So if we remove all these, what are we left with? Do we buy watches based on current glory? Current news? Kobold does come to mind.....
People do buy watches based on history, or the want to be associated with past glories, the belief that it different, great perhaps. Some watches has horrible past, very unpopular, could not even sell. Suddenly a movie star is seen wearing one and the watch is popular and now fetch unbelievable prices and premium. But are the current offerings the same as its ancestors? Nope, the movement is no longer the same, among other things that have changed along the way. But should that be a reason not to get the watch? Do we doubt its capabilities? It is any less accurate or reliable?
I see that CK has moved this discussion away from the original thread, and fearing the discussion could be explosive, he titled the new thread Panerai Detonator
.
I believe what we are discussing here is the historical claims and history of a brand /watch and how to differentiate between what the watch company wants us to believe and what is the truth. Often when we discuss the history or the historical claims made by a brand, the discussion drifts to buying. OK, let's call it "acquiring" or "acquisition" because buying is only one of the many ways you can get your hands on a watch you like. The act of acquiring the watch is
only the cause or result of (among many other reasons) knowing the actual history of the brand. That is, you acquire the watch because you discovered that the watch indeed played a part in human history. Conversely, after acquiring a watch, you got interested in its history and the history of the company and you started digging the truth. Or it could be a combination of both if you are acquiring multiple pieces having the same brand. The economics of buying behaviour are discussed in tons of books, the issue here however is how to distilled the truth from the myth, legends, pseudo-history perpetuated by watch companies and the armies of fanboys (OK, OK, sensitive word, should be used sparingly). Mixing these 2 issues will lead to nowhere, like catching the wind I'm afraid.
You can only acquire what's in the present. If you love the past, get a vintage piece. Too expensive? Save up for it and wait for the right piece to come along. But whatever your buying decsion, it should not stop you from finding out the truth. It's only natural to think of such issues if you are a WIS - like "I think therefore I am" -that I am able to wonder whether I exist, proves that I do exist, hence that I am able to wonder these issues rove that I am a WIS. If you do not, then you are reduced to being a fanboy (
sorry, cannot find a better word).
Now, back to the question of why many PAM watches do not have minute markers. These watches were intended for under water use. Perhaps underwater and also under the belly of a ship. In such dim surrounding, minute markers are not visible anyway. If you need to read the minute markers, you need to drag along a big clock. So they omitted the minute markers. In the tough wartime economy, both sides cut corners as much as they could, and omitting the minute markers made sense. Just my theory.
And unless someone can clearly present exactly and logically how the panerai watches without minute markers can be used to "time the activation of explosives" and how this logically fits in with explosives can only "be set to nearest half hour or hour", then this thing about using panerai watches to set dangerous explosives and detonators mst also be exiled to the realm of myths and nonesense. The Italian soldiers were incompetent but I guess they were not careless with their own lives. In fact, history shows they were quite careful with their lives, preferring to surrender when the odds are bad and perhaps give away their panerais as war booty. Just my theory.
