THE HOME OF WATCH CULTURE

#shitcollectorssay Reader’s Choice: These are the three phrases you don’t want watch media to misuse anymore #shitcollectorssay Reader’s Choice: These are the three phrases you don’t want watch media to misuse anymore

#shitcollectorssay Reader’s Choice: These are the three phrases you don’t want watch media to misuse anymore

Zach Blass

Earlier this week, we shared our thoughts on phrases we are completely guilty of using at times, but wondered if it would be best to retire them. We’re not declaring right or wrong here, but rather just initiating a bit of a thought experiment and evaluating what effect our cultural rhetoric (so to speak) has on our industry and collecting community.

It is no secret that tastes have homogenised quite a bit, and a case could be made that our common vernacular is one of the roots of the problem. Arguably, it creates a code of buyer conduct – rules that dictate our purchase decisions and remove independent thought from the equation. Worse still, it engenders yet more snobbery in a pastime that already has a bad rep for being, for lack of a better phrase, up itself and not as inclusive as, say, model trains.

We put the question to you, the readers, and now present #shitcollectorssay: the Reader Choice Edition. A quick note that some reader responses were purely words and phrases some find objectionable: “timepiece”, “in-house”, “lightplay” for example, and even overused adjectives such as “stunning”. Thanks to all for getting involved, and answering the call.

Giving watches “Iconic” status prematurely

It’s not so much that watches cannot be considered iconic, but the way the term is thrown around, spelled properly or not, with as much restraint as a teenager saying they love something or someone, can be a bit misleading and inaccurate. Icons are effectively widely known symbols, and while certain timepieces may be iconic within collecting circles, most are unknown to the mainstream consumer.

The other issue is when watches are labelled iconic before their time – which raises the following questions: how long does a watch need to be in a catalogue before it is considered iconic? And do sales numbers determine the status of an icon or does its symbolism within the community establish it as iconic? One could say that newcomers Ming and Kurono have distinct design languages, but are they iconic? Or are they possibly icons in the making? One thing is clear: for both of the aforementioned, we have a decade or two to consider the question before it deserves an answer.

Calling a luxury watch a “Tool Watch” in the modern era

#shitcollectorssay

While it may have been the original purpose of its creation, do modern-day consumers actually buy watches to serve as tools? In all likelihood, the answer is no. Most divers today will tell you that they rely on modern dive computers instead of luxury watches, and you won’t see race car crew chiefs with Heuer pocket watches timing laps. I am not denying the robust nature of these timepieces, but short of being the select few who take an Omega Speedmaster into space, the idea of a mechanical watch being one’s primary professional tool seems a tad romantic. Definitely idealistic.

I like to tell people I time my boiling pasta with my bezel, but if I am being totally honest it is far easier when I use an electric kitchen timer or set a countdown by my phone. The other reality is that many of the watches with professional tool origins are no longer priced as tools, but as luxury status symbols. In 1980, a Rolex 14060 Submariner was $950 USD. Factoring in the rate of inflation, that would now equate to $2887 USD – which is basically a quarter of today’s asking RRP, not to mention it’s actual price.

The over and inaccurate use of “Hand Made” and “Hand Finished”

#shitcollectorssay

Nothing gives me more of a belly laugh than when I see a watch worth hundreds of dollars, and a Chinese movement, listed as handmade. If handmade counts pushing the buttons on industrial machines that cut the plates and bridges then sure, handmade it is. If a watch is not priced in the tens of thousands, do not expect an entirely handmade or finished watch. Grand Seiko, as an example, is renowned worldwide for its incredible level of finishing for the dollar – and does, in fact, include components finished by hand. That being said, there is a reason watches jump from a few thousand dollars to more than one hundred thousand dollars when the Micro Artist Studio gets their hands on the creation.

Most watches utilise industrial processes to create and finish their components, with even brands such as Patek Philippe skirting the line at lower price points. It depends on how nit-picky we want to be. Those who get extremely technical will distinguish processes done by hand alone, and those done by hand intervention – which means the labour is performed with a hand-guided machine. While we all love to imagine the watchmakers handling components with a wooden file, a lot of the time manufactures (including Patek Philippe) utilise a machine called a “touret”, which is a small, hand-held motorised tool that is used to bevel and polish the edges of the plates and bridges in a watch movement. Only when you reach the upper echelon of a brand’s catalogue will you find entire watches with traditionally hand-finished components. To do so is very time-and-labour intensive, which is why the watches command much higher prices to offset the cost of hourly labour.