Hello and welcome to the 18th instalment of this series! This time, Bring a Brain will cover not only our favourite advertorial/infomercial site - from now on, Bring a Brain will also feature an extensive and thorough shelling of YouTube "experts" and fake gurus. Lads and lasses, this is your Bring a Brain!
Verily, I know not if the previous instalment has reached the people at The Advertorial Site, but behold, me friends, looks like they're fortunately posting the pictures of movements and case backs again. Which is good. Still, a multitude of issues is there, which is bad.
That said, the game's afoot.
First up, this Enicar:
"Boasts a rotating bezel." But there be naught to boast about there, me dear advertorial copywriters. Not with that knackered and misaligned marker.
Besides, thou have dated the watch to the late 1950s. This, dear advertorial copywriters, already rules out thy claim of the lume being tritium. Late 1950s, no tritium markings, what does that tell us about the lume. It's radium. Obviously.
Also, "Caliber: automatic winding movement" doesn't cut it as a movement ID.
Next, this Tudor Date+Day:
"We dare you not to love it." Who dares not love it, asketh them copywriters. By Jove! Behold, here be one who dares! I dare to love it not, for the movement be unserviced, and in shape verily ghastly. Just look at the damage to that wheel, and the filth on the balance cock. Furthermore, the hands look relumed.
Again, "Caliber: Tudor automatic movement" is not nearly enough an ID.
Now, on to this Datejust:
Our dear advertorial copywriters do have an unhealthy fondness of Rolex. One would think, that fondness of such magnitude should be followed by actual knowledge. But nay, it is not. They have identified the movement as calibre 1570. It certainly may be signed as such, as Rolex was fairly inconsistent with stamping the movements correctly, but the movement is a cal. 1575. Why? Well, this may have something to do with the fact, that the 1570 is a no-date movement.
Let's move on to this Certina:
"Model: Automatic; Reference: DS-2." Ummm, no. The model is the DS-2, not the reference. The whole background story of Certina as presented there has a noticeable inconsistency - the name Grana was not discontinued in 1939 and replaced by the Certina brand name. The name "Grana" was used well into the 1940s. Exempli gratia: the Grana name was still in use in 1945. Does "Grana WWW" ring any bells, dear copywriters?
With The Advertorial Site part over, let us move to Part II.
YouTube, while often useful and entertaining, is - unfortunately - the biggest playground for all kinds of self-appointed, false "experts." These days, all it takes is a camera and some video editing software to pull off pretending of the first water. Various watch "gurus" have built their careers in this community only by means of YouTube videos. Casual shows like The Urban Gentry or comedians like Paul Pluta aka Archie Luxury don't grind my gears. Sure, uppity stuff like having rings and coffee mugs decorated with own "crest" is annoying, so is getting refueled with whisky and swearing like a trooper on camera, but it doesn't do the community any harm. Not that I take them seriously - I usually don't. But I don't think they're doing anything particularly unsavoury.
The true pestilence are the "experts" with an ulterior motive, whose drivel is truly unpalatable, and whose over-the-top claims make me want to throw the laptop against the wall. However, pro bono commune I have watched some Theo & Harris videos, just to do a critical and educational roast of them, for your education and entertainment.
I have been asked by one BaB reader to make an entire series on T&H, but frankly, since they pretty much belong at the bottom of the same bucket as The Advertorial Site, it will simply be - from now on - a part of the Bring a Brain series. For today, it's a bit of a "the best of" (or, to be precise, "the worst of") T&H compilation.
"Watchfam." Sounds like a name of some cult. Which means that I hate it already.
Seamasters from $900? By Jove, now that's a rather coarse way of implying, that their fleecing is actually the average price. Between 900 and 1600, stupid value? Maybe to hipsters with trust funds, who enjoy being fleeced, and who indulge in financial masochism.
It's like a worse Hodinkee, really. As the proverb goes, great minds think alike, but The Advertorial Site and T&H prove, that unfortunately so do ordinary, mediocre and vacant minds.
I also don't quite get the name of their series, RANT&H. What rant? You don't know how to rant. You know nothing, Jon Snow. Ranting, proper and intelligent, is an art. Yours, buddy, is not a rant - it's an infomercial void of form and sense, and as such it sits a hundred fathoms below the lowest end of what a rant is. A good rant is like a Monet painting. This...This is like a kid's drawing, at best.
Now, some hype laughs:
Of the De Ville: "Its case is immaculate." These knackered lugs, with plating completely damaged. Oh, that's so immaculate! An immaculate example of rancid hype. It's like spitting people in the face, and trying to convince them that it's raining.
The rubbish on this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKpz35RBj3E
...has already been roasted here:
The Mido they're hyping in the video is being offered for north of six times its value. By Jove. All that panegyrical claptrap about the redialed Rolex is simply the hype text from the listing, read on video. Aaaarghhh.
Now, this is a miracle. A review, done without even holding the watch:
First of all, the Black Bay collection does not have a defined identity as a diver watch collection, more like a retro/reissue sports watch collection, so the entire point about the watch not belonging in it does not have any solid foundation. "Analytical perspective", he says. I say "no perspective there whatsoever, let alone an analytical one."
The claptrap about tool watches and big tools is rubbish as well. Have you ever seen a pocket tyre pump? No? Well, there's no such thing, so... Also, he fails to mention the high-dome crystal, which hardly has any effect on whether a watch is top-heavy or not, so he just throws it into a number that the thickness in the tech specs is.
The thickness of the movement is important, but apparently he didn't even bother to factor that in.
However, where I laughed the hardest, was the part where he claims that he doesn't even need to hold the watch to know it's ridiculous, and that it wears badly. Well, how the bloody hell can you know, if you didn't wear it?! By Jove, it's as if a car reviewer would look at the manufacturer's photos of the car, and say that he doesn't need to drive it to know that it doesn't drive well. What a joke, both the "review", and the "reviewer."
Short conclusion from these videos: dear parents, don't buy your kids a camcorder for Christmas, because there's a chance that they'll become this very kind of YouTubers.
That is all for this instalment of Bring a Brain! Hope you have enjoyed it, lads and lasses. As always, Bring a Brain will return if necessary!