I am curious as to what people think about this video... There are some very interesting observations, and I am sure some passionate feelings about 1 of the watches.

Discuss,

 

Well I enjoyed his presentation as I always liked him, but if I had the choice I would prefer to have the watch on his wrist than those RM jobbies. I suppose the Panerai is kinda cool since it's old and sorta started that craze.

 

I wouldn't say that his is an old PAM... His watch was made with the relaunch of the brand.

 

Still seems true, wearing an interesting watch won't make you interesting, but interesting people wear interesting watches.

Kindof like the IWC Mark XI look better than the Panerai.

Love to see people who can afford it both buying AND enjoying these interesting watches. Beyond that, I am not in any position to comment more.

 

I enjoyed Stallone's presentation of his watches, but, I was surprised that the RMs far outnumbered the Panerai. Stallone has been long associated with Panerai and I was unaware that he is a fan of Richard Mille. Although I admire the movements of RM watches, I find the design style and look almost cartoonish on a number of their watches... don't get me started on the straps. I guess, RM, regardless of the ridiculous prices, are not for me.

 

Enjoyed the video too and it’s clear he enjoys his watches. Whilst not a fan of the RMs, I do like the Panerai, always did like their simple models. Would be very interesting to see the rest of his collection too.

 

+1

 

I guess he’s keeping all the rare Panerai

Nice video, Stallone seems like a cool guy and not pretentious about his watches.

 

Absolutely hate Richard Mille watches. They are impressive technically but they look like they came out of a cereal box. The shape, design and colours are just too wacky for my tastes. Price tags are hilarious too. I got bored after the Panerai.

 

Anyone see this deep dive that claims to debunk the origin story in the video? Stallone does not come off well here, as the author essentially argues he and a business partner screwed Panerai over and forced them to sell to Richemont:

https://perezcope.com/2020/12/23/the-stallone-panerai-logo-story-debunked/

I imagine this is making the rounds among Paneristi, but don’t really follow that so sharing here.

 

Seems pathetic to be pimping the sale of his watches, especially given that I’m sure he is given the watches for free and he’s got enough money. Doesn’t even appear to be for charity.

sorry, I know that’s not the point of the thread, but I just found it distasteful.

 

came here to post this

The guy who runs this website is a savant when it comes to vintage Panerai, while at the same time being a thorn in the side of modern Panerai Inc. - he’s for years taken to task the modern Panerai company as being essentially a unscrupulous sham operation. (He’s also got a solid record of also taking to task major auction houses for selling incorrectly described/authenticated watches of several brands.)

So, this video is in line with the main theme: Panerai and its ilk (here, Stallone) knowingly perpetuating false narratives/histories meant to scam buyers (this time, assisted by the auction house).

So, I’d say the video’s intent is less to make Stallone look bad and Panerai the helpless victim, as instead Stallone and Panerai jointly orchestrating a scam.

 

Panerai wouldn’t be half a popular without Stallone in the early days. Marketing dream.

Falling out....yes.
One sided for Stallone as Panerai claims in above debunk.... no.

Oddly the biggest blame for any Panerai drama and issues throughout the years has always been Panerai themselves. Fanboys just flamed the fires

 

here is why that long article doesn’t matter at all.

without that story, without Stallone, and without one of those 5 watches Paneri would not exist today. As such the watch has value. As it’s value is tied to being that watch, not veracity of the story that has nothing to do with the watch in this case. True or not the watches value does not change.

 

So, the value of the watch does not depend on whether it was actually the only watch worn during filming, or possibly even one of the five worn during filming, or whether Stallone wore the watch because he independently fell in love with the watch vs was a paid marketing talent?

That seems unlikely, at least to me.

I imagine a parallel story about Connery’s “the” Submariner in Dr. No, supposedly from his personal collection, going to auction with Connery doing a PSA about his love for Rolex, and that “the” Sub was the one going to auction... only to find out Connery was actually a paid marketing talent, there were 5 Submariners on set, no way to verify if the one being auctioned was the one (or only one) worn by Connery, plus a lot of physical evidence that the watch was NOT the one worn during filming...



... pretty sure that Sub’s value would change

 

Wait, you mean watch brands lie in their marketing?!?! What the hell? I thought it really did take a year to make just 1 Rolex!

 

Why is that hard to believe? It probably takes them 9 months just to secure the permit for the mine where they will extract the raw materials for the case...

 

there’s marketing, then there’s *marketing*

 

if Stallone had not worn that watch in that Movie would Panari be around today?

no.

is Stallone saying this is the main screen worn one? Yes.

nothing else matters.

 

I agree that Stallone's promotion of the watch (and his note stating that it was worn during the filming) is the main determinant of the watch's value, since ultimately that is the provenance that will survive. But I did find that article interesting, and while his involvement may have helped Panerai in the short term, they ultimately failed as a watch manufacturer. He comes off as someone just trying to get something for nothing, and they fact that he is now promoting the sale of these gifts for personal profit just makes him look very bad.

It makes me wonder whether Stallone is having financial problems.