Jump to content

autohorology

Members
  • Content Count

    299
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About autohorology

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  1. I'd go for a Lange. They're giving Patek a strong run for their money right now in quality, and I think they could very well be the "it" watch to collect years from now. Such amazing innovations. I would love to have a rose Zeitwerk striking time.
  2. The Omega. You can wear that in all situations. The JLC is a close 2nd if you can also get a rubber strap to go with it. The Glashutte is a little too dressy looking to be a daily beater.
  3. You couldn't just try one on at an AD, or are you not close to one? Panerai's are not for me. They aren't interesting, and they are ginormous on my wrist.
  4. Don't get me wrong, no hate at all. I even owned one. I was just wanting to hear everyone's answers on what they think of the complication. I learn a lot this way and I thoroughly enjoy seeing differing perspectives. It helps me to see what I might not be seeing. Quote:
  5. I agree it is a novelty created from necessity, but it no longer serves that purpose. And I completely agree with regard to the skills necessary to produce them. I just don't see how it's significantly more complicated to produce than a perpetual calendar, as the pricetag might suggest. Quote:
  6. Fair points. All other complications, however, actually have a function. The Tourbillon, having no function or effect on the watch, is really just a novelty. I guess that's the difference for me. Novelty or function... As useless as pretty much all complications may be in an era of iphones and computers, what I'm trying to discern is the pricetag associated with a complication that actually has NO function. It's art, I get that, I just don't get why it's on average multiples more than a perpetual calendar. I think the real answer is exclusivity. It remains an exclusive product and will continue to be priced as such. Kind of like the argument as to why solid gold Rolexes are so much more than stainless models. Quote:
  7. I mean I guess the "first" Tourbillon made from a new design is the most expensive to produce. It's all research & development. But thereafter, once the blueprint is made, isn't it just a guy assembling the various parts? If he's done it a few times I have to imagine the level of difficulty isn't as proclaimed. The level of difficulty comes in developing the movement in the first place, am I right?
  8. I agree with that sentiment for non watch people. I guess therein lies the debate. What constitutes how complicated a tourbillon is and how much is that complication worth to the individual? I bought my F.A. Jones Tourbillon because the guy HAD to sell it. I paid 39k for it when it retails for 62. Seemed like I couldn't make too big of a mistake, and I resold it for 43. So I didn't buy it because I was in love with it, I bought it because the price just made sense. Quote:
  9. Greubel Forsey is definitely an exception. His Tourbillons are absolutely spectacular curiosities. The price of them scares the heck out of me but they're more of a billionaire's toy so I don't think they mind. Quote:
  10. Exactly. This is where I'm at. Just seems to be the complication that has the most to lose. Quote:
  11. Let me first state that I owned an IWC Tourbillon F.A. Jones and sold it after about 3 months of ownership. Other than looking cool, I cannot understand why this complication carries the pricetag that it does. When I look at the balance wheel on the back of my watches I get just as much enjoyment, or when I look at an openworked AP I'm in absolute awe. But a rotating cage just doesn't get me going. And when it has no actual purpose whatsoever, why do they carry such horological prestige? In my opinion, the watchmakers just take advantage of the public image over how grand a Tourbillon truly is, but for me it's just not as cool as a perpetual calendar or even a moonphase. In my mind a perpetual calendar sounds a lot more complex than a rotating cage that serves no actual purpose other than looking kind of neat. What am I missing?
  12. Like the Lange more aesthetically, but would still go with the Patek because I'd be more confident I could part with it at a reasonable number if needed.
×
×
  • Create New...