End of an era....

Aquagraph

I'll take that backhanded compliment.... and I think you'll find it's my blog.

Aquagraph

Speaking of which, check out the WOTY Missing Years post up today....

http://tagheuerenthusiast.blogspot.com/2022/12/feature-watch-of-year-missing-years.html

Yago

So you like em big and black, absolutely nothing wrong with that my friend

Yago

I agree with Adam that the shock shutdown of C11 still lingers. Thankfully the forum has not only survived but has been very active and we see old and new faces checking in all the time.
The stake of TAG Heuer in C11 was a flaw that ultimately led to its demise. You can't write completely independently, allow the forum to write whatever nonsense it likes, and expect TAG Heuer to pick up the bill. David did outstanding work by not exactly cataloging vintage Heuer but by going deep into the details of every reference and highlighting the links between heritage pieces, re-editions and the current range. His article on vintage Autavia was so detailed and well written you could actually make sense of the Autavia rabbit hole. His article on the Montreal prompted me to buy one five years ago. He was the heritage director avant la lettre.
This is the draft arcticle on Autavia on the TAG Heuer website. It's elaborate, good stuff you'd want to read on plaques in the museum, but it's not research material. In David's article you could find so many details about case, dial, hands, bezel, variations and all the differences between the Autavia generations. It doesn't mean TAG Heuer's effort is without merit. You will be able to find a lot more information about heritage pieces here than on the websites of most watch brands.

Yago

Not too sure as TAG Heuer was on fire in the 90s. The kirium, F1, 2000,… were everywhere. They will have their place in TAGs history acknowledged at some point no doubt. The were no TAG Heuer Carreras, Autavias or Monacos at the time and TAG Heuer thrived.

Aquagraph

Okay, that's better than expected. But I won't hold my breath for a similar article about the 3000 Series or the 1500 Series.

Aquagraph

Bizarrely, TAG Heuer managed to completely re-invent themselves and create brand new products that people actually liked and bought and then they jumped on the heritage bandwagon anyway.

Yago

I agree with Adam that the shock shutdown of C11 still lingers. Thankfully the forum has not only survived but has been very active and we see old and new faces checking in all the time.
The stake of TAG Heuer in C11 was a flaw that ultimately led to its demise. You can't write completely independently, allow the forum to write whatever nonsense it likes, and expect TAG Heuer to pick up the bill. David did outstanding work by not exactly cataloging vintage Heuer but by going deep into the details of every reference and highlighting the links between heritage pieces, re-editions and the current range. His article on vintage Autavia was so detailed and well written you could actually make sense of the Autavia rabbit hole. His article on the Montreal prompted me to buy one five years ago. He was the heritage director avant la lettre.
This is the draft arcticle on Autavia on the TAG Heuer website. It's elaborate, good stuff you'd want to read on plaques in the museum, but it's not research material. In David's article you could find so many details about case, dial, hands, bezel, variations and all the differences between the Autavia generations. It doesn't mean TAG Heuer's effort is without merit. You will be able to find a lot more information about heritage pieces here than on the websites of most watch brands.

RockBurner

I read that, and it strikes me as a series of paragraphs lifted (almost at random) from a much longer article.

Also, there's no indication of what each photo actually is.... For example, what, exactly, is this model??



It would appear to be a 1163, of some sort, (given it's position within the article), but a brief perusal of a few classic watch sites reveals nothing like it.

RockBurner

I read that, and it strikes me as a series of paragraphs lifted (almost at random) from a much longer article.

Also, there's no indication of what each photo actually is.... For example, what, exactly, is this model??



It would appear to be a 1163, of some sort, (given it's position within the article), but a brief perusal of a few classic watch sites reveals nothing like it.

Jeff Stein

The watch in the photo is the Autavia, Reference 73663, sometimes called the "Bund" or "Military" version, as shown here -- http://www.onthedash.com/chronograph/autavia-73663-military-painted-numerals-bund/

Jeff Stein

While it would nice to have a caption, it does appear that the photo is placed in the correct section. The section is covering Manual-Wind Autavias of the early 1970s, and that's what this watch is . . . Reference 73663 "Bund" version.

Jeff

RockBurner

. . . so a caption would be infinitely more helpful.