Jump to content
  • Sign Up to reply and join the friendliest Watch Forum on the web. Stick around, get to 50 posts and gain access to your full profile and additional features such as a personal messaging system, chat room and the sales forum PLUS the chance to enter our regular giveaways.
RWP

Leaving things behind.

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, JonnyOldBoy said:

I am wearing my Casio G-Shock because I just lit the BBQ charcoal.... I know what says about me.... I need a cool looking watch , even when I am feeding the tribe !

I know ... I could not just resist developing @yokel's wonderful uptake on the ridiculous Patek marketing line.....

 It’s confess I missed that bit.  Must concentrate :toot:

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gladly leave behind this year's Monaco Grand Prix. Not often I fast forward through the race just to get me to the end. It's turned into a qualifying only circuit. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, RWP said:

 It’s confess I missed that bit.  Must take a nap. :Snore: 

Oy, I fixed that for you. :thumbsup:

Edited by Chromejob
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, RWP said:

Conspiracy theorists are usually unbalanced.  The thread is about what it says, just off to theorise about the Kennedy assassination. :thumbs_up:

Nobody collects anything from stamps to coins without their collecting habits, and collection changing with taste, knowledge, and pocket.  That’s what the thread is about.

If you think it is about 21st century distribution of wealth or horology and the socialist state I can’t help that :crazy5vh:

Eclectic.....varied, wide ranging.  I d say my fiver to hundreds qualifies.

Ah, I see you edited your post and I forgot to mention one salient fact. You need more than one person for a conspiracy. I was more contemplating the posts you make about those with 'perceived' higher end watches that you seemingly choose to distance yourself from. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My watches range from a couple of pounds to a handful of thousands. I do not tend to buy everything I see though. they're bought on the merits of the watch, with the value taken into account. Will I buy an timex etc, not a chance. Will I buy a cheap watch though, certainly. I would much rather spend £50 on a rock solid vostok amphibia than spend £50 piece of junk quartz accurist etc. But then when I buy a watch, it is to wear it without babying it, and to continue wearing it, and it functioning, for a long time; not to buy it so it can be put in a drawer so I can go and buy another one the next day, to then put that in a drawer as well. 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hughlle said:

My watches range from a couple of pounds to a handful of thousands. I do not tend to buy everything I see though. they're bought on the merits of the watch, with the value taken into account. Will I buy an timex etc, not a chance. Will I buy a cheap watch though, certainly. I would much rather spend £50 on a rock solid vostok amphibia than spend £50 piece of junk quartz accurist etc. But then when I buy a watch, it is to wear it without babying it, and to continue wearing it, and it functioning, for a long time; not to buy it so it can be put in a drawer so I can go and buy another one the next day, to then put that in a drawer as well. 

Īhmmmmm.....I call it COLLECTING :tongue:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the last two weeks I’ve bought one for 320 and one for a fiver.  The Sekonda was a fiver all steel, pretty and I like.  If I get absolute “ junk” it goes, and that has happened with a few three quid watches. I still managed to find somebody who liked them.

Cheap doesn’t mean junk.......a commonly held views by some.   I like them THAT is the point. :)

13 minutes ago, JonnyOldBoy said:

But your parameters for collecting are mysterious to many here.... because some sub £100 watches are so incredibly badly made when compared to other sub £100 watches so it beggars the question , being watch-savvy , why would you knowingly do that !?

I understand collecting , I understand hoarding ( have done both in the past with other hobbies ) ... but I don't understand the fascination of owning a poorly made watch at the same price mark as many really good ones , what is the point ? 

Genuine question by the way .... I simply don't get it.

 

Edited by RWP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, RWP said:

I like them THAT is the point. :)

At the end of the day all value is subjective (I personally know people who wouldn't buy a Rolex if it was offered to them for £5 because they don't like watches and that's that). But the whole idea of market prices is that they are sort of reflections of the subjective value judgements of thousands or even millions of people who would be interested in buying the product.

So there are two sides to this: 

On the one hand you want to buy whatever makes you happy if you can afford it (@RWP method)

On the other hand there is the good point @JonnyOldBoy makes which is that if you know about a product (watches in this case) you are able to judge it not just by the price tag (which reflects demand or, in some cases, manufacturer's whim), but by quality. 

I don't consider myself a watch expert by any means, but there are some brands I would not buy because I know I won't get the quality I pay for. So I guess in this thread people are bouncing this idea around to see what criteria do you really use to make your purchases?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Noob101 said:

So I guess in this thread people are bouncing this idea around to see what criteria do you really use to make your purchases?

Does it "stir my soul", I'm afraid. Nothing much more complex than that :blush:

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, JonnyOldBoy said:

I understand that is the point , I just don't get how you can always.... its the bit that baffles me. Example , if I put a £120 Seiko next to a £120 Rotary both intended for similar wearing situations, and both looked very nice , but on closer inspection it became clear that the Seiko was superior. As much as I may "like" the Rotary to look at , what pleasure could I derive knowing that a superior watch sits over there waiting to be worn !? This is the bit I just don't get , I just don't get what is being "liked" other than superficial aesthetics and this I would get if the person doing the wearing was not watch-wise.

I understand this point, but then again taken to its logical conclusion it would mean a person should just own one watch. That would be the watch which is the best possible value and most universally suitable. Because if I have two watches in my watch box one of which is inferior in some way, there is no reason to now own that watch is there?

My Seamaster Pro is the ultimate daily wearer, but I also recently acquired a vintage Omega automatic. The automatic is from the late 50s so it is more fragile, not as accurate (Seamaster is a modern quartz), etc. Now I am happy owning both those watches and occasionally wearing the auto. But using your value theory I should never have bought the auto because it makes no sense to buy it when I already have the Seamaster right there "waiting to be worn". I think at the end of the day I did buy the auto because of superficial aesthetics and feel (unique patina, second hand subdial, horned lugs, bumper movement).  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JonnyOldBoy said:

I dig your drift on that .... but even then for me , it has to "stir my soul" and be good value.... but I guess that value bit is doing some of the stirring....

Soul-stirring is difficult to analyse  --  but, of course, if I'm going to feel guilty about depriving further my already terribly deprived children, that is going to have an influence.

I think it is a subtle combination of beauty, snobbery and perceived value. It has to look (and feel) both good and interesting, not make me feel a pillock for buying it, and importantly must avoid ubiquity  --  I have no interest in paying out thousands (or even hundreds) to join the herd (or a waiting list).

I am helped in keeping my spending in bounds by Monsieur Genta and his ilk  --  as I really dislike anything modeled upon a porthole (French = "hublot")  --  which conveniently rules out much of the "trinity" catalogue. And whilst I admire ALS a great deal, I am very happy with the looks and quality available much less expensively next door.

So, apart from an irrational lust after some oddballs (de Bethune, Jaquet Droz, Moritz Grossmann, Moser), I'm pretty safe from the call of anything outside a price range I would consider acceptable.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, yokel said:

Remember, you never really want to own a Parnis . . . . . . . . . . . . :)

Fixed.:thumbsup:

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Daveyboyz said:

No chance of me buying a Timex, Seconda or Invicta but as I have said on other threads there are times when you don't need a high end watch... so thete is a chancr I will buy something around the £100 mark, an Orient or Seiko is definately a possibility.

 Pretty much my feeling. I have my box of Makos and Animals which probably cost me 250 quid the lot. They are great for camping, yomping, gardening, gym and just generally messing around. They are also quite good fun and rather attractive. I also have a couple of vintage watches I acquired relatively cheaply. I’m not denigrating cheap watches, but I don’t need any more. And I certainly don’t see the point in wearing a watch that looks vaguely like a Cartier when I have a Cartier in the box. If that makes sense?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, themysterybidder said:

@JonnyOldBoy

If you're in doubt about any other watches, please let me know and I'll work my magic.  :thumbsup::king:

 

Yup  --  subtly persuasive :yes:

Edited by yokel
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, RWP said:

Īhmmmmm.....I call it COLLECTING :tongue:

I call it HOARDING :whistle:

________

I thought that Rog’s question was, once you’ve had a watch of a higher level (price, or quality — I’m not sure whch he intended), would you never go back to lower levels. I think the answer is clear, everyone is drawn to a combination of value, appearance (charm), quality, fun. I don’t think many of the core WIS crowd look ONLY at price, or ONLY at quality, etc. Note the frequent impatience with new users who log on and clearly are only interested in a price level AND a target watch retaining that resale value. 

But I sense that what Rog is asking also if anyone else is  like Bond, “once you’ve had a Rolex you’ll never like anything else.” (Though he’s shown he has and enjoys many others. It’s just a sad ol’ tune he keeps playing to get a laugh.)  It’s a moot point, he’s the only one I can think of on this forum who expresses such a bias. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Īhmmmmm.....I call it COLLECTING :tongue:

            I call it HOARDING :whistle:

 
 
Gentlemen  --  time for some semantic discussion. I reference (fair play to the "away" team) Merriam Webster.
 
A collection is defined as: an accumulation of objects gathered for study, comparison, or exhibition or as a hobby
A hoard is: a supply or fund stored up and often hidden away
 
Checking with the home team (Oxford Dictionaries) produces very similar definitions, except to add (for a hoard) the words: typically one that is secret or carefully guarded
 
I note that neither source indicates that a hoard should be larger, or necessarily less well organized than a collection. Neither can it be inferred that the component parts of a collection are inherently more valuable than those of a hoard.
The key differences seem to be in the essentially extrovert nature of a collection (study, comparison, exhibition) and the more introvert nature of a hoard (hidden, secret, guarded).
 
Without having analysed RWP's posts in detail, it seems to me that (when he can find them) he is more than willing to share and exhibit his wares in an extrovert fashion.
 
I would therefore tend to find for the accused.
 
 
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, yokel said:

Īhmmmmm.....I call it COLLECTING :tongue:

            I call it HOARDING :whistle:

 
 
Gentlemen  --  time for some semantic discussion. I reference (fair play to the "away" team) Merriam Webster.
 
A collection is defined as: an accumulation of objects gathered for study, comparison, or exhibition or as a hobby
A hoard is: a supply or fund stored up and often hidden away
 
Checking with the home team (Oxford Dictionaries) produces very similar definitions, except to add (for a hoard) the words: typically one that is secret or carefully guarded
 
I note that neither source indicates that a hoard should be larger, or necessarily less well organized than a collection. Neither can it be inferred that the component parts of a collection are inherently more valuable than those of a hoard.
The key differences seem to be in the essentially extrovert nature of a collection (study, comparison, exhibition) and the more introvert nature of a hoard (hidden, secret, guarded).
 
Without having analysed RWP's posts in detail, it seems to me that (when he can find them) he is more than willing to share and exhibit his wares in an extrovert fashion.
 
I would therefore tend to find for the accused.
 
 

:whistle::laugh:

On 27/05/2018 at 10:28, RWP said:

I'm a hoarder

 

 

Edited by hughlle
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, yokel said:

Īhmmmmm.....I call it COLLECTING :tongue:

            I call it HOARDING :whistle:

 
 
Gentlemen  --  time for some semantic discussion. I reference (fair play to the "away" team) Merriam Webster.
 
 
 

I didn’t link to a dictionary, but a more detailed article. Some attributes that I recognize:

Quote

Compulsive hoarding, also known as hoarding disorder,[1]is a pattern of behavior that is characterized by excessive acquisition and an inability or unwillingness to discard large quantities of objects that cover the living areas of the home....

[Symptoms include] … Their home is cluttered to the point where many parts are inaccessible and can no longer be used for intended purposes. [Closets or night stand drawers]

… Excessive acquisition is only present if there is a specific obsession with a certain item [watches]

 

And of course, I’m not a medical professional, am not making a diagnosis. I’m being facetious. But — I don’t call watches piled into night table drawers and covering the top a “collection,” I call that hoarding. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Chromejob said:

I didn’t link to a dictionary, but a more detailed article. Some attributes that I recognize:

And of course, I’m not a medical professional, am not making a diagnosis. I’m being facetious. But — I don’t call watches piled into night table drawers and covering the top a “collection,” I call that hoarding. 

I paid , I get to call mine what I like.........fair?   Plus there twenty years worth knocking about.....that’s collecting:clap:

The living area on home is clutter free, I have a wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 28/05/2018 at 10:46, hughlle said:

:whistle::laugh:

 

:whistle: 

 

On 09/01/2018 at 17:12, RWP said:

Are you so Wis you have near identical watches.......a sure sign of OCD :)

I have two sets of identical watches, but I'll post these a testament to hoarding..   

 

"I call it collecting"  :laugh: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...