Tony when I submitted my question regarding taste, I did not expect an entire post let alone an essay analyzing the nuance and the building block of each of our own tastes. Bravo my friend.
I read through this several time and listened to the audio (I think I speak for many when I say keep that up too) to digest all the thought you put into this. I realized that a lot of this development really does come naturally over time as well as with experience. You even mentioned that I naturally did not ask about "how to develop taste" but "how do I understand and develop my own taste." We may fight what we truly like in lieu of what we think will get us the perception we think we desire, but I like the line about "what makes you happy when no one else is around" and "would I like this watch even if no one knew I had it?" I think we can all let those be our north stars. To many people these days seem to gravitate towards "the kit" and that really is a fools errand and something I have been cautious to avoid unless a piece of it truly resonates with me. Surprign people and yourself seems way more fun! I don't think any of my watch friends expected me to come back from Japan with a Kurono Vermillion Salon edition over a Grand Seiko. Especially after how much I obsessed over a myriad of GS.
Last thing I'll say is slowing down and taking things in is something I am trying very hard to be mindful about in my daily life so I am very glad that was a relating point here. It's tough , but it makes life a little more interesting and allows you to take it all in.
P.S. I appreciated just how when I was thinking that I'd like to know what further reading to do including the comparisons to the fashion industry and the human condition, BAM you put it right there for us. I'll be brushing up on some of this.
Enjoyed the very well written article. As an old philosophy major I appreciate the inclusion of Kant and Hume into this newsletter 🤣, but having been around watches for most of my life, I’ve long since figured out what I like and don’t like. I don’t dwell upon whether my collection is in “good taste” by some preset third party standards because they all reflect my personal preferences and work for me. BTW, Kant didn’t make sense for me either. Painful reading IIRC. Something lost in translation methinks…
and right, i agree, it's best not to worry about what's in 'good taste,' at least as according to some third party, but more like realizing what really reflects you.
There's a lot more to it, scientifically, than "buy what you love" or not. And while it's easy to pick on the Excalibur, Dubuis has been selling that watch in some form or another for over 20 years - compare and contrast with the Dunhill Parody Stone, a similar and contemporary watch that may very well have been a deliberate act of horological suicide. Sure - neither are to *your* taste but why is the Excalibur old enough to vote while the Parody Stone is so dead it's hard to find evidence of it ever existing?
Invicta gets beat up a lot for having no taste but they sure sell a lot of watches. Part of that, obviously, is they're inexpensive. Another part of it is they're so a la mode that they tend to be tacky and obsolete before the battery needs to be changed - nobody buys *one* Invicta. There's a hint of that in the Simmel quote - good taste fits in but also stands out. It's the difference between fashion and design, where fashion is what's cool now while design is what's cool *forever.* Ettore Sotsass got beat up a lot in the '90s but the influence of Memphis Design is everywhere. Molded plywood chairs were everywhere for a couple decades but the Eames Chair remains the it-girl of interior design 70 years later.
Johannes Itten mixed a bunch of science and mysticism in order to come up with modern color theory, but it still works a hundred years later. You can apply principles of Feng Shui to a modern office environment and they work, despite being an interior design discipline with a six thousand year history. The timelessness of "good taste" is often overlooked but it's really the core of it - "will this watch look cool 20 years from now" and "would this watch have looked cool 20 years ago" gets you disturbingly close to good taste. It's the principle reason the biggest brands tend to be the most conservative - the used value of a Cartier Tank upholds the new value of a Cartier Tank. On the other hand, a new Bell & Ross resembles a new Hermes than it does an old Bell & Ross because B&R was a fashion choice, not a design choice.
"Will I still love this even if everything in my wardrobe changes" is a good place to start with taste. Yes, taste is individual but we evaluate the success of our own taste by the reactions of others, not of ourselves. It's one reason designers are seen as the most arrogant people on earth - you don't have to be Karl Lagerfeld to decide a stainless Royal Oak should be black, but it sure helps if you're *the first.*
Excellent article as always. The recommendation to begin collecting within a niche is particularly noteworthy. It's far easier to figure out your own personal likes/dislikes if you're analyzing subtle variations between models or references from a particular brand and/or particular time period, rather than being inundated with the entirety of the wristwatch market of the last ≈100 years.
This was a great read. Taste is a Venn diagram of the objective and subjective. An Eames Lounge Chair and Ottoman is objectively beautiful combo, but I have heard many complain after sitting in one. “ I’m too reclined in this chair. How can I watch television like this ?” Doubt that was a concern to Charles Eames in the 1950’s.
As I was sourcing a Gay Freres ladder bracelet for a recent Zenith purchase, I wondered about taste and bracelet decision making. It looked great on a vintage NSA, but not “ right”. The makers, the style, the construction, the clasps, and how they are paired. The maker’s original bracelet/strap choices when shipped inform taste. The most tasteful watch can be undermined by a poor bracelet or strap choice. You know, like the NATO (hahah).
How about “taste” in regards to strap or bracelets choices? Examples of how those choices can ruin an otherwide elegant aquisition.
Well, I was going to call this article thought provoking, but I see that has already been done. It is interesting to contemplate the intricacies of external versus internal standards for good taste; I agree that collecting what appeals to you is not necessarily indicative of good taste, but moreso of individualism. On the other hand, replicating others' consensually validated good taste, even if it doesn't speak to you, is certainly not good taste. David Hume's traits provide a useful framework for thinking about this concept.
There are likely elements of taste that are shared by cultures, if not by humanity overall. Harmony, balance, and proportion in the design of an object usually result in pleasing and enduring items worthy of collection, both at the time of creation and as historical objects. Usefulness for the intended purpose also matters. Collecting awkwardly shaped watches (not the same as asymmetrical) or watches that cannot legibly or accurately tell time might be idiosyncratic, but it probably isn't reflective of good taste.
I CAN'T understand KANT either. By the way, have you tried on a vintage ploprof? They are so weird but cool and feel good on the wrist, I kind of want one, might have bought one if they weren't so expensive
Tony when I submitted my question regarding taste, I did not expect an entire post let alone an essay analyzing the nuance and the building block of each of our own tastes. Bravo my friend.
I read through this several time and listened to the audio (I think I speak for many when I say keep that up too) to digest all the thought you put into this. I realized that a lot of this development really does come naturally over time as well as with experience. You even mentioned that I naturally did not ask about "how to develop taste" but "how do I understand and develop my own taste." We may fight what we truly like in lieu of what we think will get us the perception we think we desire, but I like the line about "what makes you happy when no one else is around" and "would I like this watch even if no one knew I had it?" I think we can all let those be our north stars. To many people these days seem to gravitate towards "the kit" and that really is a fools errand and something I have been cautious to avoid unless a piece of it truly resonates with me. Surprign people and yourself seems way more fun! I don't think any of my watch friends expected me to come back from Japan with a Kurono Vermillion Salon edition over a Grand Seiko. Especially after how much I obsessed over a myriad of GS.
Last thing I'll say is slowing down and taking things in is something I am trying very hard to be mindful about in my daily life so I am very glad that was a relating point here. It's tough , but it makes life a little more interesting and allows you to take it all in.
P.S. I appreciated just how when I was thinking that I'd like to know what further reading to do including the comparisons to the fashion industry and the human condition, BAM you put it right there for us. I'll be brushing up on some of this.
Enjoyed the very well written article. As an old philosophy major I appreciate the inclusion of Kant and Hume into this newsletter 🤣, but having been around watches for most of my life, I’ve long since figured out what I like and don’t like. I don’t dwell upon whether my collection is in “good taste” by some preset third party standards because they all reflect my personal preferences and work for me. BTW, Kant didn’t make sense for me either. Painful reading IIRC. Something lost in translation methinks…
glad i'm not the only one!
and right, i agree, it's best not to worry about what's in 'good taste,' at least as according to some third party, but more like realizing what really reflects you.
There's a lot more to it, scientifically, than "buy what you love" or not. And while it's easy to pick on the Excalibur, Dubuis has been selling that watch in some form or another for over 20 years - compare and contrast with the Dunhill Parody Stone, a similar and contemporary watch that may very well have been a deliberate act of horological suicide. Sure - neither are to *your* taste but why is the Excalibur old enough to vote while the Parody Stone is so dead it's hard to find evidence of it ever existing?
Invicta gets beat up a lot for having no taste but they sure sell a lot of watches. Part of that, obviously, is they're inexpensive. Another part of it is they're so a la mode that they tend to be tacky and obsolete before the battery needs to be changed - nobody buys *one* Invicta. There's a hint of that in the Simmel quote - good taste fits in but also stands out. It's the difference between fashion and design, where fashion is what's cool now while design is what's cool *forever.* Ettore Sotsass got beat up a lot in the '90s but the influence of Memphis Design is everywhere. Molded plywood chairs were everywhere for a couple decades but the Eames Chair remains the it-girl of interior design 70 years later.
Johannes Itten mixed a bunch of science and mysticism in order to come up with modern color theory, but it still works a hundred years later. You can apply principles of Feng Shui to a modern office environment and they work, despite being an interior design discipline with a six thousand year history. The timelessness of "good taste" is often overlooked but it's really the core of it - "will this watch look cool 20 years from now" and "would this watch have looked cool 20 years ago" gets you disturbingly close to good taste. It's the principle reason the biggest brands tend to be the most conservative - the used value of a Cartier Tank upholds the new value of a Cartier Tank. On the other hand, a new Bell & Ross resembles a new Hermes than it does an old Bell & Ross because B&R was a fashion choice, not a design choice.
"Will I still love this even if everything in my wardrobe changes" is a good place to start with taste. Yes, taste is individual but we evaluate the success of our own taste by the reactions of others, not of ourselves. It's one reason designers are seen as the most arrogant people on earth - you don't have to be Karl Lagerfeld to decide a stainless Royal Oak should be black, but it sure helps if you're *the first.*
💀 when I clicked on the link that took me to Roger Dubuis Excalibur
an easter egg for real ones
“Hardly a week goes by that I don’t have a transaction on eBay.” I’m not sure if you realize how validating this single sentence is!
I’m here to validate haha
Excellent article as always. The recommendation to begin collecting within a niche is particularly noteworthy. It's far easier to figure out your own personal likes/dislikes if you're analyzing subtle variations between models or references from a particular brand and/or particular time period, rather than being inundated with the entirety of the wristwatch market of the last ≈100 years.
This was a great read. Taste is a Venn diagram of the objective and subjective. An Eames Lounge Chair and Ottoman is objectively beautiful combo, but I have heard many complain after sitting in one. “ I’m too reclined in this chair. How can I watch television like this ?” Doubt that was a concern to Charles Eames in the 1950’s.
As I was sourcing a Gay Freres ladder bracelet for a recent Zenith purchase, I wondered about taste and bracelet decision making. It looked great on a vintage NSA, but not “ right”. The makers, the style, the construction, the clasps, and how they are paired. The maker’s original bracelet/strap choices when shipped inform taste. The most tasteful watch can be undermined by a poor bracelet or strap choice. You know, like the NATO (hahah).
How about “taste” in regards to strap or bracelets choices? Examples of how those choices can ruin an otherwide elegant aquisition.
Well, I was going to call this article thought provoking, but I see that has already been done. It is interesting to contemplate the intricacies of external versus internal standards for good taste; I agree that collecting what appeals to you is not necessarily indicative of good taste, but moreso of individualism. On the other hand, replicating others' consensually validated good taste, even if it doesn't speak to you, is certainly not good taste. David Hume's traits provide a useful framework for thinking about this concept.
There are likely elements of taste that are shared by cultures, if not by humanity overall. Harmony, balance, and proportion in the design of an object usually result in pleasing and enduring items worthy of collection, both at the time of creation and as historical objects. Usefulness for the intended purpose also matters. Collecting awkwardly shaped watches (not the same as asymmetrical) or watches that cannot legibly or accurately tell time might be idiosyncratic, but it probably isn't reflective of good taste.
I CAN'T understand KANT either. By the way, have you tried on a vintage ploprof? They are so weird but cool and feel good on the wrist, I kind of want one, might have bought one if they weren't so expensive
actually, now that i think about it, i don’t think so. only new
Can’t believe no one has mentioned this yet. https://youtu.be/l9SqQNgDrgg?si=xaftqdIpaMH59nZd
Interesting thoughts; some of them pretty close to the 47 rules, but I think it is difficult to draw a clear line.
I read the newsletter on the Substack app and tried several links - none of them worked: Is it only me, Substack app or broken links?
Odd, I can’t seem to replicate in app. Maybe a bug
Now it works, probably some tech issues at my end. Thanks!
Thought provoking, fascinating read. Well done. Thank you!
thanks for reading 🙏
thanks for reading 🙏
Loved this
You're a Kant for not including this in the further reading section... but shameless self-promotion is not beneath this cunt: https://www.screwdowncrown.com/p/good-taste-in-watches-bourdieu-philosophy-cultural-capital
Good job ;)
haha! added link in the body above for posterity so it's above the paywall 😅