[oneup335]

I hate invictas I know its not a high end brand but for some reason I just dislike them

[1MOREMOD]

Originally Posted by oneup335

I hate invictas I know its not a high end brand but for some reason I just dislike them

Yeah I would second that. QVC shopping channel having them on all the time may be part of it.

[mookie45]

Invicta's are over the top with their size and weight.

I guess one could think they are perfect for facilitating a dive to the bottom of the ocean, although I do not recommend using them as a reliable timepiece. Suunto would be a better choice!

[mookie45]

Originally Posted by iamwingman

I think Rolexes, as well as other 'luxury' brands are intended to serve a dual purpose of style as well as utility. To use your standard, anything other than a $25.00 timex could be considered ostentatious. A different degree perhaps, but ostentatious all the same. A very very very subjective term I believe. One man's Patek is another man's Timex. Just like cars and houses and wives.

+1

[Z K]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

Only in the sense that it epitomizes everything I hate about the designer market...where the name sells the object not the intrinsic value of the object itself.

I like some Rolexes such as the their dive watches but I have to agree that I'm not a fan of the image of owning a Rolex. It does seem to be the generic face of higher end luxury watches and many Rolex owners don't really know much about the watch itself other than "it's a Rolex".

[Z K]

Originally Posted by oneup335

I hate invictas I know its not a high end brand but for some reason I just dislike them

I agree. I can't stand them. They just copy everything they can and then somehow make it look more ugly and cheap.

[tony20009]

Originally Posted by oneup335

I hate invictas I know its not a high end brand but for some reason I just dislike them

All the rhetoric about their styling aside, there's a good reason to dislike Invicta, at least as a company/brand: http://www.bbb.org/south-east-florid...od-fl-27002445 .

At least I can say that to their credit, the frequency of BBB complaints has gone down in recent times. That's at least a positive sign.

All the best.

[finaloption]

hates Rolex.. drives a BMW..

[mookie45]

^LOL

I dislike MVMT.

Only because they do not distribute/wholesale their product so much. Probably since they are working on tight margins.

They are making a killing by themselves! Jealous.

[wrickem]

I don't know why or where I got my intense dislike from, but anytime a salesperson says "Breitling", I cringe and tell them "no thanks".

[neverdone]

Diesel because ugly as fuck. I like clean classy watches, however I just sprung for a rose gold NaviHawk which is super douchey looking, but I drive a bmw, ssoooo, I'm allowed lol

[Vanmarsenille]

Originally Posted by wrickem

I don't know why or where I got my intense dislike from, but anytime a salesperson says "Breitling", I cringe and tell them "no thanks".

Agreed! I can't really explain the origin of my dislike either, but I cannot stand Breitling.

[tony20009]

Originally Posted by neverdone

Diesel because ugly as fuck. I like clean classy watches, however I just sprung for a rose gold NaviHawk which is super douchey looking, but I drive a bmw, ssoooo, I'm allowed lol

Something like this perhaps?



All the best.

[neverdone]

Originally Posted by tony20009

Something like this perhaps?



All the best.

The ironic thing is, almost 8 years ago I got married and I bought all my groomsmen diesel watches, one of them was this exact one you posted, but they use to look decent, now they're 60mm and bigger and just ugly as fuck Jersey shore looking pieces of shit.

[stevenopoly]

Originally Posted by K19BMW

I can't answer for Steven but for me, Hublot just seems like it's an expensive knockoff of AD ROO. I'm not to familiar with the new inhouse movements they are now using (so maybe my opinion will change) but their Big Bang line (which is by far their most well known line) just seemed like gaudy AD Royal Oak Offshore copies with an ETA movement and an incredibly high price tag.

I mean I'm sure their cases are nice but for the money they charge for their watches you need more then just a nice case. But like I said, I was unfamiliar with their new movements so I will have to give them another review once I learn more.

This is the reason. To me Hublot looks like a shit and cheap version of Audemars. I would never get a Hublot when there's Audemars. And it isn't all aesthetics, but rather the horological history behind the company.

some poster said they didn't like AP aesthetically, which is fine. I used to not like it as well...until I saw one in person. Actually come to think of it, I only like the Royal Oaks and non of the Offshores.

My favorite brand is A Lange and Sohne, but too bad I'm poor.

[overcoil]

Originally Posted by stevenopoly

This is the reason. To me Hublot looks like a shit and cheap version of Audemars. I would never get a Hublot when there's Audemars. And it isn't all aesthetics, but rather the horological history behind the company.

some poster said they didn't like AP aesthetically, which is fine. I used to not like it as well...until I saw one in person. Actually come to think of it, I only like the Royal Oaks and non of the Offshores.

My favorite brand is A Lange and Sohne, but too bad I'm poor.

As for Hublot styling, Gerald Gents who did the AP-Royal Oak also designed an IWC with similar bezel screw arrangement and Patek Nautilus that all have the Genta design elements. Unlike in photos, in-person I think each of the previous watches mentioned have distinct appearances.
As for the bracelet and lug design between AP and Hublot, if I were to guess they are traditional configurations inspired by centuries of jewelry/bracelets.
I'll make you a Hublot fan
I was just reading that Jean-Claude Biver of Hublot in recent years had worked at AP in the 1970's.

I encourage everyone to chk out the MB&F website.

http://www.mbandf.com

[tony20009]

Originally Posted by stevenopoly

This is the reason. To me Hublot looks like a shit and cheap version of Audemars. I would never get a Hublot when there's Audemars. And it isn't all aesthetics, but rather the horological history behind the company.

some poster said they didn't like AP aesthetically, which is fine. I used to not like it as well...until I saw one in person. Actually come to think of it, I only like the Royal Oaks and non of the Offshores.

My favorite brand is A Lange and Sohne, but too bad I'm poor.

Well, now. There's a company with a lot of history. The ALS we have in existence today was founded in 1994 (http://monochrome-watches.com/lange-...s-price-specs/). Hublot predates them by 14 years. The name of the brand predates that by a lot, but that company and the one around now aren't remotely the same. Otherwise, it's no different than any other company that uses/purchased a brand name.

Red:
What about the other non-Royal Oak related collections?

All the best.

[tony20009]

Originally Posted by ScottSinger

As for Hublot styling, Gerald Gents who did the AP-Royal Oak also designed an IWC with similar bezel screw arrangement and Patek Nautilus that all have the Genta design elements. Unlike in photos, in-person I think each of the previous watches mentioned have distinct appearances.
As for the bracelet and lug design between AP and Hublot, if I were to guess they are traditional configurations inspired by centuries of jewelry/bracelets.
I'll make you a Hublot fan
I was just reading that Jean-Claude Biver of Hublot in recent years had worked at AP in the 1970's.

I encourage everyone to chk out the MB&F website.

The bezel screw design language was introduced well before Genta designed the Royal Oak. Cartier applied the idea to their Santos watch ages ago in 1913 (I've seen various dates cited: 1904, 1910, 1911...for this post, the precise date is irrelevant) with the Santos Dumont.



In 2004, the watch shown above was offered in an updated version that carried the 430MC movement made by Piaget.




All the best.

[stevenopoly]

Originally Posted by tony20009

Well, now. There's a company with a lot of history. The ALS we have in existence today was founded in 1994 (http://monochrome-watches.com/lange-...s-price-specs/). Hublot predates them by 14 years. The name of the brand predates that by a lot, but that company and the one around now aren't remotely the same. Otherwise, it's no different than any other company that uses/purchased a brand name.

Red:
What about the other non-Royal Oak related collections?

All the best.

huh? Where are you getting your information.... A Lange was founded in 1845.

and i actually like the other non RO. I just don't like the ROO mainly because they are too huge and look cheap imo compared to the classic RO.

[overcoil]

Originally Posted by stevenopoly

huh? Where are you getting your information.... A Lange was founded in 1845.

and i actually like the other non RO. I just don't like the ROO mainly because they are too huge and look cheap imo compared to the classic RO.

Believe Lange completely folded during or after WWII due to Russian occupation ( located in East Germany )
Resurrected again in 1990's by Lange offspring and others.

Sometimes they refer to JLC, Breguet and some other as oldest continuous manufacturers but not Lange.

[tony20009]

Originally Posted by stevenopoly

huh? Where are you getting your information.... A Lange was founded in 1845.

and i actually like the other non RO. I just don't like the ROO mainly because they are too huge and look cheap imo compared to the classic RO.

My mistake. The current ALS was actually started in 1990. 1994 is when they released their first watch.

The original ALS was founded in 1845. On 20 April 1948, the firm A. Lange & Söhne was expropriated and renamed to VEB Mechanics A. Lange & Söhne. Thus the company ceased to exist during the cold war. The company name was reborn in 1994 and that recreated ALS is what we have today. (https://www.richemont.com/9-press-ne...oultre-sa.html)

The ALS of today is not the ALS of 1845-1948; it is a new company. It is fortuitous for ALS that they have a Lange family member involved and that they operate from their old HQ. Those two things certainly help in "hiding" that it's a new company.

All the best.

[tony20009]

Originally Posted by ScottSinger

Believe Lange completely folded during or after WWII due to Russian occupation ( located in East Germany )
Resurrected again in 1990's by Lange offspring and others.

Sometimes they refer to JLC, Breguet and some other as oldest continuous manufacturers but not Lange.

None of them is. Gallet is the oldest continuous watch manufacture in the world. It's history dates to the 1400s. It is still owned by Gallet family members. I put some effort into finding out just "what's what" re: the Gallet assertion of tracing its lineage to the 1400s. (http://forums.watchuseek.com/f2/what...ml#post8469717)

One can find the basic timeline of Gallet's history on Gallet's website or on Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallet_%26_Co.#Time_line . Understanding the role of guilds, business organizational structures, and so on will require more digging, but it will allow one to put together the whole picture. Or one can get the "Cliff Notes" version by reading the WUS post linked above. (not short, but shorter by far than doing the "digging" to put it all together oneself)

Aside:
Learning of the details of Gallet's history was like a trip through Renaissance history. It put a very human perspective on a lot of the stuff about which one read in school, particularly the story of the Huguenots and the Protestant Reformation. If you happen to watch the TV series Reign, the story line that deals with the Protestants in France is literally the same story from history that drive the watchmaking industry into Switzerland, and specifically to the mountains outside of Geneva.

Another thing I observed in the course of digging into Gallet's history is that one must very closely/critically read the marketing hoopla that one encounters re: "oldest company," "oldest continuous brand," etc. The discussion here -- http://forums.watchuseek.com/f2/what...ml#post8460795 -- makes clear what is well understood by any businessperson: a brand and a company may be synonymous, but are not necessarily so. Whether the distinction is relevant depends on the context of the discussion at hand.

All the best.