











































































































































































































































This is what I'm talking about, man. This aggression will not stand. Ceramic, titanium, rubber, whatever it is. This thing looks like something Karl Hungus would wear. Watches don't have to look like industrial equipment. There's a whole spectrum between 'Casio F-91W' and 'this,' and this is way over on the wrong side. Not the preferred nomenclature.
Let us examine this Hublot. Its case bears the fingerprints of at least four materials: titanium, rubber, ceramic, gold. To what end? Does it measure time more accurately than the Casio F-91W, which cost fifteen dollars? It does not. What then does the added complexity serve? I put it to you that it serves the desire to be seen - nothing more. A watch that exists to be noticed has, at its foundation, a small dishonesty about it.
The Hublot. The Classic Fusion. Titanium and rubber. I do not understand this watch. Its wearer is announcing - loudly - 'I have money, but I could not decide what to spend it on, and someone in a boutique convinced me this was correct.' A man with a Rolex Submariner does not need to explain himself. The Hublot man is always explaining himself. I have seen a Hublot at a table at Nell's. That table had two bottles of Cristal on it. I judged the situation immediately.