Interesting articles and whatnot from around the Internet

**KennethRSloan** · Apr 30, 2015, 03:19 AM

Originally Posted by germy

BBC's article of "The most iconic timepieces of the last 100 years"

http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/201...iconic-watches

Does anyone agree or disagree with this? I'd say its fairly close to what I was thinking as well.

Please. The first listed watch is from outside the 100-year window. Over the last 100 years, how can there not be ONE pocketwatch in any list of iconic watches? This is just "a few interesting watches presented as cover for hyping the latest Apple-gadget". Ho-hum.

**whatmeworry** · Apr 30, 2015, 04:45 AM

Originally Posted by KennethRSloan

Please. The first listed watch is from outside the 100-year window. Over the last 100 years, how can there not be ONE pocketwatch in any list of iconic watches? This is just "a few interesting watches presented as cover for hyping the latest Apple-gadget". Ho-hum.

I agree your comments on the motivation, but if they followed the same logic they have for the other choices I guess they'd choose a Railroad Approved pocket watch which would be outside their window.
I thought it wasn't a bad list, tbh

**scott59** · May 1, 2015, 09:47 PM

Today's NYT article about John Mayer's watch collecting:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/01/fa...ches.html?_r=0

**scott59** · May 2, 2015, 12:52 AM

Another article in today's NYT - "Are You Man Enough for a Small Watch"

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/01/fa...all-watch.html

**FuzzyB** · May 2, 2015, 01:46 AM

Here's an interesting video on the making of the Patek Grandmaster Chime. I saw this one in person at a Patek event back in December (story and photos here). To be honest, I find the video of its making much more interesting than the watch itself. As impressive as the watch is mechanically, it is too over the top to take seriously.

**KennethRSloan** · May 2, 2015, 03:40 AM

Originally Posted by scott59

Another article in today's NYT - "Are You Man Enough for a Small Watch"

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/01/fa...all-watch.html

Damn! Now everyone knows. And the prices on the watches *I* like will start rising. Pity.

It always seemed to me that big watches did for men what they did for women - made the wearer look small and delicate (and perhaps borrowing the watch from their bigger, stronger <whatever>) I recently acquired two vintage Girard Perregaux beauties - the BIG one is 31mm wide. Both are definitely men's watches, and definitely stylish - but they are NOT big.

Finally - grade inflation has set in. I note that the article sets the "standard" in the 50s at 35mm. I think that's just a tad too BIG. I see a lot of quality vintage watches from that era that come in at 34mm, and (to my eye) a watch from that period that is 36mm looks huge.

As they say - the bigger the watch, the smaller the...self-esteem...

Of course, on my puny left wrist, EVERYTHING looks big.

**whatmeworry** · May 2, 2015, 05:14 AM

Originally Posted by scott59

Another article in today's NYT - "Are You Man Enough for a Small Watch"

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/01/fa...all-watch.html

I really like the pics they use in that article

**Colin** · May 3, 2015, 03:30 AM

Originally Posted by KennethRSloan

...the BIG one is 31mm wide...

I don't mean to derail this thread from its posting of various, interesting stuff, but I don't think that's a very good article. As you point out, vintage sizes are generally a lot smaller than the 38/39mm "Retro-chic" reincarnations.
And jumping to Arnold's abominations doesn't add credibility to their premise. In fact, I think it hurts given his product is nothing like Grand Seiko, Omega, or Rolex (and there's always the Arnold himself problem too.). :-p

And I can understand why Chinese consumers, in general, what smaller watches; it's for the same reason I don't (American mutt, of varied descent, at 6'1" and 220lbs.)

You know, this topic probably deserves its own thread. :-)