There is some great watch journalism out there, but sometimes I wish there was just a little more skepticism...


The new Richard Mille RM19-01 is co-designed by Natalie Portman:
"She set her mind on an image combining strong associations and complex undertones expressed by a diamond studded and encrusted tracery based on the image of a spider.
For the Altaic peoples of Central Asia and Siberia, it represents the soul released from the body, and on the mystical level, the thread of a spider is a support in spiritual development." (Deployant)

Really? Clearly nothing says spiritual development as loudly as a $500,000 taste bypass.

 

That's just a marketing piece supplied by the manufacturer. What really drives me up against the wall is the quality of writing at Hodinkee... "Quite litterally..." "it's litterally..." Ugh.

 

I'm sure not everyone will agree with me, but my views on this come from a different perspective than most here...

Watch "journalism" is very much like car "journalism" so not much actual journalism involved. In fact it's probably worse than car journalism to be honest.

I'm sure there are honest reviews out there, and there are people who write their honest feelings about a watch with good intentions. I have had requests to review the watches I make, and those have come from people who had no agenda other than to review the product - I send them a watch, they review it, and send it back. No money changes hands, no one gets a free watch or anything, and no promises are made with regards to what will be in the review. Is this real journalism? Not convinced it is, but at least it's honest.

On the other hand, and far more common in my experience, are people asking if I they can review a watch of mine, but only in exchange for me giving them the watch for free. I once had 2 people from the same review site email me about me sending them a watch for free in exchange for a review, and on the very same day. They didn't realize the other person was also emailing me, so I replied to both of them with their requests attached, and told them I don't give watches away in exchange for reviews, and they should really coordinate their requests a little better...

Will we see hard hitting articles on the restrictive trade practices of the brands in Watchtime? Not likely, since the companies that use these practices are their source of advertising revenue. Will we even see less controversial articles about something as simple as servicing costs in these publications? Not likely because possibly the brands will stop giving them watches to review if they do that, even if they don't rely directly on brand advertising (like on a blog for example). Most watch journalism is not much more than glowing reviews that really might as well be written by the brands themselves...

Cheers, Al

 

Mmmmm, Natalie Portman....

 

I was referring to automotive specific publications, so not really considering Consumer Reports. I'm sure if they reviewed watches (like they do cars, washings machines, etc.) they would also be much more objective there as well. I guess I don't consider them to be part of the group I would call "automotive journalists" really. But your point is taken for sure.

As I said, they don't all ask for something in return for a review in my experience, and some just need to have the product in their hands to be able to write the review (or people would not consider it valid). In those cases I just lend them the watch for a while, and they send it back.

Cheers, Al

 

Hey, what's wrong with getting a few bucks back from the marketing machine & monopoly that the Swiss Watch Industry has become?

 

It's hard to find any watch journalism that has a true objective and critical POV. Generally everything tends to be positive about each piece they review, for all the reasons pointed out so far. 99% of what I read watch journalists and bloggers for would be real life photos of a new release which are typically much better than the photoshopped stock images the brands put out.

As for cars, I love the writing of Dan Neil, currently with WSJ. He actually won the Pulitzer in 2004 writing automobile reviews for the LA Times.

 

No Kidding! Some sites are much better than others... and will at least report on issues pertaining to, and effecting the watch industry.
Fratello covering ramifications of the Swiss Franc strength was a decent bit of journalism.
But I agree, the Watch reviews are at best worthy of an eye roll... does everyone really love the new Yacht-master THAT much?
No one out there willing to say that the emperor has no clothes?

Everyone loves everything.... It is just like when Homer Simpson was a Food Critic for the Springfield Shopper....

 

..... and bite the hand that feeds you?!?!?!?! ( )

 

It's on the fringe of journalism, but the Watch Snob calls it like it is (mainly). But, he has to hide behind a pseudonym to do so ...

http://www.askmen.com/style/watch_snob/

 

+1. Always a pleasure to read, whether the topic is Fiat or FIFA.

 

I agree with Al that it is unrealistic to expect them to write the unvarnished truth about the product of their advertisers, but that doesn't mean they have to slobber over bollocks about Altaic spiritual development in a review of a Richard Mille of all things -- it would be nice if they bought some critical faculties to the job....

And I love Dan Neil's writing too... Anyone read PJ O'Rourke's car reviews?

 

Not to further derail this thread off topic, but Jalopnik is a great car blog that is both smart and objective. I'd love to see a watch blog with a similar POV.