Horology_Ancienne
195
Here is my original thinking with this post.
Mar 25, 2022,15:49 PM
Although extremely active and busy on Instagram which takes my time away from WPS , I have always been encouraged by our moderator GLau’s to share more on WPS, especially on important topics. Hence, I felt compelled to share this important matter with you all. I thought, instead of tailoring my writings to WPS, I’ll just for the most part copy and paste from Instagram with a few more additions.
There was a particularly prevalent discourse on Instagram concerning Patek and the grey market. Often was the tired drum beaten accusing Patek of being ignorant, unwilling or even complicit. My post here was a response to these accusations. Given it was a response I did not feel the need to outline the arguments fairly common on Instagram.
Unfortunately maybe it was an incorrect thinking to not differentiate the discourses on WPS vs Instagram. However, I would like to point out that I did still give acknowledgement (albeit brief) to opposing arguments some of which I agree with. Such as the the concerns with corrupt ADs. I hope under this context you see my intentions for this post.
I think it is a particularly tiresome approach to give the counter every time one has an opinion they wish to express. I believe something, therefore I argue it. If I were to JUSTIFY the other-side, a side I don’t believe in, I couldn’t possibly do any justice. I thought, especially in a forum setting, as, after all, this isn’t a dissertation, that members of the forum who took issue with my points could challenge them. A healthy debate could then ensue. Something I would welcome. Further, if I have an opinion on a watch... let’s say I think it is a nice watch and proceed to give reasons for why I think so, I feel it is SILLY for me to then state why others MAY not think it is nice. It is forcing an argument. I would never write it convincingly. Better yet leave it to be written by someone who actually thinks said watch isn’t nice and a healthy debate can commence.
No doubt I do have a significant degree of bias - I am a long time buyer of Patek Philippe and enjoy a close relationship with the company. I love their watches above all else. Yet for those that know me, especially on Instagram, will admit I am also a heavy critic of Patek. I am not blind in my following of the so-called Patek religion. I have a long track record of speaking my mind wherever I felt appropriate. 5711 Tiffany and 5303 to name a few. But perhaps you don’t have Instagram so I won’t labour the point. However, in this very post, I did at several points make criticisms concerning corrupt ADs. It’s a big problem, one I have fallen victim to. On your penultimate comment declaring those with a superficial understanding will be the ones who agree with me, well, that doesn’t really say anything at all. It just insults those who find merits in my point.
As for “different opinions tend to disturb”, i am deeply disappointed at the suggestion. I have always been receptive to challenges to my arguments. In fact, the very point of this post was to encourage a conversation. I was really looking forward to your points. I’ve seen yours Thomas, I just haven’t had a moment to respond. I am saddened this is the way you feel. I would never find a differing opinion a nuisance - nor should anyone writing on a public forum. I also think it is quite dismissive to label my writing as a PR statement. Challenge me and let the discussion continue.