Hi, Jos,
If I disagree with someone else's opinion, and my opinion is a negative one, I tend to keep my negative opinion to myself, unless I am offended by the egregiousness of the "offense."
Obviously you feel that strongly about the Offshore, and all the more power to you, so long as you make it clear it is your opinion, based on your priorities and preferences. It is great you back it up with specifics - the "small date on a big watch" (which in my opinion is hardly the problem; the "problem" is the deep set date vis a vis the dial surface. Of course, your change in the choice of wording on this aspect of the design which bothers you is interesting);
the "30 year old way" that "no one would even dare to design a high end watch that way in this day and age." No, most just use a gussied up Valjoux 7750...wow, big improvement in terms of horological merit. And the difference in price from the "30 year old Offshore design?" hmmmm...less than the difference between the 2326 or 3126 design (both highly regarded base movements, vis a vis the 7750 - which I have nothing against, by the way, for what it is) versus the Patek, or the Chopard, or...
Hmmm...let's see...Patek came up with a new chronograph movement. What's their retail price? How problematic has it been?
What about Chopard? What's the retail on their chronograph?
So I guess I'm not really understanding the OBJECTIVE aspects of your point.
Now how about the subjective?
You don't like the chrono pushers on a different lateral plane than the crown.
Okay.
I don't give a shit that the pushers and the crown are on different planes.
Is that okay? Apparently not, since you, in your last post to me on the subject, "could not believe I could actually not care about that" (not sure if my quote was literal, but hopefully accurate to what you wrote)
So, you care, and that's okay, but I don't care, but that's not. What was it you were writing about being politically correct?
Dogma is dogma, even if it is on the side of (apparent) anti-convention.
"I understand that you're viewing this in a completely different way than I do; whereas I am annoyed by people pushing an obsolete design for five digit prices, trying to get away with it by putting garish colour schemes on dials and an endless series of the most ludicrous 'limited' editions, you see this is as beautifully imperfect and try to focus instead on some good aspects of the watch. This is your good right. You're entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine. Imho."
I am more annoyed by people using what is basically an inexpensive solution (and a damned good one) and pushing it for five digit prices, than by people who use inherently fine and "expensive" designs, obsolete though they may be (and I'm not sure they are - the Lamborghini V-12 is 40 years old and "obsolete" by today's standards for new engines, but give me one any day over most of the more "modern" designs)
I'd likely prefer a 2120 based modular design - now that would be positively ANCIENT! - to most of today's "integrated" designs. But that's just me, and I respect what PP and Chopard, et al, have accomplished, so I don't feel the need to slam their efforts.
"Beautifully imperfect?" Who said that?
I DON'T MIND THE DEEPSET DIAL, WITH THE CYCLOPS EYE.
Do I need to repeat that again?
IT DOESN"T BOTHER ME. NEITHER DOES THE CHRONO PUSHERS AND THE CROWN NOT BEING ON THE SAME PLANE.
It's as simple as that. I don't need to justify or rationalize it further.
Do you see the problem now?
I accept your subjective preferences; no, I respect and accept them. I only ask that they be presented as opinions and not as almost-fact.
Obviously, you don't accept or respect mine. Afterall, you keep questioning what I really mean, rephrasing where it wasn't necessary or called for.
'Nuf said.
TM