| The Breitling Watch Source Forums https://www.breitlingsource.com/phpBB2/ |
|
| New York Times Watch Article https://www.breitlingsource.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=35885 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | gb45 [ Sun Dec 25, 2011 6:59 am ] |
| Post subject: | New York Times Watch Article |
Figured it was worth posting http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=884150&f=35&p=3 |
|
| Author: | Twotone540 [ Sun Dec 25, 2011 7:56 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: New York Times Watch Article |
I've been saying the same thing for years!!!! Blame it on Invicta! |
|
| Author: | wrangler [ Sun Dec 25, 2011 9:25 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: New York Times Watch Article |
Bigger works better for us baby boomers with aging eyes. |
|
| Author: | Novacastrian [ Mon Dec 26, 2011 1:21 am ] |
| Post subject: | New York Times Watch Article |
I've followed the classic larger to smaller trend. My wrists aren't tiny but I'm beginning to think even my SOSF is getting too big. I'm finding I like the look of the classic sub or maybe a SOH 42. I'll certainly never go larger again (as far as I can see now that is 
|
|
| Author: | ewen [ Mon Dec 26, 2011 7:12 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: New York Times Watch Article |
Such is life. A stocky, big boned good friend of mine of a similar age prefers small, thin watches and thinks my Motors looks like a dinner plate, especially perched on my skinny wrist. I think his shirt collars are too big (if he fell off a cliff he would probably glide toward a safe landing) but to him a shirt aint a shirt unless its wingspan exceeds the distance between his nipples. He tries too hard with shoes too IMO, high end and well made so they are, but they have no laces and are so pointy ended they dont look like shoes any more....more like spear heads. He thinks mine are too boring and conventional. Neither of us lose too much sleep over our apparent fashion faux pas though. If you buy watches 'on trend', fair play, but I doubt most on here worry too much about being in vogue. I read the magazines sure enough, but the messages don't even scratch the surface of my own personal and probably misguided sense of style. The thing is my friend and I have both lived long enough to have changed our tastes, and shirt collar styles, several times over the years, just at different times. The last time I read an article like the one linked to above, the forecast was different. Ill probably synch up with whats 'now' eventually, but it will be coincidental. |
|
| Author: | willsenaaa [ Mon Dec 26, 2011 1:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: New York Times Watch Article |
One of his lessons could be the most far reaching implications.the old lines between television,radio within the 3 corners of a table.it means that CNBC is not different business to a wall street journal in fact the journal is adding hours of video the passing month. |
|
| Author: | sharkman [ Mon Dec 26, 2011 2:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: New York Times Watch Article |
Interesting article.  One reason I try to stay away from all mainstream media is because everything is written or spoken as factual when in reality it starts with a conclusion and searches for opinions to fulfill the prophecy. My view is 99% of the alleged factual news I come across is bull####.  That said, I think this is author is full of ####. 
|
|
| Author: | wrangler [ Mon Dec 26, 2011 2:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: New York Times Watch Article |
Sounds like too many cases I've read, starting with a conclusion, and crafting a legal theory to reach it. |
|
| Author: | sharkman [ Mon Dec 26, 2011 2:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: New York Times Watch Article |
wrangler wrote: Sounds like too many cases I've read, starting with a conclusion, and crafting a legal theory to reach it. Oh for God's sake, not another lawyer on breitlingsource? 
|
|
| Author: | wrangler [ Mon Dec 26, 2011 2:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: New York Times Watch Article |
That's correct -- not for God's sake. |
|
| Author: | sharkman [ Mon Dec 26, 2011 2:33 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: New York Times Watch Article |
wrangler wrote: That's correct -- not for God's sake. Well I think we have reached our quota. I went to UofI law btw. |
|
| Author: | wrangler [ Mon Dec 26, 2011 2:36 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: New York Times Watch Article |
Wyoming, myself, after working several years. If you'd prefer, you can count me as an accountant, or a pilot. |
|
| Author: | Montexn [ Mon Dec 26, 2011 3:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: New York Times Watch Article |
I agree with Sharky and Wrangler, I don't buy based on what is "In Vogue", but what suits my taste. My vintage JLC is very small in comparison to the rest of my current day collection, but I still like the piece and wear it often. It is a bit of wrist shock after wearing a 44mm or 48mm piece, but once that wears off it looks quite appropriate. Like Sharky said, the media is mostly made up of B***S*** and I sure as heck don't care what they say I should be wearing.
|
|
| Author: | sharkman [ Mon Dec 26, 2011 4:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: New York Times Watch Article |
Montexn wrote: I agree with Sharky and Wrangler, I don't buy based on what is "In Vogue", but what suits my taste. My vintage JLC is very small in comparison to the rest of my current day collection, but I still like the piece and wear it often. It is a bit of wrist shock after wearing a 44mm or 48mm piece, but once that wears off it looks quite appropriate. Like Sharky said, the media is mostly made up of B***S*** and I sure as heck don't care what they say I should be wearing. :nana: I surely don't care what some dude from Barney's has to say. Man there are some bigger pieces I would love to be ABLE to wear, because I like them, not because it will get me kudos or some fashion police  say it's ok. Fifty Fathoms comes to mind (I tired recently  ). The Panerai I had I would have liked to keep, but they were too big for me. ROO. Some B4Bs. A frigging Avenger and Seawolf!!! I would have one of those Romain Jerome Titanic DNA watches except they were all too big, save one at 44mm that didn't do it for me. The larger ones were cool - to ME. Equally, it is just silly to base an article around Tom "I need to marry a new 20 year old to bring her to Scientology" Cruise wearing a SIXTY-FOUR MM U-boat! Really, who here wears a 64mm watch (sorry H2F ). To suggest most people who spend big $$ on a larger watch are doing so to get noticed is stooooopid. With little exception, no one pays attention to a watch except the dude wearing it. Now, I pay attention to watches because I am a watch nerd. And 9.9 out of 10 large (46+) watches I see in public are $200 POS things. (TW Steel exists for that very market). I don't think that counts as conspicuous consumption. OK off the 
|
|
| Author: | mfserge [ Mon Dec 26, 2011 4:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: New York Times Watch Article |
Tom - your boy Sandler had a quote in that article. I bet you loved reading that, he's a weasel f&$kbag. |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 8 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|