Discussion
In this insightful article, chintu challenges the conventional wisdom surrounding Richard Mille's design philosophy, particularly focusing on the RM11. He critically examines whether the brand's pursuit of avant-garde materials and extreme lightness has inadvertently compromised the fundamental principle of legibility. This piece encourages readers to look beyond the hype and evaluate the watch's practical functionality from a wearer's perspective.
Perhaps these are intended to be wrist trophies for the uber rich.
Quite obvious that RM-watches aren't made with the primary purpose of telling the time!
and there is nothing wrong with that for this market. You are obviously correct that function wise the dial is a complete failure. However, jewelry and fashion wise the watch is obviously a complete success. I personally never liked RM. Tried a couple on a few years ago at Manfredi in Greenwich when they were an authorized dealer and they felt like plastic watches. So I am not a fan but I can understand why they have such a loyal following.
..each Brand has its share of loyal fans and that it what makes watch collecting unique and exciting and evokes strong passions.
...any actual time-keeping functions are incidental.
If you would wear the watch you will learn to use it. If not go for another brand. There are many. Talking negatively is not necessary. Where is the lesson? Just talking badly.
This thread is active on the Richard Mille forum with 37 replies. Share your knowledge with fellow collectors.
Join the Discussion →
