Reply With QuoteI like my Panerai, as it has a Zenith movement in it ;-)
Almost came to sell it. But the watch that was on the cards didn't happen.
Wear what you like.
Enjoyed this thread, it's made me smile.
IMHO, if the guy in the OP's post is going to plant mines on some ships in a harbour, he's in the right area historically with that strap.
If however, he's going out for a soy latte, which is more likely, he's trying too hard.
______
Jim.
I like my Panerai, as it has a Zenith movement in it ;-)
Almost came to sell it. But the watch that was on the cards didn't happen.
Wear what you like.
[quote=PIERS (UK)]Don't know what's more stressful - Buying a PAM 232 and worrying that it might be slightly fashionable, or buying an Anonimo and worrying that it's now worth less than 50% of what you paid for it in the first place! :shock: :shock:[/quote:3h9bo2mj]Originally Posted by "Mustang Jim":3h9bo2mj
Then you have a double dilemma.
Later
Jim
In either case you are not buying it just for yourself; not only as an instrument to tell time or - for personal enjoyment of its qualities.
If you think about it, the resale value argument is the inverse of a status thing; that is a miser´s argument for those who cannot afford cost of ownership :wink:
Take a GP.
Thát is a brand with horlogic history and - significance.
Not fashionable, not a fashion accessory, about the write off king but boy do they make good quality watches as a direct continuance to what they have always been.
Like p.e. a Citizen Chronomaste heq it is a trué wis watch. Not a wis-wannabee fashion watch, which modern, post Stallone, Panerai is imo.
Panerai 232 is anything but fashionable, its an all time classic
RIAC
Which, in watch enthusiast circles, means its very fashionable indeed. "Classic" you say?Could it also be "Iconic"? "Timeless"? What industry uses these words the most to sell its wares...?
Im still confused though as to why it seems to send people so up in arms that something they've bought is a luxury fashion item. There are people with nothing out there who aspire to these things. We should just count ourselves extremely fortunate that we can afford these accessories.
^
because its usually used with scorn.. and as way to disparage and dismiss.
"oh yah, panerai/omega/longines/whatever, theyre just a fashion brand.. i have a much better special thing that stealths as something deeply underwhelming because i'm a *true* WIS....."
....etc etc ad infinite yawn.
personally, i'm less interested in the fashion panerai debate and more interested in getting to the bottom of why some folk are so eager to undermine what other people choose to wear/be interested in.. thats the biggest shame in this entire debate, imo.
(this isnt a direct reply to you umb, just a general grizzle)
I remember going to see them when they launched... and thinking wow a unitas movement in a big fat case for £2K...no thanks. I've not changed my views much except to say that some of the in house stuff and specials are getting rather nice. However huge money!
I'm still sometimes tempted by one but [i know this will make some smile as i buy mostly Rolex] but i'm not sure of the image... military history is on the 'wrong' side.. and they seem to be the horological equal of a TVR sports car.
It is móre interesting why the buyers get so upset about words like ´fashion´ as the underlying motivation is exáctly the emotion that feeds the ... fashion.
Fashion; a general term for a currently popular style or practice, especially in clothing, foot wear or accessories.
Why are so many wis agressively protective about the feel good of the image that in an age long gone a watch made by a company dead and buried was used by under water saboteurs :?:
Why so agressive towards other wis that can differentiate between a tool 50 years ago and a fashion accessory today?
The agression packed in totally unargumented rudeness is the ónly shame in topics like this.
The present day Panerais are luxury accessories made by an financiers corp. specialised in that.
So what?
They are very well made watches. What is wrong with appreciating that and enjoying an asccociation?
Take note: It is an association :idea: It does NOT make the wearer an under water saboteur and Bond is a fictional character.
Taking that personal is... food for psychologists and that is why all Swiss marketing is devised by those :bounce:
I currently have a PAM210 in my collection. I am not fashionable by any stretch of the imagination, however, if my watch is considered fashionable, so be it.
Do I consider Panerai to be a fashion brand, cult maybe, fashion no.
The only thing wrong here is, maybe he needs to wear a little tighter, the next notch. The GPF buckle is great and the strap is long because that's how is should be.. :shock: This is a watch from the 1930's and asthetically hasnt been redeveloped. So it should be exactly how it is.I like Panerai's, some of you may have noticed.
I really like my 232 Radiomir also, though not the silly price it commands. What personally frustrates me, is when someone feels this looks good. It's obvious i'm sure which forum this is from, but the watch size alone looks borderline on this guys wrist (imo) and the oversize strap and buckle.......... :shock:
I would never pi$$ on someone’s parade, but to tell this guy it looks great is doing him a dis-service (imo)
Sometimes it's all a bit too much for me :wink:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
ish
Is a modern ´cult´ thing nót a form of fashion :?: :?
The paneristi thing is an exclusive high end cult fashion and what can possibly be the ´problem´ with that?
Only the wannabee component of it taking offence to :?: :?: :?: the mirror :idea:
IMHO there's a difference between a "fashion watch" and a "fashionable watch".
"Fashion watch" implies or is often taken to imply a lack of substance, lack of horological history, low quality, disposable, popular one week, gone the next. Like those crappy Toy Watch things.
A "fashionable watch" is one that is particularly popular at the present moment. It doesn't imply anything about the underlying history or quality of the watch, and a Panerai or any other brand can quite happily be described as fashionable, at any given time, without being a "Fashion watch". :)
That is well put.
I lóve this watch and the associations that come with it.
Having dutch roots I personaly have the strongest association with the Kampfschwimmer blowing the Nijmegen bridges up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMbK75AH ... re=related
Apart from it not being my ´style´, having only a 7,5" wrist it does not suit me :cry:
As association by the mind works in mysterious ways I have ´scratched´ the itch with an early Molnija that shares the same Cortebert engine that Rolex bought for these Panerais, albeit with micro adjustment.
I find the idea that it is contemporary with the Panerai agent saboteur watches and has a high spec version of the same engine quite 8)
It does not quíte make me think that I am a Sovjet party chairman though :idea:
It is the non tangible idea that the things are almost eachothers inverse using the same engine that is the thing for mé. For me it is an artefact tangibly illustrating the relativity of ´history´.
Same reason why I have a museum replica of the ´Venus of Willendorf´ in front of my sreen and lóve the Bulova ´Ugly Bugger´& gold torc set.
It is best summed up by: ´Don´t loose perspective´ :wink:
cilla - im not defending anything aggressively in the slightest, neither am i being rude.
you may be quite happy to throw the term "fashion" at panerai, but there is an element of fashion to every. single. watch. ever. made.
once you go beyond the "tool" aspect and into the territory of watches which are worn regularly by people who choose to wear them because they are attracted to the design, the history, whatever it is that prompts them to purchase.
even the much discussed HEQ's.. theyve been put into cases which are visually appealing.. they are marketed.. and they are ultimately sold to people who intend to be seen wearing them.. maybe not to the same people who prefer to buy rolex, or pam, or AP.. but fashion is still a motivator in part of the manufacturing process.. for most things in production.
why do you think that there have been so many types and styles of watch through the ages?.. because FASHION has dictated the changes.
with the best will in the world, you can use dictionary definitions, you can imply that people are being rude and aggressive.. you can spin it how you like until the cows come home.. but it doesnt change the fact that the term "fashion" in this context is being used to belittle someone elses watch of choice.
the motivation to try and "take away" from another person by sneering at an item that theyve chosen and obviously love in order to prove superior WISdom is very sad thing indeed.. and then to feign surprise and wonder at people taking offence is nothing more than a playground tactic.
i dont really want to get into a massive debate about history, who played for what team in the war, and what knowledge is required for superior WISdom and what constitutes a *fashion* watch.. i dont have the "winning" knowledge and i dont see the point.. much like i dont see the point in opening my mouth in a bar and braying about haute couture lemming culture just because someone showed me their new jumper that they like.. its completely pointless and slightly unkind.
i understand that this debate means different things to different people, therefore different points of view are going to be put across.
i dont take offence at being a called fashion victim.. after all.. being anti fashion is a fashion in itself.. which is why it has so many followers :)
´Implied´ but based on whát?
On assumption, predjudice and ... association.
Fashion; a general term for a currently popular style or practice, especially in clothing, foot wear or accessories.
To distinguish between fashion and fashionable is ludicrous as fashionable is that which is in/conform fashion :idea:
What is boils down to it that those who buy into high end luxury watches feel insulted because they think theír fashion accessory is tótally different from lower end fashion watches because of a marketed pedigree.
The more factual an argument the more it clashes with the emotions loading the pedigree association.
The definition of ´fashion is rational.
The association with pedigree is emotion.
These nééd not clash :idea:
This forum is a friendly place for discussing these aspects of horology.
´Implied´ but based on whát?
On assumption, predjudice and ... association.
Based on the reality of the use of the English language amongst native English-speakers. You do very well to post in English on this forum, and certainly better than I could on boards that are in a foreign language to me, but there are nuances of language use that are not always clear to those not using it day-in-day-out as their native tongue. These nuances are not picked up in dictionary definitions of words in isolation. To deny this is fairly naive.
Fashion; a general term for a currently popular style or practice, especially in clothing, foot wear or accessories.
To distinguish between fashion and fashionable is ludicrous as fashionable is that which is in/conform fashion :idea:
It certainly isn't ludicrous, as per my statement above, and to write off my point as ludicrous with no attempt to understand what I am getting at is certainly not in keeping with...
This forum is a friendly place for discussing these aspects of horology.
´Anti-fashion´ is something I do not grasp as a concept. I do not ´get´how one can be against the phenomena of something being popular.
More so since whatever one thinks is itself, directely or indirectly, a product of fashion.
I really like the basic Panerai watch a lót because of their ´naïve art´ functional design.
That finds form-follows-function reason in the tool use which for mé adds a negative association with sabotage actions that would nowadays be called terrorist activities.
As it is only an innate object that does NOT stop me from wearing this style of watch which I like a lot.
It being fashionable does stop me. Not for being fashionable in itself but because it puts the price accepted by the market beyond that which I am prepared to pay for my jewelry unless it represents the bullion value.
Yes, my watches are jewelry and my taste is a product of my genes and very much my environment.
I lóve historical perspective, wether direct or by association so I entirely get the marketed Panerai ´dna´ thing. It still is fashionable though because of that marketing of the association.
Here´s my favourite set of jewelry with 3000 y.o. ancestral DNA :mrgreen:
All of the seven languages I sort of master are descendants from the language spoken in the ancestral culture that is expressed in this set.
Do I feel strongly about that? YES :!:
Would I be insulted/offended by someone pointing out it is a hot new technoloy early 70ties wrist watch with no history and that the torc is a 1970ties replica made for western tourists visiting the Hermitage? Ofcourse not; that is true :mrgreen:
Looking back over this thread, my question in the header was possibly misleading
I am of the opinion that Panerai as a watch maker currently offers a range of products considered to be fashionable to many, though are not as others have already defined, makers of 'fashion watches' per se.
If you look at any pictures of Panerai’s products, "out of the box", they are mostly understated and subtle and you either like or dislike them, which is exactly how it should be.
What i believe sometimes causes them to be called fashion watches, is typified in my original picture. The strap shown and the manner in which it is worn is considered by some to be fashionable. Reinstate it's original strap and it becomes far more subtle despite it's size, and imo drops back into the regular like or dislike zone. I do get a little peeved at sweeping statements, though don't lose sleep over it, of Panerai is a fashion brand though i can understand on some occasions why it is thought. I guess we all have biases and some are more vocal about theirs than others.
In personal summary, as historically accurate looking as the watch and strap in the original picture may be to many, i think it looks daft as it's out of context. Put it back on a 'more sensible' strap and you have something visually better, for my taste anyway, and which draws less, or no attention and doesn't require an explanation as to what you’re wearing, because it isn't unusual looking.
:)
TBH any high end watch will be used as a fashion brand by those whose wrists are not big enough to wear it :D
"Big wallet, small wrist syndrome"
“Don’t look back, you’re not heading that way.”
Actually it isn't ludicrous at all.
A fashion item, is made to follow the fashion / trend of the time is usually cheap to produce, a copy of something far more expensive, with longevity and disposable once the fashion / trend passes for example Toy Watch rubbish
A fashionable item for example a Daytona is something that existed in its own right previously and tends to have a niche market, comes into fashion, hence fashionable in the mass market, then once the fashion passes returns to its niche market, it doesn't 'die' out after a particular fashion / trend has run its course.
Spot-on, other than I don't think I'd go down the route of a fashion item necessarily being cheap or cheap to produce, as high-fashion items (thinking Dior, Chanel, CMCM3 Couture :lol: , et al) don't necessarily conform to that, but are still very much produced to satisfy a current trend, rather than as you say, a watch that has remained fairly unchanged for X decades becoming a trend and still being produced after that trend passes. :)Actually it isn't ludicrous at all.
A fashion item, is made to follow the fashion / trend of the time is usually cheap to produce, a copy of something far more expensive, with longevity and disposable once the fashion / trend passes for example Toy Watch rubbish
A fashionable item for example a Daytona is something that existed in its own right previously and tends to have a niche market, comes into fashion, hence fashionable in the mass market, then once the fashion passes returns to its niche market, it doesn't 'die' out after a particular fashion / trend has run its course.
Who gives a rat's arse about fashion? Style is permanent. :D
Don´t really know but It was love at the first sight!
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
:mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
:) yes, yes it is. good or bad it's still style and still permanent, could say the same about taste, although it does change with age I guess
One WIS's taste is another's poison.
Simple as that :D
When you look long into an abyss, the abyss looks long into you.........
Indeed it was Baz... Fashion my "Ass"!!! :wink: :lol:Looking back over this thread, my question in the header was possibly misleading
Indeed it was Baz... Fashion my "Ass"!!! :wink: :lol:Looking back over this thread, my question in the header was possibly misleading
:D Looking good 8)
Panerai are NOT a fashion brand.
The likes of Hugo Boss, Armani and Diesel ARE fashion brands.
Gucci and Ralph Lauren are on the blurred distinction :D
Hugh grant wears one and says they are just fabulous
I have two comments on the thread in general. The first relates to the above and the watch being ugly. I just don't agree at all. Having one myself I wouldn't but it is well shaped, with a legible, clean, striking dial, quite well proportioned and by no means ugly. Okay, beauty or a lack thereof is subjective but it would be hard to see how this is an ugly watch (strap combo not withstanding).
My second comment is more of a question... Have Panerai become fashionable or............
Has fashion become more Panerai-able?
I'll go with the latter. Panerai will remain a strong brand well into the future because it has a good, solid customer base. For every loyal fan there will be a detractor, for each of the previous there will be ten who couldn't care less and so the world turns...
Actually, it's not the buckle for me, it's the location of it on the wrist. That's to do with the length of the buckle end of the strap.
It's something you see all the time because as strap makers extend the length of the "holey" end to provide the popular (fashionable
"big tail" look, they also extend the buckle end so that it protrudes round from the flat of the wrist (unless you're a big fat B* like me :wink: ).
So if you usually wear a "standard" strap (eg 115/75mm or 120/80mm), the buckle end is 75 or 80mm & the buckle sits on the flat
part of the wrist. If you buy an XL or XXL strap, you get eg.160/90mm or more & the buckle is then on the outside of the wrist.
That's what looks wrong.
______
Jim.
What's the difference between:
&
From: http://www.tz-uk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=178050
Comments, explanations, diatribes etc. all welcome...
For me, both straps pictured are too much for the watch.
______
Jim.
If by fashion brand you mean produced in large numbers partly by machine to appease a big group of buyers, then there probably aren't many non-fashion brands out there!
What a funny thread. The facts are...
1) The watch at the top of this thread looks ridiculous by any definition.
2) There are plenty of watches shown on here that look almost as ridiculous.
3) Whether or not they look ridiculous or not is probably irrelevant to the wearer (who one assumes by definition doesn't think so).
4) It's impossible to debate these issues rationally anyway as the terms used evoke an emotional response.
The reality is that - like everyone, I imagine - I wear what I like, and my opinion (subliminally or otherwise) is to some extent shaped by marketing/trends/fashion. So what?
I think we'd decided that 10 days ago love. :D :wink:
Posting Permissions
