![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It certainly makes sense to merge this article with Watch Mare Nostrum: Panerai Rastapopoulos 13:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
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.
What we need are a couple of nice pictures, preferably a historical model.
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
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.
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
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)
I've just removed the following glorified starstruck trivia section. -- Hoary ( talk) 16:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
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===
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It certainly makes sense to merge this article with Watch Mare Nostrum: Panerai Rastapopoulos 13:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
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.
What we need are a couple of nice pictures, preferably a historical model.
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
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.
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
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)
I've just removed the following glorified starstruck trivia section. -- Hoary ( talk) 16:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
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===
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)