Who's got a nice watch? Traditional watches only, no smartwatches please.

[Scepticalscribe]

He typed "If you're a timepiece snoob" and I thought "timepiece snob" was relative to the discussion and opinions against fakes whereas "timepiece noob" doesn't make any sense .

Clearly a typo, but - given that it may have seemed that the horological expertise of some posters was being called into question - it actually ranks as an unintentionally funny typo.

 

[bunnspecial]

Well, since we're debating semantics here, let me ask this of the folks in this thread-

1. How many of your are members of a horological association, including(but not limited to) the NAWCC, BHS, or AWCI?

2. How many of you have attended a show/trade meet/symposium with a primary focus on devices which measure time?

3. How many of you have spent time studying major distinctions in watch technology, such as(to give a couple of examples) the difference between a lever and a detent escapement or temperature and positional adjustment theory?

4. How many of you have studied nuances of a particular manufacturer, whether differences in markings on an Illinois movement or difference in various Rolex dials(again, just to give a few examples.

5. How many of you could take apart a simple, running time only watch, clean it, reassemble it, correctly oil it, and have it run well well at the completion, especially without leaving any evidence of your having worked on the watch?

6. How many of you have replaced a balance staff or other major part on a watch, especially one that required hand fitting to work correctly?

7. How many of you could make a part such as a balance staff or a set lever starting with nothing but steel stock?

IMO, if you can honestly answer any-or more than one-of the above you can call yourself a horologist. I also wouldn't be so narrow-minded as to suggest that the above is an all-inclusive list of the definition, but just some things which came to mind.

And, for the record, I can honestly answer yes to everything but #7.

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

I answer 'no' to every question, but I'm not a horologist lol. I do like watches though and enjoy collecting them while reading as much as I can about them. Watch snob, no. Horologist, no. Watch enthusiast, yes!

 

[SHNXX]

Well, since we're debating semantics here, let me ask this of the folks in this thread-

1. How many of your are members of a horological association, including(but not limited to) the NAWCC, BHS, or AWCI?

2. How many of you have attended a show/trade meet/symposium with a primary focus on devices which measure time?

3. How many of you have spent time studying major distinctions in watch technology, such as(to give a couple of examples) the difference between a lever and a detent escapement or temperature and positional adjustment theory?

4. How many of you have studied nuances of a particular manufacturer, whether differences in markings on an Illinois movement or difference in various Rolex dials(again, just to give a few examples.

5. How many of you could take apart a simple, running time only watch, clean it, reassemble it, correctly oil it, and have it run well well at the completion, especially without leaving any evidence of your having worked on the watch?

6. How many of you have replaced a balance staff or other major part on a watch, especially one that required hand fitting to work correctly?

7. How many of you could make a part such as a balance staff or a set lever starting with nothing but steel stock?

IMO, if you can honestly answer any-or more than one-of the above you can call yourself a horologist. I also wouldn't be so narrow-minded as to suggest that the above is an all-inclusive list of the definition, but just some things which came to mind.

And, for the record, I can honestly answer yes to everything but #7.

Totally agreed, which is why it is very silly to question others' knowledge of watches, just because one knows a couple of model numbers and brand names.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

A resounding series of negatives for me, too, I'm afraid.

I'd call myself a watch enthusiast, - others are free to use adjectives such as 'snob' but it is simply that I have high standards and I love beautiful and well made objects that do what they were designed to do very well.

Good classic watches express that fusion of form and function which represents design at its very best.

 

[SHNXX]

He typed "If you're a timepiece snoob" and I thought "timepiece snob" was relative to the discussion and opinions against fakes whereas "timepiece noob" doesn't make any sense .

Oh oops. I misread and didn't see that he actually typed "snoob."
Given the context I think noob would've made sense too though.

 

[OllyW]

Well, since we're debating semantics here, let me ask this of the folks in this thread-

1. How many of your are members of a horological association, including(but not limited to) the NAWCC, BHS, or AWCI?

2. How many of you have attended a show/trade meet/symposium with a primary focus on devices which measure time?

3. How many of you have spent time studying major distinctions in watch technology, such as(to give a couple of examples) the difference between a lever and a detent escapement or temperature and positional adjustment theory?

4. How many of you have studied nuances of a particular manufacturer, whether differences in markings on an Illinois movement or difference in various Rolex dials(again, just to give a few examples.

5. How many of you could take apart a simple, running time only watch, clean it, reassemble it, correctly oil it, and have it run well well at the completion, especially without leaving any evidence of your having worked on the watch?

6. How many of you have replaced a balance staff or other major part on a watch, especially one that required hand fitting to work correctly?

7. How many of you could make a part such as a balance staff or a set lever starting with nothing but steel stock?

IMO, if you can honestly answer any-or more than one-of the above you can call yourself a horologist. I also wouldn't be so narrow-minded as to suggest that the above is an all-inclusive list of the definition, but just some things which came to mind.

And, for the record, I can honestly answer yes to everything but #7.

None of the above.

I answer 'no' to every question, but I'm not a horologist lol. I do like watches though and enjoy collecting them while reading as much as I can about them. Watch snob, no. Horologist, no. Watch enthusiast, yes!

The same here but I wouldn't even class myself as a collector as I've only currently got 5 watches that still work.

 

[Ulenspiegel]

I find it funny that everyone is nay-naying replica watches when a bunch of forum members here are discussing knock-off Apple/misc brand accessories, which if you haven't noticed, are the most popular threads in accessory forums. Double standard much? Not exactly the same I know, but still... As long as someone isn't pretending that his replica is genuine, I'm fine with that.

No double-standards here.
Please read the thread title very attentively:
Who's got a nice watch? Traditional watches only, no smartwatches please

 

[bunnspecial]

A resounding series of negatives for me, too, I'm afraid.

I'd call myself a watch enthusiast, - others are free to use adjectives such as 'snob' but it is simply that I have high standards and I love beautiful and well made objects that do what they were designed to do very well.

Good classic watches express that fusion of form and function which represents design at its very best.

Like I said, the above list is certainly not all inclusive. Actually, in a broader sense, horology is defined as the science of the study of measurement of time, although in a more common use I think answering yes to any of my above questions would qualify you as one.

Even a watch enthusiast could call themselves a horologist-there's no legally binding definition of this, and a "watch enthusiast"-I don't think-would be out of line calling themselves that. In a sense, I think it's a title you bestow on yourself, as you know the level of interest and knowledge you have.

But, at the same time, I'll also caution that a little bit of knowledge can be dangerous thing

I consider myself to be a serious Waltham collector and spend a lot of time research not just the watches but also the history of the company. BTW, as a side note, when researching an historic company that is no longer in business, research on the watches typically comes from factory records and observations(i.e. actually looking at the watches). Many new collectors get caught up factory records, but as a collecting friend of mine likes to say "the watches tell the story." Just because the records say it's supposed to be something you can't count on the watch actually being that. Just for example, I've spent a lot of time pouring over the Waltham factory ledgers, and have found one particular watch-sn 50,194-that has a very peculiar notation. I would love to see this watch-it may no longer exist, it may be buried in a collection somewhere of a collector who either doesn't like to talk or doesn't realize its significance, or it may be "in the wild" still.

And, on that note, I think that's enough rambling from me for the day

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Like I said, the above list is certainly not all inclusive. Actually, in a broader sense, horology is defined as the science of the study of measurement of time, although in a more common use I think answering yes to any of my above questions would qualify you as one.

Even a watch enthusiast could call themselves a horologist-there's no legally binding definition of this, and a "watch enthusiast"-I don't think-would be out of line calling themselves that. In a sense, I think it's a title you bestow on yourself, as you know the level of interest and knowledge you have.

But, at the same time, I'll also caution that a little bit of knowledge can be dangerous thing

I consider myself to be a serious Waltham collector and spend a lot of time research not just the watches but also the history of the company. BTW, as a side note, when researching an historic company that is no longer in business, research on the watches typically comes from factory records and observations(i.e. actually looking at the watches). Many new collectors get caught up factory records, but as a collecting friend of mine likes to say "the watches tell the story." Just because the records say it's supposed to be something you can't count on the watch actually being that. Just for example, I've spent a lot of time pouring over the Waltham factory ledgers, and have found one particular watch-sn 50,194-that has a very peculiar notation. I would love to see this watch-it may no longer exist, it may be buried in a collection somewhere of a collector who either doesn't like to talk or doesn't realize its significance, or it may be "in the wild" still.

And, on that note, I think that's enough rambling from me for the day

Well, I used to be - and still am to a large extent, although I do other things these days, - an historian by profession, and - quite apart from the pleasure I take in excellent and attractive design - I have long been fascinated by the history of how time was (and is) measured.

Leaving aside critical questions of accuracy, (such the whole story of how longitude and time came to be measured accurately which is fascinating in itself), and the concomitant discovery of the sort of scientific advances necessary to measure time accurately, - and whether, which and how they could actually be allowed to be used to do so - there is another aspect, or dimension to this, which is cultural, or political.

Politically, and historically, how time is measured, and disputes over who has the right to do that, how it is named, and which form of measured time should be recognised, can have dramatic, explosive and - even seismic - political consequences.

The scientist Jocob Bronowski has argued that the use of the word 'revolutionary' as a description of change and (inevitably progressive) movement, especially extraordinary and sometimes unstoppable change and movement, derived its powerful political roots from the fact that, originally, the word was use to describe the rotations of clockwork mechanisms, and the rotations of planets and moons on their axes.

For example, for political and theological reasons, the calendar reforms which took place in a number of the Catholic countries of Europe in 1582 (the Julian to the Gregorian calendar) weren't implemented in most of the Protestant states of Europe, (such as the UK - normally ahead of the game on such matters, and the colonies, such as the country that became the US) until 1752.

Likewise, one of the things that the radical regime eventually put in place after the dramatic events of the French revolution changed was how the measurement of time was described and measured; they changed the names of the months, (Thermidor, Germinal etc), the way months were measured (three weeks of 10 days each), and how minutes and hours were measured (a form of decimalization). At the same time, other measures such as the metric system and decimalization were also implemented, which lasted long after the calendar changes were repealed after the Revolutionary Government had been succeeded by Napoleon Bonaparte.

Russia, too, transformed its calendar, in the wake of the 1917 revolutions. This is why history books refer to the Feb/March and October/November revolutions. After the Bolsheviks took power, they brought the Russian calendar into line with the Gregorian calendar used elsewhere by Government order - by then, it had become out by around a fortnight.

More recently still, after the collapse of the USSR, the somewhat deranged (independence post, the first post Soviet) President, a guy named Saparmurat Niyazov, renamed the days of the week and the months of the year by presidential decree, (including one after himself and another after his mother) - changes which were repealed by his successor.

 

[Ulenspiegel]

...More recently still, after the collapse of the USSR, the somewhat deranged (independence post, the first post Soviet) President, a guy named Sapamurat Niyazov, renamed the days of the week and the months of the year by presidential decree, (including one after himself and another after his mother) - changes which were repealed by his successor.

@Ss: his name was Saparmurat Niyazov, the Türkmenbaşy, who was "elected" President for Life of Turkmenistan, who renamed a town, airports and schools after himself, who banished dogs from the capital because of their odour, who banned arts (ballet, opera etc.).

 

[Scepticalscribe]

@Sc: his name was Saparmurat Niyazov, the Türkmenbaşy, who was "elected" President for Life of Turkmenistan, who renamed a town, airports and schools after himself, who banished dogs from the capital because of their odour, who banned arts (ballet, opera etc.).

I miswrote it, and failed to catch it but thanks for pointing it out. Actually, sometimes, I have found the print harder to see since the site changed, and am certainly making more typos than before, and sometimes, I find that I have to hit the command key to enlarge the screen in order to see clearly what I am writing.

Re Saparmurat Niyazov, I seem to recall that the work he termed his autobiography was compulsory reading for his unfortunate population.

The capital, of course, was changed, too. It was almost like a surreal and almost insane version of the old 'Cult of the Personality' from Soviet times. Re-writing the past, present and future, and changing history, geography and time. Extraordinary.

It was funny - in a bitterly ironic sort of way - that ballet (deemed as 'unTurkmen') was banned, as was the opera, given that the Soviets had prided themselves (with justification) on the quality and accessibility of these art forms.

 

[Ulenspiegel]

I miswrote it, and failed to catch it but thanks for pointing it out. Actually, sometimes, I have found the print harder to see since the site changed, and am certainly making more typos than before, and sometimes, I find that I have to hit the command key to enlarge the screen in order to see clearly what I am writing.

Re Saparmurat Niyazov, I seem to recall that the work he termed his autobiography was compulsory reading for his unfortunate population.

The capital, of course, was changed, too. It was almost like a surreal and almost insane version of the old 'Cult of the Personality' from Soviet times. Re-writing the past, present and future, and changing history, geography and time. Extraordinary.

It was funny - in a bitterly ironic sort of way - that ballet (deemed as 'unTurkmen') was banned, as was the opera, given that the Soviets had prided themselves (with justification) on the quality and accessibility of these art forms.

It happens, Ss.
Well, Central Asia have not changed much since the Soviet times in many ways. Like the Caucasus, excluding Azerbaijan where you can see and feel the immense investments of the muslim world.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

It happens, Ss.
Well, Central Asia have not changed much since the Soviet times in many ways. Like the Caucasus, excluding Azerbaijan where you can see and feel the immense investments of the muslim world.

I worked in the Caucasus for a number of years, and - outside of the cities, especially Tbilisi, where change has been quite striking, - many of the rural areas are still very deprived and extremely traditional, and, in some ways, almost backward.

 

[Ulenspiegel]

I worked in the Caucasus for a number of years, and - outside of the cities, especially Tbilisi, where change has been quite striking, - many of the rural areas are still very deprived and extremely traditional, and, in some ways, almost backward.

I know the region very well myself (and for the last 30 years).
Georgia has always been unique. Btw, I admire their ciusine and watch them dance khorumi.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

I know the region very well myself (and for the last 30 years).
Georgia has always been unique. Btw, I admire their ciusine and watch them dance khorumi.

I've seen the khorumi on a number of occasions (and have several CDs of their music) and agree that it is spectacular, as is their opera and ballet. All of the arts were first rate. However, the emphasis in their culture on male bonding or male competition (to the complete exclusion of women) did irk me.

The Tbilisi Opera House production of 'Romeo & Juliet" (Prokofiev's ballet based on Shakespeare's play) - which I saw while living there, while superlative in many ways - was like no other interpretation I have ever seen anywhere else in my entire life.

 

[Ulenspiegel]

I've seen the khorumi on a number of occasions (and have several CDs of their music) and agree that it is spectacular, as is their opera and ballet. All of the arts were first rate. However, the emphasis in their culture on male bonding or male competition (to the complete exclusion of women) did irk me.

The Tbilisi Opera House production of 'Romeo & Juliet" (Prokofiev's ballet based on Shakespeare's play) - which I saw while living there, while superlative in many ways - was like no other interpretation I have ever seen anywhere else in my entire life.

I envy you seeing this version of Romeo & Juliet. I missed the chance.
For me, the "bestest" version of Romeo et Juilette is this:

, though it is not a ballet, but a musical.

 

[OllyW]

It may be very interesting but can we please bring the thread back on topic?

 

[bunnspecial]

It may be very interesting but can we please bring the thread back on topic?

Good idea!

This is not a complete watch, but rather an uncased movement. Even so, it is something of a collecting "home run" for me.

This is an 1872 model Waltham. The '72 model was an evolution of the high grade Nashua design. The finest finished watches made in the United States at the time-and likely in the world-were 1872 models. Of course, not all fall into that class.

This one, however, is interesting for a couple of other reasons.

First of all, it has what's called a "frosted" damaskeen pattern. As I understand, the plates were first acid etched and then damaskeened. This is the first frosted 1872 model I've seen.

Second, this is a private label. Private label 1872 models are exceptionally uncommon.

Third, it is a private label for a Mexican jeweler. This is one of the few such watches I've seen.

A collector friend offered this to me a few months back, and agreed to hold it for a little while.

 

[althaur]

Good idea!

This is not a complete watch, but rather an uncased movement. Even so, it is something of a collecting "home run" for me.

This is an 1872 model Waltham. The '72 model was an evolution of the high grade Nashua design. The finest finished watches made in the United States at the time-and likely in the world-were 1872 models. Of course, not all fall into that class.

This one, however, is interesting for a couple of other reasons.

First of all, it has what's called a "frosted" damaskeen pattern. As I understand, the plates were first acid etched and then damaskeened. This is the first frosted 1872 model I've seen.

Second, this is a private label. Private label 1872 models are exceptionally uncommon.

Third, it is a private label for a Mexican jeweler. This is one of the few such watches I've seen.

A collector friend offered this to me a few months back, and agreed to hold it for a little while.

That is a gorgeous movement! Do you plan on re-caseing it?

 

[bunnspecial]

That is a gorgeous movement! Do you plan on re-caseing it?

Thank you for the compliment.

The chances of me recasing this are slim-if it does get a case it will likely be a modified glassback.

1872 model Walthams require a special case that no other watch will fit. A significant majority of them were heavy 14K or 18K gold, and have been lost to the melting pot over the years.

I have a handful of coin silver cases, along with an(exceptionally rare) English-made sterling silver case(BTW, I was offered a crazy amount for my sterling case not too long ago). It's rare to even find a loose case for sale.

 

[cali shot doc]

My "first" nice watch

 

[siddhartha]

Recently picked up a ZRC Etanche Grands Fonds-the reissue. Hard to get it here in the USA, but I managed it. Really like it!

 

[Ulenspiegel]

Congratulations!
Is it the version with a crown at "6"?
If so, it is one of the most unique diver watches made by Zuccolo & Rochet for the French Navy.
It is extremely rare.

 

[siddhartha]

This is it. It's the reissue model. I used to own the vintage model, and sold it years ago. Actually, I prefer this to wear!

Cheers

Chris