A certain Watch Snob's opinion

From Askmen's Editor:

Read this article recently and to a certain extent, I agree with him. What are your thoughts, forum members?

Leon.

IWC Watches
I’ll admit, I’m a sucker for advertising. So I’ve fallen hard for IWC’s “Engineered for Men” campaign and the design of its watches, which really appeal to my inner pilot, diver and sailor. In looking at your past columns, I’ve noticed that you seem to not like IWC in general. Yet it seems to meet most of your criteria for a good brand: in-house movements, long history, etc. So why don’t you like IWC? Are there any of its watches you like?

Here’s the thing about IWC: I have tried to like it, and it isn’t doing a lot of things right. But it is a confused brand. On the one hand, it wants to be taken seriously and indeed has put out some fine innovations and movements, such as its eight-day hand-wound, its Pellaton auto-winding system and the 89360 chronograph calibre.

This year, it’s dipped a toe in the exclusive waters of ultra-complicated movements with its Portuguese Sidérale Scafusia. So why does it continue to dabble in overpriced fashion pieces such as its cartoonish Aquatimer and the gussied-up Portofino? I have a theory: IWC is like that awkward girl in school who slept with all the boys just to be considered popular. Sure, she got a lot of attention but not exactly the kind she could be proud of. Then, like the girl who matured into an elegant woman but never developed the self-esteem to accompany her charms, IWC can’t shake off its desire to stay popular with the wrong crowd.

If I’ve lost you in my metaphor, let me illuminate. IWC was a once-proud watch company, like so many were, before the so-called quartz crisis of the 1970s. But then it entered that awkward phase when it became desperate for attention and turned out some forgettable pieces just to stay afloat. When it finally found its footing again, it had developed, shall we say, a reputation with the wannabe Village People like you (the diver, the pilot, the sailor). Rather than return fully to glory, IWC is afraid to step away from the boys that snuggled up to it. I hold out hope that we’ll see a day when IWC trickles down its in-house calibres to all its references and again becomes the brand it once was. It seems to be on the right path.

Check out the Watch Snob archive here.

BY WATCH SNOB
Watch Snob

Read more: uk.askmen.com/fashion/mens-watches_700/714_iwc-watches.html#ixzz238Hygfqm

That pretty much sums up my opinion of the so-call "Watch Snob." I find a good deal of his 'commentary' sophmoric and more about being excessively cute, than about objective watch reviews. I'm sure it appeals to his AskMen readers...but I choose to ignore him.

No wonder he adopts the moniker.

I too believe that his metaphor is inappropriate.

Sales aside, I fully agree with him on the new Aquatimer styling and that the Portofino marketing/PR is too focused on celebrities and the 'high-life' rather than the product itself.

But hey, ever since the PRC and Bric markets became the dominant consumers, I've found that design work in the luxury industry overall has somewhat deteriorated.

I completely subscribe Michael and Jim's opinions, and would like to add that I feel they were to kind for, in my humble opinion Mr. Watch Snob chooses his metaphors with excessive bad taste.

But, anyway, we can't expect everyone to love IWCs as much as we do here in the Forum, which in a certain sense is also good for we can maintain some exclusivity (not wanting to be a snob here).

Furthermore I do believe that it is this same diversity that makes IWC such an appealing brand. I, with all the due respect, not to say reverence, that brands like Patek or Vacheron deserve, consider that they, at times, in spite of all the wonderful workmanship and mechanisms, feel a bit too conservative in their line ups. Variety is a consequence of evolution and the willingness to fulfill the needs of a ever expanding market, and has very little to do with teenage hormones. Examples are everywhere in successful brands. Even Porsche is nowadays building SUVs and sedans...

There is quite a lot more that one could point out but, alas, I don't have TIME for Mr. Watch Snob.

What Watch Snob writes is rubbish. Every one has a right to his own opinion, but I would guess that 100% of the Forum Members will throw his article and thoughts into to rubbish.

WS' opinion is one opinion - there are many others, including those concerning what constitutes 'gimmicky' or modern 'haute horlogerie', and whether it is or is not directed and driven by mass market appeal, or sales.

what I do know is - if for a few months WS doesn't diss any watch brand, he would lose readers. there are many excellent watch journalists out there who attained their status without the same modus operandi.

Agreed. Nevertheless, I prefer the 'Top-Gear' approach of not always sucking up to the brands/manufacturers in return for Advertising dollars. Even Wei Koh who I have incredible respect for tends to write with a positive tone than negative.

Watch Snob: does he really like watches? He likes his own writing, I guess. And for the rest I would say: bla, bla, bla, I can so easily live without this Watch Snob.

Kind regards,
Paul

I totally agree. The Snob seems to be more about being hip and that means a cynical approach. It might be fun to read but not for me.

His writing reminds me of an old recurring bit on Saturday Night Live, The Hollywood Minute with David Spade. It was nothing but one snarky comment after another. That's fine, SNL is a comedy show. I don't, however, get the impression that humor is the Watch Snob's primary goal.

More troubling is his logic which is flawed and self-contradictory. He doesn't like the Aquatimer design? That's his right but it's quite a leap to conclude that IWC is a "once proud company" because of it. I'm not a fan of the X5 but it doesn't diminish BMW. He thinks the Portofino is overpriced but wishes that IWC would produce all of its own calibers. Not a bad goal but one effect of that move would be higher prices for some lines, such as the Portofino.

The real shame is that his has a soapbox from which he can influence others opinions. Rather than read the Watch Snob perhaps those people should take the time to educate themselves on heritage, quality and innovation and then form their own opinions. Of course, it's easier to simply buy a Rolex and read his inane ramblings.

This is the second time I have 'bumped into these comments from watchsnob.

Setting aside the rather distasteful and sensationalist way he has of writing, there is an implication that a watch brand has to focus on what he perceives the brand to mean. In this case he does not believe that IWC should be producing the less expensive watches in its range.

I believe that the board of IWC are in a better position to judge that. I am not saying I believe him to be right or wrong, just irrelevant.

Graham

Ps: I own two of the watches at the lower end of the price range, really enjoy them and to me, they are true IWC.

I'll say what I said in another thread about the snob (www.iwc.com/forum/en/discussion/53824/):

'Well, he calls himself a snob. That says it all. It is one big joke, and should be treated als such.'

Gents, there is no need for me to even have to 2nd and of your comments, we are all aligned. If anything, I'd normally feel obliged to demand on behalf of all our fine ladies out there an appology from the man for his sexist reference in his ramblings. Fortunately, MF already countered to that (most politely I might add! - I probably would not have been that eloquent).

IWC is building great watches, and continuing its proud heritage just fine!

What do you mean by it's easier to buy a Rolex? Kindly elucidate your logic.

Strategically, I see Rolex being more in line/similar to one of the most successful companies in the world (i.e. Apple). Greater Product focus, iconic design, vertical integration, small product portfolio, longer product refresh cycles, quality branding, secrecy. You name it...

IMO, the man/woman (snob) is entitled to his/her opinion, it's not his/her interest to please everyone. Plus, its refreshing to have someone in the editorial business that is brave enough to be critical/negative of well-liked brands regardless of popular opinion.

I love IWC, been a fan since 1997. Nonetheless, I agree with the snob in certain aspects, particularly with respect to the post-richemont era.

His posts are mainly for humour, you realize that right? I think this entire thread is a bit silly in that we're debating over a persona who a) I don't believe are written by the same person on a weekly basis and b) is meant to be satire. They do have actual watch reviews on the askmen.com site. Watchsnob is not it.

I mean that for someone who doesn't know a lot about watches, Rolex is the obvious, easy choice. Thanks to amazing marketing and good products, that brand has become synonymous with luxury watches for a large segment of the population. That is not to denigrate Rolex in any way.

My sentiments exactly. There is no debate, more like sensitive responses :) Assuming that the Watch Snob's objective is to stir, he/she/they has or have definitely succeeded.