Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower (Post 482281)

There is a story to most of my watches, too. Here's the story:

My wife bought me a watch.

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower (Post 482281)

There is a story to most of my watches, too. Here's the story:

My wife bought me a watch.

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower (Post 482281)

There is a story to most of my watches, too. Here's the story:

My wife bought me a watch.

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower (Post 482281)

There is a story to most of my watches, too. Here's the story:

My wife bought me a watch.

Originally Posted by taxwonk (Post 482273)

That has been an unfortunate part of the high-end watch market for the several years. Panerai, TAG, and, yes, Zenith, have been the biggest (npi) offenders. I put it down to the same insecurity that causes some men to jack up their pickup trucks, date women younger than their daughters, and buy Italian sportscars that cost more than the average house in the Mid-Atlantic region.

Stick to your older watches, Ferrets. You don't need that sort of validation.

Originally Posted by ferrets_bueller (Post 482271)

Actual Fashion Question:

I just got out of a meeting with about six other people. Many of my younger male colleagues apparently now wear timepieces only maginally smaller than those generally seen on Flavor Flav. I tend to dress "old school," and I think these shot-put sized watches scream "Look at me! I have a shiny new toy! It can tell you the time on an island Less has never been to!"

I've got a modest collection of watches that have personal meaning, the largerst of which is a 1969 Zodiac. It is smaller than a typical men's Omega. I like wearing a distinctive watch. I get the watch as "statement." I just don't like the statement a watch the diameter of a coffe cup makes. So:

Oversized watches: A style that has some chance of lasting? Bad fad?

Feeling like an olde phart,

Ferrets

Originally Posted by Icky Thump (Post 482299)

Originally Posted by Not Bob (Post 482314)

She looks better with the pixie cut.

Apropos of Miley, I'm waiting for Flower to tell me whether her VMA act was a misappropriation of an aspect of black culture (the "minstrel act/Al Jolson in blackface" position) or a celebration of same.

Throw in some slut-shaming (why does the much older and married Robin Thicke get a pass? It's Janet and JT at the Super Bowl all over again) versus planned obscenity (she's just trying to shock us into forgetting she was a Disney starlet in order to stay relevant) and it's just all so confusing.

Originally Posted by Not Bob (Post 482314)

She looks better with the pixie cut.

Apropos of Miley, I'm waiting for Flower to tell me whether her VMA act was a misappropriation of an aspect of black culture (the "minstrel act/Al Jolson in blackface" position) or a celebration of same.

Throw in some slut-shaming (why does the much older and married Robin Thicke get a pass? It's Janet and JT at the Super Bowl all over again) versus planned obscenity (she's just trying to shock us into forgetting she was a Disney starlet in order to stay relevant) and it's just all so confusing.

Originally Posted by Not Bob (Post 482314)

She looks better with the pixie cut.

Apropos of Miley, I'm waiting for Flower to tell me whether her VMA act was a misappropriation of an aspect of black culture (the "minstrel act/Al Jolson in blackface" position) or a celebration of same.

Throw in some slut-shaming (why does the much older and married Robin Thicke get a pass? It's Janet and JT at the Super Bowl all over again) versus planned obscenity (she's just trying to shock us into forgetting she was a Disney starlet in order to stay relevant) and it's just all so confusing.

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch (Post 482317)

The producers for MTV awards shows are peerless when it comes to generating Monday morning clip views for shows no one watched on Sunday. I don't know how they monetize this talent; perhaps it's enough to know that someday they'll get an infinite number of high-fives in Hell.

Originally Posted by Not Bob (Post 482319)

So, that's three votes for the "hey you kids, get off my lawn!" take on the Miley at the VMAs controversy?

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 482320)

I think maybe a child (especially disneyesque girl) needs to build some adult chops before busting out "now I'm very sexual." It's sort of like she was a teenybopper star with no adult audience. I get why she wants an adult audience now, but maybe the best way is not to start at slut. People watching it are like, "wait, my little sister used to own her CD."

Robin Thicke isn't even in that conversation.

Originally Posted by Not Bob (Post 482322)

Fair point, though I think that it wasnt really a sudden jump from Hannah Montana to simulating sex onstage with the real-life pop-star son of Growing Pains' Jason Seaver. (And how does the 36 year old Thicke get a pass on not being in this conversation?)

I'm really more curious about the minstrel versus hommage argument. Seems more like the latter to me, but when does it cross the line? Dunno. And unlike Pat Boone (not singling him out) cover songs, it's not as if she is "sanitizing" art for a white audience.