@bpsmith I think it's a great watch to bring out. Very unique and for the collector that has plenty of normal watches. Every collection needs a watch that only makes sense to the owner. I dig it.
as far as digital goes a 42mm Breitling Aerospace Blue or Black dial has been on my radar for years, keep looking but never pulling the trigger
That is a cool piece, I agree.
I am also drawn to the Omega X-33 for similar reasons. The Marstimer looks superb physically, it’s just the fact you can tell the time on Mars which I find weird, not having an interest in Space Travel.
I also saw these earlier. Probably a long way off this forum’s taste, but I am just so drawn to the look of Forged Carbon and would like a G-Shock at some point.
The square style like that is my favorite G-Shock style. I had a DW5600 for ages, it never died after years of abuse and still hasn’t gone out of style. I wish I would have picked up a Bamford a while back. I dig the colors on it.
Don’t believe that for a moment, you’ve just fallen the trap. In the UK all 4 countries ( Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England use the £Sterling, Isle of Man uses the £ too but like the rest of the UK have banks which produce their own banknotes, after that it gets complex but let’s not go there.
We all speak English-of a sort anyway- which seems to suggest that is the principal of the UK.
Oh yes, definitely the square for me too. DW5600 is a classic for sure, yet a till looks modern.
I can’t decide whether to go for something along that line or go for one of the more bling options. No shortage to choose from.
It's complicated enough that a lot of people who live here don't seem to understand it fully.
The UK is actually short for "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". As stated, that includes the countries of England, Scotland and Wales (that make up the Great Britain land mass) and Northern Ireland, which shares a land mass with the Republic of Ireland. The RoI is not part of the UK and unlike the rest of us, is part of the EU. The UK additionally has 14 overseas territories.
Personally I’m not a fan of turning an interesting historical complication into a modern 3-hander lookalike (cough…Superocean…cough), but it’s a historically relevant piece and some might just want the look.
Plus: It’s a relatively limited run at a rather fair price:
This video is quite interesting. Hard to believe that 10 years ago the Royal Oak was not a good seller and what turned it around was actually marketing it to rappers. Wow. But it just goes to show, at the end of the day the guy's job is to sell watches and make money, he certainly did that. The bits with him on stage with Travis Scott are cringe beyond words though...
I think it really tarnishes the brand and what it stands for. There are plenty of people to collaborate with and draw in a younger audience that are not so controversial. I don't think this was thought through all the way and just driven by the fourty million dollars in sales. I know thats what every company is in business for, making a profit, but this would have nme rethinking things if I were in the market for an AP. Maybe that's what the outgoing CEO was looking to do, leave with a big sale to cash out on and leave a little stain on the way out.
I mean, aren't most CEOs of companies paid on results? So it's in his interest to make as much money as possible. Granted the family business model is better for maintaining the image long term, but I guess this is old companies trying to negotiate the modern world. If the Royal Oak really was a nothing watch ten years ago then it's hard to argue he did a bad thing. But I agree maybe this was not the best person to collaborate with. I guess JCB was trying to do similar things with David Guetta and Alec Monopoly...
I do wonder how much store younger people put into things like '1860' and 'oscillating pinions'... it seems that while my generation grew up with the idea that a good company was one that had been around 100 years, it doesn't really seem like younger people give a toss about any of that. In fact they are more likely to be excited about a company that started two years ago, operates at a loss and tries to bulldoze its way into a market by driving everyone else out of business.
I agree that the younger generation are more drawn to the here and now and why wouldn’t they be when many of these historical companies are so far out of reach. I disagree that all of these startups act in the manner you set out above though.
My personal view is that just because a company has been around for over 100 years, it doesn’t mean we are honour bound to respect them for ever more and to try to keep them in business at all costs. Why don’t we give new companies the same respect by giving them a chance to be in business for 100 years too? We wouldn’t have re-issues or homage pieces without the new companies, as the old school ones would still be churning out the same stuff as they have done for many many years.
For me, it equates to the “always respect your elders” view, where someone should be respected just because they’ve been around longer. There are plenty of examples where this holds true, without question, but there are many older people who I have little or zero respect for too. The same goes for the younger generation.
I think it’s all about balance, with both new and old offering the other something.
On a different note, whilst these do appear to have taken inspiration from elsewhere, they are pretty cool in fairness…
Shame about the movement though.
I didn't say they all do that, I was talking about companies like Uber. Young people love Uber. But there's a perfect example of a company that's 'valued' at £billions but took ten years to make a profit, meanwhile driving other companies out of business whilst exploiting its drivers. Air BNB is another example.
I agree, and many long standing companies have gone out of business recently as young people simply won't shop there as they are old fashioned and fail to change and adapt to the modern world. I guess the problem is the watch industry has made such a big deal about their 'history' being the reason why they should be respected, way more than any other business I can think of honestly and suddenly an awful lot of potential customers really couldn't care less about that anymore. So do you stick to your guns and keep pushing 'heritage' as your angle or do you go after the younger buyers? Perhaps this is why Frederic is kind of moving away from the heritage reissue side of things and trying to incorporate old designs in 'new' watches?
I still find it hard to criticise a man who has turned a watch that was hard to sell into a watch you have to pay over list for, if you can get one at all. In any other industry the guy would be a success by any metric. But again, Travis Scott is probably crossing the line. I don't like the Marvel collabs either, they look tacky as hell, but people are paying multiples of list for them. I'm sure there are people in the company who think it's terrible but they are probably the same people who thought the Offshore was a bastardization of the Royal Oak in the first place and would much preferred if they still made pocket watches.
I totally appreciate that you are picking up on the extreme end of some companies and don’t disagree with you there. How many younger people would now or care about whether Uber was making a profit and how this affects other businesses? Very small number I would guess, hence why they have no issue using them. I am guessing that they just see it as easier and/or cheaper than other forms of transport that are either more expensive or harder to interact with.
You’re bang on about watch companies exploiting the value in their heritage. I kind of don’t blame them, as they took a long time building that, but not moving with the times is then brought on by their own arrogance of feeling like they don’t have to. The problem then becomes the dwindling numbers in the generation that have the nostalgia for a piece that they remember when they were younger. If you weren’t into them the first time, then there’s no nostalgic reason for buying a reissue, unless you’re seriously into watches. Whilst there are many that just love vintage styling, they will be a finishing number as other newer designs forge ahead.
I just mean younger people get excited about companies that are new and fresh and appeal to them and the appeal of having 'In business since 1860' or whatever, I just don't think they care. The rest is a bit of a side alley, which I take responsibility for bringing up.
The past ten years the industry has been obsessed with painting themselves into a heritage corner and now it seems they are waking up to what they've done. Like it or not, they need younger people on board so they need to appeal to what their tastes are... same for any business really. You can say that X company stands for 'this', but if no one wants to buy it anymore (or if not enough to make it viable) then it doesn't really mean anything. Watch companies are businesses first and foremost with staff and shareholders to satisfy, if putting Spiderman on your watch means you survive another year then that's what you do.
Okay, perhaps a better way to say it is that 'branding' has more pull with younger people than 'history'. Like Tesla for example. Young people love Tesla, and that's a lot to do with branding and Elon Musk of course. Tesla has sod all history but it's already the 'Rolex' of electric cars. By that I mean it's not the 'luxury' electric car, but it's the aspirational car for the masses. Of course the danger of being the new shiny thing is that there can be another new shiny thing that comes along and displaces you, think Blackberry. But this is the fine line watch companies now have to walk. I know it's been said for many years already but Richard Mille probably won't be the brand it is forever. Sooner or later something new will come along and it will become the next Frank Muller... or maybe not. Maybe the production is limited enough and the sums invested high enough that the owners won't let it fall?
Separate names with a comma.