Such a good read, once again. Perfect length and a lot to unpack. And for the record I did not check if Rolexleaks69 actually existed on Instagram. That would be ridiculous. And if you think I checked you have no way of proving it.
"It insists upon itself" is a way for a pretentious person who takes themself too seriously to describe a piece of art that is itself pretentious and takes itself too seriously
“… as a decent, God-fearing and NDA-abiding citizen, this newsletter isn’t one to discuss leaks and rumors.”
As a lawyer, I’m curious about your opinion on how this works in practice:
If something lands in the public domain, and you didn’t put it there - what is wrong with you talking about it? Sure, someone out there did something wrong, but what does this have to do with you discussing something which is publicly available?
Not legal advice, of course. Just Tony’s approach to this issue
Hi, fellow lawyer here. Usually nda includes language that allows you disclose/discuss publicly matters that have been disclosed to the public and you are aware that this disclosure has not been made in breach of any laws/agreements. If you know they’re breaching another ndas, then you cant discuss it
In terms of the knowledge (or lack thereof) regarding whether someone else has breached an NDA... how does that work?
So, for example, seeing a 'leaked' Rolex on a Reddit post - everyone has no clue whether it is genuine or not, right? They are sharing it as a speculative discussion point, not as 'a genuine revelation of an unreleased product' ... In these circumstances, is there any breach? The discovery of a breach, it seems, would always be post-fact, so I'm not sure how they can ever prosecute without confirming authenticity (and thus, invalidating the NDA terms anyway)!
guys, i started this blog so i didn't have to talk about this stuff!
To answer F's original question. I'm not sure anything is wrong with it (morally or legally). I guess I think of it practically, as an editor: If I cover this, how am I going to add value and move the conversation forward instead of just pointing at something else somewhere on the internet? Especially if I'm asking people to pay $$, it's gotta be something they won't find anywhere else.
Often, I just don't think I have anything to add so it's best to leave it alone.
Collectability are on the ball and are deserved of their success. They also understand how to use social media aimed at 'men of a certain age' (like myself).
(Some time back, I took a flyer and emailed them (Collectability) and received a prompt reply from Tanya - which explained the reason for the dial discolouration on my PP Ref3491. Everyone told me it was 'water damage' - but in fact is not). Try that with Rolex, PP, AP yada yada...
there in lies the contradiction. one cannot say that tool-watches are no longer authentic wearables, and demand brands like rolex return to their 50s aesthetic at the same time. what percentage of the original consumers of the 5513 ever went diving? i would guess it’s no more than fifteen percent. people wore their 5513s to the beach, in the pool, to work. people still do all those things with their rolexes. what has changed really? there are more people doing it than before.
i don't totally disagree, but i also don't think a 5513 and 126610 are comparable products for their respective eras. Mechanical watches were the only "authentic wearables" for time telling in the '60s. It's the opposite today where they have no functional purpose.
I also saw the Zegna ad with John Goldberger in The NY Times Men’s Fashion section, and was waiting to see if anyone else in the watch collecting community would pick up on it. In addition to seeing an esteemed collector receive that recognition, since I am of his generation, I personally got a kick out of someone our age being used to model men’s clothes
Love the points about how so many watches on the market rely on reference to historical designs, and the connotations that go along with those references. Also, interesting examples of contemporary designs from brands that break away that trope.
Who do you think is doing this best in the middle tranche of the watch category (i.e., Rolex/Omega price tiers, a bit less exclusive)?
Such a good read, once again. Perfect length and a lot to unpack. And for the record I did not check if Rolexleaks69 actually existed on Instagram. That would be ridiculous. And if you think I checked you have no way of proving it.
rolexleaks69, what if it's me?
"It insists upon itself" is a way for a pretentious person who takes themself too seriously to describe a piece of art that is itself pretentious and takes itself too seriously
WHY SO SERIOUS?
Spoke like a true Joker
“… as a decent, God-fearing and NDA-abiding citizen, this newsletter isn’t one to discuss leaks and rumors.”
As a lawyer, I’m curious about your opinion on how this works in practice:
If something lands in the public domain, and you didn’t put it there - what is wrong with you talking about it? Sure, someone out there did something wrong, but what does this have to do with you discussing something which is publicly available?
Not legal advice, of course. Just Tony’s approach to this issue
Hi, fellow lawyer here. Usually nda includes language that allows you disclose/discuss publicly matters that have been disclosed to the public and you are aware that this disclosure has not been made in breach of any laws/agreements. If you know they’re breaching another ndas, then you cant discuss it
In terms of the knowledge (or lack thereof) regarding whether someone else has breached an NDA... how does that work?
So, for example, seeing a 'leaked' Rolex on a Reddit post - everyone has no clue whether it is genuine or not, right? They are sharing it as a speculative discussion point, not as 'a genuine revelation of an unreleased product' ... In these circumstances, is there any breach? The discovery of a breach, it seems, would always be post-fact, so I'm not sure how they can ever prosecute without confirming authenticity (and thus, invalidating the NDA terms anyway)!
guys, i started this blog so i didn't have to talk about this stuff!
To answer F's original question. I'm not sure anything is wrong with it (morally or legally). I guess I think of it practically, as an editor: If I cover this, how am I going to add value and move the conversation forward instead of just pointing at something else somewhere on the internet? Especially if I'm asking people to pay $$, it's gotta be something they won't find anywhere else.
Often, I just don't think I have anything to add so it's best to leave it alone.
I know it’s meant as a joke, but I think “it insists upon itself” can be a good descriptor.
For example, I love Breguet overall, but the Breguet Tradition collection specifically? It insists upon itself.
it sounds pretentious but that's not to say it's not accurate sometimes :)
(I agree re that watch)
As always, a true joy to browse MrT.
Collectability are on the ball and are deserved of their success. They also understand how to use social media aimed at 'men of a certain age' (like myself).
(Some time back, I took a flyer and emailed them (Collectability) and received a prompt reply from Tanya - which explained the reason for the dial discolouration on my PP Ref3491. Everyone told me it was 'water damage' - but in fact is not). Try that with Rolex, PP, AP yada yada...
Their great and know their stuff—both have first hand experience at PP! It's been a real treat getting to do a bit of work with both John and Tania.
there in lies the contradiction. one cannot say that tool-watches are no longer authentic wearables, and demand brands like rolex return to their 50s aesthetic at the same time. what percentage of the original consumers of the 5513 ever went diving? i would guess it’s no more than fifteen percent. people wore their 5513s to the beach, in the pool, to work. people still do all those things with their rolexes. what has changed really? there are more people doing it than before.
i don't totally disagree, but i also don't think a 5513 and 126610 are comparable products for their respective eras. Mechanical watches were the only "authentic wearables" for time telling in the '60s. It's the opposite today where they have no functional purpose.
I also saw the Zegna ad with John Goldberger in The NY Times Men’s Fashion section, and was waiting to see if anyone else in the watch collecting community would pick up on it. In addition to seeing an esteemed collector receive that recognition, since I am of his generation, I personally got a kick out of someone our age being used to model men’s clothes
next campaign starring you!
Love the points about how so many watches on the market rely on reference to historical designs, and the connotations that go along with those references. Also, interesting examples of contemporary designs from brands that break away that trope.
Who do you think is doing this best in the middle tranche of the watch category (i.e., Rolex/Omega price tiers, a bit less exclusive)?