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.
Sorry, TB, but I'm just not getting some of your response. I never told you to take anything back, nor did I tell you to back down from what you said, so there's no need to make this adversarial by implying that I did. And I never took offense to your statement. What I did
do was ask for an explanation as to why you felt the Disney/MM pro divers were an affront to quality, taste and style. I never intended to offend you or make you angry, but it seems I have inadvertently done so (along with several others above, but that's their problem; my conversation was and continues to be with you). If this is the case, then I apologize; I have always and will continue to respect your opinion.
As to the rest of your response, I'm well aware of Invicta's myriad offenses against the watch industry, the watch hobby and the people who populate both. I've been experiencing it right along with you, both before and after becoming a member here, so I get it when you explain that it's a moral issue with you, one that runs afoul of your internal moral compass. Where I become confused is when you tell me that my MM watches are not
an affront to quality, taste and style, but then insist that the original statement is still true because of what Invicta is and continues to be. However, I don't think it's something that needs to be pursued any further, especially if it's going to cause more collateral friction between us. I get where you're coming from and am cool with the whole "agree to disagree" idea; and I'll tinkle your glass if you tinkle mine...
Finally, please accept my apologies for diverting the thread away from its original purpose and light-hearted tone. I've unsubscribed from it, and will not darken its door again.