His writing reminds me of an old recurring bit on Saturday Night Live, The Hollywood Minute with David Spade. It was nothing but one snarky comment after another. That's fine, SNL is a comedy show. I don't, however, get the impression that humor is the Watch Snob's primary goal.
More troubling is his logic which is flawed and self-contradictory. He doesn't like the Aquatimer design? That's his right but it's quite a leap to conclude that IWC is a "once proud company" because of it. I'm not a fan of the X5 but it doesn't diminish BMW. He thinks the Portofino is overpriced but wishes that IWC would produce all of its own calibers. Not a bad goal but one effect of that move would be higher prices for some lines, such as the Portofino.
The real shame is that his has a soapbox from which he can influence others opinions. Rather than read the Watch Snob perhaps those people should take the time to educate themselves on heritage, quality and innovation and then form their own opinions. Of course, it's easier to simply buy a Rolex and read his inane ramblings.
41 Discussions and CommentsMember since July 16, 2012
This is the second time I have 'bumped into these comments from watchsnob.
Setting aside the rather distasteful and sensationalist way he has of writing, there is an implication that a watch brand has to focus on what he perceives the brand to mean. In this case he does not believe that IWC should be producing the less expensive watches in its range.
I believe that the board of IWC are in a better position to judge that. I am not saying I believe him to be right or wrong, just irrelevant.
Graham
Ps: I own two of the watches at the lower end of the price range, really enjoy them and to me, they are true IWC.
2,635 Discussions and CommentsMember since Sept. 20, 2007
Gents, there is no need for me to even have to 2nd and of your comments, we are all aligned. If anything, I'd normally feel obliged to demand on behalf of all our fine ladies out there an appology from the man for his sexist reference in his ramblings. Fortunately, MF already countered to that (most politely I might add! - I probably would not have been that eloquent).
IWC is building great watches, and continuing its proud heritage just fine!
163 Discussions and CommentsMember since Sept. 10, 2002
dmath Wrote:His writing reminds me of an old recurring bit on Saturday Night Live, The Hollywood Minute with David Spade. It was nothing but one snarky comment after another. That's fine, SNL is a comedy show. I don't, however, get the impression that humor is the Watch Snob's primary goal.
More troubling is his logic which is flawed and self-contradictory. He doesn't like the Aquatimer design? That's his right but it's quite a leap to conclude that IWC is a "once proud company" because of it. I'm not a fan of the X5 but it doesn't diminish BMW. He thinks the Portofino is overpriced but wishes that IWC would produce all of its own calibers. Not a bad goal but one effect of that move would be higher prices for some lines, such as the Portofino.
The real shame is that his has a soapbox from which he can influence others opinions. Rather than read the Watch Snob perhaps those people should take the time to educate themselves on heritage, quality and innovation and then form their own opinions. Of course, it's easier to simply buy a Rolex and read his inane ramblings.
What do you mean by it's easier to buy a Rolex? Kindly elucidate your logic.
Strategically, I see Rolex being more in line/similar to one of the most successful companies in the world (i.e. Apple). Greater Product focus, iconic design, vertical integration, small product portfolio, longer product refresh cycles, quality branding, secrecy. You name it...
IMO, the man/woman (snob) is entitled to his/her opinion, it's not his/her interest to please everyone. Plus, its refreshing to have someone in the editorial business that is brave enough to be critical/negative of well-liked brands regardless of popular opinion.
I love IWC, been a fan since 1997. Nonetheless, I agree with the snob in certain aspects, particularly with respect to the post-richemont era.
dmath Wrote:His writing reminds me of an old recurring bit on Saturday Night Live, The Hollywood Minute with David Spade. It was nothing but one snarky comment after another. That's fine, SNL is a comedy show. I don't, however, get the impression that humor is the Watch Snob's primary goal.
More troubling is his logic which is flawed and self-contradictory. He doesn't like the Aquatimer design? That's his right but it's quite a leap to conclude that IWC is a "once proud company" because of it. I'm not a fan of the X5 but it doesn't diminish BMW. He thinks the Portofino is overpriced but wishes that IWC would produce all of its own calibers. Not a bad goal but one effect of that move would be higher prices for some lines, such as the Portofino.
The real shame is that his has a soapbox from which he can influence others opinions. Rather than read the Watch Snob perhaps those people should take the time to educate themselves on heritage, quality and innovation and then form their own opinions. Of course, it's easier to simply buy a Rolex and read his inane ramblings.
What do you mean by it's easier to buy a Rolex? Kindly elucidate your logic.
Strategically, I see Rolex being more in line/similar to one of the most successful companies in the world (i.e. Apple). Greater Product focus, iconic design, vertical integration, small product portfolio, longer product refresh cycles, quality branding, secrecy. You name it...
IMO, the man/woman (snob) is entitled to his/her opinion, it's not his/her interest to please everyone. Plus, its refreshing to have someone in the editorial business that is brave enough to be critical/negative of well-liked brands regardless of popular opinion.
I love IWC, been a fan since 1997. Nonetheless, I agree with the snob in certain aspects, particularly with respect to the post-richemont era.
His posts are mainly for humour, you realize that right? I think this entire thread is a bit silly in that we're debating over a persona who a) I don't believe are written by the same person on a weekly basis and b) is meant to be satire. They do have actual watch reviews on the askmen.com site. Watchsnob is not it.
Leon K Wrote: What do you mean by it's easier to buy a Rolex? Kindly elucidate your logic.
I mean that for someone who doesn't know a lot about watches, Rolex is the obvious, easy choice. Thanks to amazing marketing and good products, that brand has become synonymous with luxury watches for a large segment of the population. That is not to denigrate Rolex in any way.
163 Discussions and CommentsMember since Sept. 10, 2002
gyang333 Wrote in reply to:
Leon K Wrote in reply to:
dmath Wrote:His writing reminds me of an old recurring bit on Saturday Night Live, The Hollywood Minute with David Spade. It was nothing but one snarky comment after another. That's fine, SNL is a comedy show. I don't, however, get the impression that humor is the Watch Snob's primary goal.
More troubling is his logic which is flawed and self-contradictory. He doesn't like the Aquatimer design? That's his right but it's quite a leap to conclude that IWC is a "once proud company" because of it. I'm not a fan of the X5 but it doesn't diminish BMW. He thinks the Portofino is overpriced but wishes that IWC would produce all of its own calibers. Not a bad goal but one effect of that move would be higher prices for some lines, such as the Portofino.
The real shame is that his has a soapbox from which he can influence others opinions. Rather than read the Watch Snob perhaps those people should take the time to educate themselves on heritage, quality and innovation and then form their own opinions. Of course, it's easier to simply buy a Rolex and read his inane ramblings.
What do you mean by it's easier to buy a Rolex? Kindly elucidate your logic.
Strategically, I see Rolex being more in line/similar to one of the most successful companies in the world (i.e. Apple). Greater Product focus, iconic design, vertical integration, small product portfolio, longer product refresh cycles, quality branding, secrecy. You name it...
IMO, the man/woman (snob) is entitled to his/her opinion, it's not his/her interest to please everyone. Plus, its refreshing to have someone in the editorial business that is brave enough to be critical/negative of well-liked brands regardless of popular opinion.
I love IWC, been a fan since 1997. Nonetheless, I agree with the snob in certain aspects, particularly with respect to the post-richemont era.
His posts are mainly for humour, you realize that right? I think this entire thread is a bit silly in that we're debating over a persona who a) I don't believe are written by the same person on a weekly basis and b) is meant to be satire. They do have actual watch reviews on the askmen.com site. Watchsnob is not it.
My sentiments exactly. There is no debate, more like sensitive responses :) Assuming that the Watch Snob's objective is to stir, he/she/they has or have definitely succeeded.
163 Discussions and CommentsMember since Sept. 10, 2002
dmath Wrote in reply to:
Leon K Wrote: What do you mean by it's easier to buy a Rolex? Kindly elucidate your logic.
I mean that for someone who doesn't know a lot about watches, Rolex is the obvious, easy choice. Thanks to amazing marketing and good products, that brand has become synonymous with luxury watches for a large segment of the population. That is not to denigrate Rolex in any way.
I guess you can also reverse it, for someone who does know a lot about watches, Rolex is still the obvious, easy choice.
More troubling is his logic which is flawed and self-contradictory. He doesn't like the Aquatimer design? That's his right but it's quite a leap to conclude that IWC is a "once proud company" because of it. I'm not a fan of the X5 but it doesn't diminish BMW. He thinks the Portofino is overpriced but wishes that IWC would produce all of its own calibers. Not a bad goal but one effect of that move would be higher prices for some lines, such as the Portofino.
The real shame is that his has a soapbox from which he can influence others opinions. Rather than read the Watch Snob perhaps those people should take the time to educate themselves on heritage, quality and innovation and then form their own opinions. Of course, it's easier to simply buy a Rolex and read his inane ramblings.
Best regards,
David
Last edited: 8 January, 2013 - 17:49
Setting aside the rather distasteful and sensationalist way he has of writing, there is an implication that a watch brand has to focus on what he perceives the brand to mean. In this case he does not believe that IWC should be producing the less expensive watches in its range.
I believe that the board of IWC are in a better position to judge that. I am not saying I believe him to be right or wrong, just irrelevant.
Graham
Ps: I own two of the watches at the lower end of the price range, really enjoy them and to me, they are true IWC.
Last edited: 19 May, 2013 - 07:03
'Well, he calls himself a snob. That says it all. It is one big joke, and should be treated als such.'
Regards,
Bas
IWC is building great watches, and continuing its proud heritage just fine!
Best regards
Mark
Last edited: 16 April, 2013 - 00:36
What do you mean by it's easier to buy a Rolex? Kindly elucidate your logic.
Strategically, I see Rolex being more in line/similar to one of the most successful companies in the world (i.e. Apple). Greater Product focus, iconic design, vertical integration, small product portfolio, longer product refresh cycles, quality branding, secrecy. You name it...
IMO, the man/woman (snob) is entitled to his/her opinion, it's not his/her interest to please everyone. Plus, its refreshing to have someone in the editorial business that is brave enough to be critical/negative of well-liked brands regardless of popular opinion.
I love IWC, been a fan since 1997. Nonetheless, I agree with the snob in certain aspects, particularly with respect to the post-richemont era.
Last edited: 28 October, 2012 - 23:12
His posts are mainly for humour, you realize that right? I think this entire thread is a bit silly in that we're debating over a persona who a) I don't believe are written by the same person on a weekly basis and b) is meant to be satire. They do have actual watch reviews on the askmen.com site. Watchsnob is not it.
George
IWC Portuguese Chronograph 3714-45
Last edited: 16 October, 2012 - 17:45
I mean that for someone who doesn't know a lot about watches, Rolex is the obvious, easy choice. Thanks to amazing marketing and good products, that brand has become synonymous with luxury watches for a large segment of the population. That is not to denigrate Rolex in any way.
Best regards,
David
Last edited: 8 January, 2013 - 17:49
My sentiments exactly. There is no debate, more like sensitive responses :) Assuming that the Watch Snob's objective is to stir, he/she/they has or have definitely succeeded.
Last edited: 28 October, 2012 - 23:12
I guess you can also reverse it, for someone who does know a lot about watches, Rolex is still the obvious, easy choice.
Last edited: 28 October, 2012 - 23:12
Wonder who annonymous A is. I agree with him.