Horological Meandering

I discovered the concept of depth of field, some years later, whilst trying to take photographs of my GMT Master II. I was sixteen and I'd chosen the Rolex over a set of new wheels and tires for my car at the time - the ones on it were fine.

In my twenties I spent the better part of 6 years working off and on out of an office in Brazil where I consumed watch related books and catalogs. I learned the history of Gondolo & Labouriau and why so many old Patek cases had been melted and replaced by silver/alloy ones during 'Ouro Para o Brasil'.

I pestered and stood over watchmakers during this time. 

After a hiatus of sorts, where I shied away from the watch world if for the sheer jolt brought on by the huge 2000's capital influx, I've found it again.

I've been trying to understand why, what, how - the watches I chose to buy and wear and have come to the realisation that importance is key. Define importance, you say? I'm not able to write a book on the subject at the moment, but be it LeCoultre cramming parts into an older, compact reverso chronograph or the innovations in balance spring technology - the list is near endless. My budget, however, is not. If it was, maybe I would indulge in the Dufours of the watch world.

The watch that has started it all again is this. It's important for a few reasons. It embodies the pushing of technological and design boundaries during a time where the Swiss watch industry was in dire crisis. It is important because of the functional choices of it's conceptualisation. It is important because it embodies the ultimate echelon of partnership, an idea that either you make it great or you doubly fail.

It is important because of the passion it reignited in me.

Inevitably, these things cost very real money - but that may not necessarily define it's purpose - if it was never really a status thing.

  login to reply