| ▲ | creeble 3 hours ago | |||||||
The movement isn't part of the brand. It's not part of the signal. The case/dial/sometimes band are the brand. And if you couldn't tell them apart, they wouldn't be any good at signaling, the entire point of wearing them. | ||||||||
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||
> movement isn't part of the brand. It's not part of the signal. The case/dial/sometimes band are the brand The movement was the expensive part. Audemars, Vacheron and Patek only made movements. The retailer would then put it in a case. That’s the entire point of PG’s essay. > if you couldn't tell them apart, they wouldn't be any good at signaling, the entire point of wearing them Which might lead you to revise your hypothesis around why these watches were bought and made in the “golden age of watches.” Then as now there is such a thing as quiet luxury. | ||||||||
| ||||||||
| ▲ | bee_rider 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |||||||
It’s sort of hard to unravel what’s part of the brand, it’s all imagination anyway. The watch manufacturer, as part of their reputation, buys “premium” internal components. And then the hardcore watch-heads get to know that this model has that premium movement. Everybody in the club gets to signal to each other by knowing internal details that outsiders don’t notice (or even details that can’t be noticed, I mean, I assume by nowadays non-premium-brand movements are functionally identical to the premium ones). | ||||||||
| ▲ | randallsquared 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||
The whole point of pg's essay is that signaling transitioned into being the entire point of wearing them primarily in the 1980s. | ||||||||