Classic versus Contemporary

[dman]

I got to thinking today about collections and what people strive for. I know that same of us don't "strive" specifically for something, we just fall into it. I am that way. I just seem to be drawn to more contemporary watches, even with brands with great history. I just seem to like the newer designs and styles versus the older ones.

Take my YM, it is a spin off of the classic and timeless Sub. It does not have the history or story behind it that the subs and GMT do, but it is the one Rolex that sings to me. Even if I don't wear it for a few weeks, it always smiles at me everytime it is on the wrist. Not what people think of when they think Rolex, but my favorite by a long shot.

Next is my AT Chrono in Ti. The AT has a great history in this line of dive watches, yet I went for one that really only bears the name. Nary a resemblance of the past watches in the line. I like the yellow on the dial and hands. I also have found myself using the chrono function daily, something I never thought I would do.

Finally I have my Panerai 88, the GMT model. Panerai made it's name for being a watch with plain dials. So I go for one that is as busy as can be, go figure. I actually owned the 27C first and that is already becoming known as a classic because of the sweep seconds and central PR, it did not do it for me. I also had a base model with no seconds hand, just could not learn to love it. Now the 111 I really miss and think I will get another one sooner rather than later.

So I guess I like watches that are a bit less common than many. I tried to like but could not to love the vintage stuff, not for me. I am very happy with my current collection, though I look at SC's all day long, I never know when the next one will jump up and yell buy me.

So how bout you? Do you find that you are the classic or contemporary type of guy/gal? Nothing wrong with either, it is all up to personal taste at the end of the day. I just have finally learned to get what I like, and not be influenced by others thoughts. That is tough to do when you are reading these forums all the time too!

[JJ Irani]

Good thread start, Daren.

Agreed....these fora can be pretty influential and can sometimes play on one's mind, even changing it as often as one reads these posts!!

At the end of the day, I guess we all have to make up our OWN minds. Try and be independent in your thinking and not be swayed by so many different comments.

Frankly, I'm a TWO watch man....and I'm really quite comfortable with them. Just a simple choice and you don't even need a winder.

Daren, you do have a very good selection....the best of three worlds, actually. I mean, how many guys out there can dream of even ONE of your watches, let alone all three!!

[Gedanken]

As Thoreau said, "Simplicity, simplicity, simplicity! I say, let your affairs be as two or three, and not a hundred or a thousand; instead of a million count half a dozen, and keep your accounts on your thumb nail".

Personally, I don't see it as a single dimension that runs from classic to contemporary. The way I see it, one of the key elements of a classic is elegance, and in turn one of the key elements of elegance is simplicity.

If I were to nominate a dichotomy, it would be style versus fashion. As a product of the 80's, I look back at some of the trends back then and go, "What the hell were they thinking?!". On the other hand, the design of the Sub had remained fundamentally unchanged for the last 50 years, and it'll still look as good as (if not better than) any other manufacturer's latest offerings. I thik the ability to spot something that stands the test of time and to go with it says a lot about the person.

[BruceS]

Great post Daren! I guess I prefer classic, in general, but I'm open enough to allow myself to buy what I like. If I like something that's more "contemporary" within a brand, then I don't want to be stuck to some theme.

[Rockrolex]

I never really thought about whether I prefer classic or contemporary. Since I only got hooked a few years ago, I did not start out looking at what might be considered vintage (does that equate with classic ). But as it turns out, the first Rolex I bought was a 1983 TT DJ on a black leather strap. Then a 1991 TT DJ on a Jubilee bracelet. I only have one Rolex that is new (Y series GMT). Does that mean I prefer classic? I wouldn't say so, since the "vintage" Rolexes I own don't look much different from today's manufactures. I would put my '91 TT DJ up against a current production model and I bet you couldn't tell the difference.

My non-Rolex watches are all NIB and purchased within the last two years. So does that mean I prefer contemporary? I don't think so.

What I go for is a look I like, whether it's "classic" or "contemporary." But one thing I am consistent about is complications. I love complications. Every one of my watches (with one inherited exception) has at least one complication, most have two or more.

I think I've come to the conclusion that I prefer dive watches. While the ExpII isn't technically a dive watch, it certainly is the size of one and while the bezel doesn't move, the black dial and cyclops are classic Rolex so it squeaks in, in my mind's eye, anyways. I love the BM and I love Panerais. I also love the IWC AT but still have a soft spot for the Portugueser and the Breguet TransAtlantique.

I guess I'm contemporary then, with a 'classic' Rolex flare, since Rolex design is classic contemporary.

[JIM-]

I mostly go for the newer stuff, not big on vintage models. I really just buy whatever it is I like at the time and enjoy it as much as possible. I've never let others influence my buying choice and always buy what I like. Live by that rule and your collection never lets you down.
Never buy for a trend weather its classic or contemporary