to voice this point of view (though I kept hinting around it...
Actually, Whitestrat, even AP did not come up with the Starwheel concept; the wandering hours on radial spokes tracing the minutes has origins to pocket watches all the back to the early 19th (maybe even 18th, I don't remember) century.
I have to agree (and was tempted to write in my reply to Gary G about the decimal repeater) that there is very, very, very little truly new under the sun in the world of high horology...but lest we get too cynical, there have been advances...really there have...
The issue I have with selective "appointments of originality" (and a large part of what I was trying to get at with Geo) is that oftentimes, individuals discussing these issues frequently have a lack of historical context (this includes me; I do not hold myself above gaps in knowledge, but I hopefully realize my limitations...and always keep my mind and "opinions" open to differing points of view, or corrections on held historical facts/errors, such as the case may be) to reach the conclusions they do;
or they use flexible and sometimes inconsistent standards to determine what is acceptable "inspiration" and what is unacceptable "intellectual property theft" which reduces these discussions to "personal feelings" - I like this design, but not that one; I like this individual or company but not that one.
The same goes for the whole beaten to death "inhouse vs not inhouse" topic, and many, many others.
And again, I do not hold myself above or immune from these criticisms, but I hopefully realize my limitations, or force myself to remain open minded to other points of view, or to corrections to held historical facts or errors, such as the case may be.
Cheers, and thanks for pointing this out, whitestrat.
Although I can already see the fanboy homeboys coming out, in force, to defend that Urwerk is not really a Starwheel implementation, or is different enough to warrant immunity from the "inspiration/IP theft" issues. I can, to a certain degree, understand where they are coming from, as I do see the Urwerk movements as separate and different from the Starwheel/radially mounted wandering hour indicators, just as I see the RM case as unique enough to be easily identifiable from other tonneau cases.
On this note, I have problems with those that "unequivocably" see the Cvstos as being blatant ripoffs of the RM (Geo, Tony, Anthony, Gaz, monochrome et al - not with the individuals, mind you, just the statement of opinion as obvious facts) - just as I don't feel RM ripped off preceding tonneau designs because I can easily distinguish his tonneau design from other tonneau designs, I can, applying the same standard, easily identify the Cvstos cases and complete watches from the RM, no matter how similar or "inspired" they may be.
For me, you can't have it both ways - what lets one off, lets the other off; what indicts one, should indict the other.
And that, I guess, is where I have the most problem with most of the discussions of this sort on subjects of this sort.
But again, insofar as the opinions are stated as such, that's fine (what was it again that the previous thread on the subject defined "opinion?"
"It needs no explanation or defense."
I still don't agree, but that's just my opinion...
But when those opinions are stated as self evident fact, and any one who doesn't agree is either stupid, deluded, or blind, then THEN I have a problem with that, and it ain't opinion no more, but ego-centric dogma!
TMThis message has been edited by ThomasM on 2008-12-25 21:53:15