Watchlords

svaglic wrote:Mort, check out this thread. Check the comments in the link too. It's not just tb, I or other members here that laugh at Invicta's attempts to put out a quality Disney model.
http://www.watchlords.com/forum/viewtop ... ey#p370604

Another sexy Disney Invicta.
http://www.watchlords.com/forum/viewtop ... ey#p337578

You managed to get two better looking Disney watches from Invicta. You even got them at a great price, which will give comfort should you have to pay to have the hands reattached.

Thanks, Svagy. As I recall, I actually posted in one or two of those. I thought that all but the pro diver iterations were, to use one of John's favorite words, garish POS's that should never see the light of day, so I was pretty much on-script with everyone else. TB, however, was referring to the one model I did -- and still do -- like; the pro diver. Hence my defense-in-depth of the 40mm model above.

What makes me really pissed off at Invicta, though, is that they were supposed to introduce a pro diver with Donald Duck -- my favorite Disney character, given my first name -- on the dial in the same scale as my MM watches. Apparently, DD watches (Donald Duck, not Depraz Dubois) don't have as high a profit potential, so they cancelled the line, which is a pretty Goofy thing to do...



One thing I will add, something I don't think would ever occur to our mutual WIT friend, Bob the Psychotic King of Oat Bran, is that if the hands fall off either of these MM watches, I will let every site I belong to know about it by every means available, even if I -- heaven forbid -- have to admit I was wrong.

conjurer wrote:Mort's argument is interesting, in that it actually points out the issue with Invicter that is not always addressed; unlike the usual suspects, such as hands falling off, mislabeling of country of origin, fake diamonds, fake sandstone, employing sexual degenerate alcoholics who steal valor as spokesmen, etc, one thing that sometimes gets lost in the wash is that Nvicter is, in fact, not a watch company at all.

Instead, it is a giant clearing house of horological ideas (most of them stupid, garish and vulgar) that contracts out pretty much all of its production. In a hobby which questions the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin where movement manufacture is concerned (is it inhouse? Is it modified from an existing movement? How much is it modified?), Invicter completely sidesteps this by not really manufacturing anything at all. Instead, many nameless companies--probably the great majority in the Far East, but presumably plenty in Switzerland too--make Eyal's horrific designs come to life; if you pay a Swiss watch company enough, and as long as the check doesn't bounce, then they'll be happy to put a skull wearing a sombrero on the dial, if you like.

At any rate, with all of these companies doing the manufacturing and (presumably) the QC, naturally a lot of your watches are going to have the hands fall off, and the diamonds fake, etc--especially if you're as tight as Eyal, and by employing Turd head as his mouthpiece for so long, Eyal must be remarkably cheap indeed.

However, with such a business plan, lightning has to strike somewhere, and that means that a few pretty good watches (at least in manufacture, if not design) are bound to get through. It's the law of averages, for Christ's sakes. The original Pro Diver, which may well be made by the same Far East sweatshop from the very beginning, is one of those watches. A passable homage of the Rollie Sub, it is one of the very few Nvicters that even guys like me, who think Eyal's the spawn of Satan, think is OK.

One WIS I read once referred to the Rolex Submariner as the Golden Mean of sport watches, where all the lines, measurements, curves and sew Fourth are as near as dammit to perfect. If you replicate those measurements and commission a decent watch company to make it for you, and if you have 'em slap in a Miyota (or later, a Seiko) movement, it's really hard to fuck it up.

So, do we judge Nvicter on that exceedingly rare good watch--which they still pretty much fucked up by putting a fascist rat on the dial--or on the absurdly many abortions that they have produced, or, more exactly, commissioned?

I would say the latter, as Eyal produces nothing, except for the lower-middle-class aping the rich and foolish lifestyle he sells, while he sits on the fantail of the Super Happy Invicta Fun Boat and lights cigars with Monopoly money hundred dollar bills and gets his dick sucked by a crack-hoe midget.

conjurer wrote:Mort's argument is interesting, in that it actually points out the issue with Invicter that is not always addressed; unlike the usual suspects, such as hands falling off, mislabeling of country of origin, fake diamonds, fake sandstone, employing sexual degenerate alcoholics who steal valor as spokesmen, etc, one thing that sometimes gets lost in the wash is that Nvicter is, in fact, not a watch company at all.

Instead, it is a giant clearing house of horological ideas (most of them stupid, garish and vulgar) that contracts out pretty much all of its production. In a hobby which questions the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin where movement manufacture is concerned (is it inhouse? Is it modified from an existing movement? How much is it modified?), Invicter completely sidesteps this by not really manufacturing anything at all. Instead, many nameless companies--probably the great majority in the Far East, but presumably plenty in Switzerland too--make Eyal's horrific designs come to life; if you pay a Swiss watch company enough, and as long as the check doesn't bounce, then they'll be happy to put a skull wearing a sombrero on the dial, if you like.

...

OEM Capability:
Backed by advances machinery and highly skillful staff, we can accept all kinds of timepieces products and buyers’ logos/labels according to customers’ requirements.

Materials/Components:
70% of our materials and components are imported form China, 15% from Japan and 15% from Swiss.

Hawk wrote:

conjurer wrote:Mort's argument is interesting, in that it actually points out the issue with Invicter that is not always addressed; unlike the usual suspects, such as hands falling off, mislabeling of country of origin, fake diamonds, fake sandstone, employing sexual degenerate alcoholics who steal valor as spokesmen, etc, one thing that sometimes gets lost in the wash is that Nvicter is, in fact, not a watch company at all.

Instead, it is a giant clearing house of horological ideas (most of them stupid, garish and vulgar) that contracts out pretty much all of its production. In a hobby which questions the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin where movement manufacture is concerned (is it inhouse? Is it modified from an existing movement? How much is it modified?), Invicter completely sidesteps this by not really manufacturing anything at all. Instead, many nameless companies--probably the great majority in the Far East, but presumably plenty in Switzerland too--make Eyal's horrific designs come to life; if you pay a Swiss watch company enough, and as long as the check doesn't bounce, then they'll be happy to put a skull wearing a sombrero on the dial, if you like.

...

It's certainly true that we offer Eyal little in the way of credit or benefit of the doubt yet it continues to amaze me that somehow he manages to dive under even these low expectations.

We know that the codetalkers at Laloville decided sometime prior to 2010 that "Swiss" meant "Chinese watch with Chinese movement" and that "Swiss Made" meant "Chinese watch with Swiss movement". The general consensus was that, in the case of "Swiss Made", somebody from IWG bought some Swiss movements that were thereafter shipped to China for assembly into a case provided by the lowest of low bidders and finished off with parts from the lowest of the low.

However, I've come to the unhappy conclusion that they didn't even have this small involvement with the Swiss. According to the Millionsmart website, strangely posted under "factory tour", we get the following:
http://www.millionsmart.com/e/default_home.asp

OEM Capability:
Backed by advances machinery and highly skillful staff, we can accept all kinds of timepieces products and buyers’ logos/labels according to customers’ requirements.

Materials/Components:
70% of our materials and components are imported form China, 15% from Japan and 15% from Swiss.

Thus an entire "Swiss Made" watch might be commissioned by one ethically-flexible Panamanian working from one Cheeto-stained keyboard in a North Miami storm shelter with a little seed money from a family-owned flea market offering only the finest of fleas. It rather makes sense - how could a start-up buy ETA 2824s as favorably as a Kowloon based fabricator who allows any customer to specify the country of origin of the movement and isn't too fussy about what bullshit they print on a dial?

Sure, Eyal could have had some watches made in Switzerland but this is not his history. The only likely exception is the SW500 Lupah and that only because Sellita forced the issue of having their own people case up their flagship movement no doubt to avoid being the next Dubois-Depraz.

He lies, lies some more then lies again but each new claim is given credence despite evidence to the contrary. Does anybody - any fucking body - believe the "1000 MT" water "resistancy" placed on even the cheapest of Venoms featuring a paper-thin Flame Fusion mystery crystal? Yet nobody ever mentions it.

Recently they have been made aware of rubber straps that disintegrate in the box and while worn and have chosen to continue shipping them because, well, they're only customers - fuck 'em.

But even a blind pig finds an acorn from time to time and I won't question anybody's decision to trade with them. I've adopted a new-ish attitude since the Swiss FH 2015 report made Invicta the international poster child for country of origin trademark abuse. It was hard not to notice that the Swiss FH called all such watches "counterfeit". They put misuse of country of origin markings right alongside printing "Rolex" on the dial of a Chinese watch. There was no attempt to sugar-coat it with terms such as "homage" - they essentially called IWG counterfeiters and I've come to adopt their position.

And I don't trade with counterfeiters.

TemerityB wrote:...It's the way the watches came about that galls me.

You have to understand this about me, and I'm not backing down from this opinion: What The Invicta Watch Group has done to this hobby and to hundreds of thousands of consumers is a travesty that should've been seriously looked into by consumer protection agencies years ago, but, hey, it's only consumers, right? When I gripe about Inivcta, that's who i think about. I think it was last year that I posted another lengthy thread detailing, with literally hundreds of examples, how I believed that the SAN III was the worst watch ever sold, as apparently thousands of people purchase them only to have the rubber straps wear away, and to replace them, at least at the time, was either nearly impossible or exceedingly expensive. On top of that is IWG's storied CS, where people consistently get unfixed watches back months after they're sent to the company for repair. Cripes, I don't think I have to cite old examples here. There's no excuse for what Invicta does. None - if they were an automaker or an appliance concern, they've have been drummed out of business years ago.

So when REL actually published a post about the Invicta/Disney agreement on his site, I went bonkers. So allow me to clarify:

The fact that Disney, a bunch of B-list celebrities, and others of that ilk are lining up to get into bed with the worst company possible, one which sells their products on a bed of lies to start and then neglects the people they sell their products to to end, shows how low people, even "beloved brands," will stoop to make a buck.

I could go on, but I'll finish with this - and please, don't take offense mort, it's only one man's opinion: This is the website that's done more to educate our fellow watch collectors and enthusiasts about Invicta than any other place around. While the watch magazines ignored the problems and the fan boys on other sites took umbrage, we raged against the machine ... and virtually everything we stated was proven 100 percent true. I've spent seven years on a moutaintop screaming at the top of my lungs, warning other watch buyers to stay away, Joe. Just as a matter of principle, I cannot understand how anyone, armed with those facts, would trade with a company like Invicta.

It's not your watch that's the affront, Mort; it wasn't even that model I was thinking of when it popped into my mind. It's the very concept of the Disney/Invicta agreement that I find utterly repulsive, and that's a stance i won't back down from. A family-themed company joined forces with Eyal Lalo? That's like the Girl Scouts selling cookies at the Show World Peep Show scumatorium in midtown NYC.

You made a great case defending the quality of your watch, mort, and every point was right on the money - you're exactly right. And you have a watch collector's romantic attraction to the character watches, which is a time-honored facet of collecting. No question about it. You found a watch you enjoy, and that's what matters. As for me? I could never bring myself to do it, but that's just me, and I hope you respect my opinion as much as i do yours. Yeah, I said it, and I'm not taking it back: The Invicta Pro Diver Mickey Mouse watch is one of stupid Invicta watches of the year. Sorry, man - yet, it doesn't mean I'm right and your wrong. But to me, it's a moral compass, and I ain't backin' down.

TemerityB wrote:Mort, here's where we'll agree to disagree, albeit with a handshake and clink of glasses. I never dreamed anyone would take such an offense, particularly here, over a slight of a watch, but spirited disagreements are what makes these watch forums, I reckon.

First off, your watch isn't ugly or stupid. It looks well made, and I'm glad it runs and seems to be fashioned with a modicum of quality. It's a typical NH35A, sturdy and solid enough. And please be advised: There are a few MM models in the Invicta Pro Diver line, so I wasn't pointing out that particular one.

It's the way the watches came about that galls me.

You have to understand this about me, and I'm not backing down from this opinion: What The Invicta Watch Group has done to this hobby and to hundreds of thousands of consumers is a travesty that should've been seriously looked into by consumer protection agencies years ago, but, hey, it's only consumers, right? When I gripe about Inivcta, that's who i think about. I think it was last year that I posted another lengthy thread detailing, with literally hundreds of examples, how I believed that the SAN III was the worst watch ever sold, as apparently thousands of people purchase them only to have the rubber straps wear away, and to replace them, at least at the time, was either nearly impossible or exceedingly expensive. On top of that is IWG's storied CS, where people consistently get unfixed watches back months after they're sent to the company for repair. Cripes, I don't think I have to cite old examples here. There's no excuse for what Invicta does. None - if they were an automaker or an appliance concern, they've have been drummed out of business years ago.

So when REL actually published a post about the Invicta/Disney agreement on his site, I went bonkers. So allow me to clarify:

The fact that Disney, a bunch of B-list celebrities, and others of that ilk are lining up to get into bed with the worst company possible, one which sells their products on a bed of lies to start and then neglects the people they sell their products to to end, shows how low people, even "beloved brands," will stoop to make a buck.

I could go on, but I'll finish with this - and please, don't take offense mort, it's only one man's opinion: This is the website that's done more to educate our fellow watch collectors and enthusiasts about Invicta than any other place around. While the watch magazines ignored the problems and the fan boys on other sites took umbrage, we raged against the machine ... and virtually everything we stated was proven 100 percent true. I've spent seven years on a moutaintop screaming at the top of my lungs, warning other watch buyers to stay away, Joe. Just as a matter of principle, I cannot understand how anyone, armed with those facts, would trade with a company like Invicta.

It's not your watch that's the affront, Mort; it wasn't even that model I was thinking of when it popped into my mind. It's the very concept of the Disney/Invicta agreement that I find utterly repulsive, and that's a stance i won't back down from. A family-themed company joined forces with Eyal Lalo? That's like the Girl Scouts selling cookies at the Show World Peep Show scumatorium in midtown NYC.

You made a great case defending the quality of your watch, mort, and every point was right on the money - you're exactly right. And you have a watch collector's romantic attraction to the character watches, which is a time-honored facet of collecting. No question about it. You found a watch you enjoy, and that's what matters. As for me? I could never bring myself to do it, but that's just me, and I hope you respect my opinion as much as i do yours. Yeah, I said it, and I'm not taking it back: The Invicta Pro Diver Mickey Mouse watch is one of stupid Invicta watches of the year. Sorry, man - yet, it doesn't mean I'm right and your wrong. But to me, it's a moral compass, and I ain't backin' down.

TemerityB wrote:Too much teeth-grindin'. I'm sorry I actually picked a watch that someone here actually owns. Live and learn.

My last comment on that - but - I'd still like to hear other people talk about what they thought was news in 2016, that is, if this thread hasn't jumped the ditch and landed in Coyote Pass.

jason_recliner wrote:2016... was it the year of the G-Shock?

Not sure if it's because I wear a G pretty much all the time now, so I notice them more, but whenever I see a person wearing a watch these days, it seems like every other one, conservatively, is a G-Shock.

Hawk wrote:I admit to rather liking the results when Casio goes off the reservation.

Rather of a hot price but I suppose I'll let somebody else go first.
https://yamato-nadesiko.link/ocw-g1000- ... fgodh4oBSw

3Flushes wrote:My two cents.

UK based giant, Signet Jewelers Limited, is the world's largest retailer of diamond jewelry through retail brands, Kay, Zales, and Jared, among others. They also own several other retail chains through their subsidiary, Sterling Jewelers, who owns most recognizably to Americans, Robbins Brothers and Helzbergs. Jared Jewelry Galleria is the only free standing chain of the group; all others are mall stores.

The group is in the watch business to the extent of most mall department stores, stocking brands like Seiko, Bulova, Citizen, Movado, Tissot and other like tiered products.

It looks like Signet has been working on adding to it's stable of mall chains, and take a big step up in the watch business by making a play to acquire Ben Bridge, a Rolex, amongst other luxury brands AD. In checking out the potential acquisition, I was surprised to learn that given the family origins of Bridge, the chain is currently owned by none other than Warren Buffet's Berkshire-Hathaway Group.

2016, everything in play.

codguy wrote: ↑

January 3rd 2017, 6:40am

....I will assume the majority of watch collectors would never wear a watch with either a mouse glued to the dial or a upside-down commode but to each their own, yadda...yadda...yadda.

.... There are other forums that caters to the kumbaya crowd and/or watch hoarders, WIT is just one example.