As a fairly new wristwatch fancier, I'm struck by the fact that the more expensive watches tend to be horrifically unattractive. One of the things that a high price brings in automobiles, for example, is beauty. https://www.google.com/search?q=fer...8LzjAhVIxlQKHSnVBHIQ_AUIECgB&biw=1520&bih=984 https://www.google.com/search?biw=1.....0....1..gws-wiz-img.......35i39.ddyccoizo4w https://www.google.com/search?q=ast...8bzjAhVHjVQKHaMWDN4Q_AUIECgB&biw=1520&bih=984 With watches, it seems to be the opposite. I started watching Youtube videos and kept hearing about high end watches like Royal Oak and Patek. Imagine my surprise when I found that they produce some of the least attractive watches on the market (aside from Calatrava. It's pretty). I don't imagine they these watches can take a greater beating than a Seamaster can. Is that incorrect? The Royal Oak and 57**s look like something that should be sitting unsold forever at Goodwill. You could get a better looking Invicta for next to nothing. Are these watches not as ugly as I think they are? What am I not getting? (Don't get me started on Brietling. Whoever is in charge of adding useless details to their dials needs to stop, like yesterday.)
Never noticed the avatar, just shooting from the hip. Following earlier visit to pub perhaps time to stop posting tonight
On the contrary, at this moment you have the best possible excuse for saying something you normally wouldn't.
I was underwhelmed with your post from the beginning, but you lost me with the Invicta comment. I think you’re trolling.
OK then, Royal Oaks are fantastic looking watches. I would swap both my Carreras for one. Yeah! If you believe that I'll stand for parliament. Better liar than <fill in your most despised candidate for PM / President / whatever>.
If I were trolling, I would suggest that Patek buyers fold their money with the big bills on the outside. I was just wondering if anyone could explain the attraction of a watch whose design aesthetic looks like a relic from the quartz crisis.
Its all subjective. You find any watch that you think is ugly and someone else will love it. Well, except maybe this one: https://omegaforums.net/threads/speedmaster-rory-mcilroy-special-edition.98592
Sorry, but this kind of statement is de facto trolling. You know that many people love and admire the style of the Royal Oak and you’re clearly trying to stir the pot.
The market has spoken and for the last 25 years or so they want watches that are big and shout 'look at me'. They don't want wall flower style watches that just slip under the cuff and disappear. Therefore the makers have responded. I agree many are pretty unattractive, so just pass on them.
I haven’t found a Patek (other then the Fifty Fathoms) or Vacheron I have liked. Even if I wore Brioni every day, they just wouldn’t suit my style (pardon the pun). But fugly isn’t just reserved to the them, every brand has done a few that raise a few eyebrows- but as said before, beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder- I give them credit for doing something different as opposed to Rolex that hasn’t had a truly original thought since WWII. I think Lamborghini couldn’t style their way out of a paper bag, and Ferrari hasn’t done an attractive design since Enzo died- but they still sell cars and are considered beautiful by many. To each their own.
That comment referred to the Patek 5711, and it's accurate. If these two watches had an illegitimate lovechild... plus =
Well, I disagree, but I also regret my comment. I’m just grumpy. My flight was just canceled and I won’t be getting home tonight.
While I tend to agree, a lot of newer watches don’t look like watches anymore, you know that Dan S is correct that it’s a bit of a troll like statement. Yeah yeah little bit