Vercingetorix
··Spam RiskI’ve just gone blind.
Social Lifestyle commentary presented to watch enthusiasts. What could go wrong?
https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/the-cartier-tank-cintree
How To Wear It The Cartier Tank Cintrée
A vintage watch made modern.
The comments are priceless.
Look 1: The deconstructed suit.
Look 2: Sweatsuit and penny loafers.
Look 3: The return to Preppy.
I wasn’t aware that dinky had a collab with Goodwill.
Yeah- this was offensive. They also did a “ghost edition” M10P for $15k (a standard M10-p was about $8k and the 35/1.4 bundled lens was about $3k- so about a $4k markup for the color).
Clymer’s “what Leica means to me” article upon its release was filled with sappy nostalgia and a few humble brags about his growing Leica collection- as soon as I read he owned the Hermes collab I knew exactly who he was- Leica is jewelry to him- as it most likely is to the majority of the readers who bought the ghost edition new.
The old joke was that photographers were always the second owners of Leica’s- after the doctors and lawyers. Now I guess we have to get in line after the influencers and lifestyle aspirants.
That was a real product? I thought it was a spoof.
They did have some good writers whose enthusiasm for watches came through
Some may find this 2016 exchange that I had with "Louis", who was at the time the head of vintage sales at Hodinkee, to be interesting and/or amusing. I had taken exception to Hodinkee's misuse of the word "Calatrava" in a sales listing. 😁
Let me begin by echoing others in saying that Louis deserves credit for engaging the (largely) skeptical rabble, and I think that I can speak for other forum members in saying that we appreciate the effort.
Having said that, I find his above quote to be truly remarkable, and not in a positive sense. This is from Patek Philippe's own website, under "History", in 1932:
How, exactly, is it possible that someone apparently tasked with overseeing vintage sales at such a high-profile (now) dealer could make such a basic mistake? Or perhaps the manufacturer has made an error on their website that Louis would like to correct (that's a joke).
In fact, on Hodinkee's own website, there are references to the well-documented status of the ref. 96, rendering Louis' erroneous claim even more bizarre. Here's just one example, from a 5/28/14 article:
Furthermore, on what possible basis does he get the idea that prior to the mid-'80s Calatrava models were not dress watches? Preposterous!
Finally, while he admits that the use of "Calatrava" is "technically" incorrect, he attempts to justify its use in this case by asserting that:
A specific case shape? As in round? Coupled with a thin bezel?
Please, Louis.
Regards,
Tony C.
Once Jack Forster left, it was all over for watch nerds at Hodinkee. The writing was on the wall previously and you could see it in the comments -- all the regular readers just felt it became an advertising arm for LVMH to push their overpriced investment ideas on the blog readers who got Clymer to the point where he was able to be bought out in the first place. He lost sight of the vision and succumbed to money. Period.
I guess it's hard to scale up vintage watches. You have to worry about authenticity, condition, correct parts, etc. Preowned makes sense except they bought high sold low instead of the other way around. But I think the community wouldn't be as annoyed if they hadn't changed their focus so much towards fashion and celebrity and the site didn't feel so sales oriented instead of collector oriented
For anyone in need of a new band, they have a sale going on…bought a couple for $22.50 each. Hopefully they are decent but can’t beat the price.
I looked too and if they are the straps I think they are (made by a manufacturer known for quality mass produced straps) then they are a good value at $25.
For anyone in need of a new band, they have a sale going on…bought a couple for $22.50 each. Hopefully they are decent but can’t beat the price.
Great to hear. I grabbed two but haven’t received them yet. Thanks