191–200 of 278 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe parent comment is trying to convey that more societal good could be done through more effective donations compared to donating thousands to a watchmaker or watchmaking corporation. Are they using the surplus to better society or only to enrich themselves?
More societal good would be done if governments enacted policies which help people instead of relying on charity from the wealthy... Also watchmaking is blue collar work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Any Swatch or Casio keeps better time ... and that's my cue to pimp one of the most practical watch of all time - Casio Oceanus, the 100 series. * Analog watch face. * Quartz, radio auto-sync, solar-powered. * Sapphire glass, titanium body and bracelet. Waterproof. * Clean design. Under $500. https://www.google.com/search?q=OCW-S100-1AJF&tbm=isch
Thick and heavy compared to the watch in the fine article. For a desk jockey maybe that doesn't matter. If I'm being flung around at seven G, I'll take the thin, light watch at great expense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
150 of the exact same model, among huge piles of other models. I don't want to argue about word choice. In the distinction I was describing, however imperfectly worded, watches like this easily go on the bulk side of the line.
Does art cease being art because the artist created plates and created 100 prints before it wears out? Is that less art than a painting?
Price: $1,888,000 US dollars.
This strikes me as a product that the Chinese could copy and mass-produce for -- I dunno -- $500? And it would work 75% as well. I don't see a huge barrier to entry here except for IP, which never stops the Chinese.
I could be wrong, but I have yet to see a teardown of a superfake where the movement held up to even amateur scrutiny.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In my opinion mechanical timepieces are novelties in the modern era, so I don't think the practicality of a mechanical watch is very important. If you want practicality, a quartz watch will run continuously without intervention far longer than a mechanical one and will keep better time. Better yet, a smartwatch can tell you more than just the time! If you want to make a statement or own a neat piece of engineering th…
I think a smart watch is a more impressive piece of engineering!
The watch I'm wearing today was made in the 1950s, and keeps good time. I'd be amazed if the smart-watches that people are wearing in the office today are still functional in 70 years.
What is this, a dial for ants?
They don’t care. I have one watch, a 2008 model from a watchmaker that no one cares about, that tells perfect time and has a mechanical alarm. It gets no love and that’s fine with me. This quote about watches from a tastemaker blew my mind: “… the Italian-born Davide Parmegiani. I met Parmegiani, who is in his mid-50s, at his new boutique in Monte Carlo, where he sells both vintage watches and cars. He arrived 30 min…
They're surprisingly useful, especially when camping or going to places where you don't want to take a phone with you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're beautiful and impressive, but I find the amount of money that flows into "high horology" to be an sum with an egregious opportunity cost to society, made even worse by the fact that all that complexity goes towards a movement that is worse at keeping time than a rudimentary quartz. If people want Tamagotchis, they can get a Tamagotchi. I wish people would flex their donations to effective charities instead an…
> I wish people would flex their donations to effective charities instead and find simpler luxuries. Why? Are watchmakers not people who deserve to have an income? Do they not then spend their income on goods and services that help the economy?
Why? Just because they're good at something that takes effort? By that logic everyone who has a challenging hobby - and most hobbies are ultimately challenging - deserves an income from it. Would you say that anyone who's good at any sport, or any craft, or any game, or even knowing celebrity trivia, deserves an income?
IMO at most people who produce real value for others can be said to "deserve" an income. And while watchmakers produce something that a small number of people are willing to pay a lot for, it's hard to say that they're producing real value as opposed to some kind of Veblen status display. (Contrast that with something like a mansion or a sports car - although it's a luxury good, there are tangible ways in which it's objectively better than the "cheap" equivalent, in a way that a mechanical watch is not)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're beautiful and impressive, but I find the amount of money that flows into "high horology" to be an sum with an egregious opportunity cost to society, made even worse by the fact that all that complexity goes towards a movement that is worse at keeping time than a rudimentary quartz. If people want Tamagotchis, they can get a Tamagotchi. I wish people would flex their donations to effective charities instead an…
I mean, herein lies the philosophical argument of opportunity cost to society in general. Every thing we spend money that is, perhaps, any amount over-engineered or nice-for-nice sake, or made of slightly higher grade materials, or, well, anything other than strictly utilitarian and minimalist as possible is technically consuming opportunity cost that could benefit society. If I order wings with my pizza tonight, as…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I wish people would flex their donations to effective charities instead and find simpler luxuries. Why? Are watchmakers not people who deserve to have an income? Do they not then spend their income on goods and services that help the economy?
> Why? Are watchmakers not people who deserve to have an income? Why? Just because they're good at something that takes effort? By that logic everyone who has a challenging hobby - and most hobbies are ultimately challenging - deserves an income from it. Would you say that anyone who's good at any sport, or any craft, or any game, or even knowing celebrity trivia, deserves an income? IMO at most people who produce re…
I'm disappointed to see this merger of art and engineering received so poorly here. This pushes the envelope of the possible, something I consider beautiful. It's roughly as impractical, expensive, and awkward looking, as a human-propelled airplane. I don't think any of the many commenters here who panned this watch would have anything bad to say about a human-propelled airplane. It's a pity that they can't appreciat…
It's a flat watch - no doubt mechanically clever, but it also happens to be jarringly ugly. There's an entire economy dedicated to pandering to the pretensions of the vulgar rich, and it certainly fits in there. But as a design classic - no.