

And as one or two others have suggested, you shouldn't have to justify what you like and what you want to own. Life is just too short not to enjoy it. But with some people... Well, I just sometimes wonder, if they're really happy, despite their acquisitions. Again, not pointing around in here - just musing about people I see in my own social life.



potz said:


> And of course the good Doc is a wind-up. Possibly he is a shrink playing those naff shrink games and secretly doing post-grad research on the intricacies of the enfeebled minds of (watch) collectors.


Potz, I had to snigger







Oh, if only... For it would come in handy, as my own watch collection starts to grow...









________________

Now you see, I had a sneaking suspicion there might be two sides to every story...



Russ said:


> If a Chronograph starts by engaging a moving gear and jumps a third of a millimetre from time to time, it will make sod all difference to the time measured. If it was good enough to fly a crippled space ship back to earth it should be good enough to time an egg.
> 
> If you slam a 900 quid watch around, jam a chrono button and then throw your arm in a sink then yes it will let water in it.


...So it was quite interesting to see this 'pop' up. And while this rings true to me, it still sounded 'kinda faulty' though, _if_ we were to take his word for it, that is. Yes, he could well have subjected the watch to rough treatment, without realising it. But enough from me, about the old Omega thing now... That's past it's best. I only used it as an example. But it reminded me - I bought a hi-end amplifier once, which was outlived by one of the same make, which was twenty years older. The modern, near top of the range thing broke down, while it's little predecessor still chugs on... What am I to make of this? That they don't make 'em like they used to? That, I suppose is the old adage...

And finally, *JoT... I now realise my mistake. I didn't need to wind you... You're an automatic! Silly me.







*

I think you might need a wee lie down, after all that '_reading between the lines_'.

Love & bubbles,

Doctor Varney.


----------



## Doctor Varney (Jul 21, 2007)

James said:


> Read the thread and don't get it, simply don't get it maybe I am stupid but don't see the point to the thread.


Argh... Don't play all innocent, wi' me, James









Doc.


----------



## Stan (Aug 7, 2003)

It's time this thread went to bed, night all.


----------

