Okay, as promised, scans of a few Calatravas.....

Syrte

I too have been using the word "calatrava" here (and often) to refer generically to the same type of Longines watches which are flat and elegant.
I find it pretty convenient and it seemed to me it was an accepted usage, as I didn't invent it and have seen it done elsewhere (maybe Hodinkee, it's true).

in any event not all 1940s Longines have italian nicknames and when someone refers to Longines calatravas we know exactly what they mean. In this particular case it turned out that's exactly what it was.
Language is a system of labels that we chose to convey meaning. if one fulfills a useful purpose without creating unbearable offenses or distortions I don't see why not use it.
So I'll say; as someone focused on 1940s Longines watches, I find the word "calatrava" routinely useful to refer generically to the simple, flat and elegant 1930-1940, snap-on, case back Longines models which may bear a variety of calibers in a variety of cases. And if the word can be used for other watches with the same characterics- flat simple and elegant- that's convenient too.

No worries in any event, no offense meant or taken.

thanks Darren for sharing your beautiful Longines!!

Tony C.

Wait - screw-back cases don't qualify? Given that more than a few of the original Patek Philippe Calatrava models were screw-back, that doesn't make any sense. And "flat"? Again, there were plenty of true Calatravas that weren't particularly flat, nor are some (if not most) of the vintage Longines that appear with that description attached.

More importantly, the problem with using the word to describe non-PP models is, in my view, mainly twofold. First, it began to be used, and is now used almost exclusively for marketing purposes. In other words, so that potential buyers would associate the watch in question with a Patek, and not because there was any need for shorthand to describe certain characteristics. Is it difficult or unwieldy to simply say "simple and elegant"?

Secondly, it really doesn't have any specific, agreed upon meaning. Even your suggestion of "simple and elegant", which is probably as reasonable a definition as any, obviously fails to be a meaningful usage, given how subjective and malleable it is. Take the OP watches on this thread, for example. Very nice watches, to be sure, but if anyone believes that "simple and elegant" would accurately describe them all, then the definition of Calatrava would be so broad as to lose any real meaning, as virtually every active watch company from the mid-20th Century produced such watches.

Now, if a certain level of quality were to be inferred from the use of the word, something that dealers certainly expect given the PP association, that would help to reduce a diluted pool of "Calatravas" from an otherwise huge number. But even with that qualification, there are, I would argue, far too many that would technically fit the description for it to be meaningful.

To help illustrate the point, here are some watches that I own. Are they "Calatravas"? If your answer is "no", please explain why. If your answer is "yes", then I rest my case.

Tony C.

Wait - screw-back cases don't qualify? Given that more than a few of the original Patek Philippe Calatrava models were screw-back, that doesn't make any sense.

And "flat"? Again, there were plenty of true Calatravas that weren't particularly flat, nor are some (if not most) of the vintage Longines that appear with that description attached.

More importantly, the problem with using the word to describe non-PP models is, in my view, mainly twofold. First, it began to be used, and is now used almost exclusively for marketing purposes. In other words, so that potential buyers would associate the watch in question with a Patek, and not because there was any need for shorthand to describe certain characteristics. Is it difficult or unwieldy to simply say "simple and elegant"?

Secondly, it really doesn't have any specific, agreed upon meaning. Even your suggestion of "simple and elegant", which is probably as reasonable a definition as any, obviously fails to be a meaningful usage, given how subjective and malleable it is. Take the OP watches on this thread, for example. Very nice watches, to be sure, but if anyone believes that "simple and elegant" would accurately describe them all, then the definition of Calatrava would be so broad as to lose any real meaning, as virtually every active watch company from the mid-20th Century produced such watches.

Now, if a certain level of quality were to be inferred from the use of the word, something that dealers certainly expect given the PP association, that would help to reduce a diluted pool of "Calatravas" from an otherwise huge number. But even with that qualification, there are, I would argue, far too many that would technically fit the description for it to be meaningful.

To help illustrate the point, here are some watches that I own. Are they "Calatravas"? If your answer is "no", please explain why. If your answer is "yes", then I rest my case.