# An Opinion on ALS: Why they are not a "trinity" brand



## tony20009

So right now there's a thread running in which we are asked to identify our favorite "holy trinity" watch brand. Quite a few members have suggested that A. Lange & Sohne (ALS) belong in the "trinity" or if not that explicitly, they've implied that the trinity should become a quartet. Well I don't agree that ALS belongs in the "trinity" (I admit having a bit of an issue calling it a "holy trinity" even if I don't capitalize the terms) and I don't think the "trinity" should become a quartet.

How good ALS is at making watches has nothing to do it. How well made or innovative the others are also has nothing to do with it. If quality were so critical, FPJ, Dufour, and any number of other companies would have to be included and we'd be talking about the "choir" not the "trinity."

ALS don't deserve "trinity" status in my opinion for the following reasons:

*History/Pedigree:* 
ALS' history, especially in the first half of the 20th century is one of perseverance and the family deserves respect for keeping the business going in spite of the challenges caused by WWI, the subsequent domestic depression Germany faced, the global depression that followed that and WWII. Many a lesser company didn't make it through those hard times. ALS finally succumbed in 1949 and although it wasn't ALS' fault necessarily. All that withstanding, the fact remains that they lack an unbroken history of making watches.

(Even though ALS was resurrected in 1994 by a member of the Lange family, it's not clear to me that it's actually the same company. It is the same name, but then it's the man's family name, and nobody had purchased the right to use it, so he was free to use it. Either way, same papers of incorporation or not isn't really the point.) 
*Offerings*
Look at ALS's website. Count the watches. Do the same for PP, AP and VC. Each "trinity member" has more different models in one line than do ALS as a whole. Yes, everything ALS offers is excellent, but so is that of the other three, so in terms of their offerings no a matter of quality or capability. It's about having breadth and depth in the standard varieties of watch offered overall as a brand. It's also a matter of scope and capacity. Look at how many different basic styles the other brands offer and look at ALS who offer one: round.

Another consideration is that as far as I can tell, each one of them has something that can compete (on the basis of substance, not price or value, _per se_) with nearly every single other watch offered in the industry. The only thing I can think of that none of the have is those "way out there" like some of H.Winston's, or "bleeding edge" innovation watches like Ressence's. ALS absolutely does not have that kind of breadth.
Styling: I know that the look, and the extent to which any individual person likes or doesn't like them is subjective, but what's not subjective is that ALS doesn't have so much as one watch that could be considered stylish flair. ALS have instead a few stylish watches -- uncomplicated versions of Saxonia, Zeitwerk, 1815 and R. Lange -- but once they put complications on them, they lose the flair. They don't have one line that manages to be both stylish, refined and complicated.

Instead, every single ALS watch bears the look of Teutonic austerity and purpose. It's just too "Suzy One Note" for a company that aspires to "trinity" levels. Indeed, Teutonic sobriety isn't a bad thing, and it's signature ALS, and having a signature look is a very good thing. Certainly, ALS' watches are good looking, but aside from the several models I mentioned above, there's no stylish panache, which from a "trinity player," one should expect to get a little bit of that.

What I see from ALS is a too too literal revival of some of the key themes of the Biedermeier visual arts. That's fine, but let's be real: Biedermeier was a middle class movement and to my mind, there should be nothing "middling" about anything from a "trinity" watchmaker. From a "trinity" level maker, there's needs to be some "Hapsburg," some "Prussian," or in terms of art, Baroque, Rococo, Neoclassicism or Romanticism.

I know this is a difficult concept to understand; it's even harder to explain, and if the watches ALS make are any indication, it's also pretty difficult to manifest in a watch. I'd suggest that one take a close look at GO's watches. Notice the little details that harken back to the time before WWI when Germany, and Berlin in particular, was "the place to be" as well as capturing the grandeur of the Prussian era. In their Pano-models, they capture the themes of early 20th century modernism. Their Senator lines do that "classic elegance" thing. IMO, if GO and ALS had a "watch-child," it'd be worthy of "trinity" status or converting the "holy trinity" into the "quintessential quartet."

Another way to look at the style thing is to consider it from the other end of the spectrum. Why not admit A&S, or DeLaneau or Romain Gauthier or MB&F. The reason not to, entertain those brands is much the same as the one -- on the basis of styling -- against elevating ALS: they all just do one thing really well, but they don't have the scope to hit multiple types of balls out of the park. 
Art: I don't care too much what kind of visual art a company opts to deploy and I'm not opining on what is better or worse among the four brands discussed here. I'm just saying that I don't see any, of any sort from ALS. Yes, VC has a ton of "art" and lead the pack on that, but that's not the bar by which I'm measuring. PP doesn't have too much shown on their site, but there's some. AP hasn't gobs of it either, but they have several such pieces in their Millinary line, and they have quite a lot if one considers the whimsy of more than a few RO models. 

*Trinity: There can only be three or "Highlander on Steroids"*
A trinity consists of three brands, not four, not two. For ALS to join, someone would have to leave. So, if ALS were to join, considering the above, that basically means that you and I must necessarily have less choice from the makers at the so-called top of the industry. How is that beneficial? 

To conclude, I have all the regard in the world for ALS. Their movements may in some ways be superior to those of the "trinity." But the fact is that the "trinity" isn't the "top three movements," it's the top three brands. If ALS grows sufficiently, I could easily "get over" the "history/pedigree" thing I mentioned above. I would get over it for two reasons:

 ALS's products are just that good that it'd be stupid to deny them a place on that basis, and 
The history/pedigree point was made because it's a common trait shared by the existing three, not because I think it's a requirement 
That said, right now, ALS have not, IMO, earned the right to displace an existing member of the triumvirate, and they have not earned the right to create a quartet.

EDIT:
I'd be willing to remove "Swiss" from the moniker and create a quartet if I felt "Swiss" were the sole reason.

All the best.

Even after making up one's mind to the sacrifices I had decided upon, there is always left a trace of envy for those who have triumphed in the melancholy struggle for supremacy.
- Paul Bourget


----------



## Quotron

They are, generally it is considered ALS, PP and VC. They weren't included in the "Swiss Trinity thread" because ALS are *German* not *Swiss*.

Geography


----------



## TimeWizard

As Quotron said, it's because they're not Swiss.


----------



## ilitig8

It is NOT just because they aren't Swiss. It is much more than that, even if they did have their factory across the border Lange would still not be in contention for the Trinity except on internet forums. The Trinity has been the Trinity longer than any of us have been alive. 

The Trinity wouldn't bother as many people as it does if the were to accept it isn't just about who makes the best (subjective/objective/whatever) watch.


----------



## TheWalrus

I think about it like this.

In order to get a good sense of how these companies stack against each other it might be useful to compare them to folk singers.

PP, VC, AP - they're Bob, Nick and John.





Long standing. True to tradition.

Now, ALS - it's Bob Dylan. Could it be considered one of the top three&#8230; maybe. On quality of work alone, sure. But when you consider the following video, it's clear that he fell from the purer faith (and much like ALS with their resurrection, is undeniably tainted, and quite unable to be elevated to the next level in folk music / horology):






&#8230;.

&#8230;.

I have no idea where I'm going with this.


----------



## ilitig8

TheWalrus said:


> I have no idea where I'm going with this.


Thought you might be dropping the bombshell that Lange was going electric at Basel this year...


----------



## drhr

tony, ilitig8 - you guys make the most sense to me with regard to facts, appreciate the input/education/edification, carry on . . .


----------



## TheWalrus

Haha at which point, Bregeut - as the grandfather of mechanical timepieces - would become infuriated and threaten to cut his electrical chord.


----------



## tony20009

TheWalrus said:


> Haha at which point, Bregeut - as the grandfather of mechanical timepieces - would become infuriated and threaten to cut his electrical chord.


ROTFL. Well done.


----------



## faiz

Additionally ALS doesn't have a sports watch.
All 3 of the trinity have revered sports watches;










I certainly agree with the lack of diversity but I am confused about the stylish flair part.
In my opinion the Datograph has a lot more flair than most of the trinity's equivalent offerings;


----------



## Quotron

ilitig8 said:


> It is NOT just because they aren't Swiss. It is much more than that, even if they did have their factory across the border Lange would still not be in contention for the Trinity except on internet forums. The Trinity has been the Trinity longer than any of us have been alive.
> 
> The Trinity wouldn't bother as many people as it does if the were to accept it isn't just about who makes the best (subjective/objective/whatever) watch.


What does AP do that is better than ALS? Cater to celebrities? Name watches after racing drivers? You're not going to see a Saxonia Mika Hakkinen come out any time soon. I like _some_ AP watches but most of their lineup looks like it went through some terrible nuclear disaster and has boils growing out of them; Spock looked better after he repaired the warp drive in _Wrath of Khan_.

Okay, I will play devil's advocate...



tony20009 said:


> (Even though ALS was resurrected in 1994 by a member of the Lange family, it's not clear to me that it's actually the same company. It is the same name, but then it's the man's family name, and nobody had purchased the right to use it, so he was free to use it. Either way, same papers of incorporation or not isn't really the point.)


So then any company that is bought by another company "isn't really the same company." Is the company the same if they have a different CEO? A different board of directors? A different manufacturing base? Perhaps we should consult Theseus...



> Look at ALS's website. Count the watches. Do the same for PP, AP and VC. Each "trinity member" has more different models in one line than do ALS as a whole.


This seems a bit too arbitrary and perhaps somewhat conflicts with later points you make. One could make the case that it does more for brand identity and integrity to not dilute the lineup with a myriad of different models and sub-models.

If we are have a "holy trinty" they should be, by definition, held to a higher standard in all regards - in movement, in execution, in quality and yes in design.
_
"It seems that perfection is attained not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing more to remove." _*-- Antoine de Saint Exupéry*



> Styling: I know that the look, and the extent to which any individual person likes or doesn't like them is subjective, but what's not subjective is that ALS doesn't have so much as one watch that could be considered stylish flair. ALS have instead a few stylish watches -- uncomplicated versions of Saxonia, Zeitwerk, 1815 and R. Lange -- but once they put complications on them, they lose the flair. They don't have one line that manages to be both stylish, refined and complicated.


Really? You think this is more stylish and refined










than this?










or this?










Maybe it's time to visit the optometrist...

I would again visit the quote posted above. Complications have a purpose to be sure, whether functional or for design; in excess - as is the case most often when executed by AP - they do more to detract from the design than to enhance it. Certainly, no member of an elevated triumverate should do such a thing...



> So, if ALS were to join, considering the above, that basically means that you and I must necessarily have less choice from the makers at the so-called top of the industry. How is that beneficial?


That's a silly statement, nobody is saying the brand has to cease to exist. You only have less choice of you put the arbitrary constraint of only buying watches from an imagined trinity. But then again, you could create your own trinity and the whole point is moot.

I'm bored and lazy and didn't go through all of your post, if you feel offended I will gladly be more thorough in future responses...


----------



## Hayseed Brown

TheWalrus said:


> Haha at which point, Bregeut - as the grandfather of mechanical timepieces - would become infuriated and threaten to cut his electrical chord.


No, you got it all wrong. Abraham-Louis was in the audience that night and Louis-Antoine wanted to alleviate the stress he felt with handling a German watch for the first time.

Sorry - too far.


----------



## James A

ilitig8 said:


> Thought you might be dropping the bombshell that Lange was going electric at Basel this year...


Clever


----------



## tony20009

faiz said:


> ...
> I certainly agree with the lack of diversity but* I am confused about the stylish flair part.*
> In my opinion the Datograph has a lot more flair than most of the trinity's equivalent offerings;


Flair is what makes the difference between artistry and mere competence. 
- Star Trek The Next Generation (Cmdr. William Riker)

I understand how that can be. Let me mull on it for a bit and I'll try to explain it more effectively.

I didn't want to launch off on a full on "art history" sort of critique of specific watches and I still don't want to. I don't mind doing that for a specific-watch type of thread, but my comment/opinion is based more on a feeling about whole lines within the respective brands and then the brands overall. That and I don't think ALS' watches are unattractive, and I don't think the Datograph looks bad on your arm. Actually, I think it's one of ALS's best looking complicated pieces and one of the best looking ones on the market. That said, I'm standing by my OP re: the four of them when considered at the brand level.

Just to toss out another very small _maison_ that I wouldn't put in the "trinity," but that has oodles of stylish flair, I'd ask you to look closely at Arnold & Son's offerings, both Royal and Instrument. If that gets it for you, skip to the last link below. It's worth seeing even if you don't need the other bullet items to understand what I'm trying to convey.

The "stylish flair" thing encompasses a lot of factors. I have now written four different words to try to capture it and I've killed every one. Perhaps the metaphors below will get it if the A&S analogy didn't.


It's the Duke of Windsor vs. Prince Charles. I don't know that any one thinks of PC as a stylish fellow and yet he dresses very well. The DoW, however, was known for his style. Surprisingly, the differences between their looks are in the details; the overall look is identical and 9 of 10 people would see them that way. 
It's Nancy Reagan and Jackie Kennedy's style and flair as compared with that of Michelle Obama. All three are/were pretty women and all three dress(ed) really well, but Michelle makes some mistakes. I give her props for taking the risks on the times she's goofed, and when she did, it wasn't a disaster, it just wasn't the best for her. That said, the other two never made a bad style choice. 
It's Audrey and Kate Hepburn vs Angelina Jolie and Charlize Theron. 
It's a bald eagle snagging a fish from the water, the fish upsetting the water more than the bird (



) or a peregrine grabbing a meal midair as compared with a golden eagle taking a goat (



) (These two videos illustrate the point, but I could very easily switch the two creatures roles -- specialist v generalist -- as I suspect others could, so don't dwell on that aspect.) 
It's a cat versus a dog. This may be the best analogy, but since I've bothered to write the others, I'm leaving them there. LOL. 
I hope that helps a bit.

All the best.

The true genius of a woman is her subtle flair in creating the illusion that you are the smart one.
- Josh Stern, _And That's Why I'm Single _


----------



## drhr

Quotron said:


> Really? You think this is more stylish and refined
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> than this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe it's time to visit the optometrist...
> 
> I'm *bored *and lazy and didn't go through all of your post, if you feel offended I will gladly be more thorough in future responses...


Subjectivity at it's best. I feel the same way about your comments. Mainly because, while I own both brands, these pieces lack charisma and are EQUALLY offensive to my eyes. Just had a vision exam, btw, 20/20 just sayin'. . .:think:


----------



## tony20009

I've responded to some specific questions below, but I think what's critical to my OP is that I never intended a watch-by-watch comparison. That would be grossly unfair to ALS as they would lose by default. They don't have enough watches to do such a thing. The whole basis for my opinion is based on each company's offerings when considered in total. It's not about "style alone," it's not about breadth or depth of the product lines alone, it's certainly not because of any single watch that a company makes or doesn't make. The reason is because there are no single watches in the "trinity;" there are only brands. So that's the level of consideration I've given the topic.



Quotron said:


> *What does AP do that is better than ALS? Cater to celebrities?* Name watches after racing drivers? You're not going to see a Saxonia Mika Hakkinen come out any time soon. I like _some_ AP watches but most of their lineup looks like it went through some terrible nuclear disaster and has boils growing out of them; Spock looked better after he repaired the warp drive in _Wrath of Khan_.


They make more stuff and they appeal to a wider customer base. They do more than one thing very well.



Quotron said:


> ...
> This seems a bit too arbitrary and perhaps somewhat conflicts with later points you make. One could make the case that it does more for brand identity and integrity to not dilute the lineup with a myriad of different models and sub-models.
> 
> If we are have a "holy trinty" they should be, by definition, held to a higher standard in all regards - in movement, in execution, in quality and yes in design.


One could make that argument. I think that line of argument has some merit, and it's an argument to which I think I alluded saying, "and having a signature look is a very good thing.". I'm not sure it'd be a convincing argument, but I'm also not sure it wouldn't. Nonetheless, even if I grant ALS the win on brand identity, that's still just one point in the larger category of styling, and as such not enough to put them in the "trinity."

Re: the higher standard: I feel we should hold any "trinity" member, or would be member, to the highest standard. I have no problem with that. The thing is that at a brand level, I'm willing to consider them all equals on movement, execution, quality and design. The thing with ALS is that they don't have the depth of design offerings to put them on the same level, to make them a "trinity" player. It's not about liking the look and choosing a watch to buy, it's about the choice simply existing within the brand.



Quotron said:


> Really? You think this is more stylish and refined
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> than this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe it's time to visit the optometrist...


Just to answer your question directly, no I don't think the RO you selected is better looking by any adjective than the two ALS models above.

I don't need an optometrist at all. I am able to see that the RO -- pick even the one you think prettiest -- in terms of design, style and looks doesn't even begin to play in the same ballpark as the two ALS watches you identified. The fact is that AP became AP, and remains in the "trinity" not because of the RO/ROO/ROC line of watches, but rather in spite of it, ore more accurately, in spite of certain watches in those lines.

The hoi-polloi may be all agog over this and that RO/ROO, and they are right to be so enthralled for the RO/ROO are excellent watches well deserving of the regard in which they are held. As I said before, the style topic isn't and wasn't about whether any single watch's looks are good or bad, but rather the scope of styles offered. (You'll recall I put the style discussion under the general topic of "offerings.")

Now, let's look at AP's dress watch offerings that might compete against ALS'. What one sees is variety in shape, color, and complications.


 *Jules Audemar* (JA) (Audemars Piguet Watch Browser: Collection - Jules Audemars) I can't honestly say I think every model in the JA line is to my liking, but that line has every complication ALS offers matched. Remember the discussion of brand identity above. It even has some small size watches that would be suitable for ladies. (Does ALS even make a model for women? That's actually a serious question and not rhetorical. I don't know the answer.) 
*Millenary* (Audemars Piguet Watch Browser: Collection - Millenary) In this style one sees an oval. Ovals are Earth shaking, but it's a stylistic departure from the circle. The requisite complications are again represented, as is the quality, etc. that we both agree are part of the standard by which we must judge. 
*Tradition* (Tradition - Audemars Piguet Swiss Watches) Another shape appears, the square. Perp cal is the entry level complication in this line. 
Above you asked what AP has that ALS doesn't. Diversity. Depth.

(BTW - How droll that you selected an AP ROO to compare with two ALS dress watches inasmuch as they are better suited for contrast than comparison. Good try on the diversionary tactic. I'm slow, but I'm not "new." <winks & chuckles>)



Quotron said:


> I would again visit the quote posted above. Complications have a purpose to be sure, whether functional or for design; in excess - as is the case most often when executed by *AP* - t*hey do more to detract from the design than to enhance it*. Certainly, no member of an elevated triumverate should do such a thing...


In the RO-driven lines, sure, I'm in accord with you somewhat. I cannot agree regarding the impact of one's subjective (albeit accurate IMO as well) view about the styling of a watch. Garish or not, the fact remains that it has an audience. (I'm not judging the audience for it either.) And by providing an offering for that otherwise ignored audience, AP adds to its greatness and extends the nature and scope of that for which it can be appreciated. That is something that benefits AP not only at the brand level but also at the company level. As a company, AP is obligated not to be "everyman's watch," but it's incumbent upon them to make an effort to have a watch for everyman that can buy a watch of the caliber they offer.

There's no question that watchies who prefer traditional and conservative styling can look to either brand and find something suitable. Where should watchies who want all that quality and complexity in a "funky" styled watch look? Why shouldn't AP be at least one place they can look? Regardless of what you and I think of the look of some of AP's watches, there are people who might find the ones we'd buy just as bording and dull as we think some of those ROOs are taudry. AP has risen above that silliness and said, "Whoever you are, we have a watch you might like. And oh, btw, if you are a watch geek, we have offbeat styling combined with complexity."

So again, what does AP have that ALS doesn't? A welcoming and inclusive business model. Do I hear the diversity theme in there somewhere? Shades of Princess Diana, I think I do.



Quotron said:


> That's a silly statement, *nobody is saying the brand has to cease to exist*. You only have less choice of you put the arbitrary constraint of only buying watches from an imagined trinity. But then again, you could create your own trinity and the whole point is moot.


I clearly didn't make that point very well at all. By "less choice," I meant that the quantity of offerings available from the "trinity" would be reduced if say AP, for example, were to leave and ALS were to enter. I didn't mean that any one of the existing members should/would cease to exist.

Apologies for being ambiguous and thank you for requesting clarification.




Quotron said:


> I'm bored and lazy and didn't go through all of your post, if you feel offended I will gladly be more thorough in future responses...


I didn't read anything to be offended about. I think you and I both are capable of using cynicism and sarcasm, even sometimes to sardonic effect, and in so doing retain the humor and discard the slight. Moreover, this is the first time I'm aware of specifically reading or responding to a post of yours or that you've read one of mine. I'm hardly going to take umbrage on a first encounter that's not blatently seeming to insult me; my skin just isn't that thin. LOL

I generally look for the positive, even in the worst of circumstances, and your were good. BTW, if by "being more thorough" you mean to up the offensiveness, spare me please. LOL

In all honesty, I generally like, and often click to "like," any post that puts for substantive thoughts. I don't even have to agree with them. So long as they are neutral (or mostly so) and at least one of the following: reflective, thought provoking, or perhaps even challenging enough that I'm forced to revisit my own opinions and maybe even revise them. I enjoy any post of that sort becasue those are the ones from which I can learn something.

Bored and Lazy? Dear, God. I'd better hold on to my boot straps when you reply wide awake and bushy tailed. <winks and grins> That was quite a lot of good retort for being suffuse with enuii and torpor.

All the best and thanks for your comments.

A stumble may prevent a fall.
- Thomas Fuller


----------



## faiz

tony20009 said:


> Flair is what makes the difference between artistry and mere competence.
> - Star Trek The Next Generation (Cmdr. William Riker)
> 
> I understand how that can be. Let me mull on it for a bit and I'll try to explain it more effectively.
> 
> I didn't want to launch off on a full on "art history" sort of critique of specific watches and I still don't want to. I don't mind doing that for a specific-watch type of thread, but my comment/opinion is based more on a feeling about whole lines within the respective brands and then the brands overall. That and I don't think ALS' watches are unattractive, and I don't think the Datograph looks bad on your arm. Actually, I think it's one of ALS's best looking complicated pieces and one of the best looking ones on the market. That said, I'm standing by my OP re: the four of them when considered at the brand level.
> 
> Just to toss out another very small _maison_ that I wouldn't put in the "trinity," but that has oodles of stylish flair, I'd ask you to look closely at Arnold & Son's offerings, both Royal and Instrument. If that gets it for you, skip to the last link below. It's worth seeing even if you don't need the other bullet items to understand what I'm trying to convey.
> 
> The "stylish flair" thing encompasses a lot of factors. I have now written four different words to try to capture it and I've killed every one. Perhaps the metaphors below will get it if the A&S analogy didn't.
> 
> 
> It's the Duke of Windsor vs. Prince Charles. I don't know that any one thinks of PC as a stylish fellow and yet he dresses very well. The DoW, however, was known for his style. Surprisingly, the differences between their looks are in the details; the overall look is identical and 9 of 10 people would see them that way.
> It's Nancy Reagan and Jackie Kennedy's style and flair as compared with that of Michelle Obama. All three are/were pretty women and all three dress(ed) really well, but Michelle makes some mistakes. I give her props for taking the risks on the times she's goofed, and when she did, it wasn't a disaster, it just wasn't the best for her. That said, the other two never made a bad style choice.
> It's Audrey and Kate Hepburn vs Angelina Jolie and Charlize Theron.
> It's a bald eagle snagging a fish from the water, the fish upsetting the water more than the bird (
> 
> 
> 
> ) or a peregrine grabbing a meal midair as compared with a golden eagle taking a goat (
> 
> 
> 
> ) (These two videos illustrate the point, but I could very easily switch the two creatures roles -- specialist v generalist -- as I suspect others could, so don't dwell on that aspect.)
> It's a cat versus a dog. This may be the best analogy, but since I've bothered to write the others, I'm leaving them there. LOL.
> I hope that helps a bit.
> 
> All the best.
> 
> The true genius of a woman is her subtle flair in creating the illusion that you are the smart one.
> - Josh Stern, _And That's Why I'm Single _


The way I see it, it's the old vs the young.
All the mistakes that the old made have been forgotten and polished over.
Some of those comparisons are not really legitimate and can never be due to the changes in society between now and then.

That's all very well but we're comparing today's offerings, not yesterdays.
And in my youthful eyes A Lange do what they do better than what the Trinity does.

The fact of the matter is, when you show someone who knows nothing about watches a Lange and a Patek/VC they always want the Lange.
Try it sometime, take a newbie into a high end store and show him a Lange. Then show him the Patek.

He'll never ever forget that Lange. He'll remember the Patek but he'll lust after that Lange.
That's good enough for me.


----------



## Le_Chef

*No desire by Lange to be part of the trinity*

I think this is nonsense. For a start Patek's history was broken in 1931 when it had to be rescued by a dial maker. So broken history would exclude Patek.

Limited range of models. True, but each model has it's own movement. Patek recycles it's 324 movement across a range of watches. Personally I prefer the exclusivity of how Lange manages it's movements.

One size fits all design. You could argue that's the German way with BMW, Mercedes and Porsche. Strong identity not weakened by the whims of fashion.

No sports range. Arguably not true if you include that 1815 Chronograph, Datograph, Double Split, and Datograph Perpetual. Watches that are arguably superior to their Patek counterparts whose legacy was built on borrowed movements, not created in house until a couple of years ago.

Original thinking. Does Patek or any of the trinity have a watch like the Zeitwerk or 31, or the RL PLM? Simple fact is while Patek has been churning out watches based on the 324 movement, Lange has been innovating.

Regardless of a holy trinity designation I would argue that Lange would prefer not to be included in that group and would prefer to continue with their own unique sense of direction.


----------



## not12bhere

Tony,

I have to believe you posted this very thoughtful argument to stir debate but is it how you actually feel about the situation? First off, let's look at the Holy Trinity, as you stated:

"To conclude, I have all the regard in the world for ALS. Their movements may in some ways be superior to those of the "trinity." But the fact is that the "trinity" isn't the "top three movements," it's the top three brands"

I haven't been around too long, but I think your intellectual thoughts on grading based on "brands" was pretty clear. The entire idea of a "holy trinity" of brands has to be a little aggravating to you? PP quartz lady's watch with diamonds? How can you ding a watch movement maker for having fewer "models" but making unique movements for every single one of them? I believe some of the trinity members have the longest and least customer friendly service records. 

What exactly makes a holy trinity member anyway (the 'high end' of high end brands?)? History, finish, price, exclusivity? I think what ALS has done is shown the weakness of the trinity. I believe ALS makes 10X less watches than Patek, I already mentioned the unique model/movement approach and there is an argument to be made regarding ALS' finish versus other trinity members. In the end, all that ALS lacks is continuity of history. 

Let's explore the history matter for a moment. By being shut down post WW2, ALS was not an operational entity during the quartz crisis. How many ALS watches have ever had a quartz movement (I am looking at you PP)? If anything, from an absolute horological purist standpoint, I would argue ALS benefited from the break in operation and stands on higher ground than many of the holy trinity.

While ALS benefited from IWC and JLC assistance in their "reboot," how many ALS movements are sourced from other companies? Can the holy trinity claim the same? 

I know it may be an unpopular opinion, and I respect all of my fellow WIS, but I find the unfortunate and ugly circumstances which shutdown ALS, and broke ALS' historical continuity, to have actually placed ALS above the holy trinity in the year 2014.

So, I don't want the trinity to include ALS or become a quartet. ALS should stand on ALS' own, and maybe the trinity will realize they have been temporarily bested.

I think the Patek shortcomings were discussed very thoroughly in threat a while back regarding the emperor having no clothes ;-)

Regardless, thank you for starting such a vigorous discussion thread!


----------



## tony20009

*Re: No desire by Lange to be part of the trinity*



Le_Chef said:


> I think this is nonsense. *For a start Patek's history was broken in 1931 when it had to be rescued by a dial maker.* So broken history would exclude Patek.
> 
> ...
> 
> *Original thinking.* *Does Patek or any of the trinity have a watch like the Zeitwerk or 31, or the RL PLM*? Simple fact is while Patek has been churning out watches based on the 324 movement, Lange has been innovating.
> 
> ...


*
Unbroken History:*
I do know that PP, like many companies in the post-1928/29 depression, teetered on the edge of extinction in 1931 and that the Sterns acquired the company in 1932. I can't find anything that indicates PP went out of business, closed its doors and then was reincarnated. If you have some evidence that that happened, please post it in this thread so we all can learn from it. I'll gladly retract the following paragraph upon seeing incontrovertible evidence of PP having gone out of business.

Close to going out of business and actually going out of business aren't the same thing. Ask any business owner and they will tell you exactly the same thing. It's very much the same as dying and almost dying. ALS as a company and as a brand died in 1949. Period. It's also worth noting that although one can, and we all often do, speak of a brand and a company synonymously, there are certain contexts in which that's inapplicable. Speaking about the unbroken history of a business and/or of a brand is one place were the distinction matters. In the comparison of PP and ALS's unbroken histories, it does.

I'm sure there're some daft souls around who would argue that the history of a brand ends when the founder yields control of either the company or breath. They could do so and I'd willingly support their desire to base their personal choices on fatuous beliefs in much the same way I don't mind folks worshiping an apis bull if they want to. I just won't sit idly by and let them spew that malarkey as though the verity of it exists anywhere outside their own mind. What the observers of both points of view do after that is their own business.

*Original Thinking:*
Exactly like the handful you suggested? No, they don't. But they each have literally dozens of watches that ALS doesn't have.

BTW, I never argued anything about "original thinking" or anything like it. What I identified was breath and depth of offerings, and I discussed that specifically with regard to styles of watch.

*Movements:*
Your comments seem to be the second ones to which I've responded that make me think the poster hasn't any awareness of the full range of what AP, VC and PP offer. Multiple comments in multiple threads seem to imply that PP is just Calatrava and Nautilus, AP is just RO (or its derivatives), for example. The fact is that all three "trinity" companies earned that label well before the 1970s.

I will say I'm not an ALS devotee and I don't know that much about their movements. It's for that reason I didn't get raise the subject of movements as for why ALS shouldn't be elevated to "trinity" status in both name and spirit. I therefore ask you (or anyone else how knows the answer): is every watch model ALS offers a completely different movement?

I will expressly say PP has far more movements than just the 324 and versions of it (PATEK PHILIPPE SA - Movements). But so what if every movement they make is based on the 324? Is that such a bad starting point from which to evolve additional complexity? What is the business value and what value is it to your customer for a company not to exploit the full potential of the capital they develop? If a company produces something excellent and versatile, that is without doubt a great thing, a great movement. Moreover, once customers discover how great the basic version of it is, it's going to give them added confidence about spending another huge sum to buy a similar watch that's based on it.

I briefly looked through ALS's site. As far as complications go, I saw perp cal, minute repeater, tourbillion, chronograph and moon phase. Now I don't know enough to say anything about how innovative is ALS' approach to implementing those complications. I do know enough to know that when I look at range of complications offered by all three of the "trinity," I see more complications offered and in more models.

*Long Track Record of Unyielding and Demonstrable Excellence:*
I know you didn't raise this topic. I didn't either, but it's a question for which I don't know the answer so I'm asking it hoping someone does.
Relatively speaking, between 1900 and 1949, in what light was ALS viewed in comparison with the "trinity" members?​I'm asking because although I know ALS can't remotely compete with any of the big three on the matter -- 19 years of existence just doesn't cut it up against 100+ years -- I'm just curious.

All the best.

I saw in details while she saw in scope. Not seeing the scope is why I am here and she is not. I took each element spearately and never looked to see that they never did fit together properly.
- Erin Morgenstern, _The Night Circus _


----------



## Le_Chef

*False assumptions*

Your premise is that Lange should be judged by your "Holy Trinity". Why? My preference, and the preference of Lange as it happens is not to be considered the 4th player in that group. Their intention is to stand apart as a true original.

Nowhere did I say PP went out of business - but there was change of ownership brought about by imminent collapse. Lange's cessation of business was caused by political change over which they had no control.

As to originality vs. recycling of movements, I will stick with my preference for unique and innovative movements as offered by Lange. The number of models offered by them is of no interest to me as I have no intention of buying all of them. And as far as I can tell Lange have never offered a watch with an outsourced movement or a quartz movement. Both things that the "Holy Trinity" have done. Arguably if breadth and depth are criteria for inclusion in the "Holy Trinity" then Seiko should be top of the heap on that basis.

Longevity is only one measure of excellence. By your measure you also exclude Philippe Dufour and FP Journe from that list of excellence just because they have not been producing for 100 years. Both are watchmakers who Thierry Stern has mentioned privately for their excellence.

if you want to create a set of self serving criteria that defend your prejudices then by all means go ahead. But you deny yourself the excellence of watchmakers whose output is considered at least the equal of your "Holy Trinity". If you want to see what you're missing, check out Philippe Dufour's "Simplicity" or FP Journe's Souveraine Chronometre a Resonance, and the Lange Zeitwerk. Now that's a holy trinity worth aspiring to.


----------



## tony20009

*Re: False assumptions*

The whole "trinity" thing is one of the forest and the trees. Many folks want to focus on the trees -- this or that watch -- and not the forest -- the brand/company. It's a matter of perspective, and it's not the kind of perspective that's subjective. Think of it like this. If you were in school and earned straight As in math and science and never better than a C in English, history, and other subjects, would you be the top performing student? The "trinity" thing is about the big picture and that's why ALS -- notwithstanding their not being Swiss, which they would also need to be -- can't be in the "trinity."



Le_Chef said:


> Your premise is that Lange should be judged by your "Holy Trinity". Why? My preference, and the preference of Lange as it happens is not to be considered the 4th player in that group. Their* intention is to stand apart* as a true original.
> 
> Nowhere did I say PP went out of business - but there was change of ownership brought about by imminent collapse. Lange's cessation of business was caused by political change over which they had no control.
> 
> As to originality vs. recycling of movements, I will stick with my preference for unique and innovative movements as offered by Lange. The number of models offered by them is of no interest to me as I have no intention of buying all of them. And as far as I can tell Lange have never offered a watch with an outsourced movement or a quartz movement. Both things that the "Holy Trinity" have done. Arguably* if breadth and depth are criteria for inclusion in the "Holy Trinity" then Seiko should be top of the heap* on that basis.
> 
> Longevity is only one measure of excellence. By your measure you also exclude Philippe Dufour and FP Journe from that list of excellence just because they have not been producing for 100 years. Both are watchmakers who Thierry Stern has mentioned privately for their excellence.
> 
> if you want to create *a set of self serving criteria that defend your prejudices* then by all means go ahead. But *you deny yourself the excellence of watchmakers whose output is considered at least the equal of your "Holy Trinity".* If you want to see what you're missing, check out Philippe Dufour's "Simplicity" or FP Journe's Souveraine Chronometre a Resonance, and the Lange Zeitwerk. Now that's a holy trinity worth aspiring to.


Don't call me 'gentleman'. I work for a livin'.
- Tamora Pierce

*Red:*
Starting a new "church" (concept/system of belief) focused around a totally different "deity" (or group thereof) and a different set of rules is an approach that would be fine with me.

*Blue:*
One thing that crosses my mind is that the "trinity" concept applies to entire brands/companies and the full spectrum of watches they offer or have offered over a very long period of time. Several folks seem determined to try to make the case that ALS (or some other maker even) have sufficient merit to deserve the moniker on the basis of some 20 watches produced over the past 19 years.

The problem with that isn't that ALS' specific watches aren't good enough, it's that ALS' scope of products produced and the time period in which they have done so, just isn't broad enough to put them in the same league. Sure, on a watch-for-watch comparison, ALS's products are definitely in the same league, but one, two or even 20 watches do not make a brand that has produced and sold at most 95K watches the same level of player as one that's sold millions, or even one that's sold half a million.

Unlike ALS, I could quite easily see Seiko as being a company that deserves to be viewed on par with PP, VC and AP, particularly on the basis of breadth and depth. As a company, I happen to think Seiko is a better organization than any of the other four. If all five of those companies were publicly traded and I were of a mind to invest in watches, I'd buy Seiko stock, but I would not buy stock from the others.

Some might say that Seiko doesn't deserve to be thought of in the same light as PP and the rest. I disagree. Indeed, IMO, Seiko is "holier" than any of them because Seiko has shown that it's possible to produce excellent watches and profitably sell them at all price levels in the marketplace. In all honesty, I've never seen AP, PP, VC, or ALS demonstrate that they can do anything other than take the most costly approaches to watchmaking. As an analogy, when I go backpacking, I'm pleased as punch when one of us in the group strikes a match and gets the fire going. I'm impressed when someone grabs two sticks and some kindling and accomplishes the same thing, and yet he's also got a lighter and matches at his disposal. It's about the scope of talent demonstrated.

*Green:*
I'm not denying myself anything. I don't care what term or rhetoric is used to describe the watches or brands that I like/don't like. For example, if some "official" standard were created that deemed my PP, Rolex and Movado to all fall under a common classification (other than "watch"), I'd be perfectly fine with it. A group of the most respected watch collectors and consumer advocates could create a list called "The Ten Worst Watches One Can Buy" and put my Rolex Sub on it, I'd be okay with that too. The reason I really don't care is that I don't need external validation in order to feel good about or confident with my choices.

"Holy trinity" (or more precisely "holy trinity of Swiss watchmakers") is nothing more than a synonym for three companies/brands (or linguistically, a "nominal group"). It is no different than, for example, saying "the holy trinity of children in tony20009's family." The "trinity" is nothing more than a term of convenience (it's easier to pronounce and spell) that identifies three specific watch companies. That's all it is. It isn't not deification of any watch or any person wearing a watch. It's a moniker that implies more than it delivers. It's just a name.

All the best.

'Tis but thy name that is my enemy. Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
What's Montague? It is nor hand, nor foot,

Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other word would smell as sweet.
- The Bard, _Romeo and Juliet_


----------



## Le_Chef

*Science vs Subjectivity - Inclusion vs Exclusivity*

Brands are totally dependent on the perception of the buying population. It's the value they ascribe above and beyond the cost of goods. It's also the distinctiveness of the brand from its competitive set, it's desirability and the level to which people will advocate for it, that form the basis of the value perception. What this string is attempting to do is map a number of brands on purely subjective criteria without any formal scientific segmentation mapping or valuation process.

One other point - a brand doesn't not have to have multiple products for it to be a brand, so depth and breadth of product offering do not determine the strength of the brand. That kind of thinking fell into disrepute years ago post Alfred Sloan's "A car for every purse and purpose".

The other assumption is that consumers want Lange to be included in the Holy Trinity when behavior indicates otherwise. I suspect that cross ownership of Lange and the other brands both within and outside the Holy Trinity is quite high, which points to the differences between them being as important if not more so than the similarities. In the case of Lange; being German, having a distinctive look, and unique movements are all enough for me to not want to judge it by subjective incremental gains on the price of entry criteria into the Holy Trinity, but to keep it well apart. To quote Groucho Marx on behalf of Lange: "I don't care to belong to any club that will have me as a member"


----------



## jpfgiii

*Re: Science vs Subjectivity - Inclusion vs Exclusivity*

I have no problem with the current Trinity - I think it should stay as it is. History seems to be one of the biggest factors. All three brands produce amazing watches. Also, I see no reason why Lange & Sohne would want to step down into that group ;-)


----------



## tony20009

*Re: Science vs Subjectivity - Inclusion vs Exclusivity*



Le_Chef said:


> ...
> 
> One other point - a brand doesn't not have to have multiple products for it to be a brand, so depth and breadth of product offering do not determine the strength of the brand. That kind of thinking fell into disrepute years ago post Alfred Sloan's "A car for every purse and purpose".
> 
> ...


Good points re: the stuff I deleted. No argument here.

Find the hole and fill it. That's what excellent leaders do. It's also what you will do if you intend to be successful here.
- The partner who delivered the welcome address when I joined my firm (20+ years ago)

Off Topic:
Re: the above comment about business strategy, it's not that Sloan was wrong, it's that folks failed to correctly apply the strategy. After Sloan's departure, his approach was taken out of context. Sloan said "a car" not "a brand." Furthermore, central to Sloans' strategy was the requirement that no model cannibalize the sales of another. It's not that Sloan's winning approach, the one that made GM the world's largest company, was found in error. It's that it was erroneously applied once we was no longer at the helm.

Chrysler and Ford experienced problems similar to those at GM because of the "copy cat" effect. That's to be expected: if you copy your competitor's mistakes, you'll suffer the same failures. Unfortunately, the nature of "group think," the imperatives of the stock market, and people's averseness to risk, especially in business, make it difficult for corporate leaders to think for themselves and implement unique ideas and strategies when they have multi-million dollar salaries and "good enough" will keep the stakeholders content but risk taking makes them leery. Many find it easier to manage expectations than to manage and implement innovation.

Sidebar:
My area of expertise doesn't include executive compensation _per se_ but I have worked with colleagues for whom that is their specialty. Quite a few of them feel that stock value as a driver for executive compensation results in a company being only a shadow of what it could be. No small number of execs disagree, but no small number of them want it to work differently either for obvious reasons. That leads to the age old issue of "who should lead -- the innovator and product people, the marketing people, the finance people or the management specialists?" Unfortunately, there's not in these times a simple answer.
End Sidebar.

Technically, no, a company need not have multiple product models to have a brand. As best as I can tell, VC, AP, PP, ALS, Rolex, Omega, Seiko, and tons more only have one product: watches. GM under Sloan only had one consumer product: cars. Under Sloan's leadership, a Chevy was a different from a Pontiac, and both were different from a Buick, which again was different from an Olds. None were a Cadillac. They were different cars targeted at different customers. After Sloan, GM's problem was that they made four cars for the same customer, and that customer didn't want to buy four cars. GM began to make one car with four different brand names, but the only thing different was the brand image, not the cars themselves.

I'd have to look a lot more closely than I ever have (or want to or will) at every product in the lineup at each of the major watch companies, but roughly speaking, it looks to me that Seiko is correctly applying Sloan's stratey. I realize that Seiko have a lot more models than any car company ever will, but that's to be expected to some extent, and yet, in most cases what we call "different watch models' at Seiko are more akin to one car having different "colors and options assortments" than they are truly different models. Often enough, that's just a function of inventory classification structures and naming conventions than anything else.

All the best.

We are much too much inclined in these days to divide people into permanent categories, forgetting that a category only exists for its special purpose and must be forgotten as soon as that purpose is served.
- Dorothy L. Sayers, _Are Women Human?: Astute and Witty Essays on the Role of Women in Society _


----------



## yialanliu

Holy Trinity? Never believed in watches had anything to do with christianity.

For me, ALS is on par with PP and I'd place them above AP/VC only because of what I'd buy with my money. Just a matter of opinion and that's all this thread should be. You can't measure which is better when it comes to looks and refinement so I don't think we should. Just state your opinion and so be it is all I think we can do.


----------



## CADstraps

tony20009 said:


> How good ALS is at making watches has nothing to do it.


Sorry, but how well made the watches are has nothing to do with how a brand should be regarded?

That makes less than zero sense, in my books. History, schmistory - I really don't care about a brand's history, I care about the watches.

I'm also certain that Lange would be the last party to have any concern about where they are perceived to rank against other brands. Only us lowly forumites concern ourselves with such drivel.


----------



## tony20009

CADstraps said:


> Sorry, but *how well made the watches are has nothing to do with how a brand should be regarded?*
> 
> That makes less than zero sense, in my books. *History, schmistory - I really don't care about a brand's history, I care about the watches.
> *
> I'm also certain that *Lange would be the last party to have any concern about where they are perceived to rank against other brands. *Only us lowly forumites concern ourselves with such drivel.


Red:
Correct. Within the context of the post you cited, and the brands that one might consider as "trinity" brands, it does not because on the well made/well finished/innovative point the potential contenders are equal or comparable enough that one must look to other factors to distinguish among them.

Blue:
You and I don't care about it when making purchase/preference choices, but the "trinity" term has nothing to do with purchase choices. It's a group noun used to identify multiple brands. Also, though we don't care, someone who coined the term -- and I wrote earlier that I have yet to figure out who that was or how it came to be in the general watch world's lexicon -- clearly did. Seeing as we are using their term, we need to also accept their definition.

Green:
Lange probably doesn't care about the "trinity" moniker, but they care very much about how they are perceived in the marketplace, both as a brand/company on their own and in comparison to their competitors, both direct and indirect.

All the best.

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
- Philip K. Dick, _I Hope I Shall Arrive Soon _


----------



## drhr

tony20009 said:


> Red:
> Correct. Within the context of the post you cited, and the brands that one might consider as "trinity" brands, it does not because on the well made/well finished/innovative point the potential contenders are equal or comparable enough that one must look to other factors to distinguish among them.
> 
> Blue:
> You and I don't care about it when making purchase/preference choices, but the "trinity" term has nothing to do with purchase choices. It's a group noun used to identify multiple brands. Also, though we don't care, someone who coined the term -- and I wrote earlier that I have yet to figure out who that was or how it came to be in the general watch world's lexicon -- clearly did. Seeing as we are using their term, we need to also accept their definition.
> 
> Green:
> Lange probably doesn't care about the "trinity" moniker, but they care very much about how they are perceived in the marketplace, both as a brand/company on their own and in comparison to their competitors, both direct and indirect.
> 
> All the best.
> 
> Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
> - Philip K. Dick, _I Hope I Shall Arrive Soon _


Logical, succinct and imo, correct, thank you tony . . . .:-!


----------



## Crunchy

if the trinity were harvard princeton and yale, ALS would be MIT. Sure, they only do one thing very well (MIT in science and ALS in technical) but that thing is important enough to matter and change the world. And therein lies the art. Such as I think quantum physics is as much as art as mozart or picasso.


----------



## tony20009

Came across this today: A Week On The Wrist: The A. Lange & Söhne Lange 1 Time Zone Luminous

The author's points about Lange should help folks put the the "trinity" thing in perspective if one were having trouble doing so before.

All the best.


----------



## not12bhere

tony20009 said:


> Came across this today: A Week On The Wrist: The A. Lange & Söhne Lange 1 Time Zone Luminous
> 
> The author's points about Lange should help folks put the the "trinity" thing in perspective if one were having trouble doing so before.
> 
> All the best.


It was an excellent article and one which I reviewed a few times before making my decision. On the point about Lange's non-trinity status and the noted article:

"It should be said that Lange's movements are what makes their watches so special, and while I had the pleasure of wearing the Time Zone, I regularly found myself taking it off my wrist to examine the caseback. _*Wow. Just wow. It is that good.*_"

"In fact, this is probably _*the finest high-grade mechanical watch for someone who travels frequently available on the market*_ (though FP Journe's Resonance is another superb option [This part is for you AK]) because of its casualness."

"At $50,100, the A. Lange & Söhne Lange 1 Time Zone Luminous is not for anyone who has to think about money twice, but it is the watch that _*completely changed my perspective on the brand. I get it now.*_"

I would also note I WISH the resale market still showed 45% discounts on Lange 1's.o|


----------



## big-WIS

Quotron said:


> What does AP do that is better than ALS? Cater to celebrities? Name watches after racing drivers? You're not going to see a Saxonia Mika Hakkinen come out any time soon. I like _some_ AP watches but most of their lineup looks like it went through some terrible nuclear disaster and has boils growing out of them; Spock looked better after he repaired the warp drive in _Wrath of Khan_.
> 
> Okay, I will play devil's advocate...
> 
> So then any company that is bought by another company "isn't really the same company." Is the company the same if they have a different CEO? A different board of directors? A different manufacturing base? Perhaps we should consult Theseus...
> 
> This seems a bit too arbitrary and perhaps somewhat conflicts with later points you make. One could make the case that it does more for brand identity and integrity to not dilute the lineup with a myriad of different models and sub-models.
> 
> If we are have a "holy trinty" they should be, by definition, held to a higher standard in all regards - in movement, in execution, in quality and yes in design.
> _
> "It seems that perfection is attained not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing more to remove." _*-- Antoine de Saint Exupéry*
> 
> Really? You think this is more stylish and refined
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> than this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe it's time to visit the optometrist...
> 
> I would again visit the quote posted above. Complications have a purpose to be sure, whether functional or for design; in excess - as is the case most often when executed by AP - they do more to detract from the design than to enhance it. Certainly, no member of an elevated triumverate should do such a thing...
> 
> That's a silly statement, nobody is saying the brand has to cease to exist. You only have less choice of you put the arbitrary constraint of only buying watches from an imagined trinity. But then again, you could create your own trinity and the whole point is moot.
> 
> I'm bored and lazy and didn't go through all of your post, if you feel offended I will gladly be more thorough in future responses...


Honestly all three watches look terrible. Come on, would you dare wear such terrible looking watches except to a watch geeks convention?

The AP is just plain wrong like it got caught up in the assembly machine during production and they just pulled it out and said let's sell it to the nearest idiot who'll believe it's a deliberate work of art.

And both those ALS are bad examples. The first one I feel like a member of the ....... and the second like some doctors instrument is going to probe my anus. If you're gonna use any ALS model as an example let it be the more elegant 1815 or Saxonia (and without those aweful big date windows please!)


----------



## big-WIS

big-WIS said:


> Honestly all three watches look terrible. Come on, would you dare wear such terrible looking watches except to a watch geeks convention?
> 
> The AP is just plain wrong like it got caught up in the assembly machine during production and they just pulled it out and said let's sell it to the nearest idiot who'll believe it's a deliberate work of art.
> 
> And both those ALS are bad examples. The first one I feel like a member of the ....... and the second like some doctors instrument is going to probe my anus. If you're gonna use any ALS model as an example let it be the more elegant 1815 or Saxonia (and without those aweful big date windows please!)


g..e..s..t..a..p..o


----------



## Le_Chef

You don't seem to like a critical part of Lange's DNA which is the big date window: a bit like liking Porsche for the Cayenne but not liking flat-6 engines. 

I think most Lange fans would say that what makes a Lange a Lange would be the 3/4 plate movement, the big date window, and iconic models like the Lange 1 and the original Datograph. You can add innovation to the list and include the fusee system in the PLM models, and arguably the Zeitwek also.


----------



## drhr

Le_Chef said:


> You don't seem to like a critical part of Lange's DNA which is the big date window: a bit like liking Porsche for the Cayenne but not liking flat-6 engines.
> 
> I think most Lange fans would say that what makes a Lange a Lange would be the 3/4 plate movement, *the big date window, and iconic models like the Lange 1 and the original Datograph*. You can add innovation to the list and include the fusee system in the PLM models, and arguably the *Zeitwek* also.


Most, but certainly not all (hand raised), I've owned 5 Lange watches, still have 2, none of which are as described, if given the above models I'd sell in a heartbeat and acquire something that I truly like to look at . . . .


----------



## big-WIS

Le_Chef said:


> You don't seem to like a critical part of Lange's DNA which is the big date window: a bit like liking Porsche for the Cayenne but not liking flat-6 engines.
> 
> I think most Lange fans would say that what makes a Lange a Lange would be the 3/4 plate movement, the big date window, and iconic models like the Lange 1 and the original Datograph. You can add innovation to the list and include the fusee system in the PLM models, and arguably the Zeitwek also.


I think the date windows are out of proportion and quite hideous. Unsubtle and inelegant. there needs to be more criticism from watch journals about some of the silly designs coming out of the leading brands. And that AP is just an abortion of a watch. Picasso would even crack up in giggles.


----------



## not12bhere

big-WIS said:


> I think the date windows are out of proportion and quite hideous. Unsubtle and inelegant. there needs to be more criticism from watch journals about some of the silly designs coming out of the leading brands. And that AP is just an abortion of a watch. Picasso would even crack up in giggles.


The Saxonias are very elegant, but the outsize date window is a defining ALS feature. If you don't like it aesthetically I totally understand, but I really like not needing a magnification bubble to read the date on my watch. I know we don't often discuss the practical side of the high end watches, but a big date has proven great on my daily wear, a point which is driven home every time I wear my afterwork/weekend B01 Breitling TOC (which I still really enjoy) and have to go looking for that little date.

On a side note on the Lange outsized date mechanism; I was at first disappointed to discover how long it takes for the date to change (I had wrongly assumed it would be a rapid click over) but now I enjoy watching the transition so I guess even that grew on me.

I haven't looked at your prior posts, but I am guessing you prefer the more standard Patek Calatrava in officer case style?


----------



## big-WIS

not12bhere said:


> The Saxonias are very elegant, but the outsize date window is a defining ALS feature. If you don't like it aesthetically I totally understand, but I really like not needing a magnification bubble to read the date on my watch. I know we don't often discuss the practical side of the high end watches, but a big date has proven great on my daily wear, a point which is driven home every time I wear my afterwork/weekend B01 Breitling TOC (which I still really enjoy) and have to go looking for that little date.
> 
> On a side note on the Lange outsized date mechanism; I was at first disappointed to discover how long it takes for the date to change (I had wrongly assumed it would be a rapid click over) but now I enjoy watching the transition so I guess even that grew on me.
> 
> I haven't looked at your prior posts, but I am guessing you prefer the more standard Patek Calatrava in officer case style?


Honestly I would be bored within 2 hours of wearing a Calatrava and it doesn't project anything of my style.

I could see the benefit of the large date window for those with near vision issues. But I think the date complication while useful (almost all my watches have date complications) not a single make has implemented it in a beautifully elegant way in my opinion. I think most makers resign to a small portal at the 3 o'clock position. But even that is more a hack than a integral feature of the design. Some makers have put the date on the outer fringes of the watch and use a third hand to point to it but this complicates reading the date in my opinion.

I have watches for both dress and casual however I can't see how the ALS zeitwork fits either. I buy watches that enhance my appearance and accentuate whatever it is I am wearing for any given occassion. I would not buy the ALS zeitwork because I feel I am paying silly money (something I don't have a lot of) to show off the technical capabilities of ALS rather than accentuating my style for the day.

I don't own a PP or ever have or ever will (although I should never say never). My wife has 3 PP's one of them being the lady aquanaut with diamand bezel. Honestly I can't see where US$40,000 has gone into that watch and apart from the diamonds doesn't do anything to accentuate her style. Some of her other watches at a fraction of the cost do a lot better.

I hope to find a pre-owned ALS Saxonia or 1815 one day to add to my collection because I prefer their styling over PP and they speak German class with understatement. I think the ALS WG works well with a tightly tailored short collar white shirt buttoned cuff and a grey or navy blue single breasted suit with matt black brogues (armani of course).

PP just doesn't speak anything to me except dull conservative old style watch making. Not modern, not old. Just safe designs with a name that sells. People buy them because they want something that elevates their status but prefer not to take risks in style. That's OK for those who confine themselves to wearing the same style suits everyday.

Going back to the original topic, I think Jacquet Droz deserves to be in the holy trinity of watches more than any other mentioned here. They produce fewer watches than any other of the manufacturers and have a history equal or exceeding both PP and AP. However Swatch have made a complete hash of their designs recently to fit the Chinese market. Even the Chinese are not buying them because they are so grotesque. JD is famous for making mechanical toys for the Chinese emperors. Why not carry on that tradition in their watches? A fluttering butterfly on the dial at each strike at noon would be a marvel in watchmaking in my opinion and something following the tradition of JD.


----------



## Le_Chef

*Semper Opera House in Dresden*

Go there and ask to look at the clock. Ask about its history. Then you will understand why the large date is so significant to Lange.


----------



## Le_Chef

big-WIS said:


> Going back to the original topic, I think Jacquet Droz deserves to be in the holy trinity of watches more than any other mentioned here. They produce fewer watches than any other of the manufacturers and have a history equal or exceeding both PP and AP. However Swatch have made a complete hash of their designs recently to fit the Chinese market. Even the Chinese are not buying them because they are so grotesque. JD is famous for making mechanical toys for the Chinese emperors. Why not carry on that tradition in their watches? A fluttering butterfly on the dial at each strike at noon would be a marvel in watchmaking in my opinion and something following the tradition of JD.


You should take a closer look - some of these watches are breathtaking mechanical marvels. Truly spectacular. But like Lange I'm sure they want to have nothing to do with any holy trinity.


----------



## tony20009

not12bhere said:


> ...
> 
> On a side note on the Lange outsized date mechanism; I was at first disappointed to discover how long it takes for the date to change (I had wrongly assumed it would be a rapid click over) but now I enjoy watching the transition so *I guess even that grew on me.*
> ...


Given time and opportunity, warts and fungus will grow on you too. LOL



big-WIS said:


> Honestly I would be bored within 2 hours of wearing a Calatrava and it *doesn't project anything of my style.*
> ...
> PP just *doesn't speak anything to me except dull conservative old style watch making.* Not modern, not old. Just *safe designs with a name that sells. *People buy them because they want something that elevates their status but prefer not to take risks in style. *That's OK for those who confine themselves to wearing* *the same style suits everyday*.
> 
> Going back to the original topic, I think *Jacquet Droz deserves to be in the holy trinity* of watches more than any other mentioned here. They produce fewer watches than any other of the manufacturers and have a history equal or exceeding both PP and AP. ...


Red:
Just curious to know...what is your style, say, for formal wear? The only thing I wear my Calatrava (3520/5120) with is black/white tie or super dressy, double breasted suits and French cuffed shirts. All the same, I get that you may simply not "feel" the looks of most of what PP offer. _DGND._

Yes, PP's designs are conservative, but then so are pretty much all the "reasonably priced" designs offered by the major names. I think Breguet's Marine with it's blue or black swirly in the middle of the dial is about as "envelope pushing" as it gets in the lower brackets of the high end. Once one moves to the sport styles, things get a little better, which is, I guess, why the Marine isn't uber-traditional.

Blue:
What are these "same style" suits to which you refer? What would be some "different" styles to splash in with the "same style" ones?

There are only so many styles of suits: single breasted (one, two, three, and four button along with Mao style), double breasted (four and six button), cutaway/morning, and zoot suit. Each of the preceding styles can be had in American, English, Italian or French cuts, and there're various material and lapel designs one can have applied to each of the styles available. I'm hard pressed to think of any PP that won't work very well with each of those styles, provided it's dressiness corresponds to the dressiness of the suit.

Green:
No they should not. They aren't big enough and they don't offer a broad enough assortment of models. They have the historic chops for the moniker, however.

All the best.

Design can be art. Design can be aesthetics. Design is so simple, that's why it is so complicated.
― Paul Rand


----------



## Dancing Fire

*Re: Semper Opera House in Dresden*



Le_Chef said:


> Go there and ask to look at the clock. Ask about its history. Then you will understand why the large date is so significant to Lange.


I wouldn't buy a Lange w/o the BIG date. I am blind...:-d


----------



## Dancing Fire

*Re: Semper Opera House in Dresden*



Le_Chef said:


> Go there and ask to look at the clock. Ask about its history. Then you will understand why the large date is so significant to Lange.


delete


----------



## ilitig8

*Re: Semper Opera House in Dresden*

I find it very interesting how the tenor of a thread changes when it is moved. Honestly, it would have been a more complete but probably no less interesting of a discussion if left in F2, it was "designed" to be in F2 after all. When you take a thread out of its "natural environment" it morphs, it would have played somewhat differently in HEW as well.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned is volume. Lets assume the trinity was voted on like the Oscars each year. Does Lange have the production to be in the running? I dunno. If a maker pops up and makes the best watch in the world (whatever that would be) but only makes five, would it be time to recast the trinity?

As an owner of all 4 manufacturers in question I have to say I view ALS as a magnificent movement designer/atelier but are not yet as mature in the rest of the watch components.


----------



## Le_Chef

*Re: Semper Opera House in Dresden*

I'm not sure of three things:

Why would production volume matter? Let's make membership of the trinity based on exclusivity of production. Philip Dufour makes at most a handful of watches a year and frankly given the opportunity to own a Dufour Simplicity I would take that option over pretty much any watch on the planet.

Why does "maturity" matter? All that means is you've been around for a long time, and is not a measure of excellence. A better measure is consistency - a problem FP Journe faced early on but now seems to have fixed. I don't think Lange (with one exception) has faced a problem with consistency.

Sounding like a broken record, Lange would insist on NOT being included in any vote for inclusion into the Holy Trinity - they simply have absolutely no desire to be lumped into a group they have no interest in being part of.


----------



## tony20009

*Re: Semper Opera House in Dresden*



Le_Chef said:


> I'm not sure of three things:
> 
> Why would production volume matter? Let's make membership of the trinity based on exclusivity of production. Philip Dufour makes at most a handful of watches a year and frankly given the opportunity to own a Dufour Simplicity I would take that option over pretty much any watch on the planet.
> 
> Why does "maturity" matter? All that means is you've been around for a long time, and is not a measure of excellence. A better measure is consistency - a problem FP Journe faced early on but now seems to have fixed. I don't think Lange (with one exception) has faced a problem with consistency.
> 
> Sounding like a broken record, Lange would insist on NOT being included in any vote for inclusion into the Holy Trinity - they simply have absolutely no desire to be lumped into a group they have no interest in being part of.


Production volume and maturity both matter because we are talking about the demonstrable capabilities of companies. Both the attributes speak to a watch company's historic and ongoing capability to perform at a very high level of proficiency over time.

Once Mr. Dufour stops producing watches, what will be the merit of his brand? Sure, the ones he made prior to that point will have enduring value and greatness, but that's it. Whether into existence will come a company bearing the Dufour name as a brand and that perpetuates his level of craftsmanship and at the production levels comparable to the existing trinity members remains to be seen. Perhaps if such a company comes to be, it might displace an existing member. Either way, PP, AP and VC aren't trinity members because of any one or dozen watches, but because of the entirety of what they and their founders have accomplished day in and day out for over a hundred years. They are what they are because of the impact they have had on watchmaking overall, not because they make a few excellent watches. It's a matter of scope.

All the best.

And then Franklin smote the ground and up rose George Washington, fully dressed and astride a horse! Then the three of them, Franklin, Washington and the HORSE, proceeded to win the entire revolution single handedly!
- John Adams


----------



## mark1958

ALS going Quartz would be the best analogy (comparing Dylan from folk guitar to electric) 



ilitig8 said:


> Thought you might be dropping the bombshell that Lange was going electric at Basel this year...


----------



## mark1958

I take offense&#8230; where is Stanford in the mix&#8230;



Crunchy said:


> if the trinity were harvard princeton and yale, ALS would be MIT. Sure, they only do one thing very well (MIT in science and ALS in technical) but that thing is important enough to matter and change the world. And therein lies the art. Such as I think quantum physics is as much as art as mozart or picasso.


----------



## drhr

*Re: Semper Opera House in Dresden*



Le_Chef said:


> I'm not sure of three things:
> 
> Why would production volume matter? Let's make membership of the trinity based on exclusivity of production. Philip Dufour makes at most a handful of watches a year and frankly given the opportunity to own a Dufour Simplicity I would take that option over pretty much any watch on the planet.
> 
> Why does "maturity" matter? All that means is you've been around for a long time, and is not a measure of excellence. A better measure is consistency - a problem FP Journe faced early on but now seems to have fixed. I don't think Lange (with one exception) has faced a problem with consistency.
> 
> Sounding like a broken record, *Lange would insist on NOT being included in any vote for inclusion into the Holy Trinity - they simply have absolutely no desire to be lumped into a group they have no interest in being part of.*


apologies if i missed it in all of this, but this is opinion, not fact, correct?


----------



## Le_Chef

*Re: Semper Opera House in Dresden*



drhr said:


> apologies if i missed it in all of this, but this is opinion, not fact, correct?


Fact: told to me by a senior Lange employee I was sat next to at a dinner last year in Dresden. "We are German, not Swiss. We do not want to be compared to any of the Swiss brands." And I would agree: Lange would gain nothing by being included in something they see no value in.


----------



## tony20009

*Re: Semper Opera House in Dresden*



Le_Chef said:


> Fact: told to me by a senior Lange employee I was sat next to at a dinner last year in Dresden. "We are German, not Swiss.* We do not want to be compared to any of the Swiss brands.*" And I would agree: Lange would gain nothing by being included in something they see no value in.


That's an interesting statement for for a Lange employee to have made. I would think that ALS itself even is well aware of what the top Swiss brands offer just as any competitor in any circumstance is well aware of the strengths and weaknesses of their competitors. To remain oblivious of such things spells doom for one's business. Examining and comparing oneself to/with the competition is one aspect of SWOT analysis. It's quite odd to read that a senior manager of a company would say such a thing when it's incumbent on them to make such comparisons. Now that they would prefer not to have to do so is a different matter altogether.

Of course no maker/seller of anything wants to be compared to any other; all would prefer to be viewed as the "only" consideration a consumer could have. I can imagine they'd not want to be _compared to_ Swiss brands, but rather _compared with_ them. The linguistic distinction notwithstanding, it strikes me as a naive thing to say/believe given that either form of comparison is inevitable/unavoidable in all but ALS' most diehard of devotees.

All the best.

How much time he gains who does not look to see what his neighbour says or does or thinks, but only at what he does himself, to make it just and holy.
- Marcus Aurelius, _Meditations _

PS
I don't know many English speaking Germans, but I do know quite a few French, Chinese and Dutch ones. It's been my observation that non-native English speakers have better formal grammar/vocabulary skills than do the vast majority of native "American" English speakers. In fairness, however, the only non-native speakers I encounter with enough frequency and closeness to be able to tell that sort of thing are very well educated and experienced with English. In contrast, I'm exposed to all manners of Americans and Englishmen, many of whom have had a lifetime of getting by with technically poor English skills. All the same, I'd wager that the linguistic distinction I mentioned above exists in most any language as it's a matter of approach, not cultural sensibility.


----------



## Le_Chef

*Not oblivious*

They just don't want to be lumped in with other brands. Patek sets it's own KPI's and created its own overall standard which exceeds that of the Geneva Seal. Lange is already world class, with innovative movements, and beautifully finished movements.

You can benchmark your competitors - and pretty much every company does these days to make sure you have the right KPI's - but you want make sure your positioning is as differentiated as possible from other brands and that you set your KPI's to suit your positioning, not what other brands do.

I keep saying it, but no one in their right mind wants to have their brand lumped in with other brands unles your intention is to be a "me too" competitor. That's a kiss of death. And it makes far more sense to adopt Lange's approach than take a benign attitude of letting people lump you in with other brands.

McLaren benchmarks Ferrari, but their positioning and philosophy are poles apart, and they wouldn't want. To be lumped together with Ferrari.

The whole trinity exercise is futile, because that's not the way great companies think or act.


----------



## tony20009

*Re: Not oblivious*



Le_Chef said:


> They just don't want to be lumped in with other brands. Patek sets it's own KPI's and created its own overall standard which exceeds that of the Geneva Seal. Lange is already world class, with innovative movements, and beautifully finished movements.
> 
> You can benchmark your competitors - and pretty much every company does these days to make sure you have the right KPI's - but you want make sure your positioning is as differentiated as possible from other brands and that you set your KPI's to suit your positioning, not what other brands do.
> 
> I keep saying it, but no one in their right mind wants to have their brand lumped in with other brands unles your intention is to be a "me too" competitor. That's a kiss of death. And it makes far more sense to adopt Lange's approach than take a benign attitude of letting people lump you in with other brands.
> 
> McLaren benchmarks Ferrari, but their positioning and philosophy are poles apart, and they wouldn't want. To be lumped together with Ferrari.
> 
> The whole trinity exercise is futile, because that's not the way great companies think or act.


Re: KPIs and benchmarks:
I agree. I don't think either has to do with assessing the competitive environment which is an external thing but a thing that must be done. But to you point, no, a company won't deliberately position itself -- as a whole -- relative to the competition, but they will offer directly competing products where it fits their strategy to do so. Looking at the "bread and butter" offerings from the top makers, one sees a huge amount of similarity and that isn't because of positioning, it's because they have to offer an alternative that's comparable looking. Comparable looking -- even if not mechanically so -- because most buyers care 80% about the look and 20% about everything else.

Re: trinity:
The trinity is a silly thing, but what's sillier is that some folks think it has some real meaning beyond being an alternate way of identifying three great watch companies. As I said earlier, I don't know and can't determine where the term even came from. At best, I imagine it's merely a metaphor a watch writer used once and it got picked up and perpetuated by folks who think it means more than it really does. In all honesty, I never heard the term before I joined WUS, and even then only when the other recent "trinity" threads were created and I read them.

All the best.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
- Sigmund Freud


----------



## not12bhere

*Re: Not oblivious*



tony20009 said:


> Re: KPIs and benchmarks:
> I agree. I don't think either has to do with assessing the competitive environment which is an external thing but a thing that must be done. But to you point, no, a company won't deliberately position itself -- as a whole -- relative to the competition, but they will offer directly competing products where it fits their strategy to do so. Looking at the "bread and butter" offerings from the top makers, one sees a huge amount of similarity and that isn't because of positioning, it's because they have to offer an alternative that's comparable looking. Comparable looking -- even if not mechanically so -- because most buyers care 80% about the look and 20% about everything else.
> 
> Re: trinity:
> The trinity is a silly thing, but what's sillier is that some folks think it has some real meaning beyond being an alternate way of identifying three great watch companies. As I said earlier, I don't know and can't determine where the term even came from. At best, I imagine it's merely a metaphor a watch writer used once and it got picked up and perpetuated by folks who think it means more than it really does. In all honesty, I never heard the term before I joined WUS, and even then only when the other recent "trinity" threads were created and I read them.
> 
> All the best.
> 
> Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
> - Sigmund Freud


Tony,
You should share your thoughts on the entire holy trinity with Mr. Archie Luxury and watch him blow an o-ring in his heart. I bet he would post an expletive filled video just to refute your view. A view which I agree with.


----------



## tony20009

*Re: Not oblivious*



not12bhere said:


> Tony,
> You should share your thoughts on the entire holy trinity with Mr. Archie Luxury and watch him blow an o-ring in his heart. I bet he would post an expletive filled video just to refute your view. A view which I agree with.


I did actually watch Archie's video about the "Holy Trinity of Swiss Watchmakers." After watching it, I came to the conclusion that Archie feels the same way about the phrase as you and I do. It was clear that the three watch companies, and his samples from them are near and dear to him in his heart, but I could tell immediately that he's approaching the thing -- the term itself, that is --- as a source of humor. His comments about his reaction to the young lady make it clear that he places no special value on the "trinity" term, even though he is sincere in his appreciation for watches made by those companies.

I don't have the least bit of a problem with Archie or even The Watch Snob. I only ever have issues with the small minds that absorb the stuff either person presents and lack the good sense, the reading/listening comprehension skills to, when they see/hear it, distinguish the factual and objective content that has some value from the satire and parody that is presented solely to poke fun at (1) consumerism, (2) over emphasis on an insignificant object -- a watch, and perhaps most hilariously of all, (3) the folks who are dim or "new" enough to misconstrue the humor as legitimate advice that should be followed.

Should one doubt that last point, take a look again at the end of one of Archie's "trinity" videos (I don't know which one it is now, and I'm not going looking for it either) where he invites folks to debate the matter with him. It's the one where he's a bit vulgar and foul mouthed at several points in the video. Notwithstanding what he says, he appears to me almost incapable at laughing at the silliness of someone actually doing just that, while knowing that some poor sap will do just that, and do so completely seriously. I'm certain that Archie knows as well as you and I that folks who are serious about collecting watches aren't looking to him for input.






All the best.

Here's an easy way to figure out if you're in a cult: If you're wondering whether you're in a cult, the answer is yes.
- Stephen Colbert,_ I am America _


----------



## big-WIS

tony20009 said:


> Given time and opportunity, warts and fungus will grow on you too. LOL
> 
> Red:
> Just curious to know...what is your style, say, for formal wear? The only thing I wear my Calatrava (3520/5120) with is black/white tie or super dressy, double breasted suits and French cuffed shirts. All the same, I get that you may simply not "feel" the looks of most of what PP offer. _DGND._
> 
> Yes, PP's designs are conservative, but then so are pretty much all the "reasonably priced" designs offered by the major names. I think Breguet's Marine with it's blue or black swirly in the middle of the dial is about as "envelope pushing" as it gets in the lower brackets of the high end. Once one moves to the sport styles, things get a little better, which is, I guess, why the Marine isn't uber-traditional.
> 
> Blue:
> What are these "same style" suits to which you refer? What would be some "different" styles to splash in with the "same style" ones?
> 
> There are only so many styles of suits: single breasted (one, two, three, and four button along with Mao style), double breasted (four and six button), cutaway/morning, and zoot suit. Each of the preceding styles can be had in American, English, Italian or French cuts, and there're various material and lapel designs one can have applied to each of the styles available. I'm hard pressed to think of any PP that won't work very well with each of those styles, provided it's dressiness corresponds to the dressiness of the suit.
> 
> Green:
> No they should not. They aren't big enough and they don't offer a broad enough assortment of models. They have the historic chops for the moniker, however.
> 
> All the best.
> 
> Design can be art. Design can be aesthetics. Design is so simple, that's why it is so complicated.
> ― Paul Rand


I can't think of a PP that would fit any of my shirts, shirts that are *only* tailored Egyptian hand-picked cotton, mostly button cuffed to show that I am a salaried professional. But I do have a couple french cuffs reserved for business luncheons. Mostly white to show-off the sheer beauty of Egyptian hand-picked cotton that no other cotton is equal.

This is all incidentally completely opposite to my wife who loves PP so PP's certainly attract a certain clientele. By the way, my wife *always* buys off-rack, mostly French or Italian haute couture.


----------



## tony20009

big-WIS said:


> *I can't think of a PP that would fit any of my shirts*.... *wife buys off-rack, mostly French or Italian haute couture.*


Red:
Nautilus, Aquanaut, Calatrava 5123, 5153 or 5227, Eclipse, or Gondolo would all work just fine for attire from business casual to full on formal, regardless of what cuffs are on your ..... If you don't find them attractive, so be it. I can accept that. That they won't go with the shirts you'd wear to work...that just doesn't compute for me.

Blue:
??? I have no idea what that means. Women's clothes are either OTR/RTW or they are couture (sometimes also called haute couture). A garment or article cannot be both. The male equivalent to couture is bespoke, at least as far the made to order aspect of either is concerned; however, many a man's bespoke article of clothing doesn't come from a Parisian atelier or from a maker having one.

To design couture, to become a couturier, one must be certified by the Chambre Syndicale de la Haute Couture and follow these rules: 

Design made-to-order for private clients, with one or more fittings.
Have an atelier in Paris that employs at least 15 people full-time.
Each season present a collection comprised of at least 35 looks for both day and night.

All the best.
All the best.


----------



## big-WIS

tony20009 said:


> Red:
> Nautilus, Aquanaut, Calatrava 5123, 5153 or 5227, Eclipse, or Gondolo would all work just fine for attire from business casual to full on formal, regardless of what cuffs are on your ..... If you don't find them attractive, so be it. I can accept that. That they won't go with the shirts you'd wear to work...that just doesn't compute for me.
> 
> Blue:
> ??? I have no idea what that means. Women's clothes are either OTR/RTW or they are couture (sometimes also called haute couture). A garment or article cannot be both. The male equivalent to couture is bespoke, at least as far the made to order aspect of either is concerned; however, many a man's bespoke article of clothing doesn't come from a Parisian atelier or from a maker having one.
> 
> To design couture, to become a couturier, one must be certified by the Chambre Syndicale de la Haute Couture and follow these rules:
> 
> Design made-to-order for private clients, with one or more fittings.
> Have an atelier in Paris that employs at least 15 people full-time.
> Each season present a collection comprised of at least 35 looks for both day and night.
> 
> All the best.
> All the best.


I can see why you're confused about watches and the image one projects depending on what brand and style one wears.


----------



## tony20009

big-WIS said:


> I can see why you're confused about watches and the image one projects depending on what brand and style one wears.


I'm not confused at all.


----------



## Le_Chef

*The Emperor's Clothes*

Frankly I couldn't care less about projecting an image based on tailors and thread count. I bought my watches because I liked the engineering and craftsmanship, not to project an image. I have no interest in having the watches noticed by strangers and being judged by my possessions. Most days I wear my watches with whichever pair of jeans I feel like wearing that day. I'll stick to basse couture thank you!


----------



## tony20009

*Re: The Emperor's Clothes*



Le_Chef said:


> Frankly I couldn't care less about projecting an image based on tailors and thread count. I bought my watches because I liked the engineering and craftsmanship, not to project an image. I have no interest in having the watches noticed by strangers and being judged by my possessions. Most days I wear my watches with whichever pair of jeans I feel like wearing that day. I'll stick to basse couture thank you!


Is the post above in response to something said earlier? Please show me where the line came from for I don't recall there being any discussion about a person's image or motivations for wearing watches or clothing of any particular sort.

All the best.


----------



## Le_Chef

*Re: The Emperor's Clothes*

Response to the following right here

Originally Posted by big-WIS 
"I can see why you're confused about watches and the image one projects depending on what brand and style one wears."

Makes no no sense to me. I thought this was a watch forum.


----------



## big-WIS

*Re: The Emperor's Clothes*



Le_Chef said:


> Frankly I couldn't care less about projecting an image based on tailors and thread count. I bought my watches because I liked the engineering and craftsmanship, not to project an image. I have no interest in having the watches noticed by strangers and being judged by my possessions. Most days I wear my watches with whichever pair of jeans I feel like wearing that day. I'll stick to basse couture thank you!


No thank you. An original opinion finally. Took a while though although I sense some guilt in your writing in offering it. Never feel guilty offering an original opinion; feel guilty when you don't.


----------



## Dancing Fire

big-WIS said:


> I can't think of a PP that would fit any of my shirts, *shirts that are *only* tailored Egyptian hand-picked cotton,** mostly button cuffed* to show that I am a salaried professional. But I do have a couple french cuffs reserved for business luncheons. Mostly white to show-off the sheer beauty of Egyptian hand-picked cotton that no other cotton is equal.


who would wear a PP with a cuffed shirt?...o|..PP are meant to be worn with T shirts and sneakers ...|>


----------



## acello27

Top 7.
Not in order.
PP, VC, ALS, AP, Breguet, GP, JLC.
Wait.. Zenith , BP, and a bunch of cool independents.
Thing is. If you have 6 figures to spend on a watch, does the brand matter more or less?
I'll never know. I'm happy my Seiko Monster can be wound now : )


----------



## tony20009

acello27 said:


> Top 7.
> Not in order.
> PP, VC, ALS, AP, Breguet, GP, JLC.
> Wait.. Zenith , BP, and a bunch of cool independents.
> Thing is. *If you have 6 figures to spend on a watch, does the brand matter more or less?*
> I'll never know. I'm happy my Seiko Monster can be wound now : )


It only matters as much and as little as it does if one has just two figures to spend on a watch.


----------



## Sascha von Bornheim

over the last months i have read quite a lot about the subject. i originally wanted to save up for a rolex air king, but after having found out about watch history and having researched the actual companies, their designs, their innovations, and more, i think my money would be better spent buying a used watch from a more respected manufacturer. 

i see it this way:
a bugatti veyron is, by any measure, the best sports car in the world. BUT... it has no soul. it is simply a VW engineering exercise. a rolex is simply a mass-produced watch from a company that stopped innovating before i was born, and is now simply selling overpriced run-of-the-mill watches because they have a valuable brand name. don't get me wrong, i'd still like to have one; just as id like to have a veyron. but i don't think i could ever truly love it.

a ferrari F40 on the other hand, is a deeply flawed machine. build quality sucks, it's not particularly fast by today's standards (having barely more power than a mercedes E550 family saloon), but it was made by a company who wanted to prove a point. it was built just because they wanted to make it, and they made it just the way they wanted to. no excuses, no BS. the F40 has character, and that is why, if i should ever win the lottery, would buy one. 

in the world of watches, there are veyrons (rolex, breitling) and there are F40s. and there are yugos (TAG heuer... how do you say '1887' in japanese??)

the trinity are up there because of their history, quality, and commitment to remain niche brands (instead of mass manufacturing). 
however, they are not the only ones who deserve respect; there are many other companies out there whom i also regard as being better:

JLC: produced tons of PP's movements. continue to make in-house movements of the highest regard. almost criminally underpriced (a beautiful master control at mass-market datejust prices? crazy.)
girard-perregaux: a proper manufacture, like JLC. produced the first mechanical 36,000 vph movement. developed a quartz movement at 32.768 hertz in the 1960's, which is still the frequency used by every other quartz watch in the world.
breguet: owned by swatch these days, but seems to operate with far more independence than say, tissot or hamilton. has unrivaled history. uses high quality lemania movements which it enhanced (adding flyback, etc). and the lemania chronograph is based on the omega 861, the moon-watch movement. good enough for my money.
zenith: first 36,000 vph chronograph, supplied movements for rolex' daytona for many years. still produce their own in-house movements. 
ulysse nardin: by any objective measure, they should be included here as well, although i am not a fan of their designs. 

a step below this i would put companies like blancpain, glashuette, IWC...

you see, there are many companies out there that produce unique timepieces that have an interesting history behind them. 

are PP, AP, and VC the best? for some, maybe. 

personally i only like VC's designs as patek's are boring to me, and the royal oak is downright ugly. and as far as movements and history are concerned, none of the trinity's histories are flawless either... 

so it all comes down to taste, and how much cash you would like to part with. one could argue that if you want a watch that is beyond reproach in terms of engineering, history and design, a JLC is all you'll ever need. 
but thankfully we live in a world where intangible things matter, and therefore we have a much larger selection of watches to choose from.

to answer the original question of this thread, is ALS up there with the trinity? in my opinion, and i am german, no. the engineering and craftsmanship are fantastic, and the designs are less boring than PP and AP dress watches. but they haven't been around long enough. to me, it is as simple as that.


----------



## tony20009

Sascha von Bornheim said:


> ...i have read quite a lot about the subject...i originally wanted to save up for a rolex air king...
> 
> a bugatti veyron ...has no soul. ...
> 
> a ferrari F40 on the other hand...has character...
> 
> in the world of watches, there are veyrons (rolex, breitling) and there are F40s. ...
> 
> ...thankfully we live in a world where intangible things matter, and therefore we have a much larger selection of watches to choose from...


TY for sharing your thoughts with us. Some thoughts that came to mind as I read your comments:

An Air King is one of the few Rolexes that isn't heavily marked up. Given that it's got the same guts as it's pricier stablemates, it strikes me as a good "value," as much as any expensive watch is going to be one. My suggestion: think of Rolex less as a collectors watch and more as a utilitarian timepiece that will do everything a utilitarian watch should do.
IMO, nobody saving up for an Air King needs to be considering the purchase of something costing two to three times what an AK does, barring a lottery win or some other windfall. Trust me, Rolexes have plenty of soul and you'll find it when you discover how the the TCO is on them.
I'm not sure I could craft a credible argument for the implied causal relationship between intangible values and the abundance of watches form which one may choose. It'd be an interesting one to read. I can imagine the title now: "How Consumers' Shallowness and Willingness to Believe Whatever Marketers Told Them Spawned Expansion in the Watch Industry -- 1990 to the Present."
All the best.


----------



## Sascha von Bornheim

i considered the air king because of its understated design and because, as you said, it's essentially the same as rolex' other models but for a more realistic price.
my future financial windfall will depend on two things that are somewhat beyond my control... but an air king will be a possibility next year. but for the same price i could get a used breguet type XX, which i consider to be on another level (not to mention far more beautiful).

as far as intangibles go, i am afraid i must disappoint you: consumers are shallow and believe anything PR departments tell them. look at invicta. or movado. or, well, rolex. 
or the myriad fashion brands. someone who buys a michael kors watch or a hugo boss isn't buying an engineered watch, they are buying into an image; an image most likely made rather cheaply in china by subcontractors. but the public doesn't care. 
in the same vein, people buy digital cameras purely based on megapixel count, never asking about sensor size or the ability to shoot RAW. 
it's all smoke and mirrors.


----------



## tony20009

Sascha von Bornheim said:


> i considered the air king because of its understated design and because, as you said, it's essentially the same as rolex' other models but for a more realistic price.
> my future financial windfall will depend on two things that are somewhat beyond my control... but an air king will be a possibility next year. but for the same price i could get a used breguet type XX, which i consider to be on another level (not to mention far more beautiful).
> 
> as far as intangibles go, i am afraid i must disappoint you: *consumers* *are shallow and believe anything PR departments tell them*. look at invicta. or movado. or, well, rolex.
> or t*he myriad fashion brands. someone who buys a michael kors watch or a hugo boss isn't buying an engineered watch, they are buying into an image; an image most likely made rather cheaply in china by subcontractors. but the public doesn't care. *
> in the same vein, people buy digital cameras purely based on megapixel count, never asking about sensor size or the ability to shoot RAW.
> it's all smoke and mirrors.



In fairness, though some consumers are shallow, many are mis-/ill informed. That the tactics of PR and advertising departments work is not in question. Their methods are very effective.
Not all so-called "fashion" brands are created equal. Ralph Lauren, Dior, Montblanc, Dunhill, Louis Vuitton, Hermes, Chanel, John Varvatos that are at least as credible engineering wise as their non-fashion designer branded peers. I'll just say that designer brands sometimes have more going on than image and Chinese guts, but AFAIK, what you said about Kors and Boss is correct. I'm just making the point that one cannot as in years gone by universally equate designer names with junk inside.
Chanel's movements, for example, are made by the same folks who make some of AP's movements and are sometimes considered to be very literally Audemars' "hand me downs." As "cast offs" and movements go, that's not too shabby.
LV makes their own movements as does Montblanc.
Ralph Lauren's mechanical watches are something of an oddity. Mr. Lauren licensed the use of his name to Richemont who in turn produces watches using the Ralph Lauren brand name on them. I'm not sure if that makes RL a fashion brand or something like a Richemont "private label" brand in terms of their substance and form...I'm think either Piaget, JLC or DD is providing the movements for RL branded watches. (not sure which)
Hermes movements are Hermes-only movements made by Vaucher.
Dior gets movements from Zenith.
John Varvatos uses Ernst Benz movements.

All the best.


----------



## Sascha von Bornheim

thank you for your answer.
i did not know that montblanc also made its own movements for some of its watches; i thought they were all ETA/valjoux-based.

i'm not saying that all fashion brands are bad or overpriced, but i would really rather buy a watch from a watchmaker instead of a fashion company that is just trying to cash in on its name by licensing their name to someone. 
sure, some of them put a lot of effort into it, but it's just not my cup of tea.


----------



## tony20009

Sascha von Bornheim said:


> thank you for your answer.
> i did not know that montblanc also made its own movements for some of its watches; i thought they were all ETA/valjoux-based.
> 
> i'm not saying that all fashion brands are bad or overpriced, but i would really rather buy a watch from a watchmaker instead of a fashion company that is just trying to cash in on its name by licensing their name to someone.
> sure, some of them put a lot of effort into it, but it's just not my cup of tea.


NP. I respect your point of view re: what to buy.

FWIW, Montblanc have two movement factories. One for their entry level watches and one for their haute horology pieces. The latter factory is the former Minerva factory/atelier.

All the best.


----------



## dlhussain

ALS is above the trinity...


----------



## LHF1120

I'd say only Patek would qualify. The others are fantastic, but have since been gobbled up by large conglomerates of Swatch, LVMH, Richemont and PPR Kering. There is nothing wrong with that either...but after a while things get lost in a big multinational corporation pressured to make profit targets.

Richemont alone controls ALS, JLC, Vacheron, Panerai, IWC, Piaget and more. Lovely watches, but it be like the Patriots, Giants, Seahawks, Steelers and 49ers were all owned by the same guy....games would get boring fast.

Trinity in my mind qualifies more towards the golden era of Swiss Watchmaking....things are becoming too homogenous and boring.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Dancing Fire

dlhussain said:


> ALS is above the trinity...


|>;-)


----------



## dlhussain

LHF1120 said:


> I'd say only Patek would qualify. The others are fantastic, but have since been gobbled up by large conglomerates of Swatch, LVMH, Richemont and PPR Kering. There is nothing wrong with that either...but after a while things get lost in a big multinational corporation pressured to make profit targets.
> 
> Richemont alone controls ALS, JLC, Vacheron, Panerai, IWC, Piaget and more. Lovely watches, but it be like the Patriots, Giants, Seahawks, Steelers and 49ers were all owned by the same guy....games would get boring fast.
> 
> Trinity in my mind qualifies more towards the golden era of Swiss Watchmaking....things are becoming too homogenous and boring.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


If that's your criteria then only AP qualifies as it is still in the control of the founding families. patek went bust early in it's history and was bought out by the Sterns.


----------



## LHF1120

Very true. I missed Audemar Piguet and Patek changed ownership. Too much reading of the Watch Snob has brainwashed me.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## dlhussain

LHF1120 said:


> Very true. I missed Audemar Piguet and Patek changed ownership. Too much reading of the Watch Snob has brainwashed me.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


I think too much watching Archieluxury...


----------



## heuerolexomega

ALS is not part of the trinity simply because they don't need to.


----------



## tony20009

LHF1120 said:


> Very true. I missed Audemar Piguet and Patek changed ownership. Too much reading of the Watch Snob has brainwashed me.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk





dlhussain said:


> I think too much watching Archieluxury...


Good judgment comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgment." 
― Rita Mae Brown, _Alma Mater_

Both of them are entertaining, particularly once one is knowledgeable enough on one's own to read their stuff and know what's said for "effect" or just to be funny/silly/snobbish. I wouldn't tell any pure novice to read either writer's content lest they get the wrong ideas about myriads of things.

When it comes to purely objective facts, both those writers are usually correct, so the PP ownership change, assuming one of them cited it as not having happened, is an uncommon error on their part. When it's a matter of interpreting the significance of some of those facts either fellow cites, well, that's where a lot of folks read their columns and get the wrong or at least biased impressions.

Well, perhaps I shouldn't say "wrong" impressions. Maybe a better way to say it is that one can be lead down the wrong road. I think it best for one to build one's own body of knowledge and familiarity with the watches before reading Al/WS. With that sort of exposure to the watches themselves, one can then have an opinion about WS'/AL's opinions. In the end, of course, there's nothing wrong with another well informed collector sharing or disagreeing with either writer's points of view, but for a total neophyte to parrot the thoughts of those two will result only in the newbie sounding like a loon.

One observation I've taken from what I've read from either of those two commentators is that neither one ever has much, if anything at all, to say about the actual workings of various watches. Mostly they just talk about history and brand status, neither of which actually has a damn thing to do with the workings of the mechanical object under discussion. In light of that, just how much weight does one really want to give their opinions about the product overall, regardless of what they know about who wore, bought or made this or that watch?

All the best.

The most courageous act is still to think for yourself. Aloud.
-- Coco Chanel


----------



## meloie

TheWalrus said:


> &#8230;.
> 
> I have no idea where I'm going with this.


That's just tooooo honest!!!!


----------



## shnjb

Interesting thread.

How old is lange anyway?

I think on Internet forums, Lange is actually more popular than the trinity.


----------



## Crunchy

Lange was reborn in the 90s.


----------



## Dancing Fire

shnjb said:


> Interesting thread.
> 
> *How old is lange anyway?*
> 
> I think on Internet forums, Lange is actually more popular than the trinity.


Walter Lange is 89 years old...:-d


----------



## Gunnar_917

I'm kinda (okay ver) late to this party but it's an interesting thread. Not withstanding the whole German vs Swiss argument In my opinion Lange should be part of the trinity, replacing AP. I think the workmanship of ALS is better than AP but equally important AP should be booted out becuase of the ROO, normal RO is amazing but ugh ROO. 

Anyway I will go back to lusting over that datograph I will never own


----------



## tony20009

Gunnar_917 said:


> I'm kinda (okay ver) late to this party but* it's an interesting thread. *Not withstanding the whole German vs Swiss argument In my opinion Lange should be part of the trinity, replacing AP. I think the workmanship of ALS is better than AP but equally important *AP should be booted out becuase of the ROO, normal RO is amazing but ugh ROO.
> *
> Anyway I will go back to lusting over that datograph I will never own


So in your opinion, on what basis does the ROO qualify AP for "holy trinity" status revocation?

Interestingly enough, there are quite likely at least a dozen other makers who routinely best AP, VC and PP in all regards, yet few folks even know some of them exist and one is certainly not going to find them in most shopping malls, or even most swanky "boutique districts." A significant part of why AP, VC and PP are the "holy trinity" of Swiss watchmaking is, besides being Swiss, is their enduring history and the scope of what they've produced in the course of their existence. Having been founded in 1994, ALS simply can't compare, regardless of how fine are their wares.

Red:
Thanks.

All the best.


----------



## Gunnar_917

tony20009 said:


> So in your opinion, on what basis does the ROO qualify AP for "holy trinity" status revocation?
> 
> Interestingly enough, there are quite likely at least a dozen other makers who routinely best AP, VC and PP in all regards, yet few folks even know some of them exist and one is certainly not going to find them in most shopping malls, or even most swanky "boutique districts." A significant part of why AP, VC and PP are the "holy trinity" of Swiss watchmaking is, besides being Swiss, is their enduring history and the scope of what they've produced in the course of their existence. Having been founded in 1994, ALS simply can't compare, regardless of how fine are their wares.
> 
> Red:
> Thanks.
> 
> All the best.


I can't think of a single watch from the PP and VC that isn't classy - maybe not to everyone's tastes but always classy. That's my gripe with the ROO - I think it's a bit trashy - the size, the fact that you can get it with tasteless bling.

Its hard to quantify becuase it's all subjective however the above is something that lowered AP in my books.

ditto on your points about the other makers. I suppose a question relating to those other makers is would you buy one? I'll use Journe as an example. Makes great watches yet I don't have a desire to own one. I don't know how to explain the reason but it just doesn't do anything for me.


----------



## tony20009

Gunnar_917 said:


> *I can't think of a single watch from the PP and VC that isn't classy - maybe not to everyone's tastes but always classy. That's my gripe with the ROO - I think it's a bit trashy - the size,* *the fact that you can get it with tasteless bling.*
> 
> Its hard to quantify becuase *it's all subjective* however the above is something that lowered AP in my books.
> 
> ditto on your points about the other makers. I suppose a question relating to those other makers is would you buy one? I'll use Journe as an example. Makes great watches yet I don't have a desire to own one. I don't know how to explain the reason but it just doesn't do anything for me.


Objective writers will always be subjected to subjective mentality.
― Princess Maleiha Bajunaid Candao

Red:
I think as a line, the AP ROO has the greatest quantity of "wonky" styled watches in comparison to AP's other lines. That said, some of them aren't bad looking, but, yes, most aren't to my aesthetic taste. Do they meet my standard of what a fine watch should be in terms of how it's made? Absolutely, and in that regard, the ROO is every bit as good as any other AP.

Blue:
I'm not sure what your idea of "tasteless bling" is. PP and VC both offer blingy watches. They have done for the entirety of the 20th and 21st centuries.

I suspect you can't think of watches that fit your definition of "isn't classy" because you haven't spent enough time getting to know what the makers have accomplished over the years. PP, VC and AP aren't the "holy trinity" based on what they have made in the last decade or what they make today. They are that because of what they've done since they first began making watches. Since they first went into business, PP, VC and AP have sought to uphold the finest standards of traditional, luxurious watchmaking and the watches they produce are testament to that.

If the mere act of offering a blingy watch be sufficient to deny "holy trinity" status, none of the three should be have it, particularly if one is to follow your rationale to its logical conclusion. Below are four examples from PP: Nautilus (and that's not the only Nautilus with bling), Grand Complication, Complication, and Calatrava. Go check out VC's site and you'll have zero difficulty finding far more blingy watches than both AP and PP offer. Indeed, though I haven't counted, I suspect VC offer more blingy watches than AP and PP combined.

































Those are just from PP's current line up. Patek Philippe are not shy or new to the idea of "blinging out" a watch.

Patek Philippe ca. 1960s Men's Ultra Calatrava (Mens ULTRA MAGNIFICENT 1965 PATEK PHILIPPE & Co, GENEVE - SWITZERLAND Vintage Watch CALATRAVA - YELLOW GOLD, 60 DIAMONDS, SAPPHIRE CRYSTAL)










Patek Philippe Men's Gondolo, ca. 1970s










It's all subjective:
Yes, of course what one likes and will consider buying is a subjective matter. Certainly one is free to apply whatever subjective, silly and sophistic reasoning one wants when in the position of actually making a purchase. Evaluating a watch, it's merits, it's maker's merits, and both the watch and maker's place in horology, in short opining in the abstract, calls for a more rational approach.

All the best.

We do not see things as they are, nor do we even see them as we are...but only as we believe their story to have been.
― Eric Micha'el Leventhal


----------



## Gunnar_917

The ROO is a design issue. As for tasteless bling - some of what you put above is awful (esp the first Nautilus). The others I don't mind - I would never wear them but it's not what I'd call tasteless though. the ones with diamonds would make excellent ladies watches, men not so much

As for your first point - you're right, the ROO is well made and for me it's the design - which I suppose design, finishing and quality of the internals (probably in that order) are the biggest considerations for me when looking at a watch.


----------



## tony20009

Gunnar_917 said:


> The ROO is a design issue. As for tasteless bling - *some of what you put above is awful (esp the first Nautilus)*. The others I don't mind - I would never wear them but it's not what I'd call tasteless though. the ones with diamonds would make excellent ladies watches, men not so much
> 
> As for your first point - you're right, the ROO is well made and for me it's the design - which I suppose design, finishing and quality of the internals (probably in that order) are the biggest considerations for me when looking at a watch.


LOL

What I posted above is the "tip of the iceberg" (a little pun on "ice"). To mark the opening of their Shanghai branch, Patek Philippe produced this one.

















Of course, that event had two other commemorative watches. They are both pretty ornate, though, I suppose for gemstone "haters," not quite as ornate.

Patek Philippe 5101 and the Confucius pocket watch:

















All the best.


----------



## not12bhere

tony20009 said:


> LOL
> 
> What I posted above is the "tip of the iceberg" (a little pun on "ice"). To mark the opening of their Shanghai branch, Patek Philippe produced this one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, that event had two other commemorative watches. They are both pretty ornate, though, I suppose for gemstone "haters," not quite as ornate.
> 
> Patek Philippe 5101 and the Confucius pocket watch:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All the best.


That hurts my eyes. . .oh Patek. . .how about another poorly named and over-the-top, ultra-grand-complicated repeater or a Pilot watch. . .


----------



## tony20009

not12bhere said:


> That hurts my eyes. . .oh Patek. . .how about another poorly named and over-the-top, ultra-grand-complicated repeater or a Pilot watch. . .


Well, your prayers were at least heard in part. They offered a pilot watch this year, but you know that already. <winks & chuckles>

All the best.


----------



## Gunnar_917

It's funny - that nautilus doesn't really look like a watch. It's a shame becuase I think it would make a cool ladies bracelet/bangle (casual). Albeit a tad expensive one. 


As a watch ... I'll just leave it there


----------



## Tugboat1980

Honestly I feel that the term "Trinity" is nothing much more than an arbitrary term given to three luxury Swiss brands who just happened to have been successful for a while. Thus, since they are familiar and have been around a while, they are known, are safe, and have become collectible. Good for them as staying power takes skill. Longevity and a "safe" bet matters in the luxury world where pedigree matters, at times regardless of merit. There are other watch manufacturers whose watches are equal to, or in many cases superior to, those from PP, VC, and AP with regards to technical merit, movement finishing, and design. 

Myself, I think there are many watches that are more interesting than those of the "Trinity". Arguably Lange has done more for the über luxury watch market in their 20+ years than the big three have done in decades. I personally think Lange and Journe are more interesting, regardless of "pedigree" and continuous history, than any of the big three. I like their stories better, their watches are more interesting to me, and if I were to ever have the money to spend on a watch of that caliber it would almost assuredly be from one of those two. 

I guess I don't care if they're considered as part of the "Trinity" or not. They don't fit the group, and I find that a good thing. Lange's not an old Swiss brand, their watch styling is edgier than the other three (Royal Oak aside), and the general vibe of the company doesn't mesh. The other three are the "establishment" and Lange still seems like the new guy out to prove he's better. I like Lange's watches, story, and company better.


----------



## dantan

A Lange & Sohne is definitely amongst the absolute top of the top echelons of watch manufacturers. Definitely comparable against Patek Philipe, Vacheron Constantin, and Audemars Piguet, to name a few.


----------



## dantan

A Lange & Sohne display (well, one of their displays) at Watches of Switzerland. I was perving at them whilst waiting for my Rolex Explorer bracelet to be sized when I had just bought it.


----------



## not12bhere

dantan said:


> A Lange & Sohne display (well, one of their displays) at Watches of Switzerland. I was perving at them whilst waiting for my Rolex Explorer bracelet to be sized when I had just bought it.


Give in to the ALS bug. Trade in a few Rolex, a tudor, one Montblanc and you are sporting a LNIB Lange 1. . .


----------



## dantan

I would be lying if I said that that thought has never crossed my mind, but I do love all those watches of mine, plus, I dress casually more than I dress formally, so a Lange 1, as beautiful as it is, would be too beautiful for my dressing most of the time.



not12bhere said:


> Give in to the ALS bug. Trade in a few Rolex, a tudor, one Montblanc and you are sporting a LNIB Lange 1. . .


----------



## honestlygreedy

Interesting thread. To me sales volume and having a unique (or maybe gimmicky) enough "quintessential" watch line are BIG.

Here's projected sales volume by brand from back in 2013. That's still a ways off the reigning big 3 in terms of sales volume. To me the "big" in big 3 can almost be read literally.

Aside from that I think they have all their bases covered except the all important sport watch (preferably on a bracelet) category. I think the 1815 variations are contenders in a best of the best of quintessential watches. The Lange 1 is as iconic a dress watch as a brand can have. And they have some interesting and attractive complicated watches IMO.

On the topic of having "come into their own" as I read it, I think ALS has it in spades. The restrained details are IMO far from clinical. Take for example the sheen of the numerals (visible in the 2 and 3) that doesn't show up well in pics..all those details add up to something special IMO.









Anyways I don't think they're a trinity brand now. Even if they unseated a trinity brand in the future, there'd be talk of the "original trinity". I do think they plan in the same arena and are 1 gimmicky sport watch away from making a big jump in popularity. And no doubt in my mind the "big 3" is a popularity contest.


----------



## tony20009

Tugboat1980 said:


> Honestly I feel that *the term "Trinity" is nothing much more than an arbitrary term given to three luxury Swiss brands who just happened to have been successful for a while.* Thus, since they are familiar and have been around a while, they are known, are safe, and have become collectible. Good for them as *staying power takes skill.* Longevity and a "safe" bet matters in the luxury world where pedigree matters, at times regardless of merit. There are other watch manufacturers whose watches are equal to, or in many cases superior to, those from PP, VC, and AP with regards to technical merit, movement finishing, and design.
> 
> Myself, I think there are many watches that are more interesting than those of the "Trinity". Arguably Lange has done more for the über luxury watch market in their 20+ years than the big three have done in decades. I personally think Lange and Journe are more interesting, regardless of "pedigree" and continuous history, than any of the big three. I like their stories better, their watches are more interesting to me, and if I were to ever have the money to spend on a watch of that caliber it would almost assuredly be from one of those two.
> 
> I guess I *don't care if they're considered as part of the "Trinity" or not*. They don't fit the group, and I find that a good thing. Lange's not an old Swiss brand, their watch styling is edgier than the other three (Royal Oak aside), and the general vibe of the company doesn't mesh. The other three are the "establishment" and Lange still seems like the new guy out to prove he's better. I like Lange's watches, story, and company better.


Nice post. TY for sharing your thoughts.

I certainly stand by the argument I presented in creating this thread; nonetheless, there's no denying I created it for the sake of discussion. In actual purchasing scenarios, that a given watch is made by X or Y matters to me because I've set my sights on getting a watch from that maker. Aside from that, however, that a maker is or isn't a "trinity" maker is irrelevant to me. Truly, I think it should be and, for most folks, is irrelevant outside of the academic entertainment of discussing the matter.

All the best.


----------



## sizzle310

Personally, i think it comes down to the simple resale value. The trinity all have respectable resale value. Unless its a super high end ALS the resale value and desirability is fairly low compared to the other 3 brands.


----------



## TheGodlenGopher

sizzle310 said:


> Personally, i think it comes down to the simple resale value. The trinity all have respectable resale value. Unless its a super high end ALS the resale value and desirability is fairly low compared to the other 3 brands.


I have never seen a 2nd hand ALS for sale though; the other 3, I have.


----------



## TheGodlenGopher

sizzle310 said:


> Personally, i think it comes down to the simple resale value. The trinity all have respectable resale value. Unless its a super high end ALS the resale value and desirability is fairly low compared to the other 3 brands.


I have never seen a 2nd hand ALS for sale though; the other 3, I have.


----------



## reuven

In terms of resale value (does this really matter?) i think lange is the best HEW of all. No matter how resale is at a first look, no other watch has had that much of a price increase lately. Lange 1 RG from 23.000 to 31.000 in less then three yrs. And the list goes on. Think especially the Saxonia annual calendar.


----------



## Urik81

A bit late for the party, but what is a holy trinity you're referring to? You mean those three quartz blingy watch manufacturers?
In regards to a very funny "wide product line" argument I really think that PP without WWII and quartz crisis would look more like Lange today. A good restaurant usually have a very short menu. 
AP never dreamed of making RO and the whole luxury sportwatch - a crisis forced them. Same story with tasteless use of diamonds - they just had to put some "value" into their products to survive during times when haute horlogerie had less appreciation. I'm not speaking of haute joaillerie pieces of course...
Show me where ALS ever compromised on taste or their brand promises and I'll change my mind.


----------



## MZhammer

TheGodlenGopher said:


> I have never seen a 2nd hand ALS for sale though; the other 3, I have.


ALS also makes far fewer watches than the trinity and they have been around for a much shorter time so there are many less second hand options to be had. I can personally attest that ALS has much lower resale value than Patek, not so much versus Vacheron and AP (outside of RO/O). That was a major factor in my decision to pick up a preowned ALS, so they can be had and at a great price compared to equivalent Pateks.



Urik81 said:


> Show me where ALS ever compromised on taste or their brand promises and I'll change my mind.


Speaking as an ardent Lange fan I don't think that's a fair statement. They were reborn in the mid nineties during the revitalization of the mechanical watch, they rode the wave up in prices and demand so there hasn't ever been a test on their standards... If the bottom falls out of the market now we'll see but being owned by a luxury conglomerate leads me to believe they will more readily compromise and pursue profitability before they hold fast and die.


----------



## Le_Chef

MZhammer said:


> Speaking as an ardent Lange fan I don't think that's a fair statement. They were reborn in the mid nineties during the revitalization of the mechanical watch, they rode the wave up in prices and demand so there hasn't ever been a test on their standards... If the bottom falls out of the market now we'll see but being owned by a luxury conglomerate leads me to believe they will more readily compromise and pursue profitability before they hold fast and die.


Not so. I spent some time with Lange and Richemont execs at a dinner in Dresden a couple of years ago and they were adamant that Lange's course was set. High quality, innovation, adherence to German watchmaking principles, and controlled production all seemed key points. With the new factory setup they could produce more, but won't so as not to compromise quality. Richemont is hurting like other global luxury brands, but there are other brands and areas to cut costs and other ways to increase revenue.


----------



## tim_horton

ALS are not "Holy Trinity" because of tradition. By definition, there are only three members. Similarly, Stanford University isn't a member of the Ivy league, but that doesn't diminish the quality of the education it delivers, or its reputation, by one iota.


----------



## JLittle

The Three Musketeers had D'Artagnan


----------

