The Watches Thread

[JLv3.0]

Jesus. 2006. I now have less hair than you.

Unpossible, my erudite friend.

[ste]

Certainly is impossible and I can say that confidently depite having never met JL.

Rob has more hair on the back of one hand than most people have on their entire body.

[mik]

The Valjoux 7750 movement in my C1000 above is the same as used in my mates Tag Carrera Chrono. I got a great deal on mine (£450) whereas his cost "somewhat more". And his is steel vs mine in titanium and ceramic. CW doesnt have the same pub bragging rights of course.

[JLv3.0]

The movement in my IWC is based on the 7750 so, yeah...........

[PreacherCain]

And the one in my Bremont. I never really had a problem with bought-in movements; I see it rather like boutique car builders buying off-the-shelf engines of known reliability and strength as opposed to making their own (looking at you, TVR). I think the recent move towards fetishising in-house movements is partly driven by a more sophisticated client base (who know a 7750 when they see one regardless of what you call it) and partly by commercial reality as Swatch restricts access to ETA.

Let's face it: mechanical watch movements are, essentially, late-mediaeval technology given 21st-century manufacturing quality and marketing. I've had mechanical movements made by ETA, Sellita, Seiko, Breitling and Omega, and guess what? They all do the same thing, each pretty much as well as the next. Indeed, the only movements I've had to sort under warranty have been in-house (Breitling B01 in Mrs Cain's watch, and an Omega 8500 in mine).

[PreacherCain]

Certainly is impossible and I can say that confidently depite having never met JL.

Rob has more hair on the back of one hand than most people have on their entire body.

But strangely, very little on my head.

[Rich B]

I have to say that I find it quite odd that people would pay so much for a watch with a mechanical movement that isn’t even unique to the manufacturer - especially when it could be bought for a few hundred quid elsewhere.

[PreacherCain]

I have to say that I find it quite odd that people would pay so much for a watch with a mechanical movement that isn’t even unique to the manufacturer - especially when it could be bought for a few hundred quid elsewhere.

I think it boils down to "people are weird", RIch - either it seems worth it or it doesn't, and logic doesn't really get a look-in. I'm sure there are folks who think it's odd that people spend so much on a Caterham with a boring old Duratec in it (when the car doesn't even have 4 seats FFS, etc etc), much less spending McLaren F1 money for something built around a BMW engine...

[Rich B]

I have to say that I find it quite odd that people would pay so much for a watch with a mechanical movement that isn’t even unique to the manufacturer - especially when it could be bought for a few hundred quid elsewhere.

I think it boils down to "people are weird", RIch - either it seems worth it or it doesn't, and logic doesn't really get a look-in. I'm sure there are folks who think it's odd that people spend so much on a Caterham with a boring old Duratec in it (when the car doesn't even have 4 seats FFS, etc etc), much less spending McLaren F1 money for something built around a BMW engine...

people are definitely weird!

However, bad examples - no one buys a caterham for the engine (in fact they show no virtually allegiance to any specific engine in the range) and the Mclaren engine can’t be found in any other car.

[PreacherCain]

Yeah, OK. Readers should supply their own more valid examples; my only point is, look at any branded goods hard enough and you can argue for their being daft and not worth whatever the manufacturers are charging. 'S human nature innit.

[Alex_]

For me, watch purchases are very emotional, irrational and at times irresponsible. But once you've caught the bug, you've had it.

[JLv3.0]

I bought mine because I love how it looks. Couldn't give a fuck what pushes the hands around. And for some reason I just wanted something expensive. Dumb really but hey.

[PreacherCain]

JLIC (as is Alex - I must have bought and sold a few dozen by now, and I am too scared to add up the total cost. )

[Rich B]

For me, watch purchases are very emotional, irrational and at times irresponsible. But once you've caught the bug, you've had it.

aka. I like stuff, I buy stuff.

[ste]

However, bad examples - no one buys a caterham for the engine (in fact they show no virtually allegiance to any specific engine in the range)

On the contrary, 1/2 of Caterham discussion boards are full of discussion caused by allegiance to one engine or another. Ditto Lotus forums and again, it's generally very run-of-the-mill hatchback engines wrapped in a less run-of-the-mill frock.

I get your point that Caterhams aren't bought for their engines but for other qualities and the engine is incidental, but in fact the people that buy them end up obsessing about the pros and cons of their particular engine in comparison to other available options.

In the same way, people buy a high-end watch and will still partially justify the purchase because of qualities that the off-the-shelf movement offers, despite that movement potentially being available in lesser models. Like the Catehram analogy it's then the wrapping that differentiates things and the fact someone will pay £60k+ for a new Caterham with a Duratec in it in most cases knowing that the basic engine they're buying is available in a Ford Focus shows that the non-bespoke nature doesn't stop them purchasing.

[JLv3.0]

You don't need to 'get' EVERYTHING, Rich

[ste]

For me, watch purchases are very emotional, irrational and at times irresponsible. But once you've caught the bug, you've had it.

aka. I like stuff, I buy stuff.

Yeah that.

[Rich B]

You don't need to 'get' EVERYTHING, Rich

i agree entirely - it’s interesting to hear people’s reasoning and various counter-arguments though. I get to learn stuff.

[Rich B]

However, bad examples - no one buys a caterham for the engine (in fact they show no virtually allegiance to any specific engine in the range)

On the contrary, 1/2 of Caterham discussion boards are full of discussion caused by allegiance to one engine or another. Ditto Lotus forums and again, it's generally very run-of-the-mill hatchback engines wrapped in a less run-of-the-mill frock.

I get your point that Caterhams aren't bought for their engines but for other qualities and the engine is incidental, but in fact the people that buy them end up obsessing about the pros and cons of their particular engine in comparison to other available options.

In the same way, people buy a high-end watch and will still partially justify the purchase because of qualities that the off-the-shelf movement offers, despite that movement potentially being available in lesser models. Like the Catehram analogy it's then the wrapping that differentiates things and the fact someone will pay £60k+ for a new Caterham with a Duratec in it in most cases knowing that the basic engine they're buying is available in a Ford Focus shows that the non-bespoke nature doesn't stop them purchasing.

Those £60k duratecs have lots of expensive special stuff bolted on them to make them perform massively better than the one in a focus though. The movement performs the same in the expensive version and the cheap version of the watch. Only the bodywork changes.

[JLv3.0]

You don't need to 'get' EVERYTHING, Rich

i agree entirely - it’s interesting to hear people’s reasoning and various counter-arguments though. I get to learn stuff.

I think we all know expensive watches are pointless really. As you say, categorise under 'people like stuff.'