Tuesday, September 9, 2014

An Open Letter to GQ Style

Dear GQ Style,

After reading your GQ Style issue Fall * Winter 2014 I can only conclude that:

The person you charged with writing about watches in your "A Week's Worth of Watches" is:

The nephew of the publisher

Is owed a favor by the editor


I have read some unbelievably vapid, uninformed, and downright dumb-assed things in my time, but the tripe offered as wrist watch wisdom in a feted "bi-annual" compendium of male sartorial guidance is so poorly researched and incorrectly referenced… let's just say you could have saved yourselves whatever you paid for this and just left it up to the images to tell "the story".

So because I care, here are some basics so that the next time you tap some junior flack on the back and ask him/her to write about watches - he/she might hope to do so without being compared to a feminine hygiene product:

Regarding your reference to the Shinola Chronogaph -

1.  It's called a chrono because "chrono" is an abbreviation for CHRONOGRAPH.  Not because it has "two chronograph sundials".  A chronograph is essentially a watch that is combined with a stop watch. Per Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronograph  

It is NOT called a chrono because of the two "chronograph sundials", son.

2.  The "straps" on stainless steel and gold watches are only known as "bracelets" if they (the bracelets) are made of, I don't know, stainless steel or gold?  Which would explain why the strap on the Shinola, is a strap?  Even though the watch case of the Shinola is (allegedly) made of stainless steel?  Now perhaps it was in reference to the two individual watches that were referenced (but not actually referenced)?

Because in fact, the "straps" on the Boca, the Pulsar and the Tudor are actually, I don't know… STRAPS!

3.  I have run out of silently held expletives for the person who wrote this turd and had the temerity to be paid for it, go now and promise to never write about watches again until you get your "poop" sorted.
In the name of all that is good and just, do not let them write about watches again.

GQ, you have boatloads of cash, you tend to spare no expense.  Why do you insist on allowing crap like this to be published?  If nothing else, this helps explain the continued existence of Invicta.

PLEASE GQ - if you are going to (presumably) write about watches, engage someone with either a little bit of knowledge, or someone who is willing to do some fu&*^ng research.

1 comment:

  1. hello James, I totally agree with your letter. Jarosław from Poland