Quote:
Originally Posted by ILoveFerrari
I am disagreeing to your usage and definition of history in your argument. Yes, holy trinity designation is historical in the sense it is their standing in horological history that defined their places. And when we are discussing horological history, we are talking about the advancement and contributions of the brands to horology overall. Then we are talking about the movement finishing in artisan perspective, etc.
We need to be critical and specific in what kind of history we are referring to in holy trinity. Thus far, in your argument you confused horological history with social history of watch manufacturers.
Sent from my SM-S918U using Tapatalk
|
No. I don’t think I’m confusing the two. I am focusing on the part of brand history that does not involve technological contributions to horology. But social history and perception is just as relevant. In fact, I would argue that trinity watches are just as much lauded for their prestige (a social construct) as they are for any technological advancements they’ve made. To that end there is a reason that Breguet is not in the Trinity despite arguably having more to tout regarding horological history than the lot of them… and amazing finishing.
So I will take your point that horological history is an important part of it, but it’s not totally honest to say the social history is an irrelevant factor. It is.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk