Having read through all of the reaction—and the many good points made falling on one side or the other—let me see if I might add something of value to the discussion. I’d like to reiterate a short sentence from MichaelC’s reaction that could easily get lost in the shuffle—one that recalls the principal advantage of the WatchProSite: “We maintain complete editorial independence.” And therein he has said (as we say) a mouthful.
I have been in this game a brief four years, but one question has dogged my curious mind from the start, “What motivation, exactly, causes the reviewers/editors of the various watch magazines/blogs to state with confidence that the Emperor is wearing a very fine suit of clothes, when many of us “ignoramuses” can see clearly that he hasn’t a stitch on?” Time and again I’ve read an otherwise complete, if not entirely insightful, review only to find myself asking, “But what about… It’s ugly!” This was my first inkling that I’d better get a good education and make up my own mind about such minutia. But as I delved further into the subject I found that there were some valuable opinions available though various watch communities. Finally, I ran on to WatchProSite.
Meanwhile, Hodinkee grew at a rapid pace. I didn’t mind their success, but I did mind the fact that they became more and more entwined with manufacturers. How on earth could they “afford” to publish objective reviews of Baselworld releases when they were collaborating ever more closely with their creators? Did I ever hear a “discouraging word?” Rarely.
Pick up a next-day newspaper and read the review of the orchestra concert, or piano recital, that occurred the night before. The critics we musicians value won’t hesitate to voice strong disapprovals of this or that point of interpretation, along with congratulations where they believe sincere congratulations are deserved. Or read the reviews of the latest retrospective at the Musée d'Orsay,or the Guggenheim Bilbao. Those newspapers/art magazines assessing the relative success or failure of such exhibitions aren’t counting on any sort of cooperation from the museums involved. And that’s as it should be, because what we who really care about such things want is unvarnished opinions!
Which brings us back to MichaelC’s “complete editorial independence,” something which may simply be impossible as soon as a board of directors is formed, and a bottom line agreed upon. Or?
I am sad about what has happened to Hodinkee. What seemed to begin as one bright young man’s passionate interest in timepieces has morphed (in my mind, at least) into one very clever young man’s successful scheme to separate the wealthy from their money. A quirkily-named editorial site now advertises club car events, luxury leather goods, has become an AD for a growing number of brands, and pushes a daily newsletter to thousands of dudes who have “caught the bug.” (It may only be a matter of time before cigars and single malt scotch infiltrate.) Oh! And before I go any further—full disclosure here—I am one of those who bought Hodinkee’s release of the limited edition blue Alpinist for distribution in America! I even wrote an extensive (altogether positive) review for the WPS. But in that case, I do not think Mr. Clymer had anything to do with the “design.” I by no means have kept up with all of the company’s collaborative limited releases, but their Speedmaster (oh-dear-oh-dear) was something less than captivating.
As for Blancpain, yes it seems a tad desperate for the company to take this route—for any company of that standing. Assured sales? Sure. Ultimately, investors must be satisfied. But I’d prefer a decision I’d expect from Rolex: a polite “No, thank you.” (One of you may ruin my day by calling to my attention the Hodinkee Rolex. I sincerely hope not.) So ultimately I share Mostel’s dismay. I believe that this quick-buck-making scheme is an easy way out, not a commitment to raising standards that have been hard won over the decades.
And as for what we owe to a few ADs in the past who have in various ways inspired interesting and even now coveted pieces? Their credentials probably have more to do with watches, per se, than Mr. Clymer’s master’s in journalism from Columbia.
My buck-fifty! FH