Fully agree!

Chief, it's evident that you're projecting a lot in this exchange. If you can't handle criticism, then you shouldn't dish it out yourself. Now, let's address your accusations of an ad hominem fallacy. You claim I attacked you and your motives, but I merely pointed out our differing perspectives.

Ironically, you've engaged in the very ad hominem attack you accuse me of, questioning my experience, credentials, and design efforts. It seems there's a double standard at play.

While your long-standing history as a watch consumer is commendable, it doesn't equate to the knowledge and expertise of a watch designer. My background is extensive, and I've been designing watches long before Belhamel.

Working closely with creative directors and watchmakers has given me valuable insights into various design themes, including retro-contemporary. It's evident that our perspectives differ significantly.

While I won't deny your passion for watches, it's crucial to acknowledge the perspective of an actual designer who's worked in the industry for years.

You may not recognize the retro-contemporary theme, but many designers and brands embrace it, along with other common themes in the watch industry.

Let's drop the accusations and agree to disagree. I won't engage in further debate, but I stand by my observations. After all, we can all learn and grow, no matter our age.

Let's get right into it. Your response, while attempting to appear agreeable, comes across as disingenuous. You offered an "exit ramp" of "agree to disagree," trying to seem magnanimous, but your subsequent words reveal your bad faith in this debate. Allow me to address your flawed arguments and highlight the evident gaps in your claims.

You make vague references to "logical fallacies" and "strawman fallacy" while sidestepping the core point of the discussion. "Reco" watches do exist, and they represent a culmination of new manufacturing and design practices, irrespective of how subtle or obvious the changes may be. Your attempt to downplay this trend and dismiss it as a mere combination of old ideas with modern materials is a disservice to the creative minds behind these watches.

Furthermore, you boast of your experience and knowledge without specifying any particular expertise. Your assertions about the "design DNA" of watches going back to a handful of models show a lack of nuance and a superficial understanding of the complexities within the watch industry. Watch design is an evolving art, shaped by various influences, and to reduce it to a narrow set of elements is reductionist at best.

Your insistence on the lack of "contemporary" elements in certain watch models fails to recognize that "Reco" watches aim to preserve the timeless charm of classic eras while integrating modern innovations. It's about striking a delicate balance, not erasing the past. Your fixation on historical elements overlooks the creative ingenuity in updating materials, manufacturing techniques, and overall design approaches.

Your MacBeth analogy, though creative, misses the mark entirely. "Reco" watches are not attempts to recreate Shakespeare; they are about reviving classic designs with a contemporary twist. It's about embracing the nostalgia while celebrating progress.

In closing, I won't claim superiority or infallibility, but I'll emphasize that your arguments lack depth and understanding of the evolving watch design landscape. To dismiss "Reco" watches as mere recombination is to ignore the craftsmanship, creativity, and vision of those who bring these timepieces to life.

In the spirit of robust debate, I encourage you to delve deeper into the intricacies of watch design before making sweeping statements. And while we may not see eye to eye, let's strive for meaningful and informed discussions in the future.

Wishing you a more open-minded approach to the diverse world of watch design.

LOL, they might just lurk here and have found their next idea.

You're right; when it comes to taste, it's all about opinions and perspectives, just like yours. However, you mentioned that my "premise" was incorrect, suggesting you measured it against a contrarian view where retro-contemporary designs don't exist. That's where I respectfully disagree, not based on opinion, but on facts.

Your argument seems to rely on a logical fallacy that assumes because everything is evolutionary, there's no specific style that focuses more on previous eras than others that continue the evolutionary process. By the way, the evolutionary process in design is not unique to the watch industry; it's present everywhere.

The theme of retro-modern exists across all design fields and consumer goods markets. In fact, it's even taught as a specialized class to industrial designers, and watch design is a common target for practice among designers. In the watch space, it's an interpretive art form that raises the intriguing question: "If X was made today rather than 30 years ago, how would it look, and how does it connect?"

The intention to revisit a specific era ultimately determines the outcome and deserves a label to describe it, whether or not we personally agree with it. Moreover, it's widely accepted that in product design, retro typically refers to the 70s to the late 90s, while vintage refers to the 20s to the late 60s.

Many brands specifically focus on the retro area, reinterpreting designs from that age with a contemporary twist. Some brands approach it more on the nose, while others take a subtler approach. Over the years, I've had the opportunity to collaborate with numerous creative directors in the luxury industry who have made this style their specialty.

Now, whether the retro era was the most innovative in the horological industry is a topic up for healthy debate, and this is where objectivity becomes harder to find. However, one objective truth remains: watches specifically and intentionally designed to be retro-contemporary/modern do exist, regardless of one's personal preferences for the theme.

Great example!

The age of retroism I'm referring to is the 70s to the 90s. It was the most innovative era of watch design.

Ploprof on the right is fully Retro. The one on the left is retro-contemporary.