Talk:Panerai

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Urge to merge[edit]

It certainly makes sense to merge this article with Watch Mare Nostrum: Panerai Rastapopoulos 13:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the merge proposal[edit]

I believe that both articles should be merged to maintain a consistency in the topic. The stub doesn't really say much without the Panerai background information.

Pictures![edit]

What we need are a couple of nice pictures, preferably a historical model.

Rolex involvement[edit]

I see no mention of Rolex in the creation of the Marina Militare. Shall I add it? 198.208.16.221 07:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC) aka 138[reply]

The original Militare had Rolex cases and movements. The most OP did was stick a dial in the thing. This page reads like some sort of advertorial for the brand.

Paneristi Site[edit]

Mention of the Paneristi site is being anonymously edited out, for unclear reasons. www.paneristi.com is a non-profit site with information about the watch brand, and therefore does not constitute spam. Officine Panerai has recognized the importance of the PAneristi site and accordingly issues a limited edition watch (PAM00195) to commemorate Paneristi. Mention of the site should stay. IMHO. Rastapopoulos

  • I have reverted edits made by 90.8.139.31. Unless he/she justifies why he/she feels that a reference to the official Panerai site (www.panerai.com) and the unofficial non-commercial Paneristi reference site (www.paneristi.com) is inappropriate, one can only suspect POV editing (perhaps on the behalf of a commercial Panerai site) Rastapopoulos

Puffery? Trivia? Original research?[edit]

There seems to be no distinction between (a) people who are paid to advertise these watches, (b) people who are given them for promotional purposes, (c) people who buy them or are given them without a commercial motive. If the matter of who wears (or pretends to wear) this or that wristwatch is of any importance (and I don't see why it is), surely we should know why they're wearing them.

As for the movie sightings, the article may just be adding an extra fillip to product placement. If Richemont cares to pay a movie company to stick its watch rather than a Casio on somebody's wrist, why should an encyclopedia take any notice? And who spotted these wristwatches, anyway?

I don't have anything in particular against these wristwatches or this article. Many other articles about wristwatches are just as dubious. -- Hoary (talk) 01:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Panerai brand was popularized in the early 1990s by the likes of Sylvester Stallone and Arnold S., who personally chose to wear the watch in several movies. At the time, Panerai was a small atrisanal family-owned quasi-bankrupt watch company in Florence, so there is no question about the Panerai having a advertizing budget to promote its products; the "free publicity" offered by Hollywood rendered the watch a cult item, which is the reason Vendome / Richemont eventually acquired the brand. This, Hoary, is the reason why this section is of importance to Panerai history and does not merit to be removed on the basis of "puffery".
Also, it is no puffery to note that the likes of Bill Clinton, Hugh Grant etc sport the brand Rastapopoulos (talk) 08:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point about early free advertising (if it can be verified). But even if it can be verified that Clinton, Grant and others wear these watches, what does this tell us about the watches? -- Hoary (talk) 09:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the above. Also Panerai may or may not have had an advertising budget when Stallone bought one in 1995, but it's pretty naive to believe that the company doesn't have a campaign of placing their watches with celebrities now. Does Wikipedia really have to be a tool in this viral promotion? --ChetvornoTALK 08:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia[edit]

I've just removed the following glorified starstruck trivia section. -- Hoary (talk) 16:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

==People who like Panerai watches==

Noted "Paneristi" (Panerai aficionados) include:

==In the Media== {{Unreferencedsection}} ===Movies===

In recent times Panerai has had its share of screen time. Some notable appearances include

1996

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

===Television===

  1. ^ Interview, Dagens Næringsliv, November 9 2007.
  2. ^ John Mayer's blog at Honeyee.com
  3. ^ Seen in September 9 2007 interviews on CTV and TVA

I just added it back. That is a very interesting section. You will see lots of references to Panerai in the movies on Paneristi.com and other sites. It is a huge part of the history. Don't delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdocili (talk • contribs) 19:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After you put it back in, somebody else (not me) pulled it out again.
Clearly it is a very interesting section to you. That doesn't mean that it isn't trivia, or that it's worth putting in an encyclopedia. (Lots of stuff that's of interest to me may or may not be trivia but anyway isn't worth putting in an encyclopedia, so I don't put it in.) If on the other hand this is not trivia but "is a huge part of the history", perhaps you could cite authoritative sources saying that it "is a huge part of the history", whereupon we'd know it wasn't trivia. -- Hoary (talk) 02:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It may be of no interest to you Hoary, but it appears to be of interest to many people interested in Panerai.Rastapopoulos (talk) 16:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of these are unsourced, not to mentioned that it clutters the page, therefore that is why they have been removed, plus don't forget this is an encyclopedia, not a fanpage. This is why that list will always be removed, refer to WP:TRIVIA. Willirennen (talk) 05:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about some sources for the movie list: (Bdocili) http://www.paneristi.com/reference/Panerai_in_movies/ http://www.strapculture.com/gallary/Gallerypage3.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdocili (talk • contribs) 21:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • To be very honest, I don't see what are notable are these appearances as the question is are they as notable as McQueen's Heuer Monaco in Le Mans, Paul Newman's Rolex Cosmograph in Winning or maybe Bond's various Omegas and my answer is absolutely not at all, not to mention that they don't get as often mentioned by reliable 3rd party sources as they do. Don't get me wrong, but one of my reasoning of getting rid of trivia stuff is if this article was to become a GA candidate as an editor would wish it to be, then the administrators are going to recommend killing it off, not to mention that they are rather pointless. Willirennen (talk) 23:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see why this information is considered pointless. Those of us who actually own and wear Panerai watches are interested in the information. The information is certainly fact based. I posted some reference sites with screen shots of the movies. I think that the Omega and Rolex pages should also have that information. Why do we want Wikipedia to become as boring as Encyclopedia Britanica? I even did a poll on one of the watch forums about this topic, and the overwhelming response from watch enthusiasts seems to be that this information is interesing and valuable. Also, by pretending that it does not exist, you are ignoring the pop culture aspect of certain brands. This is akin to ignoring the James Bond/Aston Martin connection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdocili (talk • contribs) 23:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want Wikipedia to be as boring as Britannica. I also don't want it to be as boring as Hello! magazine or similar. If celebs either want to spend their money on or shill for this or that product, good for them. This may very well be of interest to watch enthusiasts, and watch enthusiasts are welcome to write it up on their own sites. But this article should be about watches, not about watch marketing or celebrity spotting.

Now, you could say that this position is naive, and that (to follow your own example) Aston Martin is an important part of the "James Bond" concoction, which in turn was (and I'm merely guessing here) important to the financial survival of Aston Martin. So if there's evidence that this or that person's stardom or celebrity depends on having this or that hunk of metal on his or her wrist, or that this or that celeb was vital to Panerai's survival, this could well be worthwhile. Otherwise, a celeb's choice of wristwatch seems no more significant than their choice of mouse or underwear. -- Hoary (talk) 00:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I stopped arguing and even reversing your changes about Famous celebrities who wear Panerai. However, I do believe that the appearance of the brand in the movies IS exactly what has caused their sudden popularity. If you have not heard the Sylvester Stallone story about discovering Panerai watches while filming the movie Daylight, then you know nothing of the brand. After that, it began to appear in the movies quite frequently (even though Panerai REFUSES to give away their watches to be used in the movies, the actor/producer must pay for the watch like everyone else) and this is what caused the brand to be one of the most popular brands of watches at this time and to be sold in the United States for the first time. So, the inclusion of the movie list is important to the history of the brand. [User:Bdocili|Bdocili]] (talk) 00:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the movie list is unimportant. If the inclusion in the movie daylight is important it should be included as prose, but not in a trivia list like this. Garion96 (talk) 19:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As whoever said the movie trivia will be relevant to Panerai enthusiasts, please refer to Wikipedia:Fancruft. Willirennen (talk) 20:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a Panerai owner I DO find this stuff interesting. There is a watch forum with a thread about celebrities wearing Panerais, so not just me. There are websites about watches in movies around the internet, again, not just me. I want to be able to gain such knowledge. Middle More Rider (talk) 18:48, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: In the Media[edit]

  • Comment (as uninvolved party): The topic of this RFC is "Should the "In the Media (movies and TV appearances)" section be removed altogether from the article?" Discuss. JERRY talk contribs 23:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would like to apologize for failing to make clear that my reverts were for good faith edits and not for vandalism. Wrs1864 (talk) 14:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove I have to agree with comments in the section above labeled "trivia". This stuff is all unsourced and not notable. Yes, there have been links added that document that the movies exist, but I couldn't find one mention of Panerai watches in those links. Bdocili's discussion about how popularity with celebrities changed the company is interesting and should be included in the article *IF* it can be sourced. I've heard too many other stories that have turned out to be BS to take it at face value. I don't see any reason to list all the movies. Wrs1864 (talk) 14:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Unsourced, not notable, not encyclopedic, viral advertising spam. --ChetvornoTALK 08:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Not notable even if it were sourced; just a pile of teeny-weeny factoids that would tell us nothing about the accuracy, reliability, durability or even (since slebs are routinely photographed in high heels, etc) even wearability of these baubles. NB there's nothing specific to Panerai about this: similar stuff should be removed from the article on any watch brand. -- Hoary (talk) 09:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

I think the history section in this article is missing a huge gap in time between World War II and the time that Sylvester Stallone re-popularized the brand. From my own original research Panerai made small batches of watches in the 30's and 40's with Rolex and Angelus movements and then went bankrupt. Nothing happened with the brand until 1972 when they changed the name to Oficine Panerai following the death of Giusepe Panerai. Then in 1993 the company started up again - Stallone stumbled across them in Florence and they've been successful ever since. The article is really light on this type of information - is there a reliable source for Panerai history that anyone knows about?--Yankees76 Talk 20:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Panerai&oldid=1209610700"