163 Discussions and CommentsMember since Sept. 10, 2002
From Askmen's Editor:
Read this article recently and to a certain extent, I agree with him. What are your thoughts, forum members?
Leon.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IWC Watches I’ll admit, I’m a sucker for advertising. So I’ve fallen hard for IWC’s “Engineered for Men” campaign and the design of its watches, which really appeal to my inner pilot, diver and sailor. In looking at your past columns, I’ve noticed that you seem to not like IWC in general. Yet it seems to meet most of your criteria for a good brand: in-house movements, long history, etc. So why don’t you like IWC? Are there any of its watches you like?
Here’s the thing about IWC: I have tried to like it, and it isn’t doing a lot of things right. But it is a confused brand. On the one hand, it wants to be taken seriously and indeed has put out some fine innovations and movements, such as its eight-day hand-wound, its Pellaton auto-winding system and the 89360 chronograph calibre.
This year, it’s dipped a toe in the exclusive waters of ultra-complicated movements with its Portuguese Sidérale Scafusia. So why does it continue to dabble in overpriced fashion pieces such as its cartoonish Aquatimer and the gussied-up Portofino? I have a theory: IWC is like that awkward girl in school who slept with all the boys just to be considered popular. Sure, she got a lot of attention but not exactly the kind she could be proud of. Then, like the girl who matured into an elegant woman but never developed the self-esteem to accompany her charms, IWC can’t shake off its desire to stay popular with the wrong crowd.
If I’ve lost you in my metaphor, let me illuminate. IWC was a once-proud watch company, like so many were, before the so-called quartz crisis of the 1970s. But then it entered that awkward phase when it became desperate for attention and turned out some forgettable pieces just to stay afloat. When it finally found its footing again, it had developed, shall we say, a reputation with the wannabe Village People like you (the diver, the pilot, the sailor). Rather than return fully to glory, IWC is afraid to step away from the boys that snuggled up to it. I hold out hope that we’ll see a day when IWC trickles down its in-house calibres to all its references and again becomes the brand it once was. It seems to be on the right path.
I think the article speaks more about the author's own conflicts and psychology.
His conflict premise is based in part on Aquatimer styling and Portofino pricing. Those are two characteristics where I specifically disagree. I like that style and that price. Based on sales, I'm not alone.
I also think the author's high school slut metaphor doesn't fit and is juvenile. The sort of precocious thing where a teenager thinks he has a good idea and tries to adopt it to a high school essay. It doesn't really work, but it's cute.
2,908 Discussions and CommentsMember since Nov. 14, 2008Taylor, TX,
United States
Michael Friedberg Wrote:I also think the author's high school slut metaphor doesn't fit and is juvenile. The sort of precocious thing where a teenager thinks he has a good idea and tries to adopt it to a high school essay. It doesn't really work, but it's cute.
That pretty much sums up my opinion of the so-call "Watch Snob." I find a good deal of his 'commentary' sophmoric and more about being excessively cute, than about objective watch reviews. I'm sure it appeals to his AskMen readers...but I choose to ignore him.
Best regards, Jim
"We are the other people, we are the other people...you're the other people too!" Frank Zappa
163 Discussions and CommentsMember since Sept. 10, 2002
No wonder he adopts the moniker.
I too believe that his metaphor is inappropriate.
Sales aside, I fully agree with him on the new Aquatimer styling and that the Portofino marketing/PR is too focused on celebrities and the 'high-life' rather than the product itself.
But hey, ever since the PRC and Bric markets became the dominant consumers, I've found that design work in the luxury industry overall has somewhat deteriorated.
I completely subscribe Michael and Jim's opinions, and would like to add that I feel they were to kind for, in my humble opinion Mr. Watch Snob chooses his metaphors with excessive bad taste.
But, anyway, we can't expect everyone to love IWCs as much as we do here in the Forum, which in a certain sense is also good for we can maintain some exclusivity (not wanting to be a snob here).
Furthermore I do believe that it is this same diversity that makes IWC such an appealing brand. I, with all the due respect, not to say reverence, that brands like Patek or Vacheron deserve, consider that they, at times, in spite of all the wonderful workmanship and mechanisms, feel a bit too conservative in their line ups. Variety is a consequence of evolution and the willingness to fulfill the needs of a ever expanding market, and has very little to do with teenage hormones. Examples are everywhere in successful brands. Even Porsche is nowadays building SUVs and sedans...
There is quite a lot more that one could point out but, alas, I don't have TIME for Mr. Watch Snob.
Regards,
Jeronimo
Omar Khayyám (Persia XI-XII Century) offered that Time should not only be measured in length but also in width due to the intrinsic difference between a minute or other depending on what is happening to the beholder... I wonder how a watch would look like...
5,031 Discussions and CommentsMember since Aug. 9, 2006
What Watch Snob writes is rubbish. Every one has a right to his own opinion, but I would guess that 100% of the Forum Members will throw his article and thoughts into to rubbish.
2,996 Discussions and CommentsMember since April 2, 2011Hong Kong,
Hong Kong
WS' opinion is one opinion - there are many others, including those concerning what constitutes 'gimmicky' or modern 'haute horlogerie', and whether it is or is not directed and driven by mass market appeal, or sales.
what I do know is - if for a few months WS doesn't diss any watch brand, he would lose readers. there are many excellent watch journalists out there who attained their status without the same modus operandi.
Regards, Shing | email iwcforme1976 (at) gmail (dot) com time does not change us. it just unfolds us. max frisch. all that really belongs to us is time; even he who has nothing else has that. baltasar gracian.
163 Discussions and CommentsMember since Sept. 10, 2002
shing Wrote:WS' opinion is one opinion - there are many others, including those concerning what constitutes 'gimmicky' or modern 'haute horlogerie', and whether it is or is not directed and driven by mass market appeal, or sales.
what I do know is - if for a few months WS doesn't diss any watch brand, he would lose readers. there are many excellent watch journalists out there who attained their status without the same modus operandi.
Agreed. Nevertheless, I prefer the 'Top-Gear' approach of not always sucking up to the brands/manufacturers in return for Advertising dollars. Even Wei Koh who I have incredible respect for tends to write with a positive tone than negative.
3,732 Discussions and CommentsMember since March 28, 2001
Watch Snob: does he really like watches? He likes his own writing, I guess. And for the rest I would say: bla, bla, bla, I can so easily live without this Watch Snob.
Kind regards, Paul
What you do may not be so important, but it is very important that you do it well. (my variation of a saying by Gandhi)
5,023 Discussions and CommentsMember since May 29, 2003Sarasota, FL,
United States
Sunflower Wrote:Watch Snob: does he really like watches? He likes his own writing, I guess. And for the rest I would say: bla, bla, bla, I can so easily live without this Watch Snob.
Kind regards, Paul
I totally agree. The Snob seems to be more about being hip and that means a cynical approach. It might be fun to read but not for me.
Read this article recently and to a certain extent, I agree with him. What are your thoughts, forum members?
Leon.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
IWC Watches
I’ll admit, I’m a sucker for advertising. So I’ve fallen hard for IWC’s “Engineered for Men” campaign and the design of its watches, which really appeal to my inner pilot, diver and sailor. In looking at your past columns, I’ve noticed that you seem to not like IWC in general. Yet it seems to meet most of your criteria for a good brand: in-house movements, long history, etc. So why don’t you like IWC? Are there any of its watches you like?
Here’s the thing about IWC: I have tried to like it, and it isn’t doing a lot of things right. But it is a confused brand. On the one hand, it wants to be taken seriously and indeed has put out some fine innovations and movements, such as its eight-day hand-wound, its Pellaton auto-winding system and the 89360 chronograph calibre.
This year, it’s dipped a toe in the exclusive waters of ultra-complicated movements with its Portuguese Sidérale Scafusia. So why does it continue to dabble in overpriced fashion pieces such as its cartoonish Aquatimer and the gussied-up Portofino? I have a theory: IWC is like that awkward girl in school who slept with all the boys just to be considered popular. Sure, she got a lot of attention but not exactly the kind she could be proud of. Then, like the girl who matured into an elegant woman but never developed the self-esteem to accompany her charms, IWC can’t shake off its desire to stay popular with the wrong crowd.
If I’ve lost you in my metaphor, let me illuminate. IWC was a once-proud watch company, like so many were, before the so-called quartz crisis of the 1970s. But then it entered that awkward phase when it became desperate for attention and turned out some forgettable pieces just to stay afloat. When it finally found its footing again, it had developed, shall we say, a reputation with the wannabe Village People like you (the diver, the pilot, the sailor). Rather than return fully to glory, IWC is afraid to step away from the boys that snuggled up to it. I hold out hope that we’ll see a day when IWC trickles down its in-house calibres to all its references and again becomes the brand it once was. It seems to be on the right path.
Check out the Watch Snob archive here.
BY WATCH SNOB
Watch Snob
Read more: http://uk.askmen.com/fashion/mens-watches_700/714_iwc-watches.html#ixzz238Hygfqm
Last edited: 28 October, 2012 - 23:12
His conflict premise is based in part on Aquatimer styling and Portofino pricing. Those are two characteristics where I specifically disagree. I like that style and that price. Based on sales, I'm not alone.
I also think the author's high school slut metaphor doesn't fit and is juvenile. The sort of precocious thing where a teenager thinks he has a good idea and tries to adopt it to a high school essay. It doesn't really work, but it's cute.
Regards, Michael
mfriedberg@iwcforum.com
Last edited: 10 August, 2012 - 13:20
That pretty much sums up my opinion of the so-call "Watch Snob." I find a good deal of his 'commentary' sophmoric and more about being excessively cute, than about objective watch reviews. I'm sure it appeals to his AskMen readers...but I choose to ignore him.
Best regards,
Jim
"We are the other people, we are the other people...you're the other people too!"
Frank Zappa
I too believe that his metaphor is inappropriate.
Sales aside, I fully agree with him on the new Aquatimer styling and that the Portofino marketing/PR is too focused on celebrities and the 'high-life' rather than the product itself.
But hey, ever since the PRC and Bric markets became the dominant consumers, I've found that design work in the luxury industry overall has somewhat deteriorated.
Last edited: 28 October, 2012 - 23:12
But, anyway, we can't expect everyone to love IWCs as much as we do here in the Forum, which in a certain sense is also good for we can maintain some exclusivity (not wanting to be a snob here).
Furthermore I do believe that it is this same diversity that makes IWC such an appealing brand. I, with all the due respect, not to say reverence, that brands like Patek or Vacheron deserve, consider that they, at times, in spite of all the wonderful workmanship and mechanisms, feel a bit too conservative in their line ups. Variety is a consequence of evolution and the willingness to fulfill the needs of a ever expanding market, and has very little to do with teenage hormones. Examples are everywhere in successful brands. Even Porsche is nowadays building SUVs and sedans...
There is quite a lot more that one could point out but, alas, I don't have TIME for Mr. Watch Snob.
Regards,
Jeronimo
Omar Khayyám (Persia XI-XII Century) offered that Time should not only be measured in length but also in width due to the intrinsic difference between a minute or other depending on what is happening to the beholder... I wonder how a watch would look like...
Last edited: 27 October, 2012 - 08:54
Bill
what I do know is - if for a few months WS doesn't diss any watch brand, he would lose readers. there are many excellent watch journalists out there who attained their status without the same modus operandi.
Regards, Shing | email iwcforme1976 (at) gmail (dot) com
time does not change us. it just unfolds us. max frisch.
all that really belongs to us is time; even he who has nothing else has that. baltasar gracian.
Last edited: 8 December, 2012 - 16:07
Agreed. Nevertheless, I prefer the 'Top-Gear' approach of not always sucking up to the brands/manufacturers in return for Advertising dollars. Even Wei Koh who I have incredible respect for tends to write with a positive tone than negative.
Last edited: 28 October, 2012 - 23:12
Kind regards,
Paul
What you do may not be so important, but it is very important that you do it well. (my variation of a saying by Gandhi)
I totally agree. The Snob seems to be more about being hip and that means a cynical approach. It might be fun to read but not for me.
Last edited: 8 November, 2012 - 12:49