Re: How about some high-end watch discussion?


"Frank Adam" <fajp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message news:avmqo2t928cn4vf6qj721ana6au77m7rdm@xxxxxxxxxx
On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 08:42:46 -0000, "Alex W."
<ingilt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:


"Mij Adyaw" <mij@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:EY1jh.128759$xM4.62461@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
You missed my point! I mean mechanical watches, not
electronic gadgets.


What would the MTV generation know about mechanical

Hey, that's MTV V2 generation. MTV used to have music. :)

Sorry, my bad.
Being an old fogey at 40 (oh, the humanity), I grew up with
the BBC -- my guiding stars were Top Of The Pops and John
Peel (RIP).



machines? Their primary input is from electronics, and
any
machine they do encounter, such as cars, is stuffed to
the
gills with wiring and software. I can't think what a
purely
mechanical watch can offer to impress them other than
pure
design -- and if you go there, then you may as well go
quartz and throw in a few electronic gadgets.

Indeed. I have a feeling that companies like Rolex, who
are so lost in
old school, are balancing on the edge of a very slippery
slide.
Mind you, there is nothing wrong with Rolexes. They are
damn good
watches, but will they be ready to adjust when the shit
hits the fan.
I'm not convinced.

The shit, or simple fashion. Not so long ago, may of
today's icons of luxury were in the doldrums. The trick to
survival seems to be a marriage between old-school charm and
image married to advanced production methods, slick
marketing and all the other trappings of the modern
business. So far, Rolex appears to be doing pretty much the
right thing






.