Watch Snob Archives - Who Sells Best Mens Uk Replica Watches Online

For my next piece, I’m looking to get a watch that best captures the spirit and essence of Jaeger-LeCoultre whilst adding some interesting variety to my collection. The two watches I’ve narrowed down to are: the Geophysic True Second in stainless steel and the Reverso Tribute to 1931. Of the two, which one would be the better pick?

Of course, I’m also open to hear your suggestion on watches from JLC that I’ve overlooked, which might better represent the brand. I look forward to hearing from you and thank you in advance.

I’m currently looking to add a fourth watch to my collection and have my sights set on Jaeger LeCoultre. Right now, my collection consists of an Omega Speedmaster 105.003, a Rolex Datejust 1603 with a “Wide Boy” dial, and a Grand Seiko “Self-Dater” 57GS 5722-9990.

The three watches you have are all quite excellent choices — and I do mean excellent, but you don’t have anything in the realm of the Reverso by a long shot and, more than anything else by the company that I can think of, the Reverso really is the very essence of the French design sensibility and Swiss watchmaking expertise that makes Jaeger LeCoultre what it is.Given the watches that you already own, and given that you aspire to own a watch that “captures the spirit and essence of Jaeger LeCoultre,” I would strongly recommend the Tribute to 1931. This is not by any means a knock on the Geophysic True Second, which is an interesting watch in its own right, but the True Second is also a sports watch (or, shall we say, a pragmatically oriented semi-tool watch, if not a sports watch outright) and you’ve got sports and sort-of sports watches already.

Nomos Orion

I have scraped enough money together to buy the first piece in what will hopefully become, as time goes on, a large and diverse collection. I am deciding between the Nomos Orion (the standard version in 35mm) or the Grand Seiko SBGX059. Both are very clean, simple pieces with design languages that I love. Which one should I purchase? (Or should I save a bit more money to buy something higher on the horological food chain?)

The answer to the question, “should I save a bit more money to buy something higher on the horological food chain,” is, essentially, always yes. However, the reason that both Grand Seiko (as a matter of fact, let’s just go the distance and say Seiko, period) as well as NOMOS attract the sort of respect that they do, is because they appeal to connoisseurs irrespective of the cost involved. There are a very great many collectors who — by the grace of God, good luck, sheer industry, or good birth (or some combination thereof) — may enjoy horology without concerning themselves with questions of economy and a very great many of them (at least, the ones with actual taste) may wear one day a Patek repeater, the next day a Breguet perpetual, and the next day a Grand Seiko or NOMOS without feeling anything incongruous in the choice. As a first watch, a statement of personal taste, and a sound basis for future collecting, either watch will serve you well, and damned well at that.

The one thing I would say, however, is that if you can forego the pleasure of ownership for a bit, you might consider saving for a mechanical Grand Seiko rather than the 9F quartz — unless part of what attracts you to the quartz is what quartz means in the context of Seiko. The difference, if you are practicing economies, is not a small one, but I have to say, while I understand the intellectual appeal of the quartz Grand Seikos, it is the mechanical models that make me want to get out of bed in the morning — even at my age.

I was recently having a watch collection discussion with the husband of a friend of my wife. He’s a nice enough fellow, but I have to say I found him to be a bit of a bore from the start. Anyway, he chastised me for my Grand Seiko, so I didn’t even bother to show him my cheaper watches. And conversely, I found his collection to be so predictable that it left me unimpressed despite his many wonderful timepieces.

I mean, it’s one thing to have some expensive and iconic timepieces in your collection, but it’s another thing when it appears to me that you only own watches that wealthy “experts” tell you that you should own. For example, he had a Patek Calatrava, a Rolex Submariner, a Royal Oak, a Speedmaster, an Overseas, etc. Each a nice watch, but not one piece was something I would call unique or even slightly outside the box. If you only own a few watches, then fine, but he had 10-15 in his collection. In a way, I find that more pathetic than just completely bad taste.

I come from a lower middle class background and started wearing watches at a young age. Like many of my early station, Seikos were considered good, dependable watches that wouldn’t break the bank. So I started off collecting Seiko’s, among other watches. When I became wealthy later in life, I of course expanded my collection to include some fine and expensive Swiss, German, and Japanese watches — for instance, a Vacheron Constantin Traditionelle, a GO 1960’s, GS SBGA081, etc.

But I still love my old watches and also enjoy collecting watches of various price points, or modding Seiko’s and some of the fun microbrands made in China with good Japanese or Swiss movements, such as Helson and Halios. So on one hand I have watches that reflect my interest in, and respect for, the fine artistry of the Swiss tradition, and on the other hand I have watches that reflect my personality. I have no issue with someone who only owns expensive Swiss watches, but I like to see an occasional choice a bit outside the box or at least not completely predictable.

“In matters of taste, there can be no dispute” — an old saying and a good one. I understand quite what you mean by saying that the gentleman’s taste was fatally flawed by its predictability, and many are those who think themselves expert in horology who do the same thing: collect by rote and recipe with never an original thought in their heads. In cookery the analogy is the so called “foodie” who never deviates a jot or tittle from recommendations and recipes, and makes elaborate meals for their friends, entertaining lavishly, with all the right wines, carefully chosen, and at just the correct temperature in the correct glasses… and whose guests somehow never have any fun, because what the host is doing isn’t about enjoyment, it’s about avoiding mistakes.

In point of fact I have several guilty pleasures in collecting, some more guilt-inducing than others. One of my favorites, however, is my quite extensive collection of Mickey Mouse watches, which I started collecting long before bloody Dan Brown put one on the wrist of his protagonist in The Da Vinci Code, so there. It’s quite a large collection, and while there are some early mechanical models, it is in fact largely composed of quartz timepieces, including a gold-toned Laurus of which I’m rather fond. I wear them down to the pub rather more frequently than I would think many of my readers might imagine, and may God strike me down where I stand on the day when an old horological duffer like myself can’t get a kick out of Mickey and a pint of Guinness.

Whenever I read reviews about the finish and quality of watch movements, I see several features thrown around that more or less appear to be markers of high quality: gold chatons, diamond endstones, Guillaume balances, swan’s neck regulators, etc. Assuming watch movements are finished to an equally exacting standard, would you say the more such characteristics a movement embodies, the better, or are they just stylistic flourishes?

For example, I am perplexed because I have seen a Patek Observatory Chronometer pocketwatch movement (which I can assume is probably close to a gold standard) with only one chaton-ed jewel at its center, whereas Lange and Greubel Forsey seem to try putting gold chatons on all their jewels. Also, Glashutte Original seems to be the only brand I know that puts two swan’s neck regulators in their movements…

I have been interested in watches for a couple years now, but most of my interests have been aesthetic, and my sad lack of real scholarly knowledge has led me searching for your wisdom.

Be aware that finish is a separate issue – there are many very beautifully finished watches with no chatons, no swan’s neck regulators, no diamond endstones, and so on; they are however magnificently hand-finished from stem to stern, and to a real connoisseur far more interesting than a watch that adds on anachronistic features but cuts corners on finishing.All of the features you mention can be found in high quality watches, but they are, alas, not necessarily sure indications of a high quality watch, or a high quality movement. The question of whether any feature in and of itself represents inherently better quality is almost always, to some extent, an open one. Take those lovely gold chatons. They are in fact a terrible anachronism: difficult to do, yes, but offering additional complexity not for any gains in performance, but for its own sake. Diamond endstones are likewise a throwback to a time when natural gems had to be used for balance pivots, as synthetic rubies had not yet been developed.

All I can suggest is to keep reading as much as possible, and understand the basics of mechanical horology as much as possible, the better to be able to judge what value a feature really adds — and be aware, furthermore, that most flashy talking-point features don’t really offer much more than the chance for the maker to realize a better margin on the watch.

Watch Utility

This time, I submit to your judgement this question: what are the limits between true horological value and mere shallow virtuosism? I have in mind the newest issue by Greubel Forsey: the all-sapphire encased Double Tourbillon 30° Technique Sapphire.

I have no doubt that the making of this timepiece encompasses some truly groundbreaking achievements in terms of technology; nevertheless, given the purely esthetical goal (in my point of view) this effort addresses itself to, one is compelled to ask if such an achievement, for the sake of embellishment itself, is worthy of appreciation in terms of horological value.

This conundrum reminds me of an operatic anecdote, involving the great soprano Adelina Patti and the legendary composer Gioacchino Rossini: in one occasion, Patti sang Rossini’s aria “Una voce poco fa,” from “Il barbiere di Siviglia,” to the composer himself. She added some virtuosic “fioriture” to the music, to showcase her proficiency in the bel canto style. Rossini’s answer: “Very beautiful. Who is the composer?”

This parody summarizes, to me at least, the spirit of the question above: does a virtuoso-like execution have some artistic value on its own terms or is it merely an episode of self-indulgence from the artist, to obtain easy applause — a selfish act, so to speak? Or should we surrender to pure beauty and adhere to Oscar Wilde’s peremptory declaration about that matter: “We can forgive a man for making a useful thing as long as he does not admire it. The only excuse for making a useless thing is that one admires it intensely. All art is quite useless.”

Dr. George Daniels writes, in Watchmaking, that the fact that a remontoire d’egalite is useless merely adds to its charm. We may say the same of the tourbillon, the minute repeater, and indeed, virtually every element of mechanical horology, which from a practical standpoint has been completely and irreversibly overtaken by quartz. The question then becomes, how much of an admission of the utterly pointless (from a practical standpoint) nature of mechanical watches is one willing to tolerate? The sapphire-cased Greubel Forsey watch you mention is an interesting case in point; as you mention it is a bravura (and indeed, an operatic) piece of watch design but it has about as much to do with practical considerations in horology as a rubber ducky with a battleship.

However, if we were to discard all such pieces of bravura watchmaking simply for their ambition and histrionic nature we would throw out much that is of interest along with much that is merely striving for attention and novelty. Bear in mind always that the primary function of a mechanical watch today is not to tell the time, but to separate a client from as much money as possible, and Greubel Forsey, like every other watch company, is obliged occasionally to make rather more excessive timepieces than not in order to keep the lights on. If such a piece is also well made, and appealing from a design standpoint, so much much the better. In the case of the GF I think that that is the case but Lord knows, it ain’t necessarily so.

Rolex vs Tag Heuer

I am a watch enthusiast from India and have collected a couple of watches that I like, but now I want to buy another watch that costs under $11,000 to add to my collection and am really confused!

Right now I own a Breitling Navitimer (Blue) and an Omega Seamaster (Rose Gold and Leather).

I am thinking of adding a steel watch to my collection because I think during traveling Steel/Rubberwatches make sense.

I was thinking Rolex Submariner Date, but when I tried it I found it a tad bit small for my wrist…I know it is a great watch and many people suggest it but just because of that should I buy it? I do like the design…

I also like the leather version of Tag Heuer’s Monaco (The only Tag Heuer I like) and am also looking at IWC, Panerai, Chopard, JLC (Reverso)

I really appreciate those companies who have their own in-house movement.

Can you please give some advice?

The Rolex Submariner Date is indeed a great watch. The only disadvantage to it is that to own one is to become aware of how many other people have made the same decision. Still, I am going to advise you to buy one. It is technically a hundred times the watch that most others in its price range can claim to be and while every brand you mention also makes some very wonderful steel watches, I think you ought to experience Rolex ownership if for no other reason than to have a context for future decision making. You may perform this experiment with confidence with Rolex, by the way — if a year from now you have decided you do not care for it after all, you will find you can sell it for not much less than you paid for it; and having lost almost no money, you have gained some valuable (horological) experience into the bargain.