Quote:
Originally Posted by Brosef
...
as I reflect on my current collection of watches, I have a hard time saying whether I would put myself into the "consumerist" or "curatorial" group. I struggle because I've never lusted for the true dress watches from any brand, as I just tend to like cases that are a little more substantial (though I also don't go for any of the clownishly big watches out there these days... 41-43mm seems to be the sweetspot for me). despite that, I fully appreciate the heritage and quality of the PP, VC and AP brands (among others). I just can't afford some of their more substantial watches that fit my aesthetic tastes (which tend to be the complications).
on to my contribution to this thread. I currently have a Vacheron Malte Dual Time in gold (a discontinued model, I believe), which hasn't skipped a beat in the past 5 years I've had it. it's an amazing piece, and though it's for very formal occasions and is probably therefore a loser on the bang-per-buck, I try to wear it as often as I can and it makes me happy.
that said, if I were choosing between the PP and VC watches you note above, I'd definitely go for the PP as it seems to just be revered as more prestigious than the VC (no matter how slightly).
|
Blue:
Both types of watches exist for both types of collectors and every kind in between. The thing that distinguishes the curator from the consumer is how they go about choosing this and/or that watch, not necessarily which watch is chosen. Yes, some watches have zero "curatorial" merit and a small few are simply ridiculous to consider as things to wear except for a few minutes/hours just to see/show that it does indeed work.
More often than not, a curatorial-leaning collector either (1) knows exactly what watch s/he'll buy next or (2) has narrowed the choices to two watches and needs only to determine which one most nearly meets and fits best with his collecting objectives and themes. No other person is going to be able to tell him/her which way to go because nobody is going to know every nuance of the purposes for the acquisition. A consumerist-leaning collector more likely will struggle with choices. Lots of watches will look good to him and s/he can't make up his own mind about what to buy. Lots look good to the curatorial guy too, but that's due to appreciation, not specific desire.
I think the above shows, however, that there's lots of room for any one individual to be bits of both types of collectors. Also, it's not that one type is "better" or "worse" or "greater or lesser." It's just different ways of going about choosing what to buy.
Another huge difference between collectors of the two general types I mentioned is this: curatorial-leaning collectors won't care about what watches are fakes, homages and copies. They don't have any horological appreciation for them, but they also don't feel threatened by them or concerned with the folks who wear them. I can say honestly that not one super serious watch collector I know or have casually met gives a tinker's dam about a fake or close copy watch. I can also say that every single one has had a deliberate experience with a fake (usually the highest quality fake they can easily come by) so that they at least have an academic understanding of what is being offered. In other words, to obtain a perspective and to put the things in the right perspective for what they are as timepieces.
The consumerist-leaning folks tend to be the ones who have conniptions (figuratively) over fakes. For the life of me, I don't understand why, but I know they do. Were the guy nest to them on the subway wearing a fake version of their watch actually capable of doing something to them directly, I'd perhaps understand, but that's not what happens. I can only hope that the folks who are so outspoken about the unrighteousness of fake watches also are so stridently vocal about the wrongs committed against their fellow men who have no means to defend themselves as they are about standing up for the intellectual property rights of huge companies that have scores of attorneys advocating on their behalf in the world's courtrooms.
Red:
It's hard to figure out just what that means when said by someone who also owns a Malte....
Green:
Admittedly, one can buy a less costly watch and obtain the same functionality. The Malte is a very dressy watch and if one only needs one such very formal watch, even spending say $40K-$60K on one can turn into somewhat of a "bang for the buck" proposition in one keeps it for a lifetime. It's appeal is only going to grow with time. I have a formal watch that I paid about $12K for back in the early '90s. Now, 24 years later, the same exact style (different movement; same dial and case) of watch is still offered and sells for ~$26K. It's been the watch I've been wearing to ~20 to ~25 formal events annually since I bought it, which amounts now to $500/year for a superb, but simple watch that has all the style one could need and it has more "craftsmanship/curatorial chops" than any $500 watch I could have bought at any time before or since.
I do the same thing with my cars. I buy and take care of my cars and keep them for at least 10 to 15 years. At the end of that period, the car is still usable, but I'm just tired of it and want something new. Even so, I've gotten my money's worth out of it and I drove a nice car that was fun to drive and nice looking for 15 years. Think of the folks who bought, say, an E46 and still have it and it's still in excellent shape. Ditto folks who bought some other series, or other pricey car, instead.
My pricey "things" disappoint me if by spending all that money on them I don't get well beyond the normal lifespan of use from them. So, it's from that context that I don't mind spending silly sums on certain things. But sure, there are also Honda Accords and Timexes that are also out there still kicking just fine after 15 or 20+ years too, and they certainly are now, as they were the day one bought them, better bangs for the buck. All the same, I'm willing to be extravagant enough, indulgent enough, to spend $500/year to have a very fine watch and $3K-$5K per year to have a very fine car.
Brown:
The two brands are revered for different things. VC's "thing" is super fine, stylish and/or artful watches. PP's "thing" is super fine complicated watches. You chose a Malte and that's one of the things to choose from VC. If one wants a Patrimony-like watch, sure a Calatrava is definitely the better pick. But if one wants a top notch swanky one, Malte, Historiques, or Maitre d'Art is a far better way to go than anything PP offers, except perhaps that astronomical grand complication that PP offer, but then that watch isn't about the art of the watch, it's about the complication.
The art is there, and there in spades to be sure, but it's there because the watch is an celestial complication watch. If one is going to produce a celestial complication, much less a celestial grand complication, going "half-assed" on the artistic component is a complete waste because the stars and moon and planets offer more opportunities for artistic interpretation than do pretty much any other complication. Even the most basic of time + moon phase complication watch should have a great deal more art -- in the presentation of the moon itself, but also even just the dial -- than one could normally find with any non-art watch.
To see what I mean, take a look at the moon phase offerings from Arnold & Son, Chris Claret, DeBethune or Schaumburg. Then take a look at JLC's Master moon phase watches, GO's Panomatic Lunar, or most anyone else's moon phase watch...or even someone's perp cal that also has a moon phase. I feel confident that regardless of whether any one of them is your "cup of tea," you'll nonetheless agree with what I said regarding the artistic side of the matter.
I will note that a perp cal (PC) is something of a special case when it comes to the inclusion of a moon phase. On PCs, it just makes sense to add a moon phase because the watch is all about he geekiness of super precise (not accurate) timekeeping. Let's face it, that complication provides benefit over an annual calendar once a year in February, which in turn provides a benefit over a simple date only seven times a year. Now like a PC, a moon phase is a complication that is very much about precision; it takes a good bit of doing to make a moon image rise and fall at the right time, much less to do so for hundreds of years at a time without the need for an adjustment. So adding in the moon phase to a PC watch is just perpetuating the "precision" theme when it's found on a PC watch. It's the one time when I am not so fussy about the moon phase complication having to be super artful.
Obviously, other folks may feel differently. Some folks for example are just into the complication itself and don't care for the flamboyance of the artful implementations of it. That's fine too. As I said before, the reason why one buys a pricey watch is what's most important, not whether one is curatorial or consumerist.
All the best.