Rolex

Often we say that a particular watch has a soul while another, no matter how elegant, expensive or complicated just does not seem to possess that quality. 

In my opinion a new watch no matter how accomplished, and others may disagree, may by  association with its great pedigree, may have a great heritage, but it cannot have the soul of a watch that has seen the passage of time.  That has ticked away the seconds and hours and days of a life that has seen the birth of a child or that of a nation, the travels to different parts of the world, the achievements of a life and the sorrows that it has lived through,  the dreams achieved and those dashed.  Such a watch acquires a soul by living through the rigors of life. 

The beat up old Omega that Mr. E. Hemingway wore while writing his novels in Spain and Cuba and that was then passed down to his family has a soul that a new, shiny watch from the same maker just cannot muster.  Likewise the early  Rolex  oyster worn by the young lady Mercedes Gleitz who crossed the English channel in 1927 has more soul than the much more robust and capable Submariner that can be purchased today by you and me. My Sub however does  have  the pride of heritage.

The now beat up Seiko that my father gave me new upon my entering post graduate school and which saw me through the rigors of education, the travels to every continent of the world, the watch that was on my wrist when I met my lovely wife and the watch that was telling me the time when landed my first real job and bought my first new car, has acquired a soul.  I can look at its scarred case and live through the times of my life.  It has far more soul then the shiny new Patek that I purchased a couple of weeks ago.  The Patek has great heritage but the soul it should acquire in due time.

 Heritage and pedigree are what a watchmaker gives each of its watches and then we, the owners give our  watches a soul.

Best Regards to all.

" target="_blank"> " border="0" alt="Photobucket">

" target="_blank"> " border="0" alt="Photobucket">

This message has been edited by azim.f on 2008-08-03 10:46:42 This message has been edited by azim.f on 2008-08-03 10:49:34

Seems we are Romantic Purists..LOL

Well,n we also can say that we have 2 kinds of Soul:

1/ The objective one, which be summed by all the intrinsec qualities of the watch, as its patina, for example.

2/ The Subjective considerations, the personnal pedigree of the object, the history of the Family, of its previous owner, etc...

But the price doesn't matter, I agree with you..I have an Omega SM 300 from year 64 which has these 2 kinds of soul.

Objective: Its patina.

Subjective: It was relelased the same year I was born...LOL

Best, and thanks for this topic!

Nicolas

into this subject.  Your thoughts about the objective and subjective qualities of the "soul" of a watch lead me to the observation that perhaps these two "types" or soul are merely the two sides of the same coin and that they really exist because of and in association with the other.  For example,  a man of 40 or 50 years of age has a body with the marks that tell of his having seen time pass.  His eye sight may not be the same as when he was 20 for instance, he may have a scar on the arm from when he burned it as a child, a healed wound from a shrapnel that injured his thigh when he was serving his nation in some war or a broken nose from the time he tried to protect his family in a dark alley from muggers.   These scars on his body show the life he has lived, just like the scars on the watch that has lived on his wrist. 

Best Regards my friend.  And by the way , that Omega that was born the year you were,  boy that is a keeper isn't it

This message has been edited by azim.f on 2008-08-03 15:55:00

Now you see my limits with my English...LOL

I agree with you on what you perfectly wrote and described...

As for my Omega, yes, this is a keeper!!!

Best.

Nicolas

This message has been edited by amanico on 2008-08-03 22:10:43

however, I can see where Nicolas is coming from.

The watch itself can carry a soul that is not subject by nature of the piece being a mechanical, thus 'inanimate' object, that is not a self sustaining sentient organism such as ourselves (I use those terms lightly). The very appearance of a piece, such as it's  patina, dints and scratches, serve to record and express the object's experience that cannot otherwise be told of unless there is an owner to verbalise or write about it.

The subjective soul of the object then has to reside in the owner. The 'value' that we impose on the piece. We alone are aware of what the watch means to us. Once again I take shelter with the 1964 SM. The year is important to Nicolas. The subjective soul is also vibrant and alive, conveying to others a personal experience of the piece, but this isn't strictly necessary as one can quite satisfactorily enrich the subjective soul as time continues to pass.

They objective and subjective may be inter-dependent, but it requires a person to make it so, whereas the objective soul of a piece is simply that, expressing the state of the object in a given point in time and space.

your last paragraph is a good distillation of your point.