Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

State Of The Collection.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    That's impressive Miles. I would have guessed at least a decade longer.

    On the other hand I find it hard to believe that the break-in at my home was Sept 2010 and all I had left of my collection was the 1961 DeLuxe and the "sex" Louis Rossel 7724.
    Solve all your doubts through question mode.

    Comment


    • #17
      Quite a collection and you take such good care of them, as they all show so very well.

      Comment


      • #18
        btw. a link to my updated (January 2013) slideshow:


        Pimpclinic´s Slideshow
        Pimpclinic.v.s.o.p.

        Comment


        • #19
          As cameras get ever better and many on this site hone their photography skills, I'm left to wonder if the photos are so accurate and so close-up, is an injustice done to the vintage watch that normally has some minimal flaws?

          Not all things seen by the camera eye are seen by the human eye while looking at a watch attached to a wrist. Does the magnification tend to leave some false impressions? Is that good... or bad?

          Comment


          • #20
            Nice Pimp. In your last update your collection was quite narrowly defined. You seem to have diversified again, especially with the vintage ones. That DS 14 with the blue goldstone is pretty nice.
            Solve all your doubts through question mode.

            Comment


            • #21
              I tend to agree with you. The modern cameras definitely see much more than you or I would under normal circumstances. A camera, and even more importantly lighting, can make a watch with a few well earned flaws look terrible. And unless it is a seller on ebay I do think it is bad. One can minimize this with diffused indirect light, which gives a more natural impression of the watch.

              My newest camera, the point and shoot Olympus TG-1, is utterly unforgiving. It can do a great job in the right circumstances but it can also make something look pretty terrible.
              Solve all your doubts through question mode.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Henry Krinkle View Post
                I tend to agree with you. The modern cameras definitely see much more than you or I would under normal circumstances. A camera, and even more importantly lighting, can make a watch with a few well earned flaws look terrible. And unless it is a seller on ebay I do think it is bad. One can minimize this with diffused indirect light, which gives a more natural impression of the watch.

                My newest camera, the point and shoot Olympus TG-1, is utterly unforgiving. It can do a great job in the right circumstances but it can also make something look pretty terrible.
                Speaking of terrible, I can generally make a NOS look like it is ready for the junk pile. However, my new Olympus seems to help my novice skills a whole lot.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Your pictures have clearly improved with your new camera. And they seem to be improving more as you get used to it.
                  Solve all your doubts through question mode.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    sorry for the confusion but i also added the watches im not wearing. watches like the conway, the blue starliner, a Green Horse Daymaster and the pristine diastar 1R will be back on the market very soon!
                    Pimpclinic.v.s.o.p.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X