# Why is this Omega Aqua Terra not "high-end"?



## Kenneth Cole Haan

This is the first watch I've seen that blew me away and made me want to actually shell out real money for something of quality:










May I ask, what are the differences between this (which looks like high end to me) and the "high end" brands? In the old days I might have thought it was just superficial differences but I would like to know more about what I would be getting and not getting if I went "Omega" instead of big time. I have been to a store that carried Omega and I thought the watches were made to an exceedingly high standard, I was not used to that level of quality, I have only had cheap watches before. How could the "high enders" be any better?


----------



## Monocrom

You said it yourself... _"I have only had cheap watches before."_

It's all about standard of comparison. Compared to those other watches you used to have, the Omega AT appears to be "High-End." However, in the watch world, you have plenty of individuals who can easily afford truly high-end models from recognized High-End brands. That's what's used as the standard of comparison. And against those watches, the AT isn't high-end.


----------



## little big feather

High End here, means $$$$$$$.Omega is a great watch, just not $$$$$$$.


----------



## Galactic Sushiman

little big feather said:


> High End here, means $$$$$$$.Omega is a great watch, just not $$$$$$$.


Nope.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4


----------



## Mediocre

Kenneth Cole Haan said:


> I have only had cheap watches before. How could the "high enders" be any better?


Do some research on movements, it may shed some light on this question for you


----------



## Watchbreath

Cause it's not and do you have Gold and Silver Coin in your jeans?


----------



## iim7v7im7

*The last 10% cost 10x*

Omega like Rolex make very well engineered, high quality luxury production watches. The differences between these watches and high-end watches have to do with details of finish, amount of hand vs. machine driven operations and the cost of materials used. Let's take a look at some movements to illustrate my point. First lets look at a Rolex Calibre 3135 and an Omega Calibre 8500 from the example you showed.

Both are made is high volume and are manufactured for functionality. The 8500, being 20 years newer is higher tech in its hairspring, escapement, cermamic bearings, twin barrels etc. But unlike the 3135 which is hidden, some aesthetic finishing is present on visually exposed surfaces (not hidden surfaces/components) such as rhodium plated and decorated with cotes de Geneve arabesque bridge plates and rotor

Rolex Calibre 3135









Omega Calibre 8500








Now let's look at two high-end base calibres; Audemars Piguet Calibre 3120 and a Patek Philippe Calibre 324. Like the previous two movements, they are modern in their design. The differences in the details begins to become evident. The rotors are 21 and 22 kt. gold and engraged. The engraving on the bridges is gold gelt. The bridge plates are finished in cotes de geneve but their edges are finished with anglage. The screw heads are chamfered and the heads are black polished. Also, when disassembled all of the surfaces are similarly finished or with perlage. Subtle differences are in gears which are precision stamped vs. the typical CNC milling.

Audemars Piguet Calibre 3120









Patek Philippe Calibre 324









You get the picture, lots of details. The last 10% of quality costs 10x the cost. The same can be seen in details of dials, watch hands, cases, bracelets etc. don't get me wrong, Omega makes some beautiful and robust watches; the difference is in the details.



Bob



Kenneth Cole Haan said:


> This is the first watch I've seen that blew me away and made me want to actually shell out real money for something of quality:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> May I ask, what are the differences between this (which looks like high end to me) and the "high end" brands? In the old days I might have thought it was just superficial differences but I would like to know more about what I would be getting and not getting if I went "Omega" instead of big time. I have been to a store that carried Omega and I thought the watches were made to an exceedingly high standard, I was not used to that level of quality, I have only had cheap watches before. How could the "high enders" be any better?


----------



## NielsZ

*Re: The last 10% cost 10x*

Hi,

Looking at the Omega movement I noticed it actually looks pretty good.. I recalled that I've seen something like this movement but with a gold rotor (I guess for full gold watches with display caseback).. I looked it up and think it was this one, looks like the 8500 but it's with a chronograph function added to it, it's called the 9301, notice the escapement wheel bridge, screws and jewels,..:









I'm not a high-end buyer yet and do own an Omega Speedmaster Professional (Moonwatch) which is not a high end watch at all, the lemania in it is an absolute workhorse movement (except in Patek Perpetuals :-d) so probably I'm a bit biased..

To make myself clear: I do understand all the points that iim7v7im7 brought up and I'm not saying this movement is high-end but it did make me think about the level of finish and quality that these new generation movements do seem to have and how they are percepted in general..

Well I'm probably digressing here, but hey that's what these fora are for I guess! 

What if a brand like, let's say IWC came out with this Co-axial Chronograph movement with this level of "finissage"? To my understanding this movement is housed in the new generation full gold Speedmaster Professionals, which probably retail at €25 000 here in Belgium ($34.000) so IWC would probably charge a slightly higher amount for it.. Would there be a different perception? Some people in this forum do percept IWC to be high-end in their up level watches. Of course they do make a nice Perpetual Calendar and some truly exceptional timepieces in their Scafusia line.. But I guess what I'm trying to say is this: What if IWC introduced the very same movement as Omega, and let's say put it in their Portugese line, in a full gold watch. What would be the general opinion be in this forum? Would this particular watch be looked upon as high-end or not? And if so, what is the reason the Omega is not? Do we base our opinion of this particular watch on the rest of their line-up? Omega is a big time brand, not unique nor special and mass-produced. But then again, so is IWC I guess.. Well I went a bit off-topic on this one..

Not trying to make a big fuss or discussion out of this, but just thinking out loud here ;-) I hope it won't come across as disrespecting, because that is not my intention at all!

Cheers,

NielsZ


----------



## shnjb

*Re: The last 10% cost 10x*

iim7v7im7 post = /thread


----------



## shnjb

I'm surprised by the way the Omega movement looks there.

Well, maybe not that surprised since I've always thought ETAs in Panerais and IWCs looked quite pretty.

But looking at the 324 vs. an ETA under the microscope, the differences were clear to my eyes.


----------



## iim7v7im7

*Re: The last 10% cost 10x*

Niels,

No disrespect taken whatsoever, its a pretty thing to look at and they are excellent watches! The Omega 9301 chronograph calibre is the same as the 9300 calibre albeit has an 18 karat gold rotor and balance bridge. The same industrial CNC processes are evident with little signs of Swiss watchmaking finishing beyond the bold Geneve striping. This caliber goes in Omega's more expensive rose gold models.

So Omega is trying to up the game on a very nicely made industrial calibre with the gold parts in their gold cased chronographs, but a high-end movement it does not make.

Let's explore your IWC hypothesis. IWC is not known for their movement finishing, but their engineering. They recently came out with an in-house, column wheel, flyback chronograph movement; Calibre 89000. I will show you two versions: 1) Calibre 89365 which is used in solid caseback steel models and 2) Calibre 89361 which is used in rose gold display back models.

IWC Calibre 89365









IWC Calibre 89361









Not really much difference aside from some cotes de Geneve striping and some gold gilt engraving. Also, some of the bridges (not all) have edge finishing and the screw heads appear to be beveled and polished. The 89361 goes in expensive rose gold watches. Sort of a more presentable industrial look but based in engineering and industrial aesthetic. This is the Brands DNA (functional beauty).

Again, here is one of the finest chronograph calibres in the world. The venerable Rolex 4130 that's used in the Daytona. Again, industrially finished and never seen by the owner.

Rolex Calibre 4130









Now lets look at what Vacheron Constantin does in their steel Overseas chronographs. They use an ebauche supplied to them by Blancpain (FP 1185) which they finish in-house and call Calibre 1137. Keep in mind this movement goes is a solid case back and is never seen by its owner. These watches as a reference cost about $20k. You can see the same differences in the finish that I highlighted in my prior post but some features are a bit down market (18 kt rotor vs. 21/22 kt gold). If you were to disassemble it, you would continue to see the differences whereas the Omega would look more industrial once you were past the visually exposed parts.

Vacheron Constantin Calibre 1137









So please don't misinterpret this as a slight, Omega has engineered some innovative movements and their target is Rolex. So their level of features and finish are targeted at that. Also keep in mind that they do this at industrial scale making tens of thousands of calibres/watches.

Another $.02



NielsZ said:


> Hi,
> 
> Looking at the Omega movement I noticed it actually looks pretty good.. I recalled that I've seen something like this movement but with a gold rotor (I guess for full gold watches with display caseback).. I looked it up and think it was this one, looks like the 8500 but it's with a chronograph function added to it, it's called the 9301, notice the escapement wheel bridge, screws and jewels,..:
> 
> View attachment 1326890
> 
> 
> I'm not a high-end buyer yet and do own an Omega Speedmaster Professional (Moonwatch) which is not a high end watch at all, the lemania in it is an absolute workhorse movement (except in Patek Perpetuals :-d) so probably I'm a bit biased..
> 
> To make myself clear: I do understand all the points that iim7v7im7 brought up and I'm not saying this movement is high-end but it did make me think about the level of finish and quality that these new generation movements do seem to have and how they are percepted in general..
> 
> Well I'm probably digressing here, but hey that's what these fora are for I guess!
> 
> What if a brand like, let's say IWC came out with this Co-axial Chronograph movement with this level of "finissage"? To my understanding this movement is housed in the new generation full gold Speedmaster Professionals, which probably retail at €25 000 here in Belgium ($34.000) so IWC would probably charge a slightly higher amount for it.. Would there be a different perception? Some people in this forum do percept IWC to be high-end in their up level watches. Of course they do make a nice Perpetual Calendar and some truly exceptional timepieces in their Scafusia line.. But I guess what I'm trying to say is this: What if IWC introduced the very same movement as Omega, and let's say put it in their Portugese line, in a full gold watch. What would be the general opinion be in this forum? Would this particular watch be looked upon as high-end or not? And if so, what is the reason the Omega is not? Do we base our opinion of this particular watch on the rest of their line-up? Omega is a big time brand, not unique nor special and mass-produced. But then again, so is IWC I guess.. Well I went a bit off-topic on this one..
> 
> Not trying to make a big fuss or discussion out of this, but just thinking out loud here ;-) I hope it won't come across as disrespecting, because that is not my intention at all!
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> NielsZ


----------



## NielsZ

*Re: The last 10% cost 10x*

Thanks for your response and clarification iim7v7im7!

I understand what you're saying and your points are well taken ;-) You seem to have quite the knowledge on these movements and the finishing underneath the viewable surface, may I ask if you have seen these movements in a disassembled state? Or if you are a watchmaker perhaps?

So if I understand correctly the IWC has better finishing 'below the surface' or further than the owner can look, whereas the Omega calibre 9300 does not. And this puts it in the higher-end class?

Cheers,

NielsZ


----------



## Galactic Sushiman

*Re: The last 10% cost 10x*



NielsZ said:


> Thanks for your response and clarification iim7v7im7!
> 
> I understand what you're saying and your points are well taken ;-) You seem to have quite the knowledge on these movements and the finishing underneath the viewable surface, may I ask if you have seen these movements in a disassembled state? Or if you are a watchmaker perhaps?
> 
> So if I understand correctly the IWC has better finishing 'below the surface' or further than the owner can look, whereas the Omega calibre 9300 does not. And this puts it in the higher-end class?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> NielsZ


You should read the post again more thoroughly


----------



## GETS

*Re: The last 10% cost 10x*

The Omega AT is an excellent watch and one I am proud to own.

I also own this watch and I think the difference between a very good watch and a piece of excellence is summed up by comparing the AT movement to the picture below:


----------



## iim7v7im7

*Just a hobbyist with a technical background*

No, I am just a watch hobbyist and engineer/designer. No, the IWC is likely functionally finished like the Omega. High-end movements will be. Here is a nice overview on movement finishing by hobbyist Walt Odets on movement finishing.

The A-B-C's of Watch Finish - TimeZone

Do some crawling around the internet and you will see detailed tear downs by watchmakers of both industrial and high-end movements and watches. Swatchgroup is positioning Omega against Rolex and is providing features and finishing to differentiate. If they put the extra finishing in, the watches would be far more expensive.

Here are some pictures of a high-end movement from Omega's sister company Breguet. This is a Breguet Calibre 777Q. You can decide if you see any differences from the Omega.
































NielsZ said:


> Thanks for your response and clarification iim7v7im7!
> 
> I understand what you're saying and your points are well taken ;-) You seem to have quite the knowledge on these movements and the finishing underneath the viewable surface, may I ask if you have seen these movements in a disassembled state? Or if you are a watchmaker perhaps?
> 
> So if I understand correctly the IWC has better finishing 'below the surface' or further than the owner can look, whereas the Omega calibre 9300 does not. And this puts it in the higher-end class?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> NielsZ


----------



## aardvarkbark

Kenneth Cole Haan said:


> How could the "high enders" be any better?


As the replies suggest, 'better' is subjective and has more to do with form rather than function. First of all, the caliber in the AT in your picture is the 2500, not the 8500 nor the 9300 chronograph. Even though it is not as technologically advanced as the latter two, there appears to be no empirical evidence that it performs any worse than the current calibers. It is a certified chronometer and was thoroughly tested and shown to perform within the same very narrow parameters as the current ones. There are many Omega collectors who prefer it, AAMOF.

As the replies suggest, 'high end' has more to do with finish and material rather than function and performance. Many owners of 2500s have reported accuracy of between -1 and +1 sec/24 hr. Solid gold rotors, blued screws and cotes de geneve finishes don't result in an improvement of this stellar performance.

You should decide for yourself just what constitutes 'high end.'


----------



## iim7v7im7

Absolutely!

High-end is indeed very much about the art of watchmaking and objects of beauty/luxury vs. timing performance. Some of my most accurate pieces empirically have used a well regulated industrial calibers like an ETA 2892A2 (IW30110) and a Rolex 3135. That being said, some high-end makers have very high performance standards (much tighter than COSC) and are tested in the cased watch so sometimes performance and craft do align.



aardvarkbark said:


> As the replies suggest, 'better' is subjective and has more to do with form rather than function. First of all, the caliber in the AT in your picture is the 2500, not the 8500 nor the 9300 chronograph. Even though it is not as technologically advanced as the latter two, there appears to be no empirical evidence that it performs any worse than the current calibers. It is a certified chronometer and was thoroughly tested and shown to perform within the same very narrow parameters as the current ones. There are many Omega collectors who prefer it, AAMOF.
> 
> As the replies suggest, 'high end' has more to do with finish and material rather than function and performance. Many owners of 2500s have reported accuracy of between -1 and +1 sec/24 hr. Solid gold rotors, blued screws and cotes de geneve finishes don't result in an improvement of this stellar performance.
> 
> You should decide for yourself just what constitutes 'high end.'


----------



## NielsZ

*Re: The last 10% cost 10x*



Galactic Sushiman said:


> You should read the post again more thoroughly


True, I read his post in a hurry and overread the flyback part. This added functionality makes this particular calibre belong in the high-end 'class' (stupid to call it 'class' but by lack of another way to put it).

But my hypothesis was more as to what would happen if IWC brought out this particular 9300 calibre. Would it, accordingly to these forum members, belong to the high-end or low-end part of IWC's offerings.. They obviously have a lower-end assortiment such as their aqua timer or basic pilot's watch (correct me if I'm wrong :rodekaart)

So I'm definitely not trying to make a statement for the Omega calibre to belong in the high-end 'class', that's not my intention at all. I'm highly aware of what constitutes a high-end movement and the 9300 is in fact not. Therefore I feel the comments of GETS and iim7v7im7 as a bit patronizing. Of course I see and understand the difference between a fully manual assembled, fully decorated Lange movement and the mass produced, mildly decorated Omega Calibre. The same for the Breguet with particularly beautiful anglage.

I understand everyones view but I was just thinking out loud, perhaps degrading IWC along the way, which was not the point of the discussion ;-) I was thinking that maybe some brands get more recognition than others would get for the same achievement, just because of their product range.. I might be completely wrong in this thinking so I'm absolutely open to other comments and ready to change this view!

Cheers!

NielsZ


----------



## iim7v7im7

*Re: The last 10% cost 10x*

I apologize if you found my postings patronizing. They were not intended to be. I think its best that I will remain silent in future discussions with you Niels.





NielsZ said:


> True, I read his post in a hurry and overread the flyback part. This added functionality makes this particular calibre belong in the high-end 'class' (stupid to call it 'class' but by lack of another way to put it).
> 
> But my hypothesis was more as to what would happen if IWC brought out this particular 9300 calibre. Would it, accordingly to these forum members, belong to the high-end or low-end part of IWC's offerings.. They obviously have a lower-end assortiment such as their aqua timer or basic pilot's watch (correct me if I'm wrong :rodekaart)
> 
> So I'm definitely not trying to make a statement for the Omega calibre to belong in the high-end 'class', that's not my intention at all. I'm highly aware of what constitutes a high-end movement and the 9300 is in fact not. Therefore I feel the comments of GETS and iim7v7im7 as a bit patronizing. Of course I see and understand the difference between a fully manual assembled, fully decorated Lange movement and the mass produced, mildly decorated Omega Calibre. The same for the Breguet with particularly beautiful anglage.
> 
> I understand everyones view but I was just thinking out loud, perhaps degrading IWC along the way, which was not the point of the discussion ;-) I was thinking that maybe some brands get more recognition than others would get for the same achievement, just because of their product range.. I might be completely wrong in this thinking so I'm absolutely open to other comments and ready to change this view!
> 
> Cheers!
> 
> NielsZ


----------



## GETS

*Re: The last 10% cost 10x*



NielsZ said:


> So I'm definitely not trying to make a statement for the Omega calibre to belong in the high-end 'class', that's not my intention at all. I'm highly aware of what constitutes a high-end movement and the 9300 is in fact not.* Therefore I feel the comments of GETS and iim7v7im7 as a bit patronizing.*


Sorry - I thought you were asking for opinions at to why the AT was not High End? I won't bother to spend my time replying to you next time.


----------



## watchmego3000

Very informative thread, thank you to those who took the time to explain and share.


----------



## TimelessFan

If you believe Omega is a high end brand, then it is. If someone disagrees? Who cares? Omega makes great watches. End of story. No room for debate about that.

And if it's good enough for astronauts & James Bond...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Alex_TA

While I still have no high end watches I highly regard this forum and it's participants knowledge. 

Thumbs up.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Watchbreath

:think: "No room", well, having sold them.


TimelessFan said:


> If you believe Omega is a high end brand, then it is. If someone disagrees? Who cares? Omega makes great watches. End of story. No room for debate about that.
> 
> And if it's good enough for astronauts & James Bond...
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## shnjb

TimelessFan said:


> If you believe Omega is a high end brand, then it is. If someone disagrees? Who cares? Omega makes great watches. End of story. No room for debate about that.
> 
> And if it's good enough for astronauts & James Bond...
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I like omegas but I never understood the James Bond as justification for the brand.

James Bond is a fictional character who used to wear (sponsored by?) Rolexes who only recently changed his allegiance to Omega (for advertisements).

How does this fact uplift the brand?

Leonardo dicaprio is a lot cooler and is a real person but that doesn't make Tag Heuer a high end manufacturer, does it?


----------



## aardvarkbark

GETS said:


> Sorry - I thought you were asking for opinions at to why the AT was not High End? I won't bother to spend my time replying to you next time.


Just so no confusion, the 'patronizing' comment you are responding to was not from the OP.


----------



## GETS

aardvarkbark said:


> Just so no confusion, the 'patronizing' comment you are responding to was not from the OP.


Thank you. My apologies to the OP. My comment stands for NielsZ.


----------



## Peppe1019

shnjb said:


> I like omegas but I never understood the James Bond as justification for the brand.
> 
> James Bond is a fictional character who used to wear (sponsored by?) Rolexes who only recently changed his allegiance to Omega (for advertisements).
> 
> How does this fact uplift the brand?
> 
> Leonardo dicaprio is a lot cooler and is a real person but that doesn't make Tag Heuer a high end manufacturer, does it?


It's not a justification it's simply watch owners who love James Bond as much as they love their watches.. I think you will also find that some of the most coveted vintage Rolex watches are in fact the same ones mr bond wore in his films.. Bond rules fictional or not and has been an iconic character for half a century..cheers

Also to the op omega is a
Great brand with history that puts out quality watches, if it's
High end to you than there's no need for any justification IMO..


----------



## Monocrom

*Re: The last 10% cost 10x*



iim7v7im7 said:


> Niels,
> 
> No disrespect taken whatsoever, its a pretty thing to look at and they are excellent watches! The Omega 9301 chronograph calibre is the same as the 9300 calibre albeit has an 18 karat gold rotor and balance bridge. The same industrial CNC processes are evident with little signs of Swiss watchmaking finishing beyond the bold Geneve striping. This caliber goes in Omega's more expensive rose gold models.
> 
> So Omega is trying to up the game on a very nicely made industrial calibre with the gold parts in their gold cased chronographs, but a high-end movement it does not make.
> 
> Let's explore your IWC hypothesis. IWC is not known for their movement finishing, but their engineering. They recently came out with an in-house, column wheel, flyback chronograph movement; Calibre 89000. I will show you two versions: 1) Calibre 89365 which is used in solid caseback steel models and 2) Calibre 89361 which is used in rose gold display back models.
> 
> IWC Calibre 89365
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IWC Calibre 89361
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really much difference aside from some cotes de Geneve striping and some gold gilt engraving. Also, some of the bridges (not all) have edge finishing and the screw heads appear to be beveled and polished. The 89361 goes in expensive rose gold watches. Sort of a more presentable industrial look but based in engineering and industrial aesthetic. This is the Brands DNA (functional beauty).
> 
> Again, here is one of the finest chronograph calibres in the world. The venerable Rolex 4130 that's used in the Daytona. Again, industrially finished and never seen by the owner.
> 
> Rolex Calibre 4130
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now lets look at what Vacheron Constantin does in their steel Overseas chronographs. They use an ebauche supplied to them by Blancpain (FP 1185) which they finish in-house and call Calibre 1137. Keep in mind this movement goes is a solid case back and is never seen by its owner. These watches as a reference cost about $20k. You can see the same differences in the finish that I highlighted in my prior post but some features are a bit down market (18 kt rotor vs. 21/22 kt gold). If you were to disassemble it, you would continue to see the differences whereas the Omega would look more industrial once you were past the visually exposed parts.
> 
> Vacheron Constantin Calibre 1137
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So please don't misinterpret this as a slight, Omega has engineered some innovative movements and their target is Rolex. So their level of features and finish are targeted at that. Also keep in mind that they do this at industrial scale making tens of thousands of calibres/watches.
> 
> Another $.02


That pretty much says it all right there. A truly High-End brand doesn't care that an owner will, pretty much, never see the movement with the solid caseback off. That doesn't matter to a brand like VC. You go all out anyway. It's a matter of pride to get every detail as perfect as humanly possible. No corners cut. It's the same with individual artists. I know of one who builds exact models of old sailing ships. Takes him over a year of work and dedication to complete one model. He'll spend, for example, nearly 2 weeks alone on constructing the galley exactly the way it looked on the actual ship. Meanwhile, once done, that galley is then hidden away by other parts of the ship. The owner who'll end up buying the model will never even see the interior of the galley. Once again, to a true, dedicated, artist; that doesn't matter. Doesn't matter one bit that the galley is going to be hidden away and never seen.

That sort of dedication to detail is what separates, for example, IWC from VC. What separates the engineer from the artist. IWC has some great offerings. But there's a reason why VC is recognized as a truly High-End brand among WIS, while IWC is a luxury brand.


----------



## Monocrom

shnjb said:


> I like omegas but I never understood the James Bond as justification for the brand.
> 
> James Bond is a fictional character who used to wear (sponsored by?) Rolexes who only recently changed his allegiance to Omega (for advertisements).
> 
> How does this fact uplift the brand?
> 
> Leonardo dicaprio is a lot cooler and is a real person but that doesn't make Tag Heuer a high end manufacturer, does it?


Yeah, I'm willing to bet that whichever brand signs an exclusive contract with the Producers and throws a buttload of money at them... "Bond" will find that brand's watches excellent for his needs and wants.

Funny thing about Rolex, they never paid a penny to the producers for the product-placement in the early Bond films. Hell, Rolex refused to even provide them with a watch for filming. During "Thunderball" and "Goldfinger," Connery wore a borrowed Submariner that belonged to the Director. Connery's wrist was too thick though, so the watch was placed on a too thin aftermarket RAF strap. (Best that could be found on short notice.)

Can't confirm it, but I heard that Omega ended up funding about 85% of the production costs of the last Bond film. Rolex ended up with one helluva sweet bargain back in the day. Though the concept of paying for product-placement in films was a bit of an alien idea back then.

I have to agree though. I'm not impressed with what fictional characters "choose" to wear in films.


----------



## gagnello

*Re: The last 10% cost 10x*



NielsZ said:


> True, I read his post in a hurry and overread the flyback part. This added functionality makes this particular calibre belong in the high-end 'class' (stupid to call it 'class' but by lack of another way to put it).
> 
> But my hypothesis was more as to what would happen if IWC brought out this particular 9300 calibre. Would it, accordingly to these forum members, belong to the high-end or low-end part of IWC's offerings.. They obviously have a lower-end assortiment such as their aqua timer or basic pilot's watch (correct me if I'm wrong :rodekaart)
> 
> So I'm definitely not trying to make a statement for the Omega calibre to belong in the high-end 'class', that's not my intention at all. I'm highly aware of what constitutes a high-end movement and the 9300 is in fact not. Therefore I feel the comments of GETS and iim7v7im7 as a bit patronizing. Of course I see and understand the difference between a fully manual assembled, fully decorated Lange movement and the mass produced, mildly decorated Omega Calibre. The same for the Breguet with particularly beautiful anglage.
> 
> I understand everyones view but I was just thinking out loud, perhaps degrading IWC along the way, which was not the point of the discussion ;-) I was thinking that maybe some brands get more recognition than others would get for the same achievement, just because of their product range.. I might be completely wrong in this thinking so I'm absolutely open to other comments and ready to change this view!
> 
> Cheers!
> 
> NielsZ


After reading through this thread, there was nothing even remotely patronizing said by either gets or iim7. Iim7's posts were well written and informative. GETS watch is just awesome and if I owned it I would post it just so I could look at it again . If you see "patronizing"when you read the posts, I suggest you read them more carefully.

Sent from my SGP311 using Tapatalk 4


----------



## shnjb

Monocrom said:


> Yeah, I'm willing to bet that whichever brand signs an exclusive contract with the Producers and throws a buttload of money at them... "Bond" will find that brand's watches excellent for his needs and wants.
> 
> Funny thing about Rolex, they never paid a penny to the producers for the product-placement in the early Bond films. Hell, Rolex refused to even provide them with a watch for filming. During "Thunderball" and "Goldfinger," Connery wore a borrowed Submariner that belonged to the Director. Connery's wrist was too thick though, so the watch was placed on a too thin aftermarket RAF strap. (Best that could be found on short notice.)
> 
> Can't confirm it, but I heard that Omega ended up funding about 85% of the production costs of the last Bond film. Rolex ended up with one helluva sweet bargain back in the day. Though the concept of paying for product-placement in films was a bit of an alien idea back then.
> 
> I have to agree though. I'm not impressed with what fictional characters "choose" to wear in films.


Well said sir.
I find the brand less interesting because of the bond association myself.
I also feel the same way about the batman JLC or any other movie character endorsed watches.


----------



## Shane94116

*Re: The last 10% cost 10x*



iim7v7im7 said:


> I apologize if you found my postings patronizing. They were not intended to be. I think its best that I will remain silent in future discussions with you Niels.


No, please don't remain silent! Your wealth of knowledge is huge and your insight is great to read....


----------



## heb

*Re: The last 10% cost 10x*

The Omega's time keeping -- daily rate and stability of rate -- is too good to be "high end". heb


----------



## hchj

Omega is indeed "high end" to the average Joe. The only other brand they know above Omega is Rolex.

Sent from my GT-I8160 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Galactic Sushiman

Monocrom said:


> Can't confirm it, but I heard that Omega ended up funding about 85% of the production costs of the last Bond film.


LOOOOOOL

I can't stop laughing.

The things one can read on WUS...


----------



## drhr

*Re: The last 10% cost 10x*



Shane94116 said:


> No, please don't remain silent! Your wealth of knowledge is huge and your *incite* is great to read....


I'm hoping you misspelled this word ;-) . . .


----------



## watchmego3000

Sorry to take this off topic, and I don't disagree with your point at all, but... No way the real Leonardo DiCaprio is cooler than the fictional James Bond! ;-)



shnjb said:


> I like omegas but I never understood the James Bond as justification for the brand.
> 
> James Bond is a fictional character who used to wear (sponsored by?) Rolexes who only recently changed his allegiance to Omega (for advertisements).
> 
> How does this fact uplift the brand?
> 
> Leonardo dicaprio is a lot cooler and is a real person but that doesn't make Tag Heuer a high end manufacturer, does it?


----------



## Watchbreath

I once had a customer who knew only Rolex and Cartier, never heard of Omega. He was no 'Joe Bag of Donuts'.


----------



## Watchbreath

:roll: I hope this thread doesn't go off in that direction.


daschlag said:


> Sorry to take this off topic, and I don't disagree with your point at all, but... No way the real Leonardo DiCaprio is cooler than the fictional James Bond! ;-)


----------



## shnjb

Well I just like that dicaprio likes to associate himself with lots of Victoria's Secret models.


----------



## Monocrom

shnjb said:


> Well I just like that dicaprio likes to associate himself with lots of Victoria's Secret models.


I loved his performance in "Shutter Island."

Other films... Not so much.


----------



## TimelessFan

Monocrom said:


> I loved his performance in "Shutter Island."
> 
> Other films... Not so much.


You didn't enjoy sitting through this 72-hour-long masterpiece back in the day?










On a serious note, "What's Eating Gilbert Grape" was a good movie.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Medphred

Monocrom said:


> I loved his performance in "Shutter Island."
> 
> Other films... Not so much.


Shutter Island was good. Also though he gave a strong performance in The Departed.

Back to the OPs questions...

I love that model AT and am wearing one as I type. Its a really nice upper end watch. But its not in the same stratosphere as the likes of AP, VC, PP, JLC, etc. Omega, like Rolex, IWC, et al are solid upper end watches, just not high end as illustrated in the prior posts that show the movement detailing.

Its like cars. I have an A4. Great car. In reality there's not much difference between it and an entry level BMW or Mercedes. Some may say its high end. But its no Maybach.


----------



## Galactic Sushiman

For some reason, WUS discussions are much more relevant when they are about horology than about movies


----------



## ilikebigbutts

Someone needs to show Leo how a WRIST watch is worn


----------



## NielsZ

Hi guys,

I have the feeling that i'm being misunderstood here.. The patronizing comment had more to do with the obviousness of the difference between the movements.. GETS' watch is an absolute beauty both mechanically and esthetically and I too would love any opportunity to see pics of it.. But I had the (wrong) feeling they tought I didn't see the difference between these examples and the 9300. So I took it personally perhaps, as them underestimating my common sense.

I'm sorry i bothered you guys and will refrain from posting my thoughts, because every post seems to make matters worse.. Didn't mean to be the irritating guy in the thread.. I wouldn't want to chase other participants away who have far more knowledge and valuable input than me.. Well I found this thread (the on topic part at least) very interesting and learned quite a few things, thanks for that.

Cheers, NielsZ


----------



## lmcgbaj

Some excellent responses all around and great info. 

Thanks for taking the time Bob. Great explanation.

To me, a high end watch is all about the details. The details that make it special and shine amongst the other watches. 

But, it takes time and knowledge to truly appreciate what goes into making a high end watch and the more you read and see, the more you are able to appreciate the differences.

Unfortunately, there is no going back once you've been spoiled and the lower end watches will look... well... lower end. Stay away if you can...


----------



## H2KA

*Re: Just a hobbyist with a technical background*



iim7v7im7 said:


> No, I am just a watch hobbyist and engineer/designer. No, the IWC is likely functionally finished like the Omega. High-end movements will be. Here is a nice overview on movement finishing by hobbyist Walt Odets on movement finishing.
> 
> The A-B-C's of Watch Finish - TimeZone
> 
> Do some crawling around the internet and you will see detailed tear downs by watchmakers of both industrial and high-end movements and watches. Swatchgroup is positioning Omega against Rolex and is providing features and finishing to differentiate. If they put the extra finishing in, the watches would be far more expensive.
> 
> Here are some pictures of a high-end movement from Omega's sister company Breguet. This is a Breguet Calibre 777Q. You can decide if you see any differences from the Omega.


Superb looking movement! :-!

Actually, I think Omega cal 8500 has many of the decorative finishing that one might expect in a high end movement (at least on the surface part since I never see the hidden parts)..



















The difference, imo, is Omega uses entirely machine finish while brand like Breguet, VC, Patek, etc is still finish by hand..


----------



## mnpwatch

*Re: Just a hobbyist with a technical background*



H2KA said:


> Superb looking movement! :-!
> 
> The difference, imo, is Omega uses entirely machine finish while brand like Breguet, VC, Patek, etc is still finish by hand..


Maybe a naive question - Are the high end hand finished movements coveted because it is to celebrate the skills of master watchmakers or is it that one cannot get such fine decorations with a machine finish?

I recently watched GO's video where the voice over mentions that one of the parts (forgot which) takes over 8 hours to make, but with a stamping machine it would be a matter of minutes. If that is the case, then why dont they use the machine? The tolerances would be much tighter, not to mention the time savings.


----------



## H2KA

*Re: Just a hobbyist with a technical background*



mnpwatch said:


> Maybe a naive question - Are the high end hand finished movements coveted because it is to celebrate the skills of master watchmakers or is it that one cannot get such fine decorations with a machine finish?
> 
> I recently watched GO's video where the voice over mentions that one of the parts (forgot which) takes over 8 hours to make, but with a stamping machine it would be a matter of minutes. If that is the case, then why dont they use the machine? The tolerances would be much tighter, not to mention the time savings.


For me it's both.. While I still appreciate the fine finishing (and economic saving) of a machine finished, I definitely prefer a human touch even if it's mean less perfect..

One part of the finishing that I read is still (currently) impossible to do by machine is interior angle..










_Anglage can be done on rounded edges, exterior and interior angles - the last of which is considered the most challenging as it has to be done by hand. Anglage can be made by machines or by hand, and the essential difference is that only hand anglage can yield sharp internal angles._

Basics of Movement Finishing - Page 2 - WatchWow

Here are some other excellent articles on watch movement finishing
Movement Finish: The True Mark of Haute Horlogerie - The Hour Lounge - the Vacheron Constantin Forum
Finishing Touches:.A Case for Watch Movement Decoration - Page 1 | Luxury Insider - The Online Luxury Magazine
Technique de l'anglage en horlogerie
From the workbench - Finishing (anglage) - The Hour Lounge - the Vacheron Constantin Forum

HAPPY NEW YEAR GUYS !!!


----------



## Monocrom

*Re: Just a hobbyist with a technical background*



mnpwatch said:


> Maybe a naive question - Are the high end hand finished movements coveted because it is to celebrate the skills of master watchmakers or is it that one cannot get such fine decorations with a machine finish?
> 
> I recently watched GO's video where the voice over mentions that one of the parts (forgot which) takes over 8 hours to make, but with a stamping machine it would be a matter of minutes. If that is the case, then why dont they use the machine? The tolerances would be much tighter, not to mention the time savings.


When you get to a watch that is truly high-end, it's not about efficiency, time-saving practices, etc.

At _*that*_ level, it becomes about the watchmaker's Art. And that means hand finishing. It means doing something by hand that could more efficiently be done by a machine. It's like saying, why doesn't Ferrari simply buy a bunch of small-block V8 engines from GM and use those instead; since they could crank out more Ferrari cars in less time? Or, why doesn't grand-ma just open up a can of cranberry sauce for Thanksgiving dinner instead of making it through the recipe that her grand-mother passed down to her?

With certain things... It's not about efficiency. That isn't the priority. It becomes about something more. Something that isn't tangible. You can't pick it up, analyze it and say, "Oh yes, now it's completely clear."


----------



## Shane94116

*Re: The last 10% cost 10x*

Off topic. Several pictures of different movements have been posted and some from watches that have hard case backs. Does anyone have pics of VC overseas chronograph and Breguet type XXI movements?


----------



## iim7v7im7

*Re: The last 10% cost 10x*

Breguet uses a Lemania Calibre 1350...



















Here is the VC Calibre 1137 which I showed earlier in this post. It is a Frederic Piguet (Blancpain) 1185 ebauche.










Please keep in mind that the VC costs >2x the Breguet. Here is a modified Lemania 1350 put into a Breguet Marine Chronograph (Breguet Calibre 583) with some upgraded finishing.










Here is an interesting aside. In October of this year, UN announced that they had purchased the rights to the Ebel Calibre 137 and now call in UN Calibre 150. The Ebel Calibre 137 was co-developed with Nouvelle Lemania (Pre-Swatchgroup). See any familiarity to the 1350? The bridges, balance cock, escapement and rotor have been redesigned but its the same movement.










The FP 1185 is the superior movement in my opinion.


Shane94116 said:


> Off topic. Several pictures of different movements have been posted and some from watches that have hard case backs. Does anyone have pics of VC overseas chronograph and Breguet type XXI movements?


----------



## Shane94116

*Re: The last 10% cost 10x*



iim7v7im7 said:


> Breguet uses a Lemania Calibre 1350...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the VC Calibre 1137 which I showed earlier in this post. It is a Frederic Piguet (Blancpain) 1185 ebauche.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please keep in mind that the VC costs >2x the Breguet. Here is a modified Lemania 1350 put into a Breguet Marine Chronograph (Breguet Calibre 583) with some upgraded finishing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is an interesting aside. In October of this year, UN announced that they had purchased the rights to the Ebel Calibre 137 and now call in UN Calibre 150. The Ebel Calibre 137 was co-developed with Nouvelle Lemania (Pre-Swatchgroup). See any familiarity to the 1350? The bridges, balance cock, escapement and rotor have been redesigned but its the same movement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The FP 1185 is the superior movement in my opinion.


Awesome! Thanks


----------



## TimeIsTheMaster

*Re: The last 10% cost 10x*

It becomes more about the art, workmanship, and uniqueness. It's the same concept with paintings, cars, and even furniture. You can get a nice desk made by a factory machine for $500, or you could pay $25,000 for a handmade desk. Some of the premium goes into the intricate details that can only be crafted by hand. Most of the premium is the cost of 100s of hours that goes into crafting that desk by hand. In the end, both will serve their functions as desks. One, however, will be a piece of art with an intangible value ascribed to it.


----------



## tony20009

Perhaps the most honest answer to the title question is: it not high end because I say it's not, and it is high end because you say it is.

The term "high end" is vague, ambiguous BS. The watch is none of those things.

All the best.

The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks.
- Christopher Hitchens, _Letters to a Young Contrarian_


----------



## Monocrom

Is the AT high-end? No.

Is it a very nice luxury timepiece? Yes.

Should a buyer pass on it simply due to the fact that it's not high-end? No, that would be silly.


----------



## ShaggyDog

It's all relative. Probably for 99.9% of the general population out there the Aqua Terra would be considered 'High End'.


----------



## HRC-E.B.

*Re: The last 10% cost 10x*



NielsZ said:


> True, I read his post in a hurry and overread the flyback part. This added functionality makes this particular calibre belong in the high-end 'class' (stupid to call it 'class' but by lack of another way to put it).
> 
> But my hypothesis was more as to what would happen if IWC brought out this particular 9300 calibre. Would it, accordingly to these forum members, belong to the high-end or low-end part of IWC's offerings.. They obviously have a lower-end assortiment such as their aqua timer or basic pilot's watch (correct me if I'm wrong :rodekaart)
> 
> So I'm definitely not trying to make a statement for the Omega calibre to belong in the high-end 'class', that's not my intention at all. I'm highly aware of what constitutes a high-end movement and the 9300 is in fact not. Therefore I feel the comments of GETS and iim7v7im7 as a bit patronizing. Of course I see and understand the difference between a fully manual assembled, fully decorated Lange movement and the mass produced, mildly decorated Omega Calibre. The same for the Breguet with particularly beautiful anglage.
> 
> I understand everyones view but I was just thinking out loud, perhaps degrading IWC along the way, which was not the point of the discussion ;-) I was thinking that maybe some brands get more recognition than others would get for the same achievement, just because of their product range.. I might be completely wrong in this thinking so I'm absolutely open to other comments and ready to change this view!
> 
> Cheers!
> 
> NielsZ


There was absolutely nothing even REMOTELY patronizing about iim7vs7iam7's post. Someone with better knowledge and the ability to pass on that knowledge in easily digestible format just offered you a gift. If you are so insecure that an opportunity to learn something feels to you like a demonstration of your own inadequacy (in your own eyes), then I feel for you and invite you to find the root cause of your low self-esteem.

It would be sad if other readers of this forum were denied such opportunities to learn because of the ill-adjusted sensitivities of a few.


----------



## Galactic Sushiman

*Re: The last 10% cost 10x*



HRC-E.B. said:


> There was absolutely nothing even REMOTELY patronizing about iim7vs7iam7's post. Someone with better knowledge and the ability to pass on that knowledge in easily digestible format just offered you a gift. If you are so insecure that an opportunity to learn something feels to you like a demonstration of your own inadequacy (in your own eyes), then I feel for you and invite you to find the root cause of your low self-esteem.
> 
> It would be sad if other readers of this forum were denied such opportunities to learn because of the ill-adjusted sensitivities of a few.


Sorry for the off-topic.

Montreal, December 2012 join date? HIGH FIVE!


----------



## georges zaslavsky

*Re: The last 10% cost 10x*



iim7v7im7 said:


> Breguet uses a Lemania Calibre 1350...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the VC Calibre 1137 which I showed earlier in this post. It is a Frederic Piguet (Blancpain) 1185 ebauche.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please keep in mind that the VC costs >2x the Breguet. Here is a modified Lemania 1350 put into a Breguet Marine Chronograph (Breguet Calibre 583) with some upgraded finishing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is an interesting aside. In October of this year, UN announced that they had purchased the rights to the Ebel Calibre 137 and now call in UN Calibre 150. The Ebel Calibre 137 was co-developed with Nouvelle Lemania (Pre-Swatchgroup). See any familiarity to the 1350? The bridges, balance cock, escapement and rotor have been redesigned but its the same movement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The FP 1185 is the superior movement in my opinion.


The vc 1137 is a simply decorated piguet 1185 but there were no technical improvements made on it. Omega had a piguet based movement, the 33xx which was based on piguet 1285 es de luxe. It had such poor reliability that engineers at Omega decided to launch an inhouse chronograph movement the 9300 to get rid of it. Piguet movement are aesthetically but very fragile and unreliable. The lemania 1350 has been tried and proven since 1973 in the speedmaster markIII, markIV and the speed 125 as the 1040 and 1041 movement. Don't forget that before Lemania was a part of Omega and that Breguet used standard Valjoux 22,23 and 72 ebauches in their type XX chronographs in the past from the 50's to the 70's which were of far inferior quality compared to the lemania 2320


----------



## georges zaslavsky

This is where Omega is ranked (screenshot dated from 2009/2010)


----------



## iim7v7im7

*Re: The last 10% cost 10x*

Georges,

My point was that in my opinion a FP 1185 > Lemania 1350 as a chronograph movement (thin, multiple barrel, vertical clutch column wheel, flyback etc.). Perhaps not in ruggedness, but the precise action felt in the pushers (particularly on the VC over the AP or BP which have pusher seals) vs. how a Breguet Type XX feels is night and day.



Bob



georges zaslavsky said:


> The vc 1137 is a simply decorated piguet 1185 but there were no technical improvements made on it. Omega had a piguet based movement, the 33xx which was based on piguet 1285 es de luxe. It had such poor reliability that engineers at Omega decided to launch an inhouse chronograph movement the 9300 to get rid of it. Piguet movement are aesthetically but very fragile and unreliable. The lemania 1350 has been tried and proven since 1973 in the speedmaster markIII, markIV and the speed 125 as the 1040 and 1041 movement. Don't forget that before Lemania was a part of Omega and that Breguet used standard Valjoux 22,23 and 72 ebauches in their type XX chronographs in the past from the 50's to the 70's which were of far inferior quality compared to the lemania 2320


----------



## HRC-E.B.

*Re: The last 10% cost 10x*

Funny how an unassuming question can morph into such an interesting discussion! Thanks to all who contributed!


----------



## iim7v7im7

*Some example automatic base calibres*

Here are 10 examples of in-house automatic base calibers by a number leading watch companies that I feel are all examples of high-end movements. Each incorporate significant amounts of hand finishing and utilize noble metals extensively in their construction.

A. Lange & Sohne









Audemars Piguet









Breguet









Chopard









FPJourne









Parmigiani Fleurer









Patek Philippe









Piaget









Roger Dubuis









Vacheron Constantin









Here are 5 examples of in-house automatic base calibers that are also high-end movement in my opinion. They still exhibit muchhand finishing and more modest use of noble metals in their designs.

Blancpain









Girard-Perregaux









Glashutte Original









Jaeger-LeCoultre









Ulysse Nardin


----------



## BigBabaBrand

*Re: Some example automatic base calibres*

The discussion has been really interesting but mainly about movements so far.

I wonder if there are also differences concerning the quality of the:

- dials
- cases
- straps

When comparing Omega vs VC for example?

I remember reading on another forum that Breitling makes some of the nicest high-end cases and sometimes the straps of the higher-end brands are extremely overpriced and have no better quality than some $30 strap.


----------



## Watchbreath

*Re: Some example automatic base calibres*

Another reason I like expansion bands.


----------



## Doboji

It is a high-end watch. Don't be fooled... The classification of high-end to me, are watches that sing to you in a way no others do. If that watch does that for you then it is high end to you. 

We can classify by price or history or whatever else you want, but really all you do then is fail at tieiring watches yet again. 

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


----------



## shnjb

Everything is high end!
a+ for everyone!!


----------



## Doboji

shnjb said:


> Everything is high end!
> a+ for everyone!!


It's completely subjective... A ROO is considered high end by some and low end by others... It's YOUR perspective that matters.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


----------



## shnjb

Doboji said:


> It's completely subjective... A ROO is considered high end by some and low end by others... It's YOUR perspective that matters.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


Wow that is deep bro


----------



## Doboji

shnjb said:


> Wow that is deep bro


And your response is incredibly insightful thanks!

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


----------



## shnjb

Doboji said:


> And your response is incredibly insightful thanks!
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


Everything is insightful.
It just depends on your perspective!
A+ for everyone! Yay


----------



## Doboji

shnjb said:


> Everything is insightful.
> It just depends on your perspective!
> A+ for everyone! Yay


I guess I'm daft. What are you trying to say? I know it's tough to step away from hinting and innuendo. But in the interest of communication, I would appreciate it if you would.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


----------



## Galactic Sushiman

Doboji said:


> I guess I'm daft. What are you trying to say? I know it's tough to step away from hinting and innuendo. But in the interest of communication, I would appreciate it if you would.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


I am not in shnjb head but maybe it has something to do with the fact that, after pages of interesting and documented debate on details such as the anglage finish on bridges, someone storming the thread claiming that "everything you think is high end is high end to you and that's it" is a bit... Too easy?


----------



## Doboji

Galactic Sushiman said:


> I am not in shnjb head but maybe it has something to do with the fact that, after pages of interesting and documented debate on details such as the anglage finish on bridges, someone storming the thread claiming that "everything you think is high end is high end to you and that's it" is a bit... Too easy?


You know... I've been around these forums for a few years and few thousand posts now. Just because there's a long discussion going on within a thread does NOT mean I have to engage in THAT discussion, and I also don't have to write an essay on perlage to have an opinion on the question of "Why the Omega AquaTerra isn't high-end". It hardly constitutes "storming" a thread.


----------



## GlenRoiland

Galactic Sushiman said:


> I am not in shnjb head but maybe it has something to do with the fact that, after pages of interesting and documented debate on details such as the anglage finish on bridges, someone storming the thread claiming that "everything you think is high end is high end to you and that's it" is a bit... Too easy?


+1. I think that was shnjb's point. I do agree that there are pieces made to exacting standards that are considered high end by some, and are shunned by others. There are some clearly high end pieces, and some ones that are obviously not, but there is this overlapping grey zone that perpetuates heated discussions or altercations!


----------



## shnjb

Check out my high end g-shocks.


----------



## Geof3

Interesting discussion... Some great info to add. 

The reality is, as mentioned 98% of the watch buying public would most likely consider anything over 100.00 to 200.00 high end. Or, if asked, Rolex would get the nod. Simple reality of marketing. Rolex makes a timeless, proven watch. Outrageously priced to most, and pretty ho-hum in the real world of Haute Horology. Most of the truly high end brands are only known by WIS and a few others with the discretionary income to purchase a very high dollar timepiece. Is Omega high end? Not really, but they are great watches with a fantastic heritage. Great workhorses and very durable. To most, Omega would be considered high end, simply because they don't know any better.


----------



## Watchbreath

Omega does make some very high end pieces, like the De Ville Central Tourbillon.


----------



## tony20009

*Re: Some example automatic base calibres*



Watchbreath said:


> Another reason I like expansion bands.


LOL


----------



## tony20009

Doboji said:


> It's completely subjective... A ROO is considered high end by some and low end by others... It's YOUR perspective that matters.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


Will the person who thinks a ROO is "low end" please raise their hand?


----------



## shnjb

I will take my high end Mickey Mouse watch over the low end Lebron ROO watch.


----------



## tony20009

shnjb said:


> I will take my high end Mickey Mouse watch over the low end Lebron ROO watch.


Off Topic:
I love me a Mickey Mouse watch. It is for sure the first novelty watch I ever encountered and it's easily the coolest "kid" watch I've come across.

All the best.

Well, everybody, that's our show.
- Mickey Mouse


----------



## shnjb

tony20009 said:


> Off Topic:
> I love me a Mickey Mouse watch. It is for sure the first novelty watch I ever encountered and it's easily the coolest "kid" watch I've come across.
> 
> All the best.
> 
> Well, everybody, that's our show.
> - Mickey Mouse


Me too
It was the first watch I remember from childhood from my beloved father.


----------



## Doboji

tony20009 said:


> Will the person who thinks a ROO is "low end" please raise their hand?


I'm peeing into the wind aren't I?

The guy wearing these:


----------



## iim7v7im7

Doboji said:


> I'm peeing into the wind aren't I?
> 
> The guy wearing these:


----------



## Doboji

iim7v7im7 said:


>


Yep. Thats all I was trying to say....

Question: Why is this Omega Aqua Terra not high end?
Answer: It is. "High-end" is a completely relative thing.

I really did enjoy the whole "other" conversation BTW. Your contributions especially.


----------



## Galactic Sushiman

iim7v7im7 said:


>


I like the metaphor, but I still disagree with Doboji. 'everything is relative' is the worst excuse of all time, it does not work in all contexts IMHO.

Yes, my son drawings are as important to me as La Joconde from Da Vinci is, but I have enough knowledge to be able to separate the subject of painting in general from my little person, yes La Joconde is important art defining centuries of portrait, and yeah my son's drawings are ....  (but it's ok, I still love them).

We should have enough watch maturity to be able to discuss in precise and tangible terms what 'high-end' is or is not.

It does not mean that we will all agree on the subject, but it does mean that not everyone will be right.

And I am ok to accept this, for science 

edit: actually, looking at your images made me think: if the 12th image is a human, it is in a way our 'reference' right? So everything smaller is 'small' and everything bigger is 'big? Why finding this 'reference' for watches would be an impossible task?


----------



## Doboji

Galactic Sushiman said:


> I like the metaphor, but I still disagree with Doboji. 'everything is relative' is the worst excuse of all time, it does not work in all contexts IMHO.
> 
> Yes, my son drawings are as important to me as La Joconde from Da Vinci is, but I have enough knowledge to be able to separate the subject of painting in general from my little person, yes La Joconde is important art defining centuries of portrait, and yeah my son's drawings are ....  (but it's ok, I still love them).
> 
> We should have enough watch maturity to be able to discuss in precise and tangible terms what 'high-end' is or is not, abandoning this idea
> 
> It does not mean that we will all agree on the subject, but it does mean that not everyone will be right.
> 
> And I am ok to accept this, for science
> 
> edit: actually, looking at your images made me think: if the 12th image is a human, it is in a way our 'reference' right? So everything smaller is 'small' and everything bigger is 'big? Why finding this 'reference' for watch an impossible task?


I'm sure this is neither the first nor the last time someone has gone down the rat-hole in suggesting that "High-end" when used by this particular forum is a dubious definition. While I'm not suggesting we change the name of the forum or anything silly like that... Perhaps it would be better to refer to a particular watch as being "high*er*-end" than another, then we could easily have a discussion of the attributes that elevates a particular watch over the attributes of another. But to title one watch or another as "High-end" is really rather juvenile don't you think? And I think that's really where the OP was coming from... he/she found a watch they really really liked, and was concerned about whether that watch was worthy of the title "high-end". At that point it's really about what other people think of your watch rather than what YOU think about your watch.

-Max


----------



## tony20009

Doboji;7205628[COLOR=#ff0000 said:


> *]I'm peeing into the wind aren't I?*[/COLOR]
> 
> *The guy wearing these:*
> 
> [pics of Philippe Dufour watches deleted]





Doboji said:


> Yep. That's all I was trying to say....
> 
> Question: Why is this Omega Aqua Terra not high end?
> Answer: It is. "*High-end" is a completely relative thing.
> *
> I really did enjoy the whole "other" conversation BTW. Your contributions especially.


Red: 
In a manner of speaking, yes. Not because you agree or disagree with me (the fact is you do agree with me -- https://www.watchuseek.com/f381/why-omega-aqua-terra-not-high-end-960739-6.html#post7185024), but because you persist in trying to use the term. Of course doing so in this thread is little more than "taking the bait" to do so given the thread title. In other situations, it's merely "convenient" insofar as it's fewer words to type than whatever factor/trait is relevant to and that precisely identifies the nature and extent of one's thoughts.

The price of convenience is ambiguity. As a result, no reader can unequivocally know what you actually mean. For myself, if I don't want my thoughts accurately interpreted, I just don't say anything or I change the subject. That's far more convenient and efficient than willfully writing/saying anything that one knows is quite likely to be misunderstood by multiple members of the audience.

Blue:
Yet another excellent illustration of why I absolutely _hate_ the term "high end." I will continue to loathe it until it is clearly defined so that regardless of whether one likes the definition, it nonetheless means exactly one thing and we all at least know precisely WTH it means when the term is used.

All the best.

Here is a list of words that are consulting "jargon." They are expressly prohibited in all documentation you submit to the client. Nobody will approve anything containing these words if they are used in any manner outside of their traditional definition. For example, "leverage"/"leveraged" used as a verb and not followed by the word "buyout" or "takeover." "Exploit" or "avail" are perfectly good words. Use them. If we deliver any reports or work products late because I rejected your documents for jargon, it will be reflected in your project evaluation.
- Tony20009, a paragraph contained in the orientation package provided to every consultant on every one of my projects.


----------



## Monocrom

Doboji said:


> Yep. Thats all I was trying to say....
> 
> Question: Why is this Omega Aqua Terra not high end?
> Answer: It is. "High-end" is a completely relative thing.


Sorry, but it's not. Take everything that is offered in the industry. Find the best ones offered. Compare everything else to those as the standard of comparison, then come up with an objective answer to anyone who asks "Is _____ high-end?"

Once again, AT isn't high-end. But who cares? If that's the thing someone is hung up on, they'll end up missing out on a great luxury watch. Their loss. It's not high-end, and there's no reason to pretend it is.


----------



## Watchbreath

:-! That McGonigle looked great on my wrist, then I had to take if off. :-(


----------



## Doboji

Monocrom said:


> Sorry, but it's not. Take everything that is offered in the industry. Find the best ones offered. Compare everything else to those as the standard of comparison, then come up with an objective answer to anyone who asks "Is _____ high-end?"
> 
> Once again, AT isn't high-end. But who cares? If that's the thing someone is hung up on, they'll end up missing out on a great luxury watch. Their loss. It's not high-end, and there's no reason to pretend it is.


In that case... I think it's fair to say a ROO isn't high-end either.


----------



## drhr

Doboji said:


> In that case... I think it's fair to say a ROO isn't high-end either.


Yep, that does make sense if we go down the route described . . . . good point . . . .


----------



## HRC-E.B.

I can think of only one way to approach the issue in a rational manner: identify a set of seemingly related items, define a sub-set representing the very best of that set and refer to this sub-set as the "high-end" in that set.

Where the magic lies is how you define your set to begin with, and how broad or narrow you define your sub-set within that first set.

Let's say, for the sake of discussion, that you define it as "all the watches available for purchase on the face of the earth", including any dollar-store plastic quartz watch on one end of the scale, and any hand-made, one-of-a-kind masterpiece, on the other end of that scale. Based on the numbers alone, anything over, let's say, $5,000 would definitely fall within the top 5% and would thus be considered "high-end".

If you define your set as any mass-produced watches, the range would top out somewhere around the "Rolex" or "IWC" mark, so these would be the high-end in that particular set.

If you restrict your set to small production series and hand made pieces, JLC and the like would be the low end of that set, and the likes of Philippe Dufour, Kari V., FP Journe, and certain Lange and PP would be the high-end.

Or you could also simply apply a much more stringent filter to the biggest possible ensemble, defining your high-end as the top 0.05% of the whole of the broadest possible ensemble, in which case only the pieces referred to in the previous line would constitute the high end of a spectrum consisting of $1 cheapie quartz watches up to million-dollar one-off masterpieces...

So I think we can say that this is relative without this being so preposturous after all, can't we?


----------



## tony20009

Monocrom said:


> Sorry, but it's not. Take everything that is offered in the industry. *Find the best ones offered*.* Compare everything else to those as the standard of comparison, then come up with an objective answer to anyone who asks "Is _____ high-end?"
> *
> Once again, AT isn't high-end.* But who cares? *If that's the thing someone is hung up on, they'll end up missing out on a great luxury watch. Their loss. It's not high-end, and there's no reason to pretend it is.





Doboji;7207798[B said:


> ]In that case... I think it's fair to say a ROO isn't high-end either.[/B]


Doboji,
I'm genuinely curious. What objective qualities of the AP ROO make it so much worse than "everything else" that is a dressy, sport chronograph Swiss watch that the ROO would not fall into the nebulously defined classification that is "high end?" (see emboldened black text above)

Monocrom,
+100 (see red text above)

All the best.

Creationists have also changed their name ... to intelligent design theorists who study 'irreducible complexity' and the 'abrupt appearance' of life-yet more jargon for 'God did it.' ... Notice that they have no interest in replacing evolution with native American creation myths or including the Code of Hammurabi alongside the posting of the Ten Commandments in public schools.
- Michael Shermer


----------



## Surfrider

lmcgbaj said:


> ... Unfortunately, there is no going back once you've been spoiled and the lower end watches will look... well... lower end. Stay away if you can...


Your winky-face made it seem like a joke, but IT'S TRUE! Haha. Save yourself, watch noobs. Close the thread right now, your wallet depends on it.


----------



## Monocrom

Doboji said:


> In that case... I think it's fair to say a ROO isn't high-end either.


Compared to a Patek Philippe Calatrava... I'm included to agree with you. b-)


----------



## Monocrom

drhr said:


> Yep, that does make sense if we go down the route described . . . . good point . . . .


Excellent. I'm glad we finally agree. ;-)


----------



## Surfrider

*Re: The last 10% cost 10x*



iim7v7im7 said:


> Here is a modified Lemania 1350 put into a Breguet Marine Chronograph (Breguet Calibre 583) with some upgraded finishing.


What an awesome looking rotor; one of the coolest I've seen! Reminds me of a nautilus.


----------



## Surfrider

shnjb said:


> Everything is high end!
> a+ for everyone!!


I literally keeled-over and laughed out loud about this.


----------



## tony20009

lmcgbaj said:


> ...
> 
> Unfortunately, there is no going back once you've been spoiled and the lower end watches will look... well... lower end. Stay away if you can...


+1

Much as I agree, and I do for I'm right there right now, the less highly regarded ones start to look much better the instant you find one that you like just fine and that costs half as much. LOL That's especially so when you just want something new that is nice and you don't want to spend upwards of $20K (or whatever sum is appropriate for oneself) for it, and you don't want to spend month of Sundays considering it an a ton of alternatives.

All the best.

I like instant gratification. It's like instant coffee, only it won't keep you up all night.
- Jarod Kintz, _The Titanic Would Never Have Sunk if it were Made out of a Sink_


----------



## drhr

HRC-E.B. said:


> I can think of only one way to approach the issue in a rational manner:* identify a set of seemingly related items, define a sub-set representing the very best of that set and refer to this sub-set as the "high-end" in that set.
> *
> *Where the magic lies is how you define your set to begin with, and how broad or narrow you define your sub-set within that first set. . . . . . .
> . . . . . .*
> So I think we can say that this is relative without this being so preposturous after all, can't we?


Makes sense to me, until you try to find *agreement* on getting to the sub-set definition and what it "has to" or "cannot" include. Which is why, for me, whatever/however you wanna call/describe my watches is fine with me. They're just watches . . .


----------



## lmcgbaj

Doboji said:


> In that case... I think it's fair to say a ROO isn't high-end either.


Say WHAAAAAAT ???


----------



## Doboji

tony20009 said:


> Doboji,
> I'm genuinely curious. What objective qualities of the AP ROO make it so much worse than "everything else" that is a dressy, sport chronograph Swiss watch that the ROO would not fall into the nebulously defined classification that is "high end?" (see emboldened black text above)
> 
> Monocrom,
> +100 (see red text above)
> 
> All the best.
> 
> Creationists have also changed their name ... to intelligent design theorists who study 'irreducible complexity' and the 'abrupt appearance' of life-yet more jargon for 'God did it.' ... Notice that they have no interest in replacing evolution with native American creation myths or including the Code of Hammurabi alongside the posting of the Ten Commandments in public schools.
> - Michael Shermer


Excellent question. I think one could start with the fact that the ROO is mass produced thereby making it bereft of many of the artisanal elements of a Mcgonigle or a Dufour. There's something to be said for a watch built the traditional way, with hand wrought tools and methods.

Secondly the ROO Chronograph movement isn't even manufactured by Audemars but rather by JLC. I would think a high-end timepiece would be manufactured completely by the brand... in this case isn't Audemars little more than a "Caser"?

Bear in mind, I'm playing devil's advocate here just to make my point. Personally I consider my <$500 Magrette Moana Pacific Professional a high-end mechanical watch... it's wonderfully built, the movement is accurate and it's a pleasure to wear. That makes it "higher-end" than say a Timex that may not be as wonderful to wear but still tells the time.

Of course my Omega AT GMT is high*er* end than my Magrette and my Montblanc Twinfly higher still. But others may disagree.... but I certainly don't feel any need for anyone on this forum to anoint any of my watches "high-end". I enjoy them... I consider them excellent... that is what matters.

The OP on the other hand was trying to reconcile the fact that the object of his desire... the Omega AT... has not been anointed by this particular sub-forum as "high-end". Which is quite frankly a silly question... because none of our opinions has any true bearing on that anointment. (this despite the fact that the question led to some VERY interesting conversation)

-Max

P.S. I certainly consider the ROO a high-end amazing timepiece, but not as amazing or as high-end as a Dufour.


----------



## shnjb

Sorry. ROO is high-end for sure no matter how offensive people endorsing it may be.
I wouldn't call it mass-produced either.

You may prefer Dufour and the 500 dollar watch you mentioned but that does not change the forum's consensus definition of high-end, which excludes the aforementioned Omega.


----------



## Doboji

shnjb said:


> Sorry. ROO is high-end for sure no matter how offensive people endorsing it may be.
> I wouldn't call it mass-produced either.
> 
> You may prefer Dufour and the 500 dollar watch you mentioned but that does not change the forum's consensus definition of high-end, which excludes the aforementioned Omega.


An interweb forum's consensus and $1.95 will get you a Venti Pike's Place Roast....

But I suppose some people are looking for status. I just think that's a silly approach.


----------



## watchmego3000

Main Entry: high-end 
Pronunciation: \ˈhī-ˈend\
Function: adjective
Date: 1977
1 : upscale <high-end boutiques> 2 : of superior quality or sophistication and usually high in price <high-end cameras>


----------



## lmcgbaj

shnjb said:


> Sorry. ROO is high-end for sure no matter how offensive people endorsing it may be.


The watch is offensive, not the people endorsing it. It has that Invicta feeling...

To me, its just plain ugly, specially those limited editions... but as they say "De gustibus non est disputandum".


----------



## Doboji

lmcgbaj said:


> The watch is offensive, not the people endorsing it. It has that Invicta feeling...
> 
> To me, its just plain ugly, specially those limited editions... but as they say "De gustibus non est disputandum".


That one is hideous but there are quite a few tasteful versions that look incredible on the wrist...

That one man... just hurts my eyes... good lord!


----------



## lmcgbaj

Doboji said:


> That one is hideous but there are quite a few tasteful versions that look incredible on the wrist... !


Could be.... but I'll take a cheaper, cleaner, classier, simpler, basic Royal Oak any day of the week.


----------



## Doboji

lmcgbaj said:


> Could be.... but I'll take a cheaper, cleaner, classier, simpler, basic Royal Oak any day of the week.


100% Agree!


----------



## shnjb

lmcgbaj said:


> Could be.... but I'll take a cheaper, cleaner, classier, simpler, basic Royal Oak any day of the week.


I kind of agree with you, but the movement inside the ROO ain't bad though.


----------



## lmcgbaj

shnjb said:


> I kind of agree with you, but the movement inside the ROO ain't bad though.


I am not questioning movement quality or craftsmanship. It's the design that stinks.

If I could look at the movement all day it would be ok. It's the face that bothers me.

Although given its popularity, I am obviously a minority. The ROO is where the money is coming from for AP. I don't blame them. Others have done it.


----------



## shnjb

I think this is kind of cool.

AP, Richard Mille and some of the Rolexes are definitely an abomination to some but I find their designs interesting.

Invicta is junk.



lmcgbaj said:


> The watch is offensive, not the people endorsing it. It has that Invicta feeling...
> 
> To me, its just plain ugly, specially those limited editions... but as they say "De gustibus non est disputandum".


----------



## shnjb

lmcgbaj said:


> I am not questioning movement quality or craftsmanship. It's the design that stinks.
> 
> If I could look at the movement all day it would be ok. It's the face that bothers me.
> 
> Although given its popularity, I am obviously a minority. The ROO is where the money is coming from for AP. I don't blame them. Others have done it.


Yeah, the ROOs probably saved the brand from being acquired or going bankrupt. Who knows?


----------



## Monocrom

shnjb said:


> Sorry. ROO is high-end for sure no matter how offensive people endorsing it may be.
> I wouldn't call it mass-produced either.
> 
> You may prefer Dufour and the 500 dollar watch you mentioned but that does not change the forum's consensus definition of high-end, which excludes the aforementioned Omega.


Honestly, anything with a JLC movement inside... automatically boosts its status.

Screw the average in-house movement. If it's from JLC, it's going to be better.


----------



## Surfrider

Monocrom said:


> Honestly, anything with a JLC movement inside... automatically boosts its status.
> 
> Screw the average in-house movement. If it's from JLC, it's going to be better.


Ha, that's kind of what I was thinking too. Like, "Oh yes yes, they should make their own mov..... wait, what's this, a JLC movement? Oh, that's pretty cool."


----------



## drhr

Surfrider said:


> Ha, that's kind of what I was thinking too. Like, "Oh yes yes, they should make their own mov..... wait, what's this, a JLC movement? Oh, that's pretty cool."


Actually, wish they used their own. That way the prices can be lowered . . . .


----------



## Monocrom

drhr said:


> Actually, wish they used their own. That way the prices can be lowered . . . .


LOL !

An excellent point!


----------



## tony20009

lmcgbaj said:


> I am not questioning movement quality or craftsmanship.* It's the design that stinks*.
> 
> If I could look at the movement all day it would be ok. It's the face that bothers me.
> 
> Although given its popularity, I am obviously a minority. The ROO is where the money is coming from for AP. I don't blame them. Others have done it.


For me some ROOs are dreadfully unattractive and others look okay and none look as nice as the uncomplicated RO. One thing about the ROO is that it's one of the few watches whereof it's looks, size matters. The smaller 37mm ones' face just looks cramped to me even though I don't find 37mm too small for a man's watch. As a line of watches, the ROO is confusing. Sometimes they have markers, sometimes they have numbers. Some of them have a massive assembly around the pushers, some don't and some have a medium sized assembly around the pushers.

ROO 26400 -- Looks okay, maybe okay leaning toward good. It's sporty looking for sure and the mid-sized mass surrounding the pushers seems appropriate for the 44mm size of the thing.









ROO 26568 - This one is also 44mm, but has that huge mass on the right side of the watch that is just awful. This is the Michael Schumacher version.










This 37mm version of the ROO is just a mess to me. Why did they even bother with numerals on the dial?









ROO 26170 -- This is a 42mm version that is for me okay, but unlike the first one, it's okay-ness is only just that, and leaning toward bad more so than good. Look at the four and then the five next to it. The two digits don't appear to be of the same proportion. Indeed, I'm not totally sure they are the same font. (See the four and five in the following watch pic.)










Arnold Schwartzenegger version -- Well, it's not awful looking, but at 48mm it's just massive. On the few folks who can wear such a large watch, rather than it wearing them, it'd probably look nice. The pushers aren't surrounded with that big mass of metal. The numbers on the dial are mostly intact, and the strap pushes the watch decidedly to the sport side of things thus making it far more palatable. On the basis of looks alone, it and the fist one are IMO the best.










Tourbillion Chrono -- this one is an unholy mess, design wise. For me, this design is so bad they'd have to pay me to wear it.










All the best.

It has always seemed to me that so long as you produce your dramatic effect, accuracy of detail matters little. I have never striven for it and I have made some bad mistakes in consequence. What matter if I hold my readers?
- Arthur Conan Doyle


----------



## GETS

If I have said it once I have said it one thousand times on here. The Royal Oak Offshore is a pantomime dame of the Royal Oak family. It's like a whole series of generations of Royal Oak in bred and created a plethora of Frankenstein's.

Hideous.

PS - I love the Royal Oak.


----------



## shnjb

Personally I want to buy the rose gold 42mm ROO.
They seem pretty popular among 20s to early 30s range.
Maybe it's all the sports ambassadors or the "sporty" design.

I agree that they're a bit of an abomination which probably won't stand the test of time.


----------



## AbuKalb93

tony20009 said:


> For me some ROOs are dreadfully unattractive and others look okay and none look as nice as the uncomplicated RO. One thing about the ROO is that it's one of the few watches whereof it's looks, size matters. The smaller 37mm ones' face just looks cramped to me even though I don't find 37mm too small for a man's watch. As a line of watches, the ROO is confusing. Sometimes they have markers, sometimes they have numbers. Some of them have a massive assembly around the pushers, some don't and some have a medium sized assembly around the pushers.
> 
> ROO 26568 - This one is also 44mm, but has that huge mass on the right side of the watch that is just awful. This is the Michael Schumacher version.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tourbillion Chrono -- this one is an unholy mess, design wise. For me, this design is so bad they'd have to pay me to wear it.


WT* are those things??...If AP was german i think the designer would be dead by now...thats just plain ugly...


----------



## shnjb

I don't know abu

Lots of people like those.

I actually hate those 44mm ROOs too though.
They're way too big and ugly with that mess on the right side


----------



## AbuKalb93

It amazes me how the ROOs are AP's biggest money maker...but then again a lot of ROO buyers know nothing of watches...which is why they skip the beautiful and original RO. Just my opinion...from what i see from celebrities and every other rich oil tycoon in Arabia.


----------



## shnjb

AbuKalb93 said:


> It amazes me how the ROOs are AP's biggest money maker...but then again a lot of ROO buyers know nothing of watches...which is why they skip the beautiful and original RO. Just my opinion...from what i see from celebrities and every other rich oil tycoon in Arabia.


that's the stereotype maybe but lots of people with ROOs know about the original ROs and even own them.
it's not like you need to be able to build a watch to appreciate ROs.


----------



## tony20009

AbuKalb93 said:


> *It amazes me how the ROOs are AP's biggest money maker*...but then again a lot of ROO buyers know nothing of watches...which is why they skip the beautiful and original RO. Just my opinion...from what i see from celebrities and every other rich oil tycoon in Arabia.


I think it's just a matter that there's a "chrono craze" going on.


----------



## tony20009

shnjb said:


> I don't know abu
> 
> *Lots of people like those.
> *
> I actually hate those 44mm ROOs too though.
> They're way too big and ugly with that mess on the right side


IMO, that just means lots of people also never took an art class. If they did, they slept through it. Perhaps though there is something about them besides the looks that makes them appealing. I just can't get past the looks.

All the best.

To make my meal in a box taste better, I decided to tweak the logo, rather than the ingredients.
- Jarod Kintz


----------



## shnjb

tony20009 said:


> IMO, that just means lots of people also never took an art class. If they did, they slept through it. Perhaps though there is something about them besides the looks that makes them appealing. I just can't get past the looks.
> 
> All the best.
> 
> To make my meal in a box taste better, I decided to tweak the logo, rather than the ingredients.
> - Jarod Kintz


Lol that's funny because I did sleep through every art and English class in high school (and a few ge types in college too).


----------



## Kevin_Lomax

tony20009;
ROO 26568 - This one is also 44mm said:


> http://www.audemarspiguet.com/images/watch_images/standup/large/26568IM_OO_A004CA_01.png[/IMG]


Holly ...., looks like it has a tumor on the side...

I don't know who would wear that besides NBA Players, Rappers and rich Russians..

I think the Offshore Divers looks the good though..


----------



## WnS

Legend has one of Picasso's discarded artworks, that the master himself deemed too ugly, made its way into the hands of Gerald Genta; who designed watches for AP. This is how the inspiration for watches like the AP Royal Oak (and it's numerous derivatives) came about.


----------



## Monocrom

shnjb said:


> I don't know abu
> 
> Lots of people like those.


Yes, lots of folks have no taste. Those two are just plain hideous. Though I have noticed that "Hideous" (for some bizarre reason) does command huge premiums in the watch world. Sometimes 5 or 6 figure premiums. Oh yes, lots of people like those. I'm waiting for the day Hublot (perhaps another brand but most likely Hublot) decides to incorporate polished poo into the design of the latest, trendy, timepieces. Perhaps poo guaranteed to be from a celebrity.

Yeah, I can see that happening. (And we all know they would sell.)


----------



## AbuKalb93

shnjb said:


> that's the stereotype maybe but lots of people with ROOs know about the original ROs and even own them.
> it's not like you need to be able to build a watch to appreciate ROs.


I disagree on the stereotype thought...just search #audemarspiguet on instagram, youll see rich models flashing those hideous boxes along with an owner of a Lamborghini...next ask them what movement it houses, lets see them get out of that one:-!

A true aficionado would get the simple RO and know the guy behind it...
Then of course, there are those few (shame on them) who are aficionados but find the ROO better looking. But only a few.


----------



## drhr

Love the RO, dislike the ROO but would dearly love to have the financial success derived from/though ROO or to be able to come up with a legitimate "something" to garner said monetary gain . . .


----------



## shnjb

What's wrong with wearing an AP in a lambo? Lol


----------



## HRC-E.B.

WnS said:


> Legend has one of Picasso's discarded artworks, that the master himself deemed too ugly, made its way into the hands of Gerald Genta; who designed watches for AP. This is how the inspiration for watches like the AP Royal Oak (and it's numerous derivatives) came about.


Legend from where? Do you have sources on this?


----------



## AbuKalb93

shnjb said:


> What's wrong with wearing an AP in a lambo? Lol


nothing lol...just wear the right one


----------



## vnstowa

Monocrom said:


> I'm waiting for the day Hublot (perhaps another brand but most likely Hublot) decides to incorporate polished poo into the design of the latest, trendy, timepieces. Perhaps poo guaranteed to be from a celebrity.
> 
> Yeah, I can see that happening. (And we all know they would sell.)


 It already happened in the art world. Look for Piero Manzoni.

Sotheby's managed to sell one of his efforts for 150 K.

For me, Omega should really define their target, right now they are all over the place.
They want to compete in the higher segment but their watches are available at my local hypermaket.


----------



## drhr

vnstowa said:


> *It already happened in the art world. Look for Piero Manzoni.*
> 
> *Sotheby's managed to sell one of his efforts for 150 K.
> *
> For me, Omega should really define their target, right now they are all over the place.
> They want to compete in the higher segment but their watches are available at my local hypermaket.


cool!!


----------



## WnS

HRC-E.B. said:


> Legend from where? *Do you have sources on this?*


I sure do, as with most "legends", it's advisable to check with the manure plant near your local cattle farm ;-)


----------



## Monocrom

vnstowa said:


> It already happened in the art world. Look for Piero Manzoni.
> 
> Sotheby's managed to sell one of his efforts for 150 K.
> 
> For me, Omega should really define their target, right now they are all over the place.
> They want to compete in the higher segment but their watches are available at my local hypermaket.


I'm not surprised.

The Art world became downright retarded decades ago.


----------



## tony20009

vnstowa said:


> It already happened in the art world. Look for Piero Manzoni.
> 
> Sotheby's managed to sell one of his efforts for 150 K.
> 
> For me, Omega should really define their target, right now they are all over the place.
> They want to compete in the higher segment but their watches are available at my local hypermaket.


























Below is what I found on the Tate's Website.

All the best.

Summary In May 1961, while he was living in Milan, Piero Manzoni produced ninety cans of _Artist's ...._. Each was numbered on the lid 001 to 090. Tate's work is number 004. A label on each can, printed in Italian, English, French and German, identified the contents as '"Artist's ....", contents 30gr net freshly preserved, produced and tinned in May 1961.' In December 1961 Manzoni wrote in a letter to the artist Ben Vautier: 'I should like all artists to sell their fingerprints, or else stage competitions to see who can draw the longest line or sell their .... in tins. The fingerprint is the only sign of the personality that can be accepted: if collectors want something intimate, really personal to the artist, there's the artist's own ...., that is really his.' (Letter reprinted in Battino and Palazzoli p.144.)

It is not known exactly how many cans of _Artist's ...._ were sold within Manzoni's lifetime, but a receipt dated 23 August 1962 certifies that Manzoni sold one to Alberto Lùcia for 30 grams of 18-carat gold (reproduced in Battino and Palazzoli p.154). Manzoni's decision to value his excrement on a par with the price of gold made clear reference to the tradition of the artist as alchemist already forged by Marcel Duchamp and Yves Klein among others. As the artist and critic Jon Thompson has written:

Manzoni's critical and metaphorical reification of the artist's body, its processes and products, pointed the way towards an understanding of the persona of the artist and the product of the artist's body as a consumable object. The _Merda d'artista_, the artist's ...., dried naturally and canned 'with no added preservatives', was the perfect metaphor for the bodied and disembodied nature of artistic labour: the work of art as fully incorporated raw material, and its violent expulsion as commodity. Manzoni understood the creative act as part of the cycle of consumption: as a constant reprocessing, packaging, marketing, consuming, reprocessing, packaging, _ad infinitum_. (_Piero Manzoni_, 1998, p.45)

_Artist's .... _was made at a time when Manzoni was producing a variety of works involving the fetishisation and commodification of his own body substances. These included marking eggs with his thumbprints before eating them, and selling balloons filled with his own breath (see Tate T07589). Of these works, the cans of _Artist's ...._ have become the most notorious, in part because of a lingering uncertainty about whether they do indeed contain Manzoni's faeces. At times when Manzoni's reputation has seen the market value of these works increase, such uncertainties have imbued them with an additional level of irony.


----------



## Monocrom

tony20009 said:


> Below is what I found on the Tate's Website.
> 
> All the best.
> 
> *Summary*
> 
> In May 1961, while he was living in Milan, Piero Manzoni produced ninety cans of _Artist's ...._. Each was numbered on the lid 001 to 090. Tate's work is number 004. A label on each can, printed in Italian, English, French and German, identified the contents as '"Artist's ....", contents 30gr net freshly preserved, produced and tinned in May 1961.' In December 1961 Manzoni wrote in a letter to the artist Ben Vautier: 'I should like all artists to sell their fingerprints, or else stage competitions to see who can draw the longest line or sell their .... in tins. The fingerprint is the only sign of the personality that can be accepted: if collectors want something intimate, really personal to the artist, there's the artist's own ...., that is really his.' (Letter reprinted in Battino and Palazzoli p.144.)
> 
> It is not known exactly how many cans of _Artist's ...._ were sold within Manzoni's lifetime, but a receipt dated 23 August 1962 certifies that Manzoni sold one to Alberto Lùcia for 30 grams of 18-carat gold (reproduced in Battino and Palazzoli p.154). Manzoni's decision to value his excrement on a par with the price of gold made clear reference to the tradition of the artist as alchemist already forged by Marcel Duchamp and Yves Klein among others. As the artist and critic Jon Thompson has written:
> 
> Manzoni's critical and metaphorical reification of the artist's body, its processes and products, pointed the way towards an understanding of the persona of the artist and the product of the artist's body as a consumable object. The _Merda d'artista_, the artist's ...., dried naturally and canned 'with no added preservatives', was the perfect metaphor for the bodied and disembodied nature of artistic labour: the work of art as fully incorporated raw material, and its violent expulsion as commodity. Manzoni understood the creative act as part of the cycle of consumption: as a constant reprocessing, packaging, marketing, consuming, reprocessing, packaging, _ad infinitum_. (_Piero Manzoni_, 1998, p.45)
> 
> _Artist's .... _was made at a time when Manzoni was producing a variety of works involving the fetishisation and commodification of his own body substances. These included marking eggs with his thumbprints before eating them, and selling balloons filled with his own breath (see Tate T07589). Of these works, the cans of _Artist's ...._ have become the most notorious, in part because of a lingering uncertainty about whether they do indeed contain Manzoni's faeces. At times when Manzoni's reputation has seen the market value of these works increase, such uncertainties have imbued them with an additional level of irony.


Thank you for so beautifully illustrating my previous post above. The amount and level of pretentiousness in the watch world is downright microscopic compared to that of the Art world. Some can appreciate Art, true Art when we see it. Art is quite simply the creation of beauty just for the sake of creating it. To bring beauty into a world that sometimes is lacking in that precious resource.

You get some con-artist who $#!%$ into a can, seals it up, calls it "Art" and a bunch of moronic patrons desperate to appear sophisticated next to their peers, simply applaud and call it "Genius!" It's more sickening that opening up a can full of preserved $#!%. :-|


----------



## AbuKalb93

So wait, just to make this clear...someone numbered a can...then sold it...for 150k? :think:


----------



## Rannug

That is probably one of the most insane stories i have ever heard. He [email protected]#$% in a can and sold it as "[email protected]#$%" and someone bought it...for 150k? I feel so much better now about my watch addiction ;-)


----------



## Geof3

tony20009 said:


> Below is what I found on the Tate's Website.
> 
> All the best.
> 
> *Summary*
> 
> In May 1961, while he was living in Milan, Piero Manzoni produced ninety cans of _Artist's ...._. Each was numbered on the lid 001 to 090. Tate's work is number 004. A label on each can, printed in Italian, English, French and German, identified the contents as '"Artist's ....", contents 30gr net freshly preserved, produced and tinned in May 1961.' In December 1961 Manzoni wrote in a letter to the artist Ben Vautier: 'I should like all artists to sell their fingerprints, or else stage competitions to see who can draw the longest line or sell their .... in tins. The fingerprint is the only sign of the personality that can be accepted: if collectors want something intimate, really personal to the artist, there's the artist's own ...., that is really his.' (Letter reprinted in Battino and Palazzoli p.144.)
> 
> It is not known exactly how many cans of _Artist's ...._ were sold within Manzoni's lifetime, but a receipt dated 23 August 1962 certifies that Manzoni sold one to Alberto Lùcia for 30 grams of 18-carat gold (reproduced in Battino and Palazzoli p.154). Manzoni's decision to value his excrement on a par with the price of gold made clear reference to the tradition of the artist as alchemist already forged by Marcel Duchamp and Yves Klein among others. As the artist and critic Jon Thompson has written:
> 
> Manzoni's critical and metaphorical reification of the artist's body, its processes and products, pointed the way towards an understanding of the persona of the artist and the product of the artist's body as a consumable object. The _Merda d'artista_, the artist's ...., dried naturally and canned 'with no added preservatives', was the perfect metaphor for the bodied and disembodied nature of artistic labour: the work of art as fully incorporated raw material, and its violent expulsion as commodity. Manzoni understood the creative act as part of the cycle of consumption: as a constant reprocessing, packaging, marketing, consuming, reprocessing, packaging, _ad infinitum_. (_Piero Manzoni_, 1998, p.45)
> 
> _Artist's .... _was made at a time when Manzoni was producing a variety of works involving the fetishisation and commodification of his own body substances. These included marking eggs with his thumbprints before eating them, and selling balloons filled with his own breath (see Tate T07589). Of these works, the cans of _Artist's ...._ have become the most notorious, in part because of a lingering uncertainty about whether they do indeed contain Manzoni's faeces. At times when Manzoni's reputation has seen the market value of these works increase, such uncertainties have imbued them with an additional level of irony.


Well, just goes to prove... One man's S!$%, another man's treasure... Unbelievable...


----------



## Monocrom

Geof3 said:


> Well, just goes to prove... One man's S!$%, another man's treasure... *Unbelievable...*


Never underestimate the sheer, limitless, power of human stupidity.


----------



## tony20009

Rannug said:


> That is probably one of the most insane stories i have ever heard. He [email protected]#$% in a can and sold it as "[email protected]#$%" and someone bought it...for 150k? I feel so much better now about my watch addiction ;-)


It just pisses me off because I didn't think of it first. LOL. I'm sure my [email protected]#$% is just as good and artful as his. LOL.


----------



## Watchbreath

Would that be like the "Gang of 535"?


Monocrom said:


> Never underestimate the sheer, limitless, power of human stupidity.


----------



## Watchbreath

:-s Who knew that this thread would go off like this, we all did. :-d


----------



## tony20009

Monocrom said:


> Never underestimate the sheer, limitless, power of human stupidity.
> 
> 
> 
> Watchbreath said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would that be like the "Gang of 535"?
Click to expand...

I would have to answer, "no." They don't at all underestimate that sort of thing; indeed they rely upon it.

All the best.

I have come to the conclusion that one useless man is a disgrace, two become a law firm, and three or more become a congress.
- John Adams


----------



## madhatter77

Monocrom said:


> Thank you for so beautifully illustrating my previous post above. The amount and level of pretentiousness in the watch world is downright microscopic compared to that of the Art world. Some can appreciate Art, true Art when we see it. Art is quite simply the creation of beauty just for the sake of creating it. To bring beauty into a world that sometimes is lacking in that precious resource.
> 
> You get some con-artist who $#!%$ into a can, seals it up, calls it "Art" and a bunch of moronic patrons desperate to appear sophisticated next to their peers, simply applaud and call it "Genius!" It's more sickening that opening up a can full of preserved $#!%. :-|


This is an EXTREMELY limited view of art.
And complete misunderstanding of the Artist's S**t in the can. It may be a lot of things ... but pretentious?! Not in the least. It is very straigt forward.

Without going into a deeper discussion, I'll just say that the fact that Manizoni's "produce" sold for 150K is what makes his artistic idea still current - Artists S**t in the Can "speaks" of just the fact that s**t in the can sells for ridiculous sums.


----------



## madhatter77

tony20009 said:


> It just pisses me off because I didn't think of it first. LOL. I'm sure my [email protected]#$% is just as good and artful as his. LOL.


Most likely it isn't as good 

Or it is.

And that is the art of it.

This is not the kind of "art" from the history. Those cans are the begginings of conceptualism where art gets separated from the material and uses the material only as a spark plug that brings you to mental concepts. "Art" and "beauty" have been separated long before conceptualism, this separation enabled modern forms of art.
A completely other question is the value of modern objets of art and the more classical. Modern objets of art are mainly interesting for museums and I imagine they bring less to some home - and it is rightfully so - they were never meant to last but to provoke at that moment in time, also producers of conceptual art were often "counter fetishist" - they regarded "owning" art as impossible. In short.

more on this particular "piece" or "pieces":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piero_Manzoni#Artist.27s_....


----------



## Monocrom

madhatter77 said:


> This is an EXTREMELY limited view of art.


Nope. I don't buy into the modern and quite frankly ridiculous notion that Art is pretty much whatever someone says it is, or that it somehow encompasses everything. It doesn't. And to believe that it does, simply muddies the waters and ultimately destroys the real definition. If Art is everything, then it stands to reason that it is nothing as well. Thus destroying it's true meaning.



> And complete misunderstanding of the Artist's S**t in the can. It may be a lot of things ... but pretentious?! Not in the least.


Actually, yes it is. In fact, blatantly so. I understand Art quite well. I also understand that numerous con-men label themselves as "Artists." And the garbage they make to con wealthy patrons with no understanding of Art, out of their money; by labeling that as "Art." The misunderstanding isn't mine. I know Art, and I can recognize a talentless con-man creating garbage to fleece those who don't understand Art at all.



> It is very straight forward.


Yes, on that we agree. He was conning rich fools out of their money with a ridiculously over pretentious con job. You're right, it is indeed very straight-forward.



> Without going into a deeper discussion, I'll just say that the fact that Manizoni's "produce" sold for 150K is what makes his artistic idea still current - Artists S**t in the Can "speaks" of just the fact that s**t in the can sells for ridiculous sums.


There is nothing artistic about pooping into a can, labeling it as a work of Art, and then selling it for $150K. Far from showing that his con job labeled as "Art" is current.... It highlights something I've known for too many years to count. Namely, never underestimate the sheer, raw, incredible, limitless power of human stupidity and human insanity! When you think you've seen the ultimate expression of it, you are wrong. You have only barely scratched the surface of it with your fingernail. Anyone paying that much for a literal can of $#!% deserves to be tossed into a mental asylum. But in reality, they have enough money to avoid that. They have enough money so that their buying gets labeled as "eccentric," instead of what it is. Namely, "stupidity." And perhaps even "insanity."


----------



## Crunchy

Well they used to pay millions for tulips. Not everything expensive or being paid by some fool is real art.


----------



## tony20009

madhatter77 said:


> This is an EXTREMELY limited view of art.
> And complete misunderstanding of the Artist's S**t in the can. It may be a lot of things ... but pretentious?! Not in the least. It is very straigt forward.
> 
> Without going into a deeper discussion, I'll just say that the fact that Manizoni's "produce" sold for 150K is what makes his artistic idea still current - *Artists S**t in the Can "speaks"* of just the fact that s**t in the can sells for ridiculous sums.


When I first saw that, I thought it was a (1) comment on the nature of the ridiculousness of the art world and (2) a commentary on what can or cannot be construed as art. The nature of what's in the can seems to make quite clear Manizoni's position on the matter.

As a side thought...I can't imagine buying that can. The structure of most art -- the actual paints, canvases, metal, stone, etc. -- seems to deteriorate over time. I suspect the same will happen with those cans, albeit not in my lifetime. Nonetheless, I'd just as soon not inflict upon my descendents the burden of having to restore/maintain the darn thing. I mean can you just imagine how disgusting it'll be when the obvious happens and they discover restoration is needed? Yuck!!!

All the best.


----------



## Monocrom

tony20009 said:


> When I first saw that, I thought it was a (1) comment on the nature of the ridiculousness of the art world and (2) a commentary on what can or cannot be construed as art. The nature of what's in the can seems to make quite clear Manizoni's position on the matter.
> 
> All the best.


That's the excuse that many patrons use to justify buying such works of trickery. No, it's not the "Artist" doing a proper job of "holding up a mirror to Society's short-comings." It's not, "a statement on human nature or Society." Or any other such similar so-called explanations.

Honestly, if it was; the "Artist" would refuse to accept the six-figure sum. He would _let his patrons in_ on the nature of his work, and thus enjoy that he made them think. But that's not what occurs when he accepts the money. Doing so makes it blatantly clear it was nothing but a con job.


----------



## tony20009

Monocrom said:


> That's the excuse that many patrons use to justify buying such works of trickery. No, it's not the "Artist" doing a proper job of "holding up a mirror to Society's short-comings." It's not, "a statement on human nature or Society." Or any other such similar so-called explanations.
> 
> Honestly, if it was; the "Artist" would refuse to accept the six-figure sum. He would _let his patrons in_ on the nature of his work, and thus enjoy that he made them think. But that's not what occurs when he accepts the money. Doing so makes it blatantly clear it was nothing but a con job.


At the risk of seeming brusque, you may want to check to find out if indeed the artist did expressly state the point of his work. Should you venture to do so, you'll find that what he said in explaining the work is pretty much what I thought as well. I didn't know it until I looked for it, and that was after I'd formed my own opinion of what the "Artist's S**t" was about. True, Manzoni limited the scope of his statements to the nature of one segment of society -- the art world -- but the theme/point is just as I stated.

As for Manzoni taking payment for the work, I don't see why he should not, at least not within a capitalist economy. Editorialists of all stripes -- those who use words, music, movies, and those who use art -- deserve to the paid for their efforts. If it just happens that you prefer a communist (economic sense, not political) style economy where everyone contributes what s/he can to the greater good of the whole, I can accept that for it is without a doubt an ideal situation in which people exist. History has shown that that sort of system works quite well in small communities -- from the household up to a few hundred people. On a larger scale, however, it seems that human nature kicks in and invariably the reality of universal equality becomes a fleeting ideal and isn't sustainable.

All the best.

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
― George Orwell, _Animal Farm

_


----------



## 2muchtimeonmyhands

Monocrom said:


> That's the excuse that many patrons use to justify buying such works of trickery. No, it's not the "Artist" doing a proper job of "holding up a mirror to Society's short-comings." It's not, "a statement on human nature or Society." Or any other such similar so-called explanations.
> 
> Honestly, if it was; the "Artist" would refuse to accept the six-figure sum. He would _let his patrons in_ on the nature of his work, and thus enjoy that he made them think. But that's not what occurs when he accepts the money. Doing so makes it blatantly clear it was nothing but a con job.


I can't see how it was a con-job, it was pretty clearly labelled. In my opinoion it is the "thinking of it first" that makes it art. Or in other words, removing something from its usual context and reframing it ina thought provoking way is what gives it merit. I personally wouldn't pay $150k for a $h1# in a can but I would certainly find it quite amusing in an art gallery and perhaps thats the point?
An artistic statement is an exercise in abstraction, how do you go about assessing how seriously to take a piece of art or attributing worth to it when its sole purpose is to remove the audience from normality?


----------



## shnjb

I can't see how that's a con job either.

Nobody forced anyone to buy the damn thing.
As long as there is a willing buyer at the price that it is sold, then it's a legitimate transaction.
You could debate what it is worth and why it is worth that much to that buyer, but if it's not worth the asking price to you that's why you didn't buy it.
What's the problem?


----------



## 2muchtimeonmyhands

After reading through this thread and the discussion on what constitutes a high-end watch, it seems to me that there is a definite parallel between modern art and watchmaking. Where photography removed the need for art to be decorative representation, the introduction of quartz did some something similar for accuracy and complications in watchmaking.
Mechanical watches lost their need to be solely functional items in the early 70s, you just have to look at various brands attempts to stay relevant and it explains some the peculiarities of watch design.

From that perspective the ROO, whilst not keeping with AP's historical heritage, is a natural extension of the RO - a radical case design to get people's attention.
That was also when Rolex started producing solid gold sports watches. Probably the most cynical and ironically the most successful reaction. By that reasoning the "Platona" is trhe obvious evolution for Rolex.
According to Jean-Claude Biver at least, Blancpain took the head-in-the-sand approach and tried to market more complicated and traditional mechanical watches.

Being that the change was largely internal, watches have gone from "how well it works" to "what is it that is interesting about how it works", this explains Basel showpieces like these:


















These are the real modern 'high-end' watches or the equivalent of art and have little to do with telling the time.
It seems to me that the defintion of high-end on here is purely based on how well finished the movement is. But a watch consists of both craft and art so it may depend on which someone prioritzes to how 'good' they determine a watch to be.


----------



## Monocrom

tony20009 said:


> At the risk of seeming brusque, you may want to check to find out if indeed the artist did expressly state the point of his work.


That's the problem right there.... You're just immediately giving him credit for being an artist. He's not. He's a con-man. And I'm sorry, but blatantly so.

It takes zero artistic talent to crap into a can, seal it, tell everyone what you did, _*claim*_ to be an artist, and then put a price-tag of $150K on it. If someone *THAT* retarded comes along who buys your B.S. artistic explanation of it, and then pays you six figures for that can.... That just means you're a far more intelligent con-man than the average penny-anty one still pulling the old Pigeon Drop con.

Artists.... _real_ Artists.... create Art. If you look at someone's creations and you have a true eye for Art, then you can tell if what they've created is Art or simply a con job. Anyone can drop their pants and squat over a tin can. Doesn't make it Art. Anyone can charge six figures for literal human feces and give a B.S. reason for doing so. Doesn't make it Art. Some moron with more money than working brain cells decides to pay the asking-price? Once again, not Art.

It's a can filled with human excrement. That's literally what it is. Sold by a very creative con-man who calls himself an Artist.


----------



## Monocrom

2muchtimeonmyhands said:


> I can't see how it was a con-job, it was pretty clearly labelled. In my opinoion it is the "thinking of it first" that makes it art.


Sorry, but "thinking" that something is Art, doesn't make it so.

I can think of myself as Queen of England. Doesn't mean that all pf a sudden my genitalia changes. Doesn't mean that I age a few decades. Doesn't mean that I wake up in a plush bedroom in England. Main thing.... Doesn't mean that everyone around me recognizes me as the Queen of England. You can think of a can full of human crap as "Art." Walk around with it, show it to a bunch of people on the street, and ask them what it is. Guaranteed the vast majority will call it what it is, a can full of crap. The others?.... They'll quickly move far away from the weirdo walking around with a literal can of crap in his hands.


----------



## drhr

Bottom line, opinions are personal, that's why everyone has 'em, each person has the "correct" answer . . . .


----------



## tony20009

Monocrom said:


> Sorry, but *"thinking" that something is Art, doesn't make it so. *
> 
> I can think of myself as Queen of England. Doesn't mean that all pf a sudden my genitalia changes. Doesn't mean that I age a few decades. Doesn't mean that I wake up in a plush bedroom in England. Main thing.... Doesn't mean that everyone around me recognizes me as the Queen of England. You can think of a can full of human crap as "Art." Walk around with it, show it to a bunch of people on the street, and ask them what it is. Guaranteed the vast majority will call it what it is, a can full of crap. The others?.... They'll quickly move far away from the weirdo walking around with a literal can of crap in his hands.


Art has been defined as: he expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.
-- Google definition of "art."

Off topic:
??? The can of feces Manzoni created, using the discussion about it here to illustrate, meets the definition with which I started this post. It was/is a creative and most certainly uncommon use of an object common to everyone, which is one of the hallmarks of found art, and it certainly, here and in the art world, initiated quite a bit of emotion.

The thing about art is that it is one of the very few things that if one thinks something is art or artful, it is. Validation from others simply isn't required for that to be so for it's not incumbent on anyone, other than the individual who does appreciate it, to find the artful quality in it. That just isn't the case with your being Queen Elizabeth. Unlike the matter of what art is or isn't or whether something is or isn't art, there are multiple objective qualities that must accompany being queen regnant. Minimally, the people who would be your subjects would have to agree that you are indeed she. The similarity between art and queens is that there are/were good and bad examples of both.

Perhaps you've been influenced by Tolstoy's _What is Art?_ Like the reasons Tolstoy offers in that work, I sense, in part as a result of having read quite a few of your non-watch-related comments on WUS, that you share his disdain for the indulgences of the various elite classes -- academics, corporate execs, politicians, and others who have and commonly wield money and power to influence society to their own benefit. While I think Tolstoy was correct to decry the failure of certain elites to uphold their obligations in connection with the principles of _noblesse oblige, _I yet contend that for whatever flashes of brilliance Tolstoy exhibited, he missed the boat with his claims about what is and is not art. He was nonetheless entitled to his opinions and to express them, just as you and others are.

As captivating as a discussion on the theme of "what is art?" might be, seeing as literally thousands of books and papers have been written on the matter, here is probably not the place to further explore that subject.

All the best.

Art is the lie that enables us to realize the truth.
― Pablo Picasso


----------



## blackbard

hchj said:


> Omega is indeed "high end" to the average Joe. The only other brand they know above Omega is Rolex.
> 
> Sent from my GT-I8160 using Tapatalk 2


Tag Heuer around where I live. Its the second watch "successful" people buy after rolex...


----------

