YOU Decide: The NEW Modern Holy Trinity

[Easy E]

Originally Posted by Easy E

First and foremost, I think your posts are well informed and you clearly have a better knowledge of the watch industry than myself. I do have a couple of conflicts that perhaps you (or the collective you) can help me sort out.
Secondly, let me qualify myself. I did recently purchase a JLC Master Control Calendar Chrono and I find it to be a remarkable timepiece. JLC is currently my flavor of the month, if you will. Also, I admittedly know very little about Patek and/or AP – superficial at best. That said, as I have progressed up the horological food chain in my interests and economic involvement my limited research into these two has identified a few points that have redirected my attention to other brands. If you can wade through the fan boy, kool-aid hype issues like reliability, frequent service intervals, high service costs, etc. tend to come up often enough. Be this 1922, fine. Discussing a timepiece made in 1922, also fine. In 2022, with the modern advancements in design, engineering, and manufacturing, not fine at all. Don’t get me wrong, I can totally get behind concepts like handmade, hand assembled, whatever. I can and do appreciate the craftsmanship of such items, but I believe my point has at least some merit.

Allow me an automotive analogy. I have a business associate that purchased a show grade 1969 Ferrari GTZ – pristine in every way. He actually drives it around often enough. One Saturday I was in the office and he stopped by and offered me a chance to drive it. Not only drive it, he suggested I dump the clutch and blow some smoke, which I gladly did. Right after that he proceeds to tell me there is currently only one guy in the country that is known to have the ability to work on the transmission for the particular car. I felt a bit sick to my stomach after that, but not for long, it was after all his idea. None of that really matters. What matters, to me anyway, is that car, no matter how pristine, how nice, how collectible, what history, on and on, is in fact a terrible car. The seats suck, the fuel pump has a manual switch on the console so you can keep it one while it idles, the brakes are junk, the shifts are clunky and notchy, by today’s standards not that fast. Yes, remarkable and noteworthy history. That’s great, crap car, as far as a car goes. A modern M4, Vette, or just about any modern sports car blows it away in absolutely every possible automotive metric, except history. Now, your immediate response should be “well, Ferrari currently makes an F8, Roma, 812 etc. – apex level sports cars.” Exactly! But what if they didn’t and they simply pointed to the GTZ and said “we made the best sports car in 1969, and that should be good enough for you today.” I often get that sense, maybe a bit over exaggerated, with PP and AP.

Now to the above quoted posts. Post 152 indicates a separation from a flagship model(s) and a mainstream higher volume model.

“There are only so many of those ultra high finish watches you can sell.” Quite true.

But yet post 191 seems slightly dismissive of that very notion in regards to JLC.

Also, it seems a bit, I’m not sure…..”off” to compare ETA. Whose movements can be found in a $500 Steinhart to those of a JLC movement, in the likes of a VC, AP, Cartier, etc.

I am not directly attempting to be argumentative, just trying to fully sort this out. To be super clear, I am not driving a flag into the JLC hillside to defend with my life. But, I do not believe the points from posts 152 and 191 totally preclude JLC from an updated Trinity list.

My recent JLC was purchased by phone from the JLC Boutique in NY (I believe) and I completely understand the following is pure marketing. Inside the box was a hand written note that said “welcome to the home of watch making.” There is much that could be discussed in that statement.

Edit: It was a 68 GTC, my bad

[APPRF]

Old: Vacheron Constantin, Patek, ALS
New: CZAPEK, FPJ, Moser

[ILoveFerrari]

Originally Posted by Nav01L

All very true, but if that had ever been the criteria, Omega and Rolex would likely already be part of the trinity as it stands.



The trinity I believe is less about making watchmaking a popular thing for people and more about bringing “high” watchmaking to as broad of an audience as possible. It’s a nuance, sure, but an important one. Patek and VC squarely don’t do the same thing that Rolex Omega and Breitling do. Sure, all their products tell the time, but so does a G-Shock or an Apple Watch. The frame of reference is different. What’s important in a Patek or a VC, what makes it a good representation of its kind is very different to what makes a Navitimer a good Breitling (and I sure do love a good Navitimer, as my Alias here evidences). It’s a related, but different sport and what we typically refer to when we say trinity is the championship of that particular sport. It’s as if you argued that the Patriots should really be in the hall of fame of international Rugby.

Sage wisdom here. Mentioning Rolex as a part of trinity is as dubious as saying Rugby and American Football are just the same thing.

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk

[ILoveFerrari]

Originally Posted by Easy E

First and foremost, I think your posts are well informed and you clearly have a better knowledge of the watch industry than myself. I do have a couple of conflicts that perhaps you (or the collective you) can help me sort out.

Secondly, let me qualify myself. I did recently purchase a JLC Master Control Calendar Chrono and I find it to be a remarkable timepiece. JLC is currently my flavor of the month, if you will. Also, I admittedly know very little about Patek and/or AP – superficial at best. That said, as I have progressed up the horological food chain in my interests and economic involvement my limited research into these two has identified a few points that have redirected my attention to other brands. If you can wade through the fan boy, kool-aid hype issues like reliability, frequent service intervals, high service costs, etc. tend to come up often enough. Be this 1922, fine. Discussing a timepiece made in 1922, also fine. In 2022, with the modern advancements in design, engineering, and manufacturing, not fine at all. Don’t get me wrong, I can totally get behind concepts like handmade, hand assembled, whatever. I can and do appreciate the craftsmanship of such items, but I believe my point has at least some merit.



Allow me an automotive analogy. I have a business associate that purchased a show grade 1969 Ferrari GTZ – pristine in every way. He actually drives it around often enough. One Saturday I was in the office and he stopped by and offered me a chance to drive it. Not only drive it, he suggested I dump the clutch and blow some smoke, which I gladly did. Right after that he proceeds to tell me there is currently only one guy in the country that is known to have the ability to work on the transmission for the particular car. I felt a bit sick to my stomach after that, but not for long, it was after all his idea. None of that really matters. What matters, to me anyway, is that car, no matter how pristine, how nice, how collectible, what history, on and on, is in fact a terrible car. The seats suck, the fuel pump has a manual switch on the console so you can keep it one while it idles, the brakes are junk, the shifts are clunky and notchy, by today’s standards not that fast. Yes, remarkable and noteworthy history. That’s great, crap car, as far as a car goes. A modern M4, Vette, or just about any modern sports car blows it away in absolutely every possible automotive metric, except history. Now, your immediate response should be “well, Ferrari currently makes an F8, Roma, 812 etc. – apex level sports cars.” Exactly! But what if they didn’t and they simply pointed to the GTZ and said “we made the best sports car in 1969, and that should be good enough for you today.” I often get that sense, maybe a bit over exaggerated, with PP and AP.



Now to the above quoted posts. Post 152 indicates a separation from a flagship model(s) and a mainstream higher volume model.



“There are only so many of those ultra high finish watches you can sell.” Quite true.



But yet post 191 seems slightly dismissive of that very notion in regards to JLC.



Also, it seems a bit, I’m not sure…..”off” to compare ETA. Whose movements can be found in a $500 Steinhart to those of a JLC movement, in the likes of a VC, AP, Cartier, etc.



I am not directly attempting to be argumentative, just trying to fully sort this out. To be super clear, I am not driving a flag into the JLC hillside to defend with my life. But, I do not believe the points from posts 152 and 191 totally preclude JLC from an updated Trinity list.



My recent JLC was purchased by phone from the JLC Boutique in NY (I believe) and I completely understand the following is pure marketing. Inside the box was a hand written note that said “welcome to the home of watch making.” There is much that could be discussed in that statement.

let me chime in on your analogy of classic Ferrari here in the context of watch Trinity argument. With all due respect, I think you are missing a big picture here, especially when you mentioned a vette or M4 blowing a classic Ferrari out of water.

When we are talking about classic car, we are not looking at it as a motor vehicle as a tool per se. We enjoy this kind of hobby are not paying for the collectible as a tool. We are paying for its history meaning the people around it that makes the machine exclusive. We are paying for the exclusivity as if it is an art that just so happened it can move people around. How fast is not longer a matter at all.

Same as a g-shock will blow any of aforementioned mechanical watch in this thread, but should it be part of a Trinity? let me be fair. Grand Seiko accuracy probably is the most accurate in its time keeping as well, but is it a part of Trinity?

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk

[enjoythemusic]

Originally Posted by ilovegt

When we are talking about classic car, we are not looking at it as a motor vehicle as a tool per se. We enjoy this kind of hobby are not paying for the collectible as a tool. We are paying for its history meaning the people around it that makes the machine exclusive. We are paying for the exclusivity as if it is an art that just so happened it can move people around. How fast is not longer a matter at all.

It's seXXX on wheels, and the really great ones sound orgasmic. Light caresses the sensually-shaped hand-hammered panels. Then there's the scent of old leather, hints of hot oil and metal, thirsty carbs with a generous appetite... and ye ol' engine-massaging your body as the revs rise and fall... over and over again. The click-clack of the gated shifter... Heel-toe downshifting...

Your hands prod the steering wheel, gently yet firmly as your fingertips sense the road surface and grip potential.

New cars suck sometimes, even when your vintage Ferrari is slower than a Miata. At the track, on a good day... Look, it's like what I said to my ex when I was tracking the SCCA spec Formula 2000, it's like a 30-minute long orgasm. I'll stand by that comment today.

Give me an F40 at WGI Or Daytona road course over these Xbox cars of today (except the Pagani, I'll take that instead).

Every nerve aware........

[GB-man]

.

[ILoveFerrari]

Originally Posted by enjoythemusic

It's seXXX on wheels, and the really great ones sound orgasmic. Light caresses the sensually-shaped hand-hammered panels. Then there's the scent of old leather, hints of hot oil and metal, thirsty carbs with a generous appetite... and ye ol' engine-massaging your body as the revs rise and fall... over and over again. The click-clack of the gated shifter... Heel-toe downshifting...

Your hands prod the steering wheel, gently yet firmly as your fingertips sense the road surface and grip potential.

New cars suck sometimes, even when your vintage Ferrari is slower than a Miata. At the track, on a good day... Look, it's like what I said to my ex when I was tracking the SCCA spec Formula 2000, it's like a 30-minute long orgasm. I'll stand by that comment today.

Give me an F40 at WGI Or Daytona road course over these Xbox cars of today (except the Pagani, I'll take that instead).

Every nerve aware........

ABSOLUTELY! You know what you are talking about! Sire.

Driving a most technology advanced car with small displacement turbo engine required by stricter than ever environmental emission law is like watching porn mute. You never know what you miss until you unmute. Driving a older generation Ferrari with natural aspirated engine is same as watching porn on a 85 inches OLED TV with the sound turned all the way up and having a real threesome simultaneously. And you are doing it in your mancave!

All my cars are slower than a F8, but who cares! lol.

I say the top trinity of porn stars are... Wait, I meant for the watches are PP, VC and A Lange.

Is AP changing its CEO?

[Easy E]

I’m glad you guys are having a moment with this. My point, perhaps mistakenly, is I feel like AP and PP are still producing old cars and banking on previous glory.

[ILoveFerrari]

Originally Posted by Easy E

I’m glad you guys are having a moment with this. My point, perhaps mistakenly, is I feel like AP and PP are still producing old cars and banking on previous glory.

I actually do agree with you on their banking on the old glory. But AP is much more than PP in this offense. You have to give credit to PP's Advanced Research lab for some of cool stuff like the bespoke movement for its regulator watch.

In the 90s, AP had been quite quite interesting, like coming out wandering hours movement (very old concept though).. Well, RO did save the company and people are still liking it much...

If LVMH does buy PP, what do you think will happen in terms of its value image?

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk

[enjoythemusic]

Originally Posted by Easy E

I’m glad you guys are having a moment with this. My point, perhaps mistakenly, is I feel like AP and PP are still producing old cars and banking on previous glory.

Exactly, this is why the 60 years gone by Old School Holy Trinity list is working against timepiece enthusiasts imho.

Originally Posted by ilovegt

I actually do agree with you on their banking on the old glory. But AP is much more than PP in this offense....
If LVMH does buy PP, what do you think will happen in terms of its value image?

AP is gone, many agree on this. Your wish is granted, long live Jambi.

Untitled-1.jpg


What saddens me is that PP may never make a truly high-quality Calatrava movement ever again. Or lower-end models like the Aqua, Naut, etc.

Am glad other manufacturers have been stepping up. There are many great choices out there we didn't have just a decade or two ago.

VC, you get LOTS of love and respect as the only remaining Holy Trinity manufacturer. Let us celebrate that gentlemen. Bravo!

[Easy E]

Originally Posted by ilovegt

I actually do agree with you on their banking on the old glory. But AP is much more than PP in this offense. You have to give credit to PP's Advanced Research lab for some of cool stuff like the bespoke movement for its regulator watch.

In the 90s, AP had been quite quite interesting, like coming out wandering hours movement (very old concept though).. Well, RO did save the company and people are still liking it much...

If LVMH does buy PP, what do you think will happen in terms of its value image?

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk

I think there will be a small amount of short lived outrage from a small but vocal group of critics. After all VC and ALS are owned by Richemont Group and both of those brands have been listed many times in this thread. I think the general watch population will either not know or care or get over it real fast.

[enjoythemusic]

Originally Posted by Easy E

I think the general watch population will either not know or care or get over it real fast.

I think the general pop has no real idea. How many Ferrari owners know the potential of their car on-track? This is why imho the timepiece industry needs educational videos / school / etc online. The Naked Watchmaker Masterclass is a great starting point

An educated client is the best enthusiast because they also choose to invest the time to better understand. Many agree ALS is consistently doing higher-end work than PP / AP. Grand Seiko is at a minimum equalling Patek at consistent movement finishing work across the entire lineup including basic models. Kevin O'Leary said as much in a recent video interview. Think about that for a sec.

Heck, I may have sold two Laine timepieces last weekend to industry associates who understand my passion and no BS attitude.

The question is if members of the press will also show movements and the difference, plus further educate their audience. Sure there may be some 'uncomfortable' outcomes, though if a brand does excellent hand-finishing work like VC then they have nothing to fear but fear itself.

274384543_2378391358963898_3690067661779602186_n.jpg

[ILoveFerrari]

Originally Posted by enjoythemusic

I think the general pop has no real idea. How many Ferrari owners know the potential of their car on-track? This is why imho the timepiece industry needs educational videos / school / etc online. The Naked Watchmaker Masterclass is a great starting point

An educated client is the best enthusiast because they also choose to invest the time to better understand. Many agree ALS is consistently doing higher-end work than PP / AP. Grand Seiko is at a minimum equalling Patek at consistent movement finishing work across the entire lineup including basic models. Kevin O'Leary said as much in a recent video interview. Think about that for a sec.

Heck, I may have sold two Laine timepieces last weekend to industry associates who understand my passion and no BS attitude.

The question is if members of the press will also show movements and the difference, plus further educate their audience. Sure there may be some 'uncomfortable' outcomes, though if a brand does excellent hand-finishing work like VC then they have nothing to fear but fear itself.

Attachment 1276034

well said. +100

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk

[Nav01L]

Originally Posted by Easy E

First and foremost, I think your posts are well informed and you clearly have a better knowledge of the watch industry than myself. I do have a couple of conflicts that perhaps you (or the collective you) can help me sort out.
Secondly, let me qualify myself. I did recently purchase a JLC Master Control Calendar Chrono and I find it to be a remarkable timepiece. JLC is currently my flavor of the month, if you will. Also, I admittedly know very little about Patek and/or AP – superficial at best. That said, as I have progressed up the horological food chain in my interests and economic involvement my limited research into these two has identified a few points that have redirected my attention to other brands. If you can wade through the fan boy, kool-aid hype issues like reliability, frequent service intervals, high service costs, etc. tend to come up often enough. Be this 1922, fine. Discussing a timepiece made in 1922, also fine. In 2022, with the modern advancements in design, engineering, and manufacturing, not fine at all. Don’t get me wrong, I can totally get behind concepts like handmade, hand assembled, whatever. I can and do appreciate the craftsmanship of such items, but I believe my point has at least some merit.

Allow me an automotive analogy. I have a business associate that purchased a show grade 1969 Ferrari GTZ – pristine in every way. He actually drives it around often enough. One Saturday I was in the office and he stopped by and offered me a chance to drive it. Not only drive it, he suggested I dump the clutch and blow some smoke, which I gladly did. Right after that he proceeds to tell me there is currently only one guy in the country that is known to have the ability to work on the transmission for the particular car. I felt a bit sick to my stomach after that, but not for long, it was after all his idea. None of that really matters. What matters, to me anyway, is that car, no matter how pristine, how nice, how collectible, what history, on and on, is in fact a terrible car. The seats suck, the fuel pump has a manual switch on the console so you can keep it one while it idles, the brakes are junk, the shifts are clunky and notchy, by today’s standards not that fast. Yes, remarkable and noteworthy history. That’s great, crap car, as far as a car goes. A modern M4, Vette, or just about any modern sports car blows it away in absolutely every possible automotive metric, except history. Now, your immediate response should be “well, Ferrari currently makes an F8, Roma, 812 etc. – apex level sports cars.” Exactly! But what if they didn’t and they simply pointed to the GTZ and said “we made the best sports car in 1969, and that should be good enough for you today.” I often get that sense, maybe a bit over exaggerated, with PP and AP.

Now to the above quoted posts. Post 152 indicates a separation from a flagship model(s) and a mainstream higher volume model.

“There are only so many of those ultra high finish watches you can sell.” Quite true.

But yet post 191 seems slightly dismissive of that very notion in regards to JLC.

Also, it seems a bit, I’m not sure…..”off” to compare ETA. Whose movements can be found in a $500 Steinhart to those of a JLC movement, in the likes of a VC, AP, Cartier, etc.

I am not directly attempting to be argumentative, just trying to fully sort this out. To be super clear, I am not driving a flag into the JLC hillside to defend with my life. But, I do not believe the points from posts 152 and 191 totally preclude JLC from an updated Trinity list.

My recent JLC was purchased by phone from the JLC Boutique in NY (I believe) and I completely understand the following is pure marketing. Inside the box was a hand written note that said “welcome to the home of watch making.” There is much that could be discussed in that statement.

You know sometimes the argument itself is so compelling that you just want to make it, no matter what. But when you omit to question the understanding and assumptions it relies on, it might actually end up being detrimental to the point you’re ultimately trying to make.

Respectfully, I suspect that’s what may have happened here. The argument sounds great on the face of it, and so does the example. What a story indeed, it must have been quite the experience.

But when you look beyond that, you have to realize that what you’re saying really is:

- Patek, AP and the other high watchmaking houses are making watches as they have been 50 years ago.

Gosh I do wish that were true actually.

- Their products are subject to qc issues and suffer from reliability issues.

Luckily, I have no indication of that being true, at least within my collection.

- JLC has much more modern movements.

Not quite sure their current collection bears that out. The 822 they use in the Reverso is over 30 years old, I don’t remember exactly when they introduced the 899 for their round watches, but it’s not exactly young either. It’s also comically small for the watches they use it in. Both these volume movements have power reserves of barely over 40 hours, which is hardly even current, forget about innovative. Neither of these movements is much of anything to look at either.

- JLC is much more reliable than high watchmaking brands.

I can only surmise that must have caused some chuckles around here. I don’t mean to be a wise guy, but do consider a search here for JLC quality issues, a few interesting reads may be ahead of you.

- JLC should not be likened to ETA.

Why not though? Both companies have been “machinistes” for the longest time. They were built on the business of making ebauches for other manufactures. Just because one was separated from its watch business (ETA was originally the movement arm of Eterna prior to becoming a sister company within Asuag and then being separated when Asuag merged into what would eventually become the Swatch Group and Eterna was eventually spun out) and the other actually leaned into making its own watches in the eighties (which is really when the JLC we know today came to be), doesn’t mean they have fundamentally different origins. And if anything, the reason ETA survived as a machiniste wham JLC had to transform tells you all you need to know about which of them may have been the better one.

- The world has changed and hand finished watchmaking is no as longer relevant as it used to be.

I guess it’s subjective and it’s a valid view to hold that an NFT composed of a few pixels has the same artistic value as an impressionist painting, but if what you’re into is the skills and crafts behind these artworks, they’re just not comparable. The same is true with modern mass watchmaking and what little is left of the actual craft of high watchmaking.

[Nav01L]

Originally Posted by enjoythemusic

I think the general pop has no real idea. How many Ferrari owners know the potential of their car on-track? This is why imho the timepiece industry needs educational videos / school / etc online. The Naked Watchmaker Masterclass is a great starting point

An educated client is the best enthusiast because they also choose to invest the time to better understand. Many agree ALS is consistently doing higher-end work than PP / AP. Grand Seiko is at a minimum equalling Patek at consistent movement finishing work across the entire lineup including basic models. Kevin O'Leary said as much in a recent video interview. Think about that for a sec.

Heck, I may have sold two Laine timepieces last weekend to industry associates who understand my passion and no BS attitude.

The question is if members of the press will also show movements and the difference, plus further educate their audience. Sure there may be some 'uncomfortable' outcomes, though if a brand does excellent hand-finishing work like VC then they have nothing to fear but fear itself.

Attachment 1276034

Agree with most of that, except for giving any credence to a certain Mr Wonderful. He may or may not be sophisticated about watches, but the made for TV selfmarketing tropes he propagates on YouTube are nothing to go by in assessing this. Good for him if he wants to look like he knows his stuff in his videos, but then those cheap superficial play-to-the-crowd remarks are not helping, at least as far as I’m concerned.

I was also not able to independently verify the often repeated notion that GS has such a fantastic finish. The ones I saw looked fine, nicely done for sure (much more so than a standard JLC for instance), but the degree of finesse in the execution seemed very much in keeping with their price point. Still had the feeling that the VC I had side by side at the time was a notable hike in execution (as it should be at the price point) and in turn, I haven’t found most Pateks to be that inferior to volume VCs. There are nuances, sure, but not differences like the ones dividing my former overseas to the GS pieces I got to compare it to.

[enjoythemusic]

Love your perspective Nav01L! Fully respect your wisdom, impression, and vision of the mechanical timepiece industry.

Virtually every longtime manufacturer has unforeseen hiccups such as qc issues. Hey, it's bound to happen at some point with new designs no matter how well implemented. Gosh knows as a Beta tester for software back in the day there's only so much you can test as compared to thousands more using the software and discovering something that was missed.

"JLC is much more reliable than high watchmaking brands" and I'll take your word for it. While no one knows exactly what the 'rules' were for the Trinity sixty years ago, many have expressed not including Rolex as any part of this fabled Trinity. Most of us can agree Rolex timepieces are very accurate and exceedingly durable. If the goals were strictly set to accuracy, reliability/durability, and prompt service, then it'd be hard to find better than Rolex on the scale they have done for many decades.

>>>The world has changed and hand finished watchmaking is no as longer relevant as it used to be.<<<

Well, (cautious pause) yes... and I'll also add 'no'. On one hand, we have the past of 'parts creation by hand', on the other, we have today's highly-precise machines and 3D printing. RM may be an interesting example of one skillset versus Rexhep Rexhepi. Here's where, IMHO, personal preference and setting a 'value' of such things is a preference of sorts in 2022 (not referring monetarily 'value', am referring to appreciating the efforts / time / skillset / whatever to achieve a certain goal).

Agree it is subjective. Very much do agree with your sentiment that "an NFT composed of a few pixels has the same artistic value as an impressionist painting, but if what you’re into is the skills and crafts behind these artworks, they’re just not comparable."

The below may segue into a bit of 'weirdness'. Sorry 'bout that. My thinking can get 'weird' from time to time. So... setting the mindset....

An analogy of sorts: As an acoustic musician (percussion and drums), back in the 1980s i was also already deep into computer coding and BBS systems. We had a meeting of musicians one day where they introduced us to the very beginning of MIDI. Musical Instrument Digital Interface communications protocol enabled a variety of electronic musical instruments, computers, and related audio devices to 'talk' to one another. You could program up a song on your computer that would then trigger 'real' electronic instruments.

My point is, as a percussionist / drummer, on one hand i understood the beauty and capability of creating music that would always perform the same as programmed. Perfect timing (if that was the goal), incredibly intricate and dense beats that were not capable to be played by a normally-abled four-limbed human. Yet with all that MIDI capability came the cost of humanness.

After the MIDI honeymoon, i quickly realized the massive limitations of MIDI / computers. Velocity steps qty limitations for example, which humans do not have (per se). Whomever spec'ed MIDI 1 did not provide a numerically high enough quality of variables. It could NEVER, for example (IMHO), do free-form jazz or true deep funk. It lacked humanity (partially due to) too few steps in the programming to give the true human feel the music begs for.

MIDI 2 will eventually solve quite a bit of this limitation i feel we have today. But it's still a computer playing music. For decades MIDI 1 has caused an aural 'shaping' of popular music that artists worked with/around MIDI limitations. It also removed (??some?? of) the 'humanity' out of music as well imho.

Wow, that was long-winded.....

And so, while i highly admire the ability for computers and machines of today to create timepiece movement parts with incredible precision and consistency not obtainable by human hands (on such a mass scale), and am sure computers help make the Bvlgari Octo FS the brilliance i feel it is, there's no denying (in my mind) the masterpieces we enjoy from Rexhep Rexhepi, MB&F, FPJ, Kari V... no computer is capable (as of this post in 2022, 2112 could be different).

Perhaps we're at an interesting crossroads for horology.

So.... (uh oh, this might get me in...)

What upsets me, and it's a 'me thing' so my own human 'shortcoming', is that if you're a longstanding company known for very high horology and hand-crafted work, to shift 'too much' reliance on computers and, worse still, optimizing movements for lower cost instead of doing the very best high horology that is possible on your entire product line.... For that company to make a conscious decision to reduce the 'perceived quality' of their products yet claiming otherwise seems a bit disingenuous.

Bluntly said, do you really want to live in a world where Patek Philippe will never create a high-quality, 'ultra-high' horology handcrafted Calatrava? That's not a world i want to live in (so to speak). Maybe it's just me?

Ya know, back in the day decades ago i saw the vintage Calatrava as a masterpiece. Simple, elegant, with every detail given artistic respect. Bridges.... Grand Complications are great and all that, yet if you can't create the very best 'basic' timpeice, IMHO more is not better.

jmho, and if you read this far i owe you a drink... or two... or five(!).

This is why i feel Thierry needs to have two product lines. One being what they do now with most mainstream models and call it the 'Enthusiast' series'. Then a series called "Conneseur' for those who want the true handcrafted pieces from basic time to the highest of complications and the work those do receive today... and the Patek Philippe name was built upon. The Connoisseur series is not built to a 'set price', it's built to the very best as humanly possible.

----------

As a (very) flawed human myself, have i lost the plot? Am i 'wrong'? Is it just me, because i tend to screw up from time to time, and that's part of how i live and learn. Thanks again for your time.

[Nav01L]

Originally Posted by enjoythemusic

Love your perspective Nav01L! Fully respect your wisdom, impression, and vision of the mechanical timepiece industry.

Virtually every longtime manufacturer has unforeseen hiccups such as qc issues. Hey, it's bound to happen at some point with new designs no matter how well implemented. Gosh knows as a Beta tester for software back in the day there's only so much you can test as compared to thousands more using the software and discovering something that was missed.

"JLC is much more reliable than high watchmaking brands" and I'll take your word for it. While no one knows exactly what the 'rules' were for the Trinity sixty years ago, many have expressed not including Rolex as any part of this fabled Trinity. Most of us can agree Rolex timepieces are very accurate and exceedingly durable. If the goals were strictly set to accuracy, reliability/durability, and prompt service, then it'd be hard to find better than Rolex on the scale they have done for many decades.

>>>The world has changed and hand finished watchmaking is no as longer relevant as it used to be.<<<

Well, (cautious pause) yes... and I'll also add 'no'. On one hand, we have the past of 'parts creation by hand', on the other, we have today's highly-precise machines and 3D printing. RM may be an interesting example of one skillset versus Rexhep Rexhepi. Here's where, IMHO, personal preference and setting a 'value' of such things is a preference of sorts in 2022 (not referring monetarily 'value', am referring to appreciating the efforts / time / skillset / whatever to achieve a certain goal).

Agree it is subjective. Very much do agree with your sentiment that "an NFT composed of a few pixels has the same artistic value as an impressionist painting, but if what you’re into is the skills and crafts behind these artworks, they’re just not comparable."

The below may segue into a bit of 'weirdness'. Sorry 'bout that. My thinking can get 'weird' from time to time. So... setting the mindset....

An analogy of sorts: As an acoustic musician (percussion and drums), back in the 1980s i was also already deep into computer coding and BBS systems. We had a meeting of musicians one day where they introduced us to the very beginning of MIDI. Musical Instrument Digital Interface communications protocol enabled a variety of electronic musical instruments, computers, and related audio devices to 'talk' to one another. You could program up a song on your computer that would then trigger 'real' electronic instruments.

My point is, as a percussionist / drummer, on one hand i understood the beauty and capability of creating music that would always perform the same as programmed. Perfect timing (if that was the goal), incredibly intricate and dense beats that were not capable to be played by a normally-abled four-limbed human. Yet with all that MIDI capability came the cost of humanness.

After the MIDI honeymoon, i quickly realized the massive limitations of MIDI / computers. Velocity steps qty limitations for example, which humans do not have (per se). Whomever spec'ed MIDI 1 did not provide a numerically high enough quality of variables. It could NEVER, for example (IMHO), do free-form jazz or true deep funk. It lacked humanity (partially due to) too few steps in the programming to give the true human feel the music begs for.

MIDI 2 will eventually solve quite a bit of this limitation i feel we have today. But it's still a computer playing music. For decades MIDI 1 has caused an aural 'shaping' of popular music that artists worked with/around MIDI limitations. It also removed (??some?? of) the 'humanity' out of music as well imho.

Wow, that was long-winded.....

And so, while i highly admire the ability for computers and machines of today to create timepiece movement parts with incredible precision and consistency not obtainable by human hands (on such a mass scale), and am sure computers help make the Bvlgari Octo FS the brilliance i feel it is, there's no denying (in my mind) the masterpieces we enjoy from Rexhep Rexhepi, MB&F, FPJ, Kari V... no computer is capable (as of this post in 2022, 2112 could be different).

Perhaps we're at an interesting crossroads for horology.

So.... (uh oh, this might get me in...)

What upsets me, and it's a 'me thing' so my own human 'shortcoming', is that if you're a longstanding company known for very high horology and hand-crafted work, to shift 'too much' reliance on computers and, worse still, optimizing movements for lower cost instead of doing the very best high horology that is possible on your entire product line.... For that company to make a conscious decision to reduce the 'perceived quality' of their products yet claiming otherwise seems a bit disingenuous.

Bluntly said, do you really want to live in a world where Patek Philippe will never create a high-quality, 'ultra-high' horology handcrafted Calatrava? That's not a world i want to live in (so to speak). Maybe it's just me?

Ya know, back in the day decades ago i saw the vintage Calatrava as a masterpiece. Simple, elegant, with every detail given artistic respect. Bridges.... Grand Complications are great and all that, yet if you can't create the very best 'basic' timpeice, IMHO more is not better.

jmho, and if you read this far i owe you a drink... or two... or five(!).

This is why i feel Thierry needs to have two product lines. One being what they do now with most mainstream models and call it the 'Enthusiast' series'. Then a series called "Conneseur' for those who want the true handcrafted pieces from basic time to the highest of complications and the work those do receive today... and the Patek Philippe name was built upon. The Connoisseur series is not built to a 'set price', it's built to the very best as humanly possible.

----------

As a (very) flawed human myself, have i lost the plot? Am i 'wrong'? Is it just me, because i tend to screw up from time to time, and that's part of how i live and learn. Thanks again for your time.

Well all I can say to that is that I don’t disagree. In my view, the current state of Patek is less bad that you seem to be perceiving them. Yes, they do rather simple anglage, but it’s still done with handheld tourets, as opposed to brands like AP where the basic angle is cut before the part ever leaves the CNC machine.

Where I think there may be a misunderstanding is with regard to my answer to EasyE. The points in bullets (or dashes in that particular case) are his points, as I understood and distilled them from his post. My answers to that are below in italics. So I really didn’t mean to say JLC would be more reliable than anyone, especially as their reputation would quite clearly indicate otherwise. Nor did I mean to say that tech would have made handmade (or at least finished) watchmaking obsolete. I do think that’s what EasyE meant in his post, but I personally have a different view.

For me, fine watchmaking (as opposed to mass watchmaking) has a particular frame of reference, by which it is measured. Roughly, the rules in question, in my mind, are the ones relevant for things such as the Geneva seal (without regard of course to the territorial aspect, as there’s plenty of high watchmaking outside of Geneva). It’s about how laborious and we’ll executed the finish is, and the brands I like and admire are the ones who compete in that discipline.

That doesn’t mean that all other brands don’t have something great, innovative, technically interesting or whatever else to offer that fully justifies their existence, but to me at least, high watchmaking has a particular set of metrics it’s measured by and the brands that don’t develop and manufacture towards those don’t really fall within my definition of high watchmaking.

The trinity, for me, is the championship of high watchmaking. And thus, I don’t see a reason for brands to be in there that don’t consistently engage in what I consider to be highl watchmaking under the foregoing definition.

[enjoythemusic]

You have a wonderful way with words and agree. Geneva seal gets muuuuuch praise and respect by me too, as does respect for passing METAS. Thanks for being you

[solaire]

Originally Posted by enjoythemusic

You have a wonderful way with words and agree. Geneva seal gets muuuuuch praise and respect by me too, as does respect for passing METAS. Thanks for being you

What about the Fleurier Quality Foundation?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[enjoythemusic]

Originally Posted by solaire

What about the Fleurier Quality Foundation?

From a quick glance, it looks impressive. Would love to hear your thoughts and the advantages of it.

[Nav01L]

Originally Posted by solaire

What about the Fleurier Quality Foundation?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In terms of finishing work, the Fleurier rules for certification are more rudimentary than those for the Geneva seal (the latter detail how to finish each individual element of a movement, e.g. each screw and each jewel bearing, whereas the Fleurier rules rules express more of a general principle of which techniques should be applied). But in essence, both point in the same direction, I’d definitely regard QF watches as watches playing by the rules of high watchmaking - and with that said, L.U.C is extremely underrated for what it makes of those rules. Not Chopard generally, but definitely the finer pieces L.U.C puts out.

[enjoythemusic]

Thanks Fred for chiming in. Interesting info, thanks!

Here's a vintage Patek. How would you rate the finishing work on this vintage piece as compared to modern PP movements (Aqua, Naut, Cala, etc)?

patek_7175091.jpg

[_speedmaster_]

Originally Posted by Nav01L

In terms of finishing work, the Fleurier rules for certification are more rudimentary than those for the Geneva seal (the latter detail how to finish each individual element of a movement, e.g. each screw and each jewel bearing, whereas the Fleurier rules rules express more of a general principle of which techniques should be applied). But in essence, both point in the same direction, I’d definitely regard QF watches as watches playing by the rules of high watchmaking - and with that said, L.U.C is extremely underrated for what it makes of those rules. Not Chopard generally, but definitely the finer pieces L.U.C puts out.

Qualite Fleurier is definitely the most comprehensive certification.
I’m sure you already know Fred, so this is for everyone else’s benefit.

To pass Qualite Fleurier:
1. Everything has to be made in Switzerland
2. Has to pass COSC for chronometer certification
3. Finished to a high level (as you mentioned above)
4. Chronofiable. Basically a small sample size of your production is torture tested against things like magnetic fields, water resistance, shock and over stressing user interface components like the crown, pushers and bezel.
5. Each Fully cased up watch has to go through another torture test while falling within 0 and +5 seconds per day

So far as I know, only LUC do this certification now. Bovet and Parmigiani (the other two founders of this certification) dropped out.

[DonLee]

It comes down to size of production.

FPJ could never make the same quality of watches and sell as much as Patek Philippe.

So I split the categories.
Mass market: PP, AP, Rolex.
Nobody gives Rolex credit, but their designs are just spot on for practicality, comfortability, and horology. PP is king of all watch making. They make the highest complications, and watch variety is most balanced. The only mass market watch maker to have desirable dress watches. AP is the younger brother of PP, capturing more of the younger market. Doing things a bit different but very much still commands respect because of the RO.

Micro/independent: FPJ, Lange, De Bethune.
FPJ super innovator. brilliant designs and movements.
Lange, superb finish, detail, perfect watches, but only precious metals and dress watches.
De Bethune, the lamborghini of watches.

[_speedmaster_]

Originally Posted by DonLee

It comes down to size of production.

FPJ could never make the same quality of watches and sell as much as Patek Philippe.

So I split the categories.
Mass market: PP, AP, Rolex.
Nobody gives Rolex credit, but their designs are just spot on for practicality, comfortability, and horology. PP is king of all watch making. They make the highest complications, and watch variety is most balanced. The only mass market watch maker to have desirable dress watches. AP is the younger brother of PP, capturing more of the younger market. Doing things a bit different but very much still commands respect because of the RO.

Micro/independent: FPJ, Lange, De Bethune.
FPJ super innovator. brilliant designs and movements.
Lange, superb finish, detail, perfect watches, but only precious metals and dress watches.
De Bethune, the lamborghini of watches.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion..... but Rolex? Rolex's most complicated watch is an annual calendar GMT. Up until very recently they were relying on Zenith for chronograph movements. Their finishing is nowhere near that of higher end brands. They don't really innovate. They don't push boundaries. They don't hand finish 99% of their production.

Lange is not micro or an independent btw. They would go on your first category...replacing AP.

[enjoythemusic]

Agreed, Rolex truly deserves far more recognition given their production, reliability, accuracy, and customer service. They also do quite a bit of 'giving back' to support human endeavors and exploration (plus typical sports sponsorship). Rolex's efforts for new lubricants, etc also deserve recognition.

Why is Rolex not part of the Trinity?

The Rules?
And what are the standards to be part of the Modern Holy Trinity, since there seems to be none stated for the old outdated one? See, we're coming around full circle to how to define the Modern Holy Trinity.

PS: Output qty should not matter imho. Keeping high quality for ALL production should be mandatory. Rolex may fall for lack of hand decoration, yet minimal efforts should also be avoided.

So, let's determine the rules. Enough talk, let's define the parameters. It should be open and fair to manufacturers all around the world.

[enjoythemusic]

Rule 1: The Modern Holy Trinity is open to all manufacturers globally.

Rule 2: High quality, and timely, customer service.

Rule 3: The highest quality of hand decoration across the entire production.

Rule 4: Excellent reliability and accuracy.

Rule 5: High durability and a minimum of 50m WP rating.

What additional rules would you add?

[_speedmaster_]

Originally Posted by enjoythemusic

Agreed, Rolex truly deserves far more recognition given their production, reliability, accuracy, and customer service. They also do quite a bit of 'giving back' to support human endeavors and exploration (plus typical sports sponsorship). Rolex's efforts for new lubricants, etc also deserve recognition.

Why is Rolex not part of the Trinity?

The Rules?
And what are the standards to be part of the Modern Holy Trinity, since there seems to be none stated for the old outdated one? See, we're coming around full circle to how to define the Modern Holy Trinity.

Everyone will have their own rules, as is usually the case with these types of things. It's never ending.

To me, you have to be currently
1. Consistently pushing innovation
2. Producing high horology complications using your own manufacturing prowess

I don't think those are unreasonable if we are talking about a Holy Trinity meant to represent the best of watchmaking.

Rolex is great, I've owned their watches in the past. But being consistent and reliable is not remarkable enough for me.

Would you put Jimmy Buffet in the Holy Trinity of Rock musicians? He's popular. He's been around forever. He's successful.

[enjoythemusic]

Like your two rules

Originally Posted by _speedmaster_

Would you put Jimmy Buffet in the Holy Trinity of Rock musicians? He's popular. He's been around forever. He's successful.

Thankfully he doesn't use auto-tune. Prince should be one of the three. Perhaps add Frank Zappa and _____.

[_speedmaster_]

Originally Posted by enjoythemusic

Like your two rules



Thankfully he doesn't use auto-tune. Prince should be one of the three. Perhaps add Frank Zappa and _____.

The man has a horrible voice, but God help me I would put Dylan in there.