# The Watch Snob?



## TRW Motorsport (Jan 12, 2010)

My roommate showed me "The Watch Snob" at Askmen.com

Besides the fact that the guy is a complete f*ck, is he credible? 

Are his points and opinions justified or just completely biased hoopla? 

I thought there is no better place for this question than here at WUS for the true WIS!


----------



## AbsoluteMustard (Jun 22, 2009)

Never heard of him before

Just googled his name, and read his last article

Edit: read more articles....seems like a douche that is creating a persona for entertainment purposes, but still entertaining


----------



## DenverBuff (May 19, 2009)

I always enjoy that column. However, when says "snob", he means it. There was a column a few weeks ago where he said that he wouldn't buy any watch priced between $1000 and $3500. Made no sense.


----------



## AndrewSo (Mar 1, 2010)

It's 99% satire. I'm afraid to use this parallel since Americans might not get this reference but he's basically Jeremy Clarkson's watch-enthusiast cousin. 
I'm fairly certain AskMen found an actual connoisseur to write this article so his info is legit. Although this guy is very knowledgeable, his advice should be taken with respect to watch buying values. He values engineering and exclusivity while looking down upon those who merely wear watches as gaudy status symbols. 

Ultimately, most men need stern advice when it comes to their appearance. AskMen could have hired a person that recommended advice such as, "Wear whatever you like because you're a unique snowflake" but then their readers would probably wear 60mm+ monstrosities to the office and wonder why their co-workers and superiors look at them with disdain. His snobbery boils down to a single ethos: Invest in a classy timepiece because people will judge you by it.

P.S.
The man once recommended that a reader buy an Orient! :-!


----------



## emmanuelgoldstein (Dec 26, 2009)

I found his column this morning and read through them all. Either he is an elitist snob or a great writer. Either way I still find it pretty entertaining. He does contradict himself through the columns. If you read a few of them you will see what I mean.


----------



## rnguy001 (Apr 9, 2009)

*70% Entertaining, 30% Informatitive*

At least that's where I put him. His remarks actually have some credo, but it's purposely sarcastic and over the top in terms of snobbery - as to poke fun at the fascination in horology and to an extent the pre-occupation with fashion in general.

I find him funny because I know he's trying to just stir the pot.

Rich


----------



## emmanuelgoldstein (Dec 26, 2009)

AndrewSo said:


> It's 99% satire. I'm afraid to use this parallel since Americans might not get this reference but he's basically Jeremy Clarkson's watch-enthusiast cousin.
> I'm fairly certain AskMen found an actual connoisseur to write this article so his info is legit. Although this guy is very knowledgeable, his advice should be taken with respect to watch buying values. He values engineering and exclusivity while looking down upon those who merely wear watches as gaudy status symbols.
> 
> Ultimately, most men need stern advice when it comes to their appearance. AskMen could have hired a person that recommended advice such as, "Wear whatever you like because you're a unique snowflake" but then their readers would probably wear 60mm+ monstrosities to the office and wonder why their co-workers and superiors look at them with disdain. His snobbery boils down to a single ethos: Invest in a classy timepiece because people will judge you by it.
> ...


I was surprised after reading this morning to see that he recommended the Orient. Which in my opinion is an excellent watch for the price. Some of his comments and answers are great. I especially loved the answer for the person inquiring about Ice Watch. The snob made my morning.


----------



## emmanuelgoldstein (Dec 26, 2009)

Found the answer I was looking for.



> This is going to be fun. You, my friend, are the type of person that gives all other watch fans a bad name. Even though they call me the Watch Snob, I am here to help people; you are on this earth to do nothing but horologically name drop, which you did oh so well in the very first line of your question. Also, you are not a horologist -- no matter what you tell yourself. Are you creating any timepieces by hand? Didn't think so.
> 
> Look, I don't like you, and something tells me you've heard those words from many people before me, but I will help you anyways.


----------



## Chronopolis (Apr 8, 2009)

*Re: 70% Entertaining, 30% Informatitive*

Snobbery or not, a brilliant writer !


----------



## 09.ducati (Nov 23, 2009)

This guy is great, I like the way he contradicts himself just to play devil's advocate. Very entertaining.


----------



## Chronopolis (Apr 8, 2009)

DenverBuff said:


> I always enjoy that column. However, when says "snob", he means it. There was a column a few weeks ago where he said that he wouldn't buy any watch priced between $1000 and $3500. Made no sense.


Actually, this DID make sense to me, as I had come to the same conclusion myself some time ago. I have nothing against watches in that price range, and for myself, I'd narrow that gap to 1500-3000. It's just that I would not want to pay that price range as I've come to realize you can get a many of those (that usually list for 2k) for under 1k anyway. Many a GLYCINE, or a LACO, for example.
And if I was bent on spending $3,500 on a watch, I would just add another 500 - 1,000 to get to the next orbit altogether since the difference between among MOST watches in that range 1000-3500 comes down really to styling -- SINN and DAMASKO being the two notable exceptions -- and I'm just paying for their advertising. Of course, IF one likes the style of INVICTA Diver, with all the trimmings, by all means, one should pay $1500 and get one.
But as for being a "snob" - as much we'd like to think that we're not, really, who could possibly resist the temptation of being one when confronted with someone who has spent 1.5K on a friggin' gold-plated Invicta :roll:, and is proud of it? 
Besides, a watch that costs beyond 3500 is no longer (just) a watch anyway: you're buying something else in the form of a watch.


----------



## AndrewSo (Mar 1, 2010)

Chronopolis said:


> Actually, this DID make sense to me, as I had come to the same conclusion myself some time ago. I have nothing against watches in that price range, and for myself, I'd narrow that gap to 1500-3000. It's just that I would not want to pay that price range as I've come to realize you can get a many of those (that usually list for 2k) for under 1k anyway. Many a GLYCINE, or a LACO, for example.
> And if I was bent on spending $3,500 on a watch, I would just add another 500 - 1,000 to get to the next orbit altogether since the difference between among MOST watches in that range 1000-3500 comes down really to styling -- SINN and DAMASKO being the two notable exceptions -- and I'm just paying for their advertising. Of course, IF one likes the style of INVICTA Diver, with all the trimmings, by all means, one should pay $1500 and get one.


I believe The Watch Snob made a similar comment concerning watches priced between $500-$1000 (USD). Or maybe I read that here on the forums... I forget.


----------



## Klostrophobic (Jul 18, 2009)

Pretty funny - mostly pinch of salt stuff, but some on the mark. Had to laugh at his Bell & Ross comment. Kobold sprang to mind immediately. Dynamite marketing, powerpuff substance.


----------



## Chronopolis (Apr 8, 2009)

I like that accidentally made word: POWERPUFF ! :-!



Klostrophobic said:


> Pretty funny - mostly pinch of salt stuff, but some on the mark. Had to laugh at his Bell & Ross comment. Kobold sprang to mind immediately. Dynamite marketing, powerpuff substance.


----------



## Klostrophobic (Jul 18, 2009)

Chronopolis said:


> I like that accidentally made word: POWERPUFF ! :-!


I got served! |>


----------



## jay.scratch (Oct 14, 2009)

The guy is pretty funny. It's word the time reading his stuff.



> *I'm looking to purchase my first real timepiece and don't know which way to go? I really like the [Panerai] Pam 88 (brown wristband), however, can I wear it with a black suit? Should I head in a different direction? Maybe an all-metal Tag for everyday and a brown-and-black leather classic Baume & Mercier for more formal wear occasions?*
> 
> A detailed question. First things first: If you feel no shame in wearing a Panerai in public, then you certainly have large enough testicles to wear a brown strap with a black suit. All jokes aside, the Pam 88 is a modern-day classic, and well-made. However, if it is true that you are a person who does not like to follow the crowd, you need to remove Panerai from your purview immediately. It is the ultimate follower's watch purchased by thousands of young suit-wearing professional types that have erections for their womanizing, bourbon-swilling and BMW-driving managing directors.


----------



## publandlord (Aug 15, 2006)

On another forum he's known as the "Watch Cock". He knows horology, or rather, he knows how to read brochures and scour the interweb. Part of the schtick is to offend and insult with his prejudice and he (actually it's probably a "they") does that very well, although anyone going to a website called askmen.com for advice deserves everything they get .


----------



## shine2rust (Aug 7, 2008)

> the global watch nerdery ... a forum such as WatchUSeek.com


Rofl 

I agree with the poster above, it's a bunch of witty writers that came up with this uptight character. Entertaining read, nonetheless. 
Here's a link to save you the google search: 
http://www.askmen.com/fashion/mens-watches/


----------



## bigwatchUK (Jan 29, 2010)

I think the watch snob is fantastic. There is a lot of merit on what he says, plus he is entertaining. If you take him with a pinch of salt, then you don't get offended - like Jeremy Clarkson.
As an Example, the truth is, brands like Bell & Ross, TAG, Omega et al, are overpriced - they are all about the marketing. They all use the basis of a US$300 ETA movement (2824) & then charge you thousands. 
A Quote from the WS: "A watch is about the entire package, not just its appearance. Any large watch company not making its own movement is not making a watch at all; they’re just playing dress-up." 
The fact that Swatch Group are restricting mechanisms for the market, is a semi good thing, as the big watch houses are now starting to have to make their movement "in-house", e.g. Panerai. The ones who I do feel sorry for, are the small niches brands who sell an affordable priced watch using Swiss mechanism etc, but cater more for the everyday person who cannot afford an overpriced/overmarketed watch. These companies do not profess to be big brands, but they do offer something a little different - individuality.


----------



## deepcdvr (Dec 31, 2007)

*Re: 70% Entertaining, 30% Informatitive*



Chronopolis said:


> Snobbery or not, a brilliant writer !


Pretty decent writer, but he uses the word 'anyways' which is not actually a proper word.. especially for someone who writes for a living. :-s


----------



## shera (Mar 15, 2010)

*Re: 70% Entertaining, 30% Informatitive*

I think he makes a good point about many Swiss brands in the Swatch group are not even true watchmaker but rather "playing dress-up" since they simply buy mass-produced ETA movements and install them in their pieces. In face, many Swiss brands cannot claim to be 100% swiss since they purchase their buckles, sapphires, rubies, straps, bracelets, etc. from all over Asia.

Reading his article made me think twice about some purchases and consider buying a Seiko which offers truly in-house movements, albeit without the Swiss cache.


----------



## TheWalrus (Mar 16, 2009)

publandlord said:


> On another forum he's known as the "Watch Cock". He knows horology, or rather, he knows how to read brochures and scour the interweb. Part of the schtick is to offend and insult with his prejudice and he (actually it's probably a "they") does that very well, although anyone going to a website called askmen.com for advice deserves everything they get .


I read AskMen.com a lot back in undergrad - I fit into it's target demographic. Back then I found they offered a pretty decent site, and good advice. Whether or not they've changed, I've changed, or some combination of both alternatives, I don't particularly find the site useful or interesting any longer. At some point in time the hostility for hostilities sake became old. It's, honestly, the same reason why I don't particularly like Clarkson either - as an automotive writer - and will 99 times out of 100 pick up an article by Peter Egan instead. A dose of humility, self-effacing humor and genuine, first hand, personal knowledge of something wins out over sharp insults and smarmy commentary every time.


----------



## Ryeguy (Jun 24, 2009)

TheWalrus said:


> I read AskMen.com a lot back in undergrad - I fit into it's target demographic. Back then I found they offered a pretty decent site, and good advice. Whether or not they've changed, I've changed, or some combination of both alternatives, I don't particularly find the site useful or interesting any longer. At some point in time the hostility for hostilities sake became old. It's, honestly, the same reason why I don't particularly like Clarkson either - as an automotive writer - and will 99 times out of 100 pick up an article by Peter Egan instead. A dose of humility, self-effacing humor and genuine, first hand, personal knowledge of something wins out over sharp insults and smarmy commentary every time.


I agree with you 100% about Peter Egan.

I have some considerable downtime (stranded due to the Volcano) so I read a few of the articles. Once you get past the satire, there were some good points.

I was actually a bit angered about his comments regarding not owning a watch between $1,000 and $3,500, but then caught on and can see his point. For the most watches, you are looking at a decent movement, a bit of stainless steel, and a bit of sapphire or mineral glass. There are many, many quality options available for less than $1,000.

Breaking the $3,500 barrier gets you some interesting features such as in-house movements, unique / innovative designs, etc.

In between those price points is a no-man's land of catalog cases, generic movements, etc.

There are many exceptions to this general statement, but it does provide some food for thought.


----------



## Ananda (Feb 28, 2008)

*Re: 70% Entertaining, 30% Informatitive*

he entertains.


----------



## AndrewSo (Mar 1, 2010)

Have you guys read the latest Watch Snob article about Asian guys and impressing bosses? Absolute gold.


----------



## mr00jimbo (Apr 26, 2009)

Some of the stuff he says is absolutely asinine, but hopefully it's just joking.
I would never judge somebody on the price of their watch, or think they're inferior in any way for it. I thought being a watch enthusiast was about appreciating the time pieces, not the price tags attached.


----------



## tako_watch (Apr 1, 2010)

AndrewSo said:


> Have you guys read the latest Watch Snob article about Asian guys and impressing bosses? Absolute gold.


He was pretty right on, on that one! Almost spit up my scotch, when I read that reply...


----------



## Ryan Alden (Nov 19, 2008)

i read his post, period. i have some disaggregations, but his post surely entertain..:-!


----------



## 09.ducati (Nov 23, 2009)

Ryeguy said:


> I agree with you 100% about Peter Egan.
> 
> I have some considerable downtime (stranded due to the Volcano) so I read a few of the articles. Once you get past the satire, there were some good points.
> 
> ...


Peter Egan has a published collection of his mc column called Leanings, it's a good read.


----------



## scuttle (Dec 15, 2008)

mr00jimbo said:


> Some of the stuff he says is absolutely asinine, but hopefully it's just joking.


I suspect that most of what he gives as "advice" is actually very cruel humour at the expense of anyone dumb or insecure enough to follow it. Many of his more expensive recommendations are ugly and insane. That his cheaper ones are good - Prometheus and Ocean7, I think - makes me incline more to this point of view, as does his emphasizing he is British and not American - which might as well read "Irony warning!!!"


----------



## hydrocarbon (Aug 18, 2008)

*Re: 70% Entertaining, 30% Informatitive*



Ananda said:


> he entertains.


Agreed, I appreciate the sense of wit. Thanks for the link, I would never have found that otherwise.

Even though the smarminess factor is sky-high, the average guy who's clueless about watches would benefit from reading it. The only drawback I can see is people who read a few columns and suddenly think they're experts in the field.

Beats the heck out of most fawning industry propaganda.


----------



## Outlawyer (Feb 21, 2009)

*Re: 70% Entertaining, 30% Informatitive*

Breaking the $200 barrier gets you in-house movements, unique / innovative designs, too; only you're going the opposite direction, down, and getting a Seiko :^)


----------



## GarageBoy (Oct 9, 2008)

*Re: 70% Entertaining, 30% Informatitive*

He reminds me of the bike snob


----------



## Tictocdoc (Sep 28, 2009)

If this guy were "real" Id hate to know him, but I have to admit I like his sharp sarcastic snobby remarks. Although I can barely afford a $500 watch right now, I do look foward to building a decent collection with a couple of "heirloom" piecies. 
When I first read the $1000-$3000 dolar watch remark I was almost offended, but he does have a point. I guess Ill keep that in mind from now on. and buy stuff within that range that I really like but not intend on them being more than just a nice watch that I reallly like.

In the end I guess that is what matters..get what YOU like.

The watch snob is indeed entertaining, and +1 he refers people here. As for the good advice, I dont know enough about watches to be able to tell if its entirely sound.


----------



## scuttle (Dec 15, 2008)

*Re: 70% Entertaining, 30% Informatitive*



shera said:


> I think he makes a good point about many Swiss brands in the Swatch group are not even true watchmaker but rather "playing dress-up" since they simply buy mass-produced ETA movements and install them in their pieces.


It's a silly point. Why should anyone care about anything except having the best movement at the best price in their watch?


----------



## TK-421 (Mar 11, 2010)

*Re: 70% Entertaining, 30% Informatitive*



deepcdvr said:


> Pretty decent writer, but he uses the word 'anyways' which is not actually a proper word.. especially for someone who writes for a living. :-s


Anyways is a give away to his common education, now that sounds snobby ,but it is true. A proper teacher, professor, or parent would have broken him of that habit.


----------



## TheWalrus (Mar 16, 2009)

*Re: 70% Entertaining, 30% Informatitive*



TK-421 said:


> Anyways is a give away to his common education, now that sounds snobby ,but it is true. A proper teacher, professor, or parent would have broken him of that habit.


What, exactly, is a "common education"?


----------



## v76 (Dec 29, 2009)

*Re: 70% Entertaining, 30% Informatitive*

A common education and an uncommonly good time to be had by all :-d

Does "common" carry a hint of condescension in its tenor? ;-)


----------



## TheWalrus (Mar 16, 2009)

*Re: 70% Entertaining, 30% Informatitive*



v76 said:


> A common education and an uncommonly good time to be had by all :-d
> 
> Does "common" carry a hint of condescension in its tenor? ;-)


What can I say... I'm an egalitarian at heart. |>


----------



## v76 (Dec 29, 2009)

*Re: 70% Entertaining, 30% Informatitive*

I admire egalitarians! I fancy myself to be one too ...


----------



## toxicavenger (May 23, 2009)

He sounds like the Adam Carolla of watches.


----------



## cottontop (Oct 8, 2009)

*Re: 70% Entertaining, 30% Informatitive*



Chronopolis said:


> Snobbery or not, a brilliant writer !


He might be a brilliant writer, but his grammar is bad.
cottontop


----------



## TK-421 (Mar 11, 2010)

*Re: 70% Entertaining, 30% Informatitive*

:-!


TheWalrus said:


> What, exactly, is a "common education"?


It means average, mediocre, simple, et cetera et cetera. it has nothing to do with class, (as i think you are implying) it has to do with quality. My public high school offered Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Italian, Spanish, German, French, and Chinese. The school had all types of people from all social classes. my education was not common. My teachers would not have allowed to speak nor write "anyways". The fact that he still does uses bad grammar tells me he is a blowhard with little experience. He thinks he is smarter than he really is. AnYways, that's all I meanted :-!


----------



## carpevicis (Feb 20, 2010)

It sounds like this Watch Snob is entirely anti-'PC', in which case, I think I will love him!lol Next chance I get, I'm gonna look him up, thanks all for the heads up:-!

p.s. Just because a writer used bad grammar, doesn't mean he isn't educated, perhaps it was done on purpose, as a way of conveying a 'gritty' feel....


----------



## Chronopolis (Apr 8, 2009)

carpevicis said:


> It sounds like this Watch Snob is entirely anti-'PC', in which case, I think I will love him!lol Next chance I get, I'm gonna look him up, thanks all for the heads up:-!
> 
> p.s. Just because a writer used bad grammar, doesn't mean he isn't educated, perhaps it was done on purpose, as a way of conveying a 'gritty' feel....


I agree entirely. If anything, his deliberate (mis)use of the colloquial indicates a confident command of (the English) language. I have never seen him make a glaring grammatical error. It is his "tone", sense of timing, and wit - when he is humorously insulting - that testifies to his quality as a "brilliant" writer. If he's American, then he prolly (probably) studied early literature or history. Possibly Ivy League educated. Otherwise, I'd take him at his word that he is British. His level of contumely (real or feigned) seems genuinely British.
That is why I do not think there is a "team" of writers blogging as Watch Snob.


----------



## TK-421 (Mar 11, 2010)

Chronopolis said:


> I agree entirely. If anything, his deliberate (mis)use of the colloquial indicates a confident command of (the English) language. I have never seen him make a glaring grammatical error. It is his "tone", sense of timing, and wit - when he is humorously insulting - that testifies to his quality as a "brilliant" writer. If he's American, then he prolly (probably) studied early literature or history. Possibly Ivy League educated. Otherwise, I'd take him at his word that he is British. His level of contumely (real or feigned) seems genuinely British.
> That is why I do not think there is a "team" of writers blogging as Watch Snob.


This could be true. This is called reverse snobbery. Reverse snobbery is when an affluent member of society, whether that is financially affluent or intellectually affluent, tries to act simpler than they are.

New money wants to be treated like they're rich; old money wants to be treated like a normal person. They hide it.

This guy probably has an english degree from harvard!:-d


----------



## scuttle (Dec 15, 2008)

*Re: 70% Entertaining, 30% Informatitive*



TK-421 said:


> :-!
> 
> It means average, mediocre, simple, et cetera et cetera. it has nothing to do with class, (as i think you are implying) it has to do with quality. My public high school offered Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Italian, Spanish, German, French, and Chinese. The school had all types of people from all social classes. my education was not common. My teachers would not have allowed to speak nor write "anyways".


However, said teachers failed to teach you about ***irony***. An Englishman would never use "anyways" colloquially no matter how "common" his education, and even if the WS isn't English his imitation is too good for him to make such a glaring mistake. You should imagine him saying "anyways" in a false American accent and/or with particular emphasis...


----------



## scuttle (Dec 15, 2008)

TK-421 said:


> This could be true. This is called reverse snobbery. Reverse snobbery is when an affluent member of society, whether that is financially affluent or intellectually affluent, tries to act simpler than they are.


This is both patronizing and incorrect. Reverse snobbery is the act of claiming lower social status than one's own. Social status and complexity/sophistication are not synonymous - a middle class university professor will almost certainly be less simple than that inbred clan of shootin', ridin' and fishin' types, the Windsors. Aka the Clampetts of London.

And "financially affluent" is a tautology.


----------



## TK-421 (Mar 11, 2010)

scuttle said:


> This is both patronizing and incorrect. Reverse snobbery is the act of claiming lower social status than one's own. Social status and complexity/sophistication are not synonymous - a middle class university professor will almost certainly be less simple than that inbred clan of shootin', ridin' and fishin' types, the Windsors. Aka the Clampetts of London.
> 
> And "financially affluent" is a tautology.


I thought that is what I said? George W was a reverse snob while at harvard. He wore cowboy boots and chewed tobacco at an elite school trying to be an everyday man. When in fact his father and grandfather were both congressman.

I am not trying to argue, but how was it patronizing?:-!


----------



## TK-421 (Mar 11, 2010)

scuttle said:


> This is both patronizing and incorrect. Reverse snobbery is the act of claiming lower social status than one's own. Social status and complexity/sophistication are not synonymous - a middle class university professor will almost certainly be less simple than that inbred clan of shootin', ridin' and fishin' types, the Windsors. Aka the Clampetts of London.
> 
> And "financially affluent" is a tautology.


Right. Financially rich would have been a better choice of words. :-d


----------



## ClarkJ (Jun 17, 2010)

*Askmen's Watch Snob*

Hey guys,
I was wondering what your opinions are of askmen.com's watch snob column. 
Personally I think that he doesn't really understand tastes other than his own (e.g. bashing panerai, certain omegas, breitling) but is very funny in terns of making fun of people. What do you think of his actual advice?

Clark


----------



## AndrewSo (Mar 1, 2010)

*Re: Askmen's Watch Snob*

There is a previous discussion about this column.
https://www.watchuseek.com/showthread.php?t=387681&

As a satirical writer, he manages to balance being informative as well as provocative but one gets the sense that this man truly loves watches.


----------



## ClarkJ (Jun 17, 2010)

*Re: Askmen's Watch Snob*

Thanks, too lazy to search before posting

He is a little like jeremey clarkson


----------



## TheWalrus (Mar 16, 2009)

*Re: Askmen's Watch Snob*



ClarkJ said:


> Hey guys,
> I was wondering what your opinions are of askmen.com's watch snob column.
> Personally I think that he doesn't really understand tastes other than his own (e.g. bashing panerai, certain omegas, breitling) but is very funny in terns of making fun of people. What do you think of his actual advice?
> 
> Clark


On here if a subject has been discussed once, ever, it's quite the taboo to bring it up again. One of those charming quirks boards seem to develop over time.

As to the watch snob - you have to take Askmen.com for what it is - an advertising website. Everything on there is bought and paid for. His positions as much as the ads, I'm sure. I used to frequent the site, but eventually the number of grains of salt I had to take with each opinion threw my sodium intake all out of wack and I stopped visiting entirely You'll find much more thorough and interesting perspectives on here.


----------



## interested_party (Jul 2, 2009)

*Re: Askmen's Watch Snob*

He reminds me a of a radio shock jock.


----------



## crazyfingers (Jun 3, 2009)

*Re: Askmen's Watch Snob*

Its always fun to read his replies :-d


----------



## WatchFiend1 (Jun 3, 2010)

mr00jimbo said:


> Some of the stuff he says is absolutely asinine, but hopefully it's just joking.
> I would never judge somebody on the price of their watch, or think they're inferior in any way for it. I thought being a watch enthusiast was about appreciating the time pieces, not the price tags attached.


agreed. I read his articles and take them for what they are. I dont need an article to tell me what to buy. I buy what I like.

besides he contradicts himself so much. One minute he bashes something the next he loves it.


----------



## StufflerMike (Mar 23, 2010)

*Re: Askmen's Watch Snob*

Two threads merged.


----------



## H3O+ (May 23, 2009)

He's recommending a Prometheus. Seems to be decent advice...



> _*Watch Snob,
> 
> Are there any decent introductory (i.e. under $1,500) dive-style watches? Oris seems like it makes a reasonably priced model that is not too aesthetically offensive. All I want is a non-embarrassing watch that will look good with a NATO strap until I can afford a Rolex or IWC.*_
> 
> The short answer is no. And I am a firm believer in _not _spending money on a watch between $1,000 and $3,500; there just isn't anything in that range really worthwhile. Buy something cheap but reliable, something like the Prometheus Ocean Diver (around $500), and save up for a Rolex Submariner or an IWC Portuguese down the road. You'll be much happier in the end -- trust the Snob on this one.


----------



## str8flexed (Mar 25, 2008)

*Re: 70% Entertaining, 30% Informatitive*



GarageBoy said:


> He reminds me of the bike snob


You ride a fixie? :-!


----------



## str8flexed (Mar 25, 2008)

*Re: 70% Entertaining, 30% Informatitive*

_*From Watch Snob:

Just wondering, what is the best way to sell a watch? I have a Breitling Superocean that is a tad garish for my taste, so naturally I'd like to get the best price for it.*_

A noble effort indeed, as the only model from this company worth owning made in the last 30 years is the Breitling Navitimer and its descendants.

Selling a timepiece is easy; selling a timepiece and getting a fair price is anything but. Forget those mall jewelry stores because they know how to rip you off.* Your best bet is to join the global watch nerdery and sell it on a forum such as WatchUSeek.com. * True, eBay is a surprisingly effective method of selling a watch too, as is Craigslist. However, be wary of local pickups, as these have led to a rash of armed robberies involving forums and high-end watches. See, the Watch Snob does care about you.


----------



## Choclatay (Aug 11, 2011)

publandlord said:


> On another forum he's known as the "Watch Cock". He knows horology, or rather, he knows how to read brochures and scour the interweb. Part of the schtick is to offend and insult with his prejudice and he (actually it's probably a "they") does that very well, although anyone going to a website called askmen.com for advice deserves everything they get .


That sums it up very well.


----------



## cedargrove (Mar 10, 2011)

*Re: 70% Entertaining, 30% Informatitive*

I like his articles and look forward to them every week - very entertaining. If you acknowledge that he is writing from the standpoint of a 'snob' he is credible. Sort of like a stand-up comedian - at some point everyone is bound to get insulted, but there is usually a kernel of truth.


----------



## panamamike (Nov 19, 2009)

TRW Motorsport said:


> My roommate showed me "The Watch Snob" at Askmen.com
> 
> Besides the fact that the guy is a complete f*ck, is he credible?
> 
> ...


Yes, he/they are credible. They take a very slanted view on watches, thus the watch snob name.
It's mostly tongue-in-cheek humor.

Mike


----------



## Token (Jul 23, 2006)

Assuming the Watch Snob is a real person, rather than an advertising persona for some very high-end watches....well, he's entitled to his opinions. I doubt if one in a thousand people reading his stuff will ever buy any watch that costs more than $1000...watches he regards as disposable junk. He feels that 'good' watches start at a $5000 level, and even few of them are worth the money.

However, if I was A] a wealthy gentleman of leisure; B] a serious hands-on student and connoisseur of fine horology; C] possessed with a very high opinion of my own good taste...perhaps I'd feel the same way. There's no doubt that that watches he regularly praises are very fine pieces, and he's quite right in saying that quite a few lower-end 'luxury' watches with more-or-less stock ETA movements aren't worth anything like their price [IMHO].

In my own case, I can't afford to buy watches costing many thousands of dollars and I find lots of 'low end' watches just as pleasurable and useful to own. I LIKE my little collection and I don't really aspire to anything more. Perhaps I could save for a year or two and buy something amazing, but my wife would be very unhappy and every time I looked at that magnificent watch, I'd also see a dozen or more things I'd value just as much, or more, that I passed up for it. That's _my_ life, and I'm quite satisfied with it.


----------



## gouverneur (Jun 7, 2012)

Yeah, you definitely have to take the Watch Snob with a grain of salt. That being said, I do think some of his opinions are right on the mark, and our aesthetic sensibilities happen to mesh well (his distaste for the bloated chunks of steel from Panerai and U-Boat is right in line with my opinion), so I try to take the time to read his column from week to week.

With that being said, he does disdain some watches (Omega, IWC) in a less than justified way, and goes out of the way to trash ETA movements (even modified/re-built and finely finished ones, like IWC) in a way that's a bit too extreme. The problem with a generic ETA movement is not its quality -- ETAs are universally chosen because they are well-designed, accurate, and durable -- but because some companies charge you $3k for an ETA watch just because they have to pay their advertising budget. And on the other hand, the virtue of an in-house movement is not its inherent "in-house-ness" but rather knowing that a craftsman devoted thought and effort to it -- which you get from an IWC where half of the ETA base is re-made and then there is excellent finishing added on top. Same with a Dornbluth & Sohn's treatment of a Unitas movement. Those watches really are worth the $5k+ price tag even though they have a "stock" movement.


----------



## vanilla.coffee (Feb 27, 2011)

I can't remember where I read/heard that the watch snob is Tom Bolt.
Not sure if that is indeed correct information though.


----------



## agong (Feb 7, 2012)

vanilla.coffee said:


> I can't remember where I read/heard that the watch snob is Tom Bolt.
> Not sure if that is indeed correct information though.


If you're referring to Tom Bolt, Dunhill's watch designer, I doubt he is the watch snob. If I'm not wrong I remembered the watch snob 'disapproving' of Dunhill, labelling it as overpriced.

Whoever that guy is, he keeps me entertained. I will consider all he says as purely for entertainment. Of course except when he is quoting facts.

There are loads of watch snobs in the world. But ppl are usually silent about their snobbery, except for this guy, because he is paid for it. Of course imagine how badly he want his identity to be anonymous for as long as he lives..

I really disapprove watch snobs for being snobbish about their watches or wealth. But if it's just for entertainment sake, why not??

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## BrentYYC (Feb 2, 2012)

Personally, I'm 99.9% sure the Watch Snob is 'Mr. Warmth', Don Rickles.


----------



## TK-421 (Mar 11, 2010)

the watch snob is british, canadian, or bermudan. those would be my guesses. here are a few comments from him. quite entertaining.

RGM Watches - AskMen


----------



## TK-421 (Mar 11, 2010)

question from a Watch Knob_*What's the deal with different watches having different straps on them? Why are some metal, some leather and some rubber?

This question makes me regret warning you of looming physical violence in the previous response. Are you really asking me this question? The deal is that different watches are designed for different things. You wouldn't put a leather strap on a diving watch, would you? Well actually, maybe you would. Generally speaking, a leather strap is dressier, a rubber strap is sportier and a metal bracelet is somewhere in between. There are certainly exceptions to the rule, but there you have it, the answer to your question. Now go back to living your life, undoubtedly as a virgin.

Read more: Watch Snob: Q&A - AskMen*_


----------



## Koshyk (Sep 9, 2012)

He can be harsh, but down to the nitty gritty he knows his stuff. Also seems pretty up to date. On top of that, as a faithful reader (not that I idolize him) it comes down to the simple fact of what it is. It's strictly his opinion. Some of it I agree with, some I don't. Yes I do agree that the submariner is beyond boring (every doctor, lawyer,chiropractor,dentist and desk diver owns one). Some things I dont. I read it for what it is, His opinion; and occasionally learn something.


----------



## jtstav (Jul 11, 2010)

It's all satire. Some folks seem to get offended by his attitude but it's like going to a comedy show and taking what the comedian says personally. I just laugh at his articles when I read them because thats what they're for!


----------



## Atoning Unifex (Aug 21, 2012)

I find the WaS quite amusing. He is potentially offensive if you are looking for affirmation of your own tastes, but I would read it just as light entertainment.


----------



## eple (Jun 1, 2011)

jtstav said:


> It's all satire. Some folks seem to get offended by his attitude but it's like going to a comedy show and taking what the comedian says personally. I just laugh at his articles when I read them because thats what they're for!


This is exactly how I read his column too; comedic value.


----------



## hydrocarbon (Aug 18, 2008)

TK-421 said:


> the watch snob is british, canadian, or bermudan. those would be my guesses. here are a few comments from him. quite entertaining.


He uses Amercian spelling and colloquialisms, even on the UK version of the site, so that's unlikely.

A normal person would be far better served by reading The Watch Snob than listening to a typical brand-tribalist watch forum member. Quite a few seem to be fairly new to the whole "watch" thing, and have far more enthusiasm and defensiveness for their new toys than perspective and general knowledge.

Also, I find that the people take the most offence to the broad generalizations used in the column are those who most strongly embody the stereotype themselves. Here's a perfect example:



watchsnob said:


> Do you ever wonder why I so rarely discuss Seiko in this column? Because it's boring. Having said that, I now fully expect a barrage of hate mail pointing out the parallels between Japanese watchmaking to fine swordmaking, as well as my past praise for some of Seiko's watches. Most of this mail will come from the Seiko faithful, a group akin to science fiction aficionados in their fervor and tastes.


This recent thread amply demonstrates how spot-on that assessment is. There are more than a few gems like that, which makes the over-the-top posturing and the affectatious writing tone a lot easier to bear. Besides, it's not meant to be taken literally. People who take themselves too seriously are exactly the same ones who take tongue-in-cheek writing too seriously, and fail to get the prank.


----------



## ArneHR (May 27, 2008)

Is this the same guy?

What Does Your Watch Say About You? Part 6 - Omega Seamaster Rolex Submariner - YouTube

I thought this was really funny, even as an Omega collector.


----------



## hydrocarbon (Aug 18, 2008)

ArneHR said:


> Is this the same guy?
> 
> What Does Your Watch Say About You? Part 6 - Omega Seamaster Rolex Submariner - YouTube
> 
> I thought this was really funny, even as an Omega collector.


Nah, Archie is not nearly as witty as TWS. I don't mind listening to the occasional rant, but he's a like a very low-rent imitation. TWS is far from being an exceptionally brilliant writer, but he's a lot more articulate than Archie is.

I definitely get a laugh out of Archie as well, but he's basically Eric Cartman with an Aussie accent:


----------



## akasnowmaaan (Jan 15, 2012)

jtstav said:


> It's all satire. Some folks seem to get offended by his attitude but it's like going to a comedy show and taking what the comedian says personally. I just laugh at his articles when I read them because thats what they're for!


And, the reason it's such great comedy is there's a thread of truth that winds through everything he says and does...which is then stretched as far as necessary to get a laugh. Or a dark, bitter chuckle.


----------



## Chronopolis (Apr 8, 2009)

akasnowmaaan said:


> And, the reason it's such great comedy is* there's a thread of truth* that winds through everything he says and does...which is then stretched as far as necessary to get a laugh. Or a dark, bitter chuckle.


True that.
I am a bit (but only a bit) surprised at people's reaction to this WS persona - going so far as to write off everything he says as (mere, or "pure") comedy, etc.
Maybe people can't digest comedy with truth*?
* - "Truth" in this case is of course 'learned' opinion, so while not scientifically verifiable kind of Truth, it's not exactly "just an opinion" either - of the kind that has the value of a hole that we all have and use for excreting. 
Kinda like how a professional golfer might have an opinion about the layout of a new golf course, and it turns to be way more useful than the opinion spouted by, say, me, a non-golfer, who cannot tell the functional difference between a 7 iron and a wood.

The venue for the Snob is a magazine: it exists as a business entity to be read. So it has to entertain. But without utility value also, the column would wither. Watches or put-downs are funny only for so long.

I myself find myself agreeing with the WS 90+% of the time, the most salient point that he repeatedly makes being: watches costing between $1,500 - 3,500 are in a dead zone, strictly horologically speaking. They may look pretty, which is great, but in terms of horologcal VALUE, they're no better than those that are much more affordable. So he's saying, be sober about this fact: you're paying for just more bells and whistles, NOT real horological prowess. Hence, the slam on watches like B&R, etc. Absolutely justified.

The REAL difference in technology and finish begins to show up only AFTER you cross the $3,500 line.
Which is NOT to say, once you pay more, you will automatically get that difference. Ripoffs do occur, occasionally in this business, I hear. Ehem!

So, he rightly opines, that one would be better served - horologically and "social standing"-wise - to buy something above that line, or just be sensible and buy one of the many brands and models under $800. And he - let's be fair - recommends plenty of those affordable models without being sarcastic or snarky.
I myself independently reached the same conclusion as the WS, and so avoid the dead-zone watches, only bcz they are "too expensive" for me - unless I can get them at seller's price. Otherwise, no-go.

As for Seikos being "boring"? Now there, that's subjective, and one can take it or leave it. So he's a Swissophile, so what? 
I myself own many Seikos, and the ones I DO love, I love those to death, BUT!... but I too find most of Seikos to be horribly dull dull dull. 
The few that get my attention (and devotion) are still far too few, given how many models they churn out. 
I have had much better success ratio (of brand-models to likability) among Swiss and German brands. 
So, again, I cannot fault him so saying his piece as bluntly as he did.

I guess, I am saying: I think a lot like this guy. :-! b-)
Now if I just had his kind of money... :think:


----------



## cs12 (Aug 19, 2012)

I guess it comes down to if your the sort of person who needs advice about what to buy and wear.

Nothing wrong with this but personally I have always worn stuff I liked and not worried if others dont like it.


----------



## Robbi Laurenson (Jul 17, 2012)

Great response. I've been watching this thread with interest as I'm a relative noob and I ran across the Snob a little while back. I came away feeling that alongside the lampooning of willing idiots, there was some vein of validity in what he was saying. All within the tolerances of opinion, as above.

I do get almost manically involved in research when I get absorbed in a subject, so I'm feeling after a couple of months the Snob doesn't have many gems left to offer that I can't find myself, but I still get entertained by his column.


----------



## hydrocarbon (Aug 18, 2008)

cs12 said:


> I guess it comes down to if your the sort of person who needs advice about what to buy and wear.
> Nothing wrong with this but personally I have always worn stuff I liked and not worried if others dont like it.


Precisely. Some people need help selecting their own undergarments. I happen to agree with TWS on most points, but I choose things for my own reasons, not anyone else's. I enjoy general-knowledge topics, rather than the "what watch should I buy?" ones.



Robbi Laurenson said:


> Great response. I've been watching this thread with interest as I'm a relative noob and I ran across the Snob a little while back. I came away feeling that alongside the lampooning of willing idiots, there was some vein of validity in what he was saying. All within the tolerances of opinion, as above.
> I do get almost manically involved in research when I get absorbed in a subject, so I'm feeling after a couple of months the Snob doesn't have many gems left to offer that I can't find myself, but I still get entertained by his column.


Exactly. A valuable thing about an opinion that's separated from the echo chamber of a forum is that you get some outside perspective, and the discussion isn't dominated by folks with little else to do but pad their post counts.


----------



## eple (Jun 1, 2011)

I'd say Archie Luxury is kinda like the low rent version of Jeremy Clarkson, the Snob is a little more witty with his humour.

I found the video posted above hilarious, and I'm wearing my sub! People are entitled to their opinion, so let them be.

However, I actually like this review the best: Rolex Submariner vs Omega Seamaster - THE CLASSIC DUEL on watchTV! - YouTube


----------



## watchRus (Feb 13, 2012)

Well, The Watch Snob is American...
_Normally, of your two watch choices, I would recommend the Breitling (*I need to wash my mouth out with soap after saying that*) due to its well-done classic aesthetics and admirable in-house chronograph calibre._​
Read more: AskMen
​


----------



## Sea-Wolf (May 10, 2011)

Watchsnob? More like Howard Stern, taking the "shock jock" format to the Internet and restricting the subject of discussion to watches. For non-North Americans, Stern was a radio "shock jock" who basically enjoyed shocking listeners with his controversial views on various subjects, angering listeners. Turns out that, the more insulting he was, the more he angered listeners, the more those angered listeners listened. Rather than turn off their radios, many stayed tuned in to see just how far he would go. And he became syndicated in turn. When it comes to the Snob, many (myself included) believe there's more than one writing under that same pen name, most likely coming here for their research, and one (or more) seems to have had his/her/their nose bloodied on a watch board, probably here. See: https://www.watchuseek.com/f2/askmens-watch-snob-officially-troll-master-533412-5.html

I do not subscribe to Askmen nor am I an avid reader of that blog, but I have read a few columns and apart from saying that the accent is interesting (heard it before, oh yes, Brooklyn ), it is a blog for entertainment purposes (much like Stern), and to be taken with a grain of salt.

Cheers


----------



## hydrocarbon (Aug 18, 2008)

Sea-Wolf said:


> Watchsnob? More like Howard Stern, taking the "shock jock" format to the Internet and restricting the subject of discussion to watches. _[...]_ I have read a few columns and apart from saying that the accent is interesting (heard it before, oh yes, Brooklyn ), it is a blog for entertainment purposes (much like Stern), and to be taken with a grain of salt.
> 
> Cheers


This is generally correct; there's definitely an element of using a controversial tone to get an audience. I'm not sure about the Howard Stern comparison, though. There is little to be learned from Stern's puerile obsessions, but TWS is usually right on the money regarding watches. If anything, it's a much more efficient and entertaining way to get one's bearings with watches than sifting through a forum.

I also doubt somewhat that the writer(s) do any "research" here. After all, there's no enthusiastic gushing about Chinese micro-brands or defensive polemic about how ETA movements are "just as good" as top _manufacture_ ones, and there's a distinct lack of Omega cheerleading. The spot-on comment about Seiko fans shows that there might be occasional reconnaissance visits, though. 

But yes, with grain of salt or two, it's an entertaining diversion for anyone who doesn't take himself too seriously. And I'd bet heavily that you're correct about the NYC origin.


----------



## Hector Fdez (Sep 1, 2012)

cs12 said:


> I guess it comes down to if your the sort of person who needs advice about what to buy and wear.
> 
> Nothing wrong with this but personally I have always worn stuff I liked and not worried if others dont like it.


Amen!


----------



## chilly41 (Feb 4, 2010)

I found this particular response hilarious!
_*
I met a guy at a party who was wearing a Patek Philippe watch. He acted all superior to me because I was wearing a U-Boat, a watch that I think is very cool, and was pretty expensive to boot. What's the deal with that?

The deal with that is he is superior to you. Let me try to imagine the scene. You were wearing Diesel jeans, square-toe Kenneth Cole Shoes and a striped American Eagle button-up with a piece of cheese hanging off your lip? He was wearing gray wool pants from Zegna, shoes from John Lobb and a Ralph Lauren Purple Label V-neck with a professional salsa dancer on his arm, right? This person you are mentioning understands that luxury is about tradition and precision, not about showboating and attracting attention to yourself. Patek Philippe make some of the best watches in the world, U-Boat doesn't come close. Get some class and put away the little boy's watch -- you look foolish.

Read more: Ask The Watch Snob - AskMen*_


----------



## westlake (Oct 10, 2011)

His delivery is masterfully over-done and demeaning, but his facts are accurate and what he is trying to convey is spot-on. Not really a fan of AskMen.com, but I do enjoy reading the Snob’s section and eagerly look forward to his new missives.


----------



## watchRus (Feb 13, 2012)

westlake said:


> His delivery is masterfully over-done and demeaning, but his facts are accurate and what he is trying to convey is spot-on. Not really a fan of AskMen.com, but I do enjoy reading the Snob's section and eagerly look forward to his new missives.


How do you find of his miniaturization of Panerai owners, you included?


----------



## westlake (Oct 10, 2011)

watchRus said:


> How do you find of his miniaturization of Panerai owners, you included?


I collect Panerai watches for the breadth of styles, limited production and attractive resale values as much as anything else - but I have no illusions as to their horological significance, which is somewhat cconsistent with his view of the brand. My purchase of other watches/brands tends to adhere much closer to his general philosophy/perspective on watches.


----------



## watchRus (Feb 13, 2012)

westlake said:


> I collect Panerai watches for the breadth of styles, limited production and attractive resale values as much as anything else - but I have no illusions as to their horological significance, which is somewhat cconsistent with his view of the brand. My purchase of other watches/brands tends to adhere much closer to his general philosophy/perspective on watches.


Thanks for your response.


----------



## Hector Fdez (Sep 1, 2012)

chilly41 said:


> I found this particular response hilarious!
> 
> I met a guy at a party who was wearing a Patek Philippe watch. He acted all superior to me because I was wearing a U-Boat, a watch that I think is very cool, and was pretty expensive to boot. What&#146;s the deal with that?
> 
> ...


Awesome!


----------



## hydrocarbon (Aug 18, 2008)

westlake said:


> I collect Panerai watches for the breadth of styles, limited production and attractive resale values as much as anything else - but I have no illusions as to their horological significance, which is somewhat cconsistent with his view of the brand. My purchase of other watches/brands tends to adhere much closer to his general philosophy/perspective on watches.


Good answer! That's one of the healthiest attitudes I've encountered on a watch forum. And I mean that in a literal sense as well; I always picture those who get livid when there's some criticism of their pet brands as high-risk candidates for coronary problems and ulcers.

This is one of the best posts I've come across in a long time, and it's worth repeating. It applies to a lot of things in life, not just a particular brand:



> If you're going to have a heart-attack everytime someone critizices Seiko you're not gonna live for long. Cheer up and revel in your "enlightenment" while the rest of us enjoy watches that actually look good.


Amen.


----------



## westlake (Oct 10, 2011)

hydrocarbon said:


> Good answer! That's one of the healthiest attitudes I've encountered on a watch forum. And I mean that in a literal sense as well; I always picture those who get livid when there's some criticism of their pet brands as high-risk candidates for coronary problems and ulcers.
> 
> This is one of the best posts I've come across in a long time, and it's worth repeating. It applies to a lot of things in life, not just a particular brand:
> 
> Amen.


I worry/stress over job, family and maybe some issues affecting world peace, climate, etc. A cool head in discussions about watches helps balance that equation.


----------



## VoiceOfSticks (Jan 21, 2010)

Entertaining, but for real watch advice I come to Watchuseek.


----------



## Galactic Sushiman (Dec 3, 2012)

What do you guys think of the twitter account? It seems unlikely to be handled by the same guy(s), I mean, would the Watch Snob follow the Kaiser Cheif guitarist, Muse and Ricky Gervais????

Not what I expected...


----------



## jorgevale (Aug 1, 2013)

I don't like this because he is bias i remembered him saying that ebel it's not worth buying are you kidding me? They make their own movements and the quality is up there with rolex or zenith


----------



## Orsoni (Jun 30, 2013)

I thought the Jeremy Clarkson analogy by a poster was fairly on the mark


----------



## manofrolex (Jul 9, 2012)

what do you expect from someone named the watchsnob? it should be self explanatory. he probably is a snob all around but his writing style is there to upset and make anyone that cannot spend 20 grand on a watch inferior. not sure what writing blogs and internet articles bring in mula wise but I sure doubt it is a massively impressive sum of dineros. So while it is easy to criticize everyone on the planet for buying sub par automatic watches it is a heck of a lot harder to earn the dollar to reward oneself with a timeless piece.


----------



## lafish (Mar 11, 2013)

I think he's funny. No more, no less. Just entertainment.


----------



## srvwus (Aug 9, 2012)

I agree that he is funny and once you get past some of the snobbish verbiage, I think his general philosophy is reasonable. Anything under $1000, get what you want because in a few years you'll move on [for some of us a few weeks but that's a whole other problem ]. From the $1000-3500 range or so, you don't get a great value because the watches are a lot of common movements and price is often based on exaggerated history and slick marketing. And I think he feels that if you're spending that much, you are very close to something "horologically significant" and should save and buy something "better." Over $3500 or so, you can get into watches that will have high quality materials and finish, watches that will hold their value more, and be stylish and enjoyable to wear now and ten years from now.

Personally, I'm at the middle stage where I am eyeing some automatic chronographs and see that I can get entry level ones like Tissot and Hamilton that look very nice and are around the $1000 mark. But I also see Longines and others around the $2000 mark that look so much nicer. Then for 2-4 times as much, I can get into a lot of the "iconic" chronographs like a Speedmaster, El Primero, etc. Slippery slope.


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

He certainly works from the corner of hyperbole BUT a person that only wore watches he recommends within the parameters he sets would never commit a watch faux pas, IMHO.


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

^^^^^ Agree with the last two posts. He certainly plays the role of "snob", but it's so hard to argue against any of the points he makes, too.


----------



## movet22 (Jun 12, 2011)

I would never say you should base a collection or opinions solely around his tutelage, but I have been reading him for a while now and I have to say, a lot of his points are door openers for me to get into some of the more in depth research that has driven my collection.

There are indeed some things I have read that are beyond obnoxious, and some things that I disagree with (If you count vintage, I can find loads of horologically significant watches in his much-loathed 1k-3k range). But I also agree with some of the thoughts. The overarching theme of my collection was derived from that column- but I must stress that derived does not mean I take those words for gospel.

*If you are upset because an anonymous internet persona doesn't like our brand of choice, you are doing it wrong. *

Also, I think it is worth mentioning that whoever is writing that column, it is (a) probably not just one person and (b) adds a nice touch of satire as well.


----------



## Fi33pop (Aug 5, 2013)

I think his taste is stuck in the 70s. He goes on and on about the AP RO and the Nautilus. C'mon, the 70s are over.


----------



## Sassicaia (Jan 27, 2013)

Personally I think the original watch snob writer is no more. Someone much less entertaining is writing the articles. I for one agree with a many things he writes about. His attitude is the ONLY thing that makes me go back to read.

That said, last weeks article was the nail in the coffin to make believe its no longer the same guy, but rather a vaginized version.


----------



## Charlie Music Fan (Oct 26, 2013)

Token said:


> Assuming the Watch Snob is a real person, rather than an advertising persona for some very high-end watches....well, he's entitled to his opinions. I doubt if one in a thousand people reading his stuff will ever buy any watch that costs more than $1000...watches he regards as disposable junk. He feels that 'good' watches start at a $5000 level, and even few of them are worth the money.
> 
> However, if I was A] a wealthy gentleman of leisure; B] a serious hands-on student and connoisseur of fine horology; C] possessed with a very high opinion of my own good taste...perhaps I'd feel the same way. There's no doubt that that watches he regularly praises are very fine pieces, and he's quite right in saying that quite a few lower-end 'luxury' watches with more-or-less stock ETA movements aren't worth anything like their price [IMHO].
> 
> In my own case, I can't afford to buy watches costing many thousands of dollars and I find lots of 'low end' watches just as pleasurable and useful to own. I LIKE my little collection and I don't really aspire to anything more. Perhaps I could save for a year or two and buy something amazing, but my wife would be very unhappy and every time I looked at that magnificent watch, I'd also see a dozen or more things I'd value just as much, or more, that I passed up for it. That's _my_ life, and I'm quite satisfied with it.


This is me EXACTLY! You couldn't have said it better!

I love reading *Watch Snob *for the comedy he offers and while he has excellent taste his income obviously allows him to indulge himself. If you take him too seriously you'll get pissed off. As much as some of the Snob's favotites are gorgeous pieces I will never spend that much on a watch unless I hit a few million on the lottery. Just don't let him convince you that you shouldn't buy something for a grand if that's the price point you feel most comfortable spending. We all know you can still get a fine watch in that price range.


----------



## alx007 (Jan 28, 2013)

I think he's funny. But as someone pointed out, he toned down a little bit lately. I miss the good old snob - especially his responses to watch knobs!


----------



## Galactic Sushiman (Dec 3, 2012)

Nobody with a friend at askmen to uncover the mystery? (actually I think the website is from Montreal, I will look it up). I quite agree with you guys, the snob who was deliciously scornful is no more, I want him back


----------



## Robotaz (Jan 18, 2012)

That article has an avatar for The Snob and it's another writer at that site. I don't know if it's incorrectly linked to that writer or what.


----------



## emmanuelgoldstein (Dec 26, 2009)

alx007 said:


> I think he's funny. But as someone pointed out, he toned down a little bit lately. I miss the good old snob - especially his responses to watch knobs!


I miss the old Watch Snob. A lot has changed with the makeover of askmen.com. It's a shame the Snob has grown boring.

Sent from my Lumia 1020 using Tapatalk.


----------



## alx007 (Jan 28, 2013)

emmanuelgoldstein said:


> I miss the old Watch Snob. A lot has changed with the makeover of askmen.com. It's a shame the Snob has grown boring.
> 
> Sent from my Lumia 1020 using Tapatalk.


Is it OK to say that the revamp of the site was also terrible? I hate the new navigation.


----------



## Totoro66 (Oct 26, 2013)

His articles are useful and interesting, but should be taken with a grain of salt since he is clearing getting paid for endorsements of particular brands and products.


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

Totoro66 said:


> His articles are useful and interesting, but should be taken with a grain of salt since he is clearing getting paid for endorsements of particular brands and products.


I don't think that was remotely the case. Look at it this way: make a list of the brands he touted, remove from that list the brands he also bashed a significant portion of their product line, now with the very short list left identify where else that brand has used similar internet marketing tactics. My guess you will end up with a short list of exactly zero brands. The old school Huate Horology brands which he showed affection for have the least effective (read non-existent) internet marketing. Having read most of his articles I would say their is a very small chance he was shilling.


----------



## Au Hasard Balthazar (Feb 18, 2013)

I think it depends who is writing these columns at a given time. Some writers are more interested in providing information while other love to be snarky. The snob varies from dry humor to an over-the-top snobbish persona straight out of an 80's slobs vs snobs comedy. Based on changes in tone and writing style each person on the staff writes one or more watch snob columns before passing the torch. Just look to see who was writing watch reviews when a given column was written and you can pretty much pick out who was the snob for that week. I assume it gives writers/blog posters some chance to blow off some steam and write something other than typical puff pieces.


----------



## Charlie Music Fan (Oct 26, 2013)

I'm sure many of you have seen this You Tube video about who is Watch Snob but just in case you haven't here it is.

Who's The Watch Snob? - YouTube


----------



## hanzo (Feb 24, 2012)

Charlie Music Fan said:


> I'm sure many of you have seen this You Tube video about who is Watch Snob but just in cas you haven't her it is.
> 
> Who's The Watch Snob? - YouTube


I bet he is friend of the Stig :-d


----------



## PJR (Apr 25, 2012)

The Watch Snob is a very intelligent and informed commentator on watches. He is both insightful and inciting. The world of horology would be a lesser place without him.


----------



## Sassicaia (Jan 27, 2013)

The current watch snob is merely a vaginized version of the original. I have tried to find contact info to complain to the site, but I cant seem to find any contact info on askmen...not even general contact info. Has anyone else been able too? The real watch snob should start his own blog. Screw askmen. That site gives no useful information for men. FYI, for anyone wanting truly useful information for men listen to Tom Lykis.

The Tom Leykis Show


----------



## Mike_Dowling (May 4, 2013)

His advice is terrible most of the time. Someone will ask advice and his recommendations are almost almost ten times the guys budget. "You want a Longines? Swatch is garbage, take a look at A Lange and Sohne for a truly classic design".

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk


----------



## Stellite (Aug 3, 2011)

chilly41 said:


> I found this particular response hilarious!
> _*
> I met a guy at a party who was wearing a Patek Philippe watch. He acted all superior to me because I was wearing a U-Boat, a watch that I think is very cool, and was pretty expensive to boot. What's the deal with that?
> 
> ...


Well, I love his response. And I agree with it. He's talking class. Even if you don't have the money you can still get something with class, of which Uboat has none. Love it. He may be insulting and I am sure he throws digs in at all types, but then again a real WIS would never ask as we already know, lol. It's all in fun, so people should not take it so seriously


----------



## BadApple (May 8, 2013)

If you want entertaining, try Archie Luxury on You Tube. Serious tool, but funny no less.


----------



## emmanuelgoldstein (Dec 26, 2009)

BadApple said:


> If you want entertaining, try Archie Luxury on You Tube. Serious tool, but funny no less.


I tried listening to Archie but I just couldn't do it.

Sent from my HTCONE using Tapatalk


----------



## Alex_TA (May 7, 2013)

While Archie is the plain ********, this Watch Snob understands a thing or two in watches. More than I or any ordinary man.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

never read anything by either the watchsnob or archie luxury.

as said elsewhere, whereas the latter seems to be the type that a bunch of beer slobs would enjoy, the former seems to be the type that people who insist on calling watches timepieces would enjoy.


----------



## shnjb (May 12, 2009)

Watch snob knows a lot more about watches than most on this forum I think.

Archie is a fat idiot


----------



## DiverBob (May 13, 2007)

TRW Motorsport said:


> My roommate showed me "The Watch Snob" at Askmen.com
> 
> Besides the fact that the guy is a complete f*ck, is he credible?
> 
> ...


I am a "_snob_" snob and that poser that does not qualify. When one is utterly secure, he looks not for consensus or approval. I personally, do not care to perpetuate notions as to what acquisitions convey awesomeness etc. The real qualities are in fact, the intangibles... You either have them, pursue them or accept your fate. No watch on earth, aside from bringing you joy, will ever truly make you anything that you are not.


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

DiverBob said:


> I am a "_snob_" snob and that poser that does not qualify. When one is utterly secure, he looks not for consensus or approval. I personally, do not care to perpetuate notions as to what acquisitions convey awesomeness etc. The real qualities are in fact, the intangibles... You either have them, pursue them or accept your fate. No watch on earth, aside from bringing you joy, will ever truly make you anything that you are not.


If it weren't for the quality of your prose, I'd have said you were secretly Bruce Willis.


----------



## akasnowmaaan (Jan 15, 2012)

Sassicaia said:


> The current watch snob is merely a vaginized


Oh, so being female in some way is an insult? Let me quote someone who's (probably) more of a man than most:










Using words like that as an insult is old-school 'no girlz allowed' bigoted boys club. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt though.



Sassicaia said:


> FYI, for anyone wanting truly useful information for men listen to Tom Lykis.
> 
> The Tom Leykis Show


Haha, that pig? All doubt removed.

Why do you fear women? Why do you elevate yourself at their expense?


----------



## DiverBob (May 13, 2007)

Ha! 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## omega1234 (May 17, 2012)

hanzo said:


> I bet he is friend of the Stig :-d


I love Top Gear UK (seen every episode ☺), so much better than our American spin-off.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4


----------



## yeptx (Apr 19, 2014)

I like his writing and agree with most that he writes. You just need to understand that it is an entertainment and there is no reason to get all mad because he writes that there are no worthy watches below 3K. People get mad for example when he writes that diving watch with a nice suit look stupid. Well, it does, unless you are James Bond, and just because one has no sense of style it is not Watch Snob's fault.


----------



## Jcp311 (Mar 20, 2013)

Dude seriously? Don't politicize something so benign....I'm glad you have role models, but keep it out of the forum.



akasnowmaaan said:


> Oh, so being female in some way is an insult? Let me quote someone who's (probably) more of a man than most:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## KyleTexas (Oct 23, 2011)

Glad someone started this thread.. The "Watch Snob" is a tool. I don't think he is a good writer or a hobbyist at all. My guess is a Fashion writer who got conned into the spot... or who conned his editor into the spot. 
There's not enough detail in his pieces to suggest he has hands on knowledge of the watches he's talking about. When you don't know much about the subject you always try to push the conversation towards the small section of the subject that you do know. He does this repeatedly. There's no honest discussion of the finer points of watches that you'd expect in a competent review. 
In short.. The Watch Snob pieces are a joke, they are in a Men's Lifestyle (fashion oriented) rag. They might appeal to a 7th grader whose Dad let's him shop at Saks Fith Avenue but they certainly aren't for anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of watches or a basic hobbyist with 3 months in the game.
The last and final review I read ( I won't waste time reading anymore) was where he was thwarting a watch because it had an ETA movement. He then pointed towards ultra high end inhouse movements as the only reasonable alternative- $10k and up watches. I'd have loved to take him seriously on this point had Orient (yes, Seiko owned Orient) not won some of the mechanical accuracy contest it has entered vs. all comers. 
The "Watch Snob" articles are for insecure Fashion Hounds.. Not for serious watch enthusiast or consumers with half a hampster wheel spinning between their ears, I'll be glad when that series dies.


----------



## shnjb (May 12, 2009)

Lol. Sorry but I would rather have the watch snob's suggested watches over an orient...


----------



## clarken (Nov 30, 2013)

I enjoy the watch snob's comments also he is okay with eta based movements in watches priced below $5000 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Crunchy (Feb 4, 2013)

He has toned down a lot. Boring nowadays.


----------



## akasnowmaaan (Jan 15, 2012)

Crunchy said:


> He has toned down a lot. Boring nowadays.


New editors, taking advertising money from Panerai and others, probably.


----------



## akasnowmaaan (Jan 15, 2012)

Jcp311 said:


> Dude seriously? Don't politicize something so benign....I'm glad you have role models, but keep it out of the forum.


The fact that you think it's benign IS THE PROBLEM.

I'll keep it out when it's no longer necessary to call out Archie Bunker neanderthal ********.


----------



## shnjb (May 12, 2009)

Crunchy said:


> He has toned down a lot. Boring nowadays.


Yeah he's toned down way too much.
I'm wondering if it's even the same person


----------



## benseattle (Jun 8, 2012)

TK-421 said:


> I thought that is what I said? George W was a reverse snob while at *harvard*. He wore cowboy boots and chewed tobacco at an elite school trying to be an everyday man. When in fact his father and grandfather were both congressman.
> 
> I am not trying to argue, but how was it patronizing?:-!


As I'm sure many others have indicated, you do mean YALE, don't you? Reverse snob is putting it mildly when I came to George W. Usually clad in a bomber jacket and boots, he went out of his way to make sure the East-coast "elites" were well aware that he wasn't one of THEM. Okay, you've made your point, now shut the fark up, cowboy and go have another eight beers.


----------



## novedl (May 20, 2009)

You see....I can't turn my back on you lads for a moment. I look away from the screen for an instant and a scrum breaks out.
Let's get back to discussing the topic ( if one can refer to the Watch Snob as a topic) otherwise I will be forced to whip out my magic eraser...


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

novedl said:


> ...otherwise I will be forced to whip out my magic eraser...


(not even sure if this'll be viewable)



https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/1703950080/h242FE0F5/


----------



## shnjb (May 12, 2009)

although the snob has toned down considerably, i enjoyed this quote immensely.

"There is plenty of time for discreet, understated luxury when you're old, fat and ugly."

LOL.
true.

and that's why i never find any occasion to wear my Calatrava.


----------



## Camguy (Nov 23, 2012)

He's every bit as entertaining to read as Stauer ads, and I take him just as seriously.


----------



## opticalserenity (Nov 22, 2011)

I enjoy both Watch Snob and Archie Luxury. Both of these guys are entertainment, with content that's actually pretty decent under the entertainment aspect of yelling and snobbery. As much as so many here can't stand Archie, I know of nearly a dozen people who have found the love for timepieces through his videos. The entertainment brought them in, but the actual talk of which Patek is amazing, or what JLC to get...piqued their interest to dive deeper in. That to me is the brilliance of these guys. We in the WIS community may not think much of them, but to outsiders, it's a heck of a gateway drug.


----------



## Cobia (Nov 24, 2013)

I think he is great, ive noticed many in this hobby, especially many that buy expensive image based watches take themselves very seriously, even to a point of thinking themselves above humour, i love nothing more than to hear anybody take the piss out of these guys, and i love to hear them get offended, one day they might learn to have a laugh at themselves, i like that this bloke because unlike many in the hobby, he isnt afraid to offend or speak his mind, its very refreshing to hear somebody say it how it is according to them.


----------



## love1981 (Jan 27, 2013)

*Watch Snob-what's the deal?*

Has anyone seen the views and opinions of the Watch Snob on the net?
Reading several of his posts he seems to think that most watches are rubbish unless they are 5k plus!
He also seems to slate a lot of the watch manufacturers and watches that people on here love.......is he an "expert" in the true sense of the word?


----------



## little big feather (Mar 6, 2013)

*Re: Watch Snob-what's the deal?*

Yes...We all know him, but no we don't...He's like the Lone Ranger, hides behind a mask, why you could be him, or I...
No one really knows. His style has changed at least once in the past 3 years, this leads me to think a new writer took over
the column,he used to be even more of a snob.


----------



## love1981 (Jan 27, 2013)

*Re: Watch Snob-what's the deal?*

What do you make of his views?i mean no watch is decent under 5k?!!


----------



## Justin Stacks (May 21, 2014)

*Re: Watch Snob-what's the deal?*

There's a really long thread on this already.

He's the real deal and knows his stuff, but you have to take what he say's with a grain of salt.

He he has to keep readers coming back for more, so he writes for entertainment value as well.

He does contradict himself too. He knows what he's talking about, but takes watch snobbery to the next level.

i enjoy reading his stuff and you will always learn at least one thing, and I think his column is comical.


----------



## ShaggyDog (Feb 13, 2012)

*Re: Watch Snob-what's the deal?*



love1981 said:


> Has anyone seen the views and opinions of the Watch Snob on the net?
> Reading several of his posts he seems to think that most watches are rubbish unless they are 5k plus!
> He also seems to slate a lot of the watch manufacturers and watches that people on here love.......is he an "expert" in the true sense of the word?












This subject may possibly have been discussed once or twice before...


----------



## love1981 (Jan 27, 2013)

*Re: Watch Snob-what's the deal?*

Ok!sorry yes newbie!


----------



## JPfeuffer (Aug 12, 2011)

*Re: Watch Snob-what's the deal?*

Search option and you will find this discussed many a times before...


----------



## love1981 (Jan 27, 2013)

*Re: Watch Snob-what's the deal?*

But to say you can't get a decent watch for under 5k tho!


----------



## little big feather (Mar 6, 2013)

*Re: Watch Snob-what's the deal?*

Well.....I am a "Snob" but a lower class one..:roll:
Yes there are *many* great watches out there below 5K....;-)


----------



## JPfeuffer (Aug 12, 2011)

*Re: Watch Snob-what's the deal?*

People say a lot of things and have a lot of opinions. For some 100 is way too much for a watch. For others 5K isn't enough by their standards and exspectations of what they want in a watch (in house movements, precious metals, innovative materials, etc) I can either spend my time defending my choices to strangers or I can spend my time enjoying what I choose to buy.


----------



## WatchNRolla (Feb 4, 2014)

*Re: Watch Snob-what's the deal?*

Most of what he says is for dramatic effect. He afterall calls himself a 'snob' for a reason, so he has to be snobbish.

But overall the info he does provide is very good. If you take it as entertainment, you will learn to enjoy the articles.

My guess is that there's more than 1 writer of this article.


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

*Re: Watch Snob-what's the deal?*

The WS is written mainly as entertainment. Like Archie Luxury if he was on his meds. However, as I have said before if one has the money and took the WS's advice they would have fine watches and rarely make a faux pas wearing them. The WS over time, as it does seem there is more than one writer, has a distaste for $3-5K watches and makes a decent argument against them. In the end it is easy to set a personal and/or arbitrary standard that allows the statement that there are no watches under $5k that are good/great etc. I think most people who have been into watches for a while have a dollar figure that they have yet to find a watch that meets their standards. He (they) write as the SNOB so he (they) have to be snobby or what is the point. In the end enjoy it for what it is but unless you watch budget is at least 5 figures a year don't expect the Watch Snob to be a buying guide.


----------



## kf3506 (Feb 2, 2013)

*Re: Watch Snob-what's the deal?*

I love that column. Informative and entertaining. I don't agree with all his views but who am i to tell someone else how to think right?


----------



## Cobia (Nov 24, 2013)

*Re: Watch Snob-what's the deal?*

Well he does call himself the watch snob, the name might be a bit of a give away.

He has nothing on Archie Luxury, at least Archie is entertaining for some..


----------



## Bobby75 (Jun 26, 2011)

*Re: Watch Snob-what's the deal?*



love1981 said:


> But to say you can't get a decent watch for under 5k tho!


He doesn't. He also praises Frederique Constant and Nomos.

You can also get a JLC, Omega or a Rolex for under 5k (sterling that is)


----------



## LesserBlackDog (Jun 24, 2011)

*Re: Watch Snob-what's the deal?*

The Watch Snob is entertaining and, occasionally, informative.

He's also a useful health barometer - if you find your blood pressure rising after reading his articles, it's probably a sign that you take watches too seriously to be good for your health.


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

*Re: Watch Snob-what's the deal?*



love1981 said:


> But to say you can't get a decent watch for under 5k tho!


Read lots of those columns (the complete archive is available) and you'll find that he thinks buying cheaper watches is just fine, but has a particular take on things like ETA movements that carry high dollar values. (I.e. if a $500 watch and $3000 watch have the same movement, you shouldn't buy the $3000 watch.) Several columns say things like (paraphrasing here) "there's nothing good between $1000 and $5000... go cheaper or more expensive". But as an avowed and unapologetic snob, yes he really only thinks very expensive, hand finished, limited production watches are really worthwhile.


----------



## hayday (Aug 13, 2011)

*Re: Watch Snob-what's the deal?*

He knows his stuff from a technical perspective, but his opinions are just that: his opinions. He can be entertaining to read, especially when responding to direct questions/comments from readers, but I don't really take him very seriously.

-hayday


----------



## love1981 (Jan 27, 2013)

*Re: Watch Snob-what's the deal?*

Thanks everyone!i thought I had to throw my watches under 5k away!


----------



## colgex (Dec 12, 2013)

*Re: Watch Snob-what's the deal?*

I know this has been discussed in other threads but here's the deal _IMHO. _If you don't care about the swiss movements, you can get cheaper Asian movements for less. Seiko, Citizen, Orient, Seagull, etc. can cost you a fraction of a Tissot or an Accutron. If you care about swiss watchmaking, you will understand his point about watches below 5k.

Many brands in the sub $5,000 range (Longines, Baume, Rado, Edox, etc.) sell their watches with stock ETA movements claiming it is some type of in house caliber. You can read more about that here: Smoke and Mirrors - part 2 (ETA "modifications & upgrades"). The snob's rule of thumb is the following: if the brand does not have a dedicated movement section on their website and can't thoroughly explain their manufacture, then it is really not an in-house movement.

My take on top of that is the following: some people will argue about finishing, detailing, etc. but there's really no point, _IMHO,_ to go for a $2,000 Longines over a $400 Tissot because horologically speaking, there will be no advantage in one over the other if both watches come with a stock ETA 2824-2. So why pay so much more? That is why he constantly makes the point about breaking that sub 5k barrier and entering the realm of in-house players like Zenith, JLC, etc. He also candidly endorses Nomos and points out that FC is starting to try.

Again, _IMHO, _A Nomos or a Frederique Constant for around $1-3k have more value than any Baume, Rado, Longines, Raymond Weil, etc. At the end of the day, the snob is exactly that, a snob. Sometimes he makes sense but he is still a snob regardless.


----------



## Perseus (Mar 25, 2010)

*Re: Watch Snob-what's the deal?*

Sometimes when I'm bored at work I'll check out his blog. I think it's satire with a little truth tossed in.


----------



## Orsoni (Jun 30, 2013)

*Re: Watch Snob-what's the deal?*

The Jeremy Clarkson of watches :-d


----------



## love1981 (Jan 27, 2013)

*Re: Watch Snob-what's the deal?*



colgex said:


> I know this has been discussed in other threads but here's the deal _IMHO. _If you don't care about the swiss movements, you can get cheaper Asian movements for less. Seiko, Citizen, Orient, Seagull, etc. can cost you a fraction of a Tissot or an Accutron. If you care about swiss watchmaking, you will understand his point about watches below 5k.
> 
> Many brands in the sub $5,000 range (Longines, Baume, Rado, Edox, etc.) sell their watches with stock ETA movements claiming it is some type of in house caliber. You can read more about that here: Smoke and Mirrors - part 2 (ETA "modifications & upgrades"). The snob's rule of thumb is the following: if the brand does not have a dedicated movement section on their website and can't thoroughly explain their manufacture, then it is really not an in-house movement.
> 
> ...


Thanks for that.

It gives me a better understanding of watches which can only be a good thing I guess!


----------



## sleepyhead123 (Jun 2, 2014)

*Re: Watch Snob-what's the deal?*

I like him. I think people's biggest issue with him stems from a complete lack of understanding from his perspective. His tastes are well outside most people here on the forum. He explains them well every few posts, but everyone just can't get past the one line that makes them see red because he said he didn't like a brand they liked. I guess it's not unlike the forums actually. He is relatively knowledgeable. He tends to prefer watches with a interesting mechanism and unique design from what I gather, which would make sense given his price range. I think if you're going to ask him about a $500 watch and get slammed that's your own fault as you should know better than to ask him anyways. That's like asking the fry cook at McDonalds how to cook a cassoulet.

You also need to remember, it is most likely his editors that pick the letters he responds to. And since the internets enjoy bashing and ego more than thoughtful prose, the snob needs to act like one, otherwise he won't get the clicks. This is what society wants, whether you want to argue otherwise or not.


----------



## Donf (Jul 11, 2006)

*Re: Watch Snob-what's the deal?*

The WS simply gives OPINIONS, and as such they are spot on perfect - as his (or her) opinion. Just like my opinion is perfectly correct and yours. As an opinion the most rabid pro Invicta article is no less correct than the most disparaging Patek article. Facts are different but the articles are written as opinions for entertainment. 
Ever have a friend talk up his pretty new girlfriend and then you meet her? His opinion vs yours. 
But I'm glad that at least you got rid of all those cheap watches of yours - don't you feel better? Now hold up your head, whip out one (or two, or three) credit cards and go watch shopping!


----------



## rdoder (Jul 13, 2013)

*Re: Watch Snob-what's the deal?*

I think the deal is Watch Snob, Archie Luxury, and similar people sell (or buy into?) the allure of the big price tag as equivalent of being better or having better taste, when in reality, you get something that's prettier, but not better performing, compared to dirt-cheap quartz.


----------



## Alex_TA (May 7, 2013)

*Re: Watch Snob-what's the deal?*

I don't know who writes this column but this guy knows a thing or two about watches, more than 95% of members of this forum, including me.

Of course you should take him with a grain of salt.


----------



## hvgotcodes (Sep 27, 2012)

*Re: Watch Snob-what's the deal?*

IIRC He says no watch above 1k and below 5k is worth it.

He says anything under 1k, go for it because its not haute horology (and doesn't claim to be) and not worth fretting about.

His beef with watches between 1-5k is that they are mostly overpriced for what they are. I think what he means to say is that any watch with an ETA or other stock movement movement costing several thousands of dollars or more is definitely not worth it.

If a watch has a true in house movement and isn't huge it's probably ok in his book. Plus he repeatedly recommends SMPs and Nomos watches, which cost between 1-5k.


----------



## weigojmi (Jul 22, 2013)

*Re: Watch Snob-what's the deal?*

I am the Watch Snob that you speak of. The unmistakable ignorance in most of my posts is an act. Please remember this while reading any of my future posts. Carry on.


----------



## sleepyhead123 (Jun 2, 2014)

*Re: Watch Snob-what's the deal?*



rdoder said:


> I think the deal is Watch Snob, Archie Luxury, and similar people sell (or buy into?) the allure of the big price tag as equivalent of being better or having better taste, when in reality, you get something that's prettier, but not better performing, compared to dirt-cheap quartz.


I think he has mentioned more than a few times that you'd be an idiot to buy a mechanical over a quartz if you're looking for accuracy.


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

*Re: Watch Snob-what's the deal?*

Y'all don't realize that the Watch Snob is a _she._


----------



## sleepyhead123 (Jun 2, 2014)

*Re: Watch Snob-what's the deal?*



BarracksSi said:


> Y'all don't realize that the Watch Snob is a _she._


I thought he mentioned being at a boys school with Angus, though one can always change that. Well, I doubt it matters. Obviously everyone refers to the snob as a he, and if she's a she she obviously hasn't cared enough to comment on it.

To be honest, I find the incoherent yelling back at the snob just as entertaining as the snob himself. Like watching a drunkard yelling at a lamppost.


----------



## StufflerMike (Mar 23, 2010)

*Re: Watch Snob-what's the deal?*

Recurring issue. Merged with another thread which came up by a quick search.


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

*Re: Watch Snob-what's the deal?*



sleepyhead123 said:


> I thought he mentioned being at a boys school with Angus, though one can always change that. Well, I doubt it matters. Obviously everyone refers to the snob as a he, and if she's a she she obviously hasn't cared enough to comment on it.


Read enough of the columns and there seems to a writing style and tone shift every so often that makes me think, as many do, that the writer changes or is a team. And yes, I think attending boys schools has been mentioned before. Prestigious prep boys schools.



sleepyhead123 said:


> Like watching a drunkard yelling at a lamppost.


|>|>|>


----------



## shnjb (May 12, 2009)

The new writer is less adroit with words, less patrician, and quite a bit less entertaining.

WS columns used to be my favorite but it's really not worth reading anymore.


----------



## cadeallaw (Jun 5, 2014)

Watch Snob can appreciate Nomos and Sinn... A-OK in my book


----------



## PJR (Apr 25, 2012)

I admire and respect The Watch Snob. He (she?) is probably the most insightful and inciting horology commentator published today.

The Watch Snob doesn't care whether you like the columns only that you read them. That you comment on them here only builds his reputation and readership. It's all good from the Snob's perspective. Failure for the Snob is being ignored. 

Furthermore the Watch Snob is getting paid to write and offer opinions about watches. The rest of us are just giving them up for free on sites like this. 

Now who do you think is smarter? The person making money talking about watches or the person who does it for free?;-)


----------



## honestlygreedy (Jun 20, 2012)

He's gone soft and toned down his bashing too much to be entertaining. Kind of like when Archie Luxury got a speedmaster lol.


----------



## shnjb (May 12, 2009)

Archie Luxury should not be compared to the original WS in my opinion.
Archie Luxury is a fat loudmouth who seems to be barely wealthy enough to afford a few used watches.


----------



## Powder_UK (Apr 23, 2013)

No-one who has read more than two WS posts will be under the illusions that he is a she, is American, or does not know about watches. There has definitely been a shift in writing style over the life of the series, but this isn't unheard of in the writing community. It could be a change in the mood of our correspondent, or it could even be as a consequence of an editorial instruction. I certainly don't believe it is more than one person. 

Few of us have the skill to write a one-line put-down that can make the reader spit his tea - I recall one comment about a petitioner's use of a numbered list which had me worried for the health of my expensive laptop's backlit keyboard.

And if you don't understand the point he's making about watches on sale for between a thousand and five thousand notes, I'll be happy to explain it. And I know almost nothing about watches.... ;-)


----------



## BrentYYC (Feb 2, 2012)

PJR said:


> I admire and respect The Watch Snob. He (she?) is probably the most insightful and inciting horology commentator published today.
> 
> The Watch Snob doesn't care whether you like the columns only that you read them. That you comment on them here only builds his reputation and readership. It's all good from the Snob's perspective. Failure for the Snob is being ignored.
> 
> ...


WAIT a minute, I recognize that style.... YOU'RE the Watch Snob, aren't you?!!


----------



## Rdenney (Dec 24, 2012)

Powder_UK said:


> And if you don't understand the point he's making about watches on sale for between a thousand and five thousand notes, I'll be happy to explain it. And I know almost nothing about watches.... ;-)


Which would give you something in common with the Watch Snob.

(By the way, he wasn't talking about Pounds Sterling in his pronouncement, but good-old American dollars. Five thousand pounds spent in a British high-street store will greatly exceed his $5000 upper limit spent in America.

His rejection of watches of superior make that use excellent third-party movements reflects his _lack_ of understanding about the Swiss watch industry of old--despite that the "of old" part seems to be most important to him--at least the part of the industry outside Geneva and the Vallee de Joux. The more I learn, the more I realize the limits of his knowledge. And I feel as though my own rate of learning as a mere enthusiast has greatly exceeded his own as a proclaimed expert.

Of course, he goes by "Watch Snob", so it's part of his persona to reject inexpensive watches based on price alone. He talks of taste and breeding, but then focuses on price and market value; that would certainly be beneath the consideration of one so aristocratic, particularly a European. He ignores watches of great horological accomplishment from companies not on his approved list. He rejects companies poorly known to Americans that were, of old, among the most influential in the business. For example, he called Ebel a mall-brand, complained that they would lose 4/5 of their value immediately on purchase (which is also true of a brand he admires unceasingly--Maurice Lacroix), and accused them of trying to make affordable luxury watches, a category he rejects as oxymoronic. Were he schoolmates with the scions of the Swiss watch industry, as he claims, he'd know that the watch barons of the Jura Mountains were very much a club, and one of the most influential of pre-Quartz-Crisis leaders of that club in many ways was Charles Blum, the owner of Ebel. While in Switzerland, I talked with the son of a minor watch-company executive of that era, and he talked of his parents and their regular card-game date with the Blums. And in reading (in French, of course) the history of the International Museum of Horology in La Chaux-de-Fonds, Blum figured large as a prime benefactor. But speaking of the category of affordable luxury, Ebel was not in that category--its prices were quite high when he said that and well into the range of other brands he has admired. And Ebel used some of the most prestigious movements in the industry including one of which they owned the design.

The truism goes that the media always gets it right except on subjects of our own expertise. Ebel is such a subject for me, to the extent possible for a mere enthusiast, and he shows no knowledge of the brand or it's role among the etablisseurs of the Jura Mountains. I therefore wonder about his pronouncements concerning companies about which I know less.

That said, I also enjoy the typically British use of dry sarcasm, even when it is executed by an American. But I think I can spot an American pretending to be British; I'm American but a veteran reader of countless books by British authors, and there are many Americanisms in his writing.

I'm not sure the articles have changed that much, but I know I have in my pursuit of the hobby, and I find him less enjoyable now than when I first read him. A person who just wants a watch they can be proud of will hardly go wrong following his advice, but the basis for their pride will be how much they spent, and the price tag will be plain to see. Ten minutes perusing this forum (particularly the High-End Forum) for the first time will identify his favorite brands as occupying the pinnacle of the industry. But nothing is snobbier than owning an obscure brand with hidden glory, and being the one person who knows the meaning of that glory, without regard to what it cost. For him, that is an opportunity missed.

Rick "for whom concern for price is particularly American" Denney


----------



## honestlygreedy (Jun 20, 2012)

*Watch Snob Reddit AMA - 8/27 1 PM*

The watch snob is doing a reddit AMA (ask me anything) in case anyone's interested. Here's the link: Watches

There's already a thread up and he (she, they?) already stated they won't answer questions about identity. In his latest article he also recommends GS!


----------



## Zeroedout (Jul 25, 2014)

*Re: Watch Snob Reddit AMA - 8/27 1 PM*

Silly question (I know nothing about reddit): if I simply click the link and watch/refresh the thread will the conversation develop there or do I need to go to a different page? On it now (1:11) and nothing going on. Though it might be a fun diversion.

Edit: Hahaha, yeah, I see it now......Wednesday! Oops.


----------



## drunken monkey (Jun 22, 2011)

*Re: Watch Snob Reddit AMA - 8/27 1 PM*

Waste of time.


----------



## kroops (Jul 4, 2014)

Rdenney, the Watch Snob is doing AskMeAnything on Reddit /r/Watches tomorrow (Wed [email protected] ET). You should be there asking some questions. I have a strong feeling that would be highly interesting and entertaining.


----------



## Ajax_Drakos (Aug 20, 2014)

I can write the Watch Snob's articles before he does. Yes, he is that predictable and repeats the same talking points over and over. They basically come down to this:

1. The Watch Snob knows everything, while the rest of us are ignorant swine. 

2. Lange and Patek can never do anything wrong. You're a lowly plebian if you don't have one of each. 

3. The Moon Watch is the only Omega worth buying. If you even think about buying a different Omega, you're scum. 

3. There is not a single watch in the $1,000 to $5,000 range that is worth buying. 

4. Rolex is great. No, it isn't. Yes, it is. It's kind of great. It's kind of not. Rolex is great, unless it isn't. 

5. The Japanese have contributed nothing to horology. 

6. A good watch is more important than a college education. 

7. Seamus is my friend. 

8. Breguet hasn't produced anything decent since inventing the tourbillon. 

9. JLC is nearly as divine as Lange and Patek, but it really isn't, mostly because JLC watches aren't as expensive. 

10. Your watch is too big. 

11. Any company that makes in-house movements is awesome, unless that company makes watches with in-house movements under $5,000 -- I'm looking at you Christopher Ward and Seiko. 

12. Never mind -- in-house movements aren't that important. Paying a lot of money is much more important.

13. Ulysee Nardin can never do anything right because their watches are owned by Russian oligarchs. 

14. I'm rich and went to an exclusive finishing school. 

15. I'm a paragon of courage because I can sit behind my desk and trash everyone who dares to ask me a question.

Does that about cover it?


----------



## Rdenney (Dec 24, 2012)

kroops said:


> Rdenney, the Watch Snob is doing AskMeAnything on Reddit /r/Watches tomorrow (Wed [email protected] ET). You should be there asking some questions. I have a strong feeling that would be highly interesting and entertaining.


A wise man once told me to never argue with one who buys ink by the barrel.

Rick "who'll have to let his writings speak" Denney


----------



## sleepyhead123 (Jun 2, 2014)

Ajax_Drakos said:


> *15. I'm a paragon of courage because I can sit behind my desk and trash everyone who dares to ask me a question.*


That defines most of us on the internets, doesn't it?


----------



## Ajax_Drakos (Aug 20, 2014)

sleepyhead123 said:


> That defines most of us on the internets, doesn't it?


I thought it was called the interweb?


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

Ajax_Drakos said:


> I thought it was called the interweb?


I'm not sure what it's called, but my understanding is that it's a series of tubes....


----------



## manofrolex (Jul 9, 2012)

Ajax_Drakos said:


> I can write the Watch Snob's articles before he does. Yes, he is that predictable and repeats the same talking points over and over. They basically come down to this:
> 
> 1. The Watch Snob knows everything, while the rest of us are ignorant swine.
> 
> ...


From what I have read of the snob that pretty much covers it. I find the humor rather dry but the always reappearing references to Swiss boarding school and a well to do family with nothing but high octane hemoglobin running through the veins of said aristocratic horology expert gets tiresome very quickly. 
Just my 2 Swiss franc worth and yes I still can enjoy plenty of watches in the super popular <5K range understanding they will not show at auction in a century and guess what I could care less.


----------



## harryst (Nov 5, 2012)

Rdenney said:


> His rejection of watches of superior make that use excellent third-party movements reflects his _lack_ of understanding
> .............................
> .............................
> I'm not sure the articles have changed that much


A lot of contradictory statements over the years. And major contradictions, to boot.

I am willing to bet

a) there is somebody who _knows_ about watches
b) working with a _writer_ who makes a point of being entertaining
c) there have been changes in both positions...

I love the snob - he is my positive role model (esp when he said that it "gives me [him] enormous pain to offer praise to anyone, for anything" - this is me. I have even downloaded his articles to save them for posterity (some of them are not even accessible anymore at the askmen.com website) (...does anybody know if I can use the *for-sale* forum for said articles? *chrono24*? I certainly hold no copyright thereof but... come on...)


----------



## Jcp311 (Mar 20, 2013)

harryst said:


> A lot of contradictory statements over the years. And major contradictions, to boot.
> 
> I am willing to bet
> 
> ...


This is most definitely the method behind the watch snob. It's been said that he is they, but there is one writer I can reliably pick out among others as the most entertaining. "He" is the watch snob.

I will admit his early Pam bashing was a guilty pleasure of mine. Still hilarious too.


----------



## Rdenney (Dec 24, 2012)

harryst said:


> A lot of contradictory statements over the years. And major contradictions, to boot.
> 
> I am willing to bet
> 
> ...


I wouldn't call them contradictions so much as turnabouts. But, yes, lots of them.

I've had enough turnabouts in my own thinking not to suspect that it means a change of personnel. I suspect WS has been doing some learning on his own, and study has caused him to moderate some of his views. But there is insider stuff in the Swiss industry that one can learn by reading the Swiss press (and I've read a number of issues of the newspapers of Neuchatel and La Chaux-de-Fonds on my favorite topic, and most are available on the internet if you know where to look), and I don't think I've ever heard him say anything to suggest he's read it. If he went to school with the scions of the captains of the watch industry, as he has claimed, he wouldn't need to. He would, of course, reject questions about that as a ruse to learn his identity. And it would be rude.

Rick "who occasionally laughs at what he writes because it's funny, and occasionally laughs at what he writes even though it isn't funny" Denney


----------



## Orex (Jul 17, 2012)

The turnabouts are because he address direct questions and he answer relative to them rather than in absolute terms. A watch could be a good for one reader but bad for other. Most times I agree with his answers, but last time he really flop. He recommended that horrible Chronoswiss Opus skeleton to this lady who wanted an ML skeleton for her partner. I just hope the poor lady did not changed her mind.


----------



## Bergarn (Apr 16, 2010)

Is it established that all readers' letters are genuine and not just an excuse to bring up a topic/rant?


----------



## shnjb (May 12, 2009)

Bergarn said:


> Is it established that all readers' letters are genuine and not just an excuse to bring up a topic/rant?


i had my letter answered once.

i mean given the popularity of the column on this forum alone, it's not hard to imagine that many letters are pouring into the writer.


----------



## harryst (Nov 5, 2012)

shnjb said:


> i had my letter answered once.
> 
> i mean given the popularity of the column on this forum alone, it's not hard to imagine that many letters are pouring into the writer.


Even in his first column - unless I am missing something - he was answering reader's questions :-d :-!


----------



## jrosales (Jun 22, 2012)

*Watch Snob Q+A Going On*

For those interested, the Watch Snob appears to be having a Q&A session over at another site.

I am the Watch Snob. AMA : Watches

Apologies if not allowed.


----------



## kroops (Jul 4, 2014)

The reddit AMA has been just brilliant in my opinion. I am the Watch Snob. AMA : Watches


----------



## reptile2 (Aug 26, 2014)

kroops said:


> The reddit AMA has been just brilliant in my opinion. I am the Watch Snob. AMA : Watches


Brilliant as usual. If only, perhaps just a tad less sarcastic than the normal snob. .


----------



## Domo (Sep 20, 2013)

*Re: Watch Snob Q+A Going On*

I doubt that's 'the' watch snob.

I didn't even know reddit had a watch section.....But did anyone notice that the image ghosted into the background of he watch forum pages is a Grand Seiko SBGH001? Seems a strange choice really.....


----------



## kroops (Jul 4, 2014)

*Re: Watch Snob Reddit AMA - 8/27 1 PM*

Edit: Did another thread got merged here or am I just confused? 

Nevermind, the ama was great!


----------



## meloie (Oct 24, 2013)

*Re: Watch Snob Reddit AMA - 8/27 1 PM*

Thanks for the heads up.
I've always found him an entertaining read.


----------



## Powder_UK (Apr 23, 2013)

An awful lot of people who have clearly never read more than two WS articles seem to know an awful lot about him and his canon (sic). Case in point: the contradictions. He has addressed this on more than one occasion - essentially, he reserves his right to change his mind (shock! horror!). And a fair few clearly confuse "knows nothing about watches" with "has a different opinion of what makes a good watch from me".

But he doesn't need me to defend him like I know who he is and needs my help, so I'll bow out now.


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

Poking around some of his articles just for kicks and saw this one:
Watch Snob: Longines And Christopher Ward - AskMen

In particular, on the second page, when answering a knob's question about, "Is shopping for watches like shopping for a sewing machine?" he replies,



> My quest [for a sewing machine] took me far afield until at last I lighted, in an unfashionable street, on an establishment where I was treated respectfully and shown a range of merchandise priced well to suit virtually any purse, of practical and precisely made utilitarian devices to allow the exercise of anything from basic utilitarian needs to a high degree of personal creativity. My silver was taken solicitously and respectfully, with an obvious eye to ensuring satisfaction would be given for the money offered, and I left scarcely lighter in purse than when I entered, my withered old heart warmed by the thought I had got honest value for a well-made machine, and some small measure of common human goodwill into the bargain.So to your question, "is buying a sewing machine like buying a watch," my answer is, "no."


----------



## Rdenney (Dec 24, 2012)

Whatever his (or their) sins, he does occasionally deliver a really good zinger. 

Rick "who has read most of his articles" Denney


----------



## CthulhuChild (Jul 16, 2014)

Sorry if this has been asked, but I can't actually find it in this thread (or anywhere else). How do you actually ASK the watch snob questions? There's no email or link that I've seen.

Also, I think the guy is hilarious. I don't really see the problem; his advice is either pretty reasonable, or mockingly condescending and hyperbolic. You either get a rueful chuckle or a solid answer. And I mean, really? The character claims to own a private yacht which he uses to host parties for famous watchmakers, and apparently has a drunken irish butler named Seamus. If he proceeds to call you out for gauche taste, and you find yourself bristling at the offense, you need to take yourself down a peg or two before the world does it for you.


----------



## Rdenney (Dec 24, 2012)

CthulhuChild said:


> Sorry if this has been asked, but I can't actually find it in this thread (or anywhere else). How do you actually ASK the watch snob questions? There's no email or link that I've seen.
> 
> Also, I think the guy is hilarious. I don't really see the problem; his advice is either pretty reasonable, or mockingly condescending and hyperbolic. You either get a rueful chuckle or a solid answer. And I mean, really? The character claims to own a private yacht which he uses to host parties for famous watchmakers, and apparently has a drunken irish butler named Seamus. If he proceeds to call you out for gauche taste, and you find yourself bristling at the offense, you need to take yourself down a peg or two before the world does it for you.


I generally agree. But the humor does wear thin, especially when I see misinformation and far less knowledge than he claims to have. Sure, it's intended to be entertainment, but information presented as fact should be factual. Some will actually take his advice seriously, though they will certainly not be led astray in doing so. But they might miss out on something really nice, and dilettantes such as the Watch Snob, if given a loud enough voice, can have a disproportionate effect on the brands he mentions.

One suspects the questions all go through the AskMen website.

Rick "who might say the same about many entertainment opinion-mongers" Denney


----------



## CthulhuChild (Jul 16, 2014)

I can't find it on the ask men site. There's no button or contact info that I can see. Am I missing something?


----------



## little big feather (Mar 6, 2013)

CthulhuChild said:


> Sorry if this has been asked, but I can't actually find it in this thread (or anywhere else). How do you actually ASK the watch snob questions? There's no email or link that I've seen.
> 
> Also, I think the guy is hilarious. I don't really see the problem; his advice is either pretty reasonable, or mockingly condescending and hyperbolic. You either get a rueful chuckle or a solid answer. And I mean, really? The character claims to own a private yacht which he uses to host parties for famous watchmakers, and apparently has a drunken irish butler named Seamus. If he proceeds to call you out for gauche taste, and you find yourself bristling at the offense, you need to take yourself down a peg or two before the world does it for you.


You don't call him, he calls you.
And the phone,only rings once....;-)


----------



## yeptx (Apr 19, 2014)

He is definitely legitimate and his advise is absolute valid. Just understand that it is written for entertainment. Most people that do not like him are just pissed at him for not validating their poor watch choices.


----------



## Karlisnet (Feb 20, 2016)

yeptx said:


> He is definitely legitimate and his advise is absolute valid. Just understand that it is written for entertainment. Most people that do not like him are just pissed at him for not validating their poor watch choices.


Interesting reply for a question made less than 10 years ago .


----------



## yeptx (Apr 19, 2014)

Karlisnet said:


> Interesting reply for a question made less than 10 years ago .


LOL, obviously people are still fascinated with Watch Snob. I am sure it is a different writer now though. I used to like the old one better.


----------

