Blatter, the former president of FIFA whose yearslong leadership of soccer’s global governing body ended in scandal, also wants some pension payments and for his former employer to clear his name. But his current focus is a strangely personal dispute over the fate of dozens of luxury watches that he said he was unable to retrieve from FIFA headquarters after he was forced out of the organization in 2015.
Blatter, 83, told The New York Times in an interview Wednesday that he had grown so frustrated with FIFA’s failure to return as many as 80 watches — from brands like Patek Philippe, IWC and Omega — that he was including them in a lawsuit he plans to file against the organization that also will include demands for pension payments and clarification about his compensation arrangements to show that “I am not a thief.”
. . .
Last year, after a back and forth with FIFA’s legal department and the organization’s secretary general, Fatma Samoura, Blatter was reunited with 120 timepieces, though not what he described as his “high technology collection.” The fight over those watches continues. Blatter said they have high sentimental and monetary value; each watch, he estimated, is worth $5,000 to $20,000 — figures that would value the collection at $400,000, but likely much more.
Carlos Ghosn, extreme bail jumping adventurer, sporting a G-Shock square on zulu at his first press conference since fleeing Japan. (Source, with more photos.)
I am tempted to imagine he wore this as he fled, but I think wearing anything that could possibly beep would be a mistake when sneaking around. If it were me, I would opt for a tritium quartz. OTOH, his exfiltration professionals might have provided the watch after disabling the piezo.
Re: Watches in the News
Posted: Tue Jan 28, 2020 9:33 am
by Boourns
Not necessarily news, but I just ran across this and thought it was cool but maybe not independent thread worthy:
Guy buys a Daytona in 1971 and literally falls over when Antiques Roadshow tells him it's worth $700k.
TheJohnP wrote: ↑Mon Jun 21, 2021 9:58 pm
I found this CNBC video "What Happened to Fossil Watches?" to be rather interesting.
--------------
Excellent find. I enjoyed this immensely.
I'm happily surprised by the nuanced approach of the story, given that it wasn't a feature from a watch-focused media group. Fossil for years has struck me as a company that is spread across too many sectors, with too many SKU's, to establish a solid brand identity. Maybe their plans for consolidation and efficiency will work, but I wonder how many people will make the leap from buying a Fossil smartwatch to buying a Fossil quartz or mechanical analog watch if the latter are still fashion-oriented.
Re: Watches in the News
Posted: Thu Jul 01, 2021 11:40 am
by Boourns
You thought your HAQ was good? How about +/- 4 nanoseconds per 20 days?
One of the key goals of the Deep Space Atomic Clock mission was to measure the clock’s stability over longer and longer periods, to see how it changes with time. In the new paper, the team reports a level of stability that leads to a time deviation of less than four nanoseconds after more than 20 days of operation.
That works out to 73 nanoseconds per year. If my math is correct, that means you'd be off a whole second after 13.7 million years.
I read this article awhile back. Can't remember if it has been shared on here or discord. Looks like us watch nerds are causing more chaos in the Universe.
Stretch44 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 01, 2021 12:45 pm
I read this article awhile back. Can't remember if it has been shared on here or discord. Looks like us watch nerds are causing more chaos in the Universe.
EEK! Now we're responsible for destroying the universe!
Re: Watches in the News
Posted: Thu Jul 01, 2021 1:49 pm
by MoT
Boourns wrote: ↑Thu Jul 01, 2021 11:40 am
You thought your HAQ was good? How about +/- 4 nanoseconds per 20 days?
One of the key goals of the Deep Space Atomic Clock mission was to measure the clock’s stability over longer and longer periods, to see how it changes with time. In the new paper, the team reports a level of stability that leads to a time deviation of less than four nanoseconds after more than 20 days of operation.
That works out to 73 nanoseconds per year. If my math is correct, that means you'd be off a whole second after 13.7 million years.
