OT: the Leica of timepiece

... can't help getting even more off-topic after reading "the Leica of audio", where I

started thinking of the equivalence in timepieces :)

 

<p>

 

I'm currently wearing two mechanical watches (one at a time, of course ...) : a black

IWC Mark XV, and an Heuer Carrera Automatic re-edition (with the original Heuer logo

<i>sans</i> <b>TAG</b>, the same one as you see in many d-cam reviews in

dpreview.com). I consider them the Leica M4 and the Voigtlander R2 respectively. Any

idea ?

Roland Leica made watches.

... yeah, right, Leica made digital cameras too.

Patek Philippe.

I was wondering when this forum would get to this topic. I usually use a Baume & Mercier Riveira with automatic movement in my daily business life. It is all stainless, quite rugged, slim and accurate. It is also not very expensive, as these things go. I would consider it the Nikon FM2 of automatic watches. What is equivalent to a Leica?<p>Many will mention the big R - Rolex. It is somewhat comparable in that they have stuck with basically the same design of case for decades now. They can also be bulky, and quite expensive. Maybe they're comparable to the Leica R series.<p>I don't personally own any Rolex or even a Leica, so I'm not in a position to know. For my wife I have given her: Cartier (several), Chopard, Hermes, and Rado. I don't think that any of them are comparable to Leica either.

Well, Roland, our namesake watchmaker, Roland Murphy turns out some pretty fine wristwatches right here in the good old USofA.

 

I like your choices. I've been tempted by a couple of the Heuers, esp the Targa Florio and the Carrera, as you say, without the TAG hump. Also, my dream watch (other than a Patek Phillipe minute repeater!) is the IWC Portuguese Rattrapante. I was going to buy one but had to send the loot to the IRS instead.

 

I do like the idea of Rolex as Leica: Heavy, overbuilt, ruggedly beautiful, slightly inaccurate, no batteries required but quartz does a better job: Rolex should team up with Hermes and Leica: The go-to brand for the dilletante!

<i>I was wondering when this forum would get to this topic.</i><p>

 

It's been done <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=002nG6">before</a> so it's not a matter of getting to it.<p>

 

I use Spoon watches. They're about $25 on eBay these days, keep perfect time, and, most importantly, have a stopwatch that is very handy for long exposures. Also, a dial light since some of those long expsoures are in dark places.

OK guys, shoot me! Ol' Analog Al here, proponent of selenium cell light meters and mechanical shutters! I'd long ago given up on mechanical watches in favor of whatever El Cheapo digital came free with a Happy Meal or Whopper. Then I got a cell phone which displays the time and discovered that it even reset itself when I crossed time zones, and also when we went on/off daylight savings time. The battery is rechargeable at home or in the car and boat. The only downside is that I can't look at the time and use the phone at the same time.

<i>The only downside is that I can't look at the time and use the phone at the same time.

</i><p>

 

An earpiece or headset fixes that problem.

I have cajoled myself for being drawn into this. However, it seems to me the analogy is obvious. The Leica M of watches is the Rolex Oyster. You can have flavours, from the simple and timeless Datejust in steel (the M2 of watches) or the rugged Submariner (the MP?), to the upscale models --the President, the gold America Cup, etc.- that I can relate perfectly to the Hermés, the Bumiphol, or Sultan of Brunei.

 

The Oyster is a design dating about 50 years, same as the M. Has basically remained unchanged for the time and are considered lifetime purchases. No other brand offers the combination of down to earth pragmatism, simplicity, understated elegance, ruggedness and sound investment value as it does. Did I say Rolex? No, I meant Leica... ;-)

 

I have a Submariner steel & gold, present of my wife on our 20th wedding anniversary, but frankly I wear it very little. The steel-gold combo is a bit pretentious for my country-boy tastes. I would have prefered a steel model but I'm truly grateful to my wife for it. My everyday watch is an Omega Seamaster, purchased at Wempe in Berlin at a ridiculous price in 2000 (double what the CV 15mm went for at the time), thanks to the favorable US$->DM rate of the moment. I must add that the Mexican Peso was also at a great rate to the Dollar so it was really irresistible.

I'd go with Rolex (I do go with Rolex). However, I don't think the Submariner is the MP. It is the Day-Date, in gold. A fondler. I think the Explorer is the M7. My Datejust is my M6TTL. My steel plain non-automatic non-chronometer Non-date Rolex is my M2.

In the darkroom I wear my Luminox so I can see what time it is (unless I'm developing film; it's too bright for that).

whats a timepiece?

I'm wearing an $18 Timex which is more rugged and accurate than the expensive Swiss watches left to me by my Father and Grandfather. I also use Nikons because they are cheaper, more reliable, and produce better results than the M6 I used to own. I'm more interested in results than in conspicuous displays of wealth.

Rolex is definitely not the Leica of watches... in fact most of the watches in the Rolex line up use movements made by a generic swiss manufacturer called ETA (also used in a Russian watches such as the Poljot and also by Tag Heuer), none of these manufacturers make their own movements... while they are all fine watches, the do not have the pedigree and innovative design history of manufacturers such as Brequet, IWC (international watch company), Ulysses Nardin, Vacheron Constantin, Patek Philippe, Jaeger-LeCoultre, Lange & Sohne... only Patek remains independently owned and operated... if anything quailifies as a 'leica' of watches, it would be Patek Philippe

 

Rolex, Tag Heuer, Breitling, Cartier and some of the other 'prestige' brands which are highly marketed rarely manufacture their own movements... instead they buy mass produced ETA or Zenith automatic movements which are fine, but rarely are their prices justified... for example, very similar ETA movements can be found in $3000* Rolexs as well as $200 Russian assembled Poljot watches... these manufacturers are really brand marketing companies... doesn't make them bad watches, just over priced!!! having said that, one can hardly justify the prices demanded by PP, IWC, UN, Brequet etc... though those mechanically inclined cannot help but admire the precision and design that goes into these timepieces...

<i><blockquote> can't help getting even more off-topic </blockquote> </i><p>

 

Huge surprise. <p>

 

What's the Leica of meats -- tripe?

Most of the time I wear a Minerva Palladio. It resembles a Leica in that it is a high precision mechanical device that is a good deal more expensive than competitors that will usually do just as good a job. Nevertheless, I enjoy the look and feel of it, not unlike my regard for Leica. The Minerva company is, I believe, moribund. A lesson for Lecia?

Sorry guys. I don't go fancy on watches. I love my SUUNTO vector. It is the most practical watch for me.

I just traded an M6 Classic titanium with a 50 Titanium Summilux even up for

a Breitling Chronomat with a pearl face and a blue Brietling band and a

beautiful Breitling J Class Automatic with the UTC second dial. I also have a

Breitling Aerospace of the old numeral style. lately I've been rotating these

three watches. My daily driver for the past 15 years was a Tag Heuer Formula

1 Chronograph that I'm also going to start wearing again. Trading the titanium

was the samrtest camera move I've made in years. i have 4 M6's left and I'm

really enjoying the watches.

In my experience, most people with fancy watches are usually late for appointments or dates.

<i>whats a timepiece?</i>

<p>

Its what rich people like to call watches ;^) Yet another way for too much testosterone to rear its ugly head in a game of "Mine is better than yours"... Just kidding (sort of).<p>

I own a Wittnauer that I never wear for two reasons... <br>

a) It was given to me by an a**hole and I never have gotten around to having the inscription removed<br>

b) I feel foolish wearing it<p>

I like my handy dandy, no nonsense Liz Claiborne $40 jammy (after copious amounts of discounts at Macy's) for when I feel like wearing a watch. It looks analog & is silver with a pretty blue faceplate (I guess you call it)... For when I don't want anything strapped to my wrist, I have a little clip-on faux silver ($12)ladybug watch that when you squeeze the wings together, they reveal the watch, that I keep clipped inside my bag.<p>

Wish I could consistently apply the same practicality to my camera & lens purchases, so I guess I understand the need for an uber watch more than I think I do.

"Takes a Lick'in and keep on tick'in" what does that applies to? Leica? or nikon F or F2?

To Ken Ng: Where did you get your information that most of Rolex watches use ETA movements? Their Tudor line are Rolex cases and bracelets with ETA movements but according to every authority I ahve ever heard or read, Rolex oysters still use in-house movements. I have been told that they have been cheapened over time and are not as good as they were (so maybe Rolexes are the Leicas of watches because Sherry says the same thing about Leicas!). I wore a Submariner for more than 10 years but recently picked up one of the James Bond Omegas from ebay, it does have an ETA movement but it keeps time as well as the Rolex.

Interesting comparison. I bought a new Rolex Oyster Perpetual with the winnings from a 'friendly' card game while in the service, in 1955, the same year that I got my first Leica: a IIIa with a 50/3.5 Elmar. They all still work, although the Rolex has been repaired twice, the Lieca once (second curtain failed). Each has been CLA'd about 3 or 4 times. Which now raises another thought. Do the screw mount Leicas need cleaning less often than do the Ms?? Seems so im my case.

Ok, I can't resist: "what time is it"" "its ten to." "Ten to what?" I don't know the hour hand is missing."

Ken opined: <<only Patek remains independently owned and operated... if anything quailifies as a 'leica' of watches, it would be Patek Philippe>>

 

Actually, by this standard Hermes watches are the Leica of watches.