Watch Snob on Independent Watchmaking and a Big Birthday

A Tale of Two Horologists

I am writing to you to gain perspective on two watchmakers: Paul Gerber and Antoine Preziuso. What do you think about their work? Are the entry level models (under $10,000) worth going after for a purist? For example, Paul Gerber's Retro Twin, or Pilot 42, or say, Preziuso's Dual Time or say Roger Dubuis's Golden Square?

RELATED: Watch Snob Last Week: The Snob Picks 5 'Significant' Watches

I’m not quite sure how Roger Dubuis snuck in there, but let me first address your queries about Mr. Gerber and Mr. Preziuso. Both are highly respected and highly respectable watchmakers and both are members of the prestigious Academie Horlogere des Createurs Independants (better known by its acronym, the AHCI). They both have been members for many, many years, and their work is very good indeed, albeit they approach watchmaking from very different directions.

These days the efforts of Mr. Preziuso seem devoted to creating extremely expensive, often highly jeweled tourbillon watches; he makes what you might call smaller pieces as well but his tastes seem to range even in his simplest pieces, rather more to the baroque than not. His work is of very high quality mind you, but certainly his extremely baroque versions of, for instance, Concepto manufactured tourbillons require a prospective owner to have a taste for the elaborate, not to say the melodramatic.

Gerber’s work is much more — well, one wants to say sedate, in comparison with Peziuso’s work although it is perhaps not so much downright sedate as it is comparatively less violently florid. Of the two, I personally find Gerber’s work much more appealing; I struggle to see myself wearing most of Preziuso’s watches on a daily basis and I have no such issue with Gerber’s designs. The Retro Twin watches are I think quite delightful as well as being very nostalgically appealing if like the Snob you are a Gentleman of a Certain Age, and he has done much work in the past which I found very appealing as well. In fact one of my very favorite moonphase watches from anyone is made by Mr. Gerber; it is his reference 336, which in addition to having a very lovely spherical moonphase, has a most interesting escapement – a variation on the lever, invented by Gerber.

Roger Dubuis, the man, was also a very talented watchmaker, who passed away in 2017. The company he co-founded abandoned the original principles of Mr. Dubuis a long time ago and today they seem content to make variations on their double tourbillon, as far as I can tell virtually to the exclusion of anything else. It has shed much of its most interesting work over the years and sold its identity for the sake of short term profits to undiscriminating clients; it gives me little pleasure to say so as they did much good work in the past, but that was in the past.

It’s Obscurely Complicated

I have a question about an obscure complication, in modern watchmaking world at least, the triple date calendar. I came across this particular complication and really liked it. In fact it was quite popular in the days of yore, and was also popular with chronographs. The best couple of watches were beyond my current budget, both are genuinely lovely, and purest in terms of design; Vacheron Constantin Historiques 1942, and one from Laurent Ferrier, although I can maybe try saving up for the former and have a shot in a couple of years. Omega, and Zenith both had a triple date calendar with chronographs but the dial design was a bit too busy for my taste. Longines had one too, but I despise the moonphase in this complication. I was wondering if you can suggest triple date (with or without chronograph) which from a purest perspective is interesting and under [approximately $10,000].

Unfortunately the two options, in general, for a triple date watch (one with a window for the day of the week, a second for a month indication and a pointer for the date) as it exists today seem to be either very expensive, or in less costly models, paired with a moonphase; it is a shame you despise the moonphase in a triple date watch. Personally, I actually prefer it to be there (of my several triple date timepieces, all sport a moonphase complication as well) and I have some vintage triple date chronograph watches, which use the Valjoux 88 — a wonderful and somewhat rare Valjoux caliber, but one which also has a moonphase aperture.

The modern Historiques 1942 is certainly a very nice take on the complication, with a wonderfully dignified air to it but it is, as you quite correctly note, a rather expensive watch. Your best chances here might be with vintage or more recent pre-owned. The Omega Speedmaster Day-Date, for instance — the reference 3520.50.00 — is a pretty terrific watch; it seems fairly widely available and it is well within your stated budget. Bon Chance, mon ami — why more makers don’t stay in the triple date and triple date chronograph business these days, I do not know because if more manufacturers made them, I bet they would sell like hotcakes.

A Birthday First at Fifty

Would you mind terribly answering a question for the ladies. Treating myself to a 50th Birthday watch. Please brace yourself … I own not one watch and would like to finally own a watch of some distinction, preferably under $8000.

It has been my experience in recent years, that ladies who find themselves wishing to buy a serious watch, generally want what the gents want — a good watch is a good watch, irrespective of the gender of the owner and as you have not said that you specifically want what the Swiss, in their benighted, backward fashion, still refer to as a “feminine timepiece” I am going to suggest to you largely what I would suggest to a gentleman, were he looking for a treat on his 50th birthday, in that budget range.

First of all, you cannot go wrong with a Rolex. The company makes relative behemoths of sports and precious metal watches, it is true, but they also make extremely nice smaller versions of the Oyster; they are classic, incredibly reliable and durable, extremely well made, and can easily last out the next half century with you. I would also recommend that you look at the Jaeger-LeCoultre Reversos. These again are absolutely classic designs; they are charming and interesting and if they do not have the forbidding technical perfection of a Rolex, they do have arguably a more distinctive and overtly appealing design character.

As a third interesting option I would suggest looking at Cartier. The company it is true, is best known for its use of white metals, especially platinum, in some very beautiful but again, quite expensive watches. They have however also, in recent years, begun producing a number of steel versions of some of their classic designs that are well within your price range. If you are not put off by a quartz movement may I suggest looking at the quartz Santos models that were introduced this year – they surprise me by feeling very Cartier in the metal and I do not think you will find the use of quartz here objectionable in the least. These three are an excellent starting point and even if you decide on none of them, examining them and considering their respective virtues, will help you hone your tastes for your final acquisition.

Send the Watch Snob your questions at editorial@askmen.com or ask a question on Instagram with the #watchsnob hashtag.

You Might Also Dig:

Watch Snob Picks His 5 Most Significant Watches

The Fab Five

In your esteemed opinion, what are the current five most horologically significant [or] important timepieces that are still available from the manufacturer, and what is the horological significance of each piece? The Omega Speedmaster "Moonwatch," the AP Royal Oak, the JLC Reverso, and the Grand Seiko come to mind based on what I've gleaned from many of your articles, yet as a newcomer to the world of fine watches, I am eager to hear your thoughts on what specific pieces have changed the watchmaking landscape in recent decades (and which an aspiring collector could still conceivably purchase new).

RELATED: Watch Snob Last Week: Questioning the Term 'Dress Watch'

It is always interesting and entertaining to think about such questions — the idea of choosing a top five is of course completely arbitrary, but it has the advantage of forcing one to be selective when one might otherwise not be; having to leave something out, means you have to think a bit more carefully about what you would leave out, what you would include, and why. There are certainly more than five possibilities, but I certainly can give you five strong candidates.

I think, certainly, the Omega Speedmaster Professional Moonwatch ought to be in there, and for obvious reasons. It is in many respects, still the same watch that was worn during the Apollo Program, Skylab and the Space Shuttle missions and moreover it is still being used today in manned space flight; there is nothing else quite like it.

I would also include the Audemars Piguet Royal Oak, as well as the Patek Philippe Nautilus; both still available (well, for a certain definition of “available” you have to be awfully well connected at your retailer to get either these days) which are both available in essentially the same form as when they launched (the AP Jumbo still uses basically the same movement, too, although Patek has been using an in-house movement for the Nautilus since 1981. Not a bad thing mind you, it’s just not quite as perfect a duplicate of the 1976 original as the AP is, of the 1972 original).

I would argue that the Rolex Submariner ought to be a candidate as well — a dive watch which established the design vocabulary of the modern diver’s watch, and which while it has undergone regular upgrades and updates since it was launched, is still the same, albeit constantly evolving and improving, model.

I yield to no one in my admiration for Grand Seiko, both vintage and modern but in this instance I would hesitate to recommend any one model as representing an original that is still in production. Certain aspects of Grand Seiko’s design language have persisted over the years — the 44GS case design, for instance — but that is not the same as having the same model in production. Two candidate watches for the final position would indeed be the Jaeger-LeCoultre Reverso, and also, the Zenith El Primero. I think the latter remains, despite all the ink that has been spilled on the watch and its story, a rather under appreciated watch — of the three “first” automatic chronographs released in 1969, the only one still in production today.

More Power to You

I am studying vintage watches and movements, and intrigued how they would solve problems at the time. I want to ask about long power reserves in vintage watches (hand wound of course!). Did the Big Three or another high end brand make vintage watches with a long power reserve (say 96 hours or more)? I am interested to know what solutions they used to increase the power reserve, if they did.

You know that is an intriguing question and one which I admit, I had never particularly thought about seriously. The whole notion that a very long power reserve would be something attractive to put into a wristwatch is, as far as I know and can recall, a fairly new one.

The problem with making a watch with a long power reserve, is that to do so what you basically have to do is increase the number of turns available at the mainspring, which means a bigger mainspring, which means a bigger barrel, which means a bigger wristwatch and for most of the history of watchmaking, especially post World War II and up to the beginning of this century, bigger was not better in a wristwatch. You distinguished yourself from your competitors by making relatively slim watches in a diameter under 40mm, not by making watches with a long power reserve that were on the large side.

Even in the pocket watch era, an extremely long power reserve was not in general, something taken as priority by makers. The Swiss maker Hebdomas had a patent for an eight day watch and you can still find them fairly easily. They are not expensive either, maybe because the odd open-dial, exposed balance design does not appeal to modern tastes. Longer power reserves could also be found in so-called carriage watches and clocks but these were really only semi-portable timepieces, not watches; and, of course, in both clocks and in marine chronometers, you would see longer running times as a matter of course, as compactness was not a primary goal in the design of either, in most cases.

The pursuit of a very long power reserve — eight days or more — for its own sake and for bragging rights, appears to be an affliction primarily of modern watchmaking.

Time for Domestic Bliss

I’ve been an avid reader of yours for years and your counsel has helped shape my current collection. Now once again I’m turning to the Snob to guide me in an upcoming purchase.

I’ve had my heart set on a Rolex GMT Master II with the Pepsi or Batman bezel for a long time and through a connection a new one might finally be attainable which is a miracle given the tight supply at the moment. Normally I would jump at the opportunity to obtain what’s been somewhat of a grail watch for me, but I’ve just come across the Chopard L.U.C. GMT One which has given me pause. The wife would kill me if I bought both, so I have to choose between the two. The history of the Rolex GMT is undeniable, but is the Chopard a worthy substitute?

“The wife would kill me,” what are you sir, a man or a mouse? Are you not master of your own destiny? Are you not king in your own castle? Fie upon the wench, sir!

I am just kidding, I think there is nothing more praiseworthy than a home run as a true, equitable domestic partnership. Anyhow, to the question.

So, the GMT Master II and the Chopard LUC GMT One — these are both worthwhile watches, but the Chopard is no more a substitute for the Rolex, than a Rolex is a substitute for the Chopard. In fact I would think that the Chopard would appeal exactly to someone who wants a GMT complication, but wants something which is diametrically opposed to the GMT Master (the Patek Calatrava Travel Time also comes to mind, as a two-time zone watch that is the opposite, aesthetically, of the GMT Master).

Given the really unbelievable wait most folks would have to endure to get the GMT Master, and as well, given the fact that it and the Chopard really have nothing to do with each other whatsoever, other than the coincidence of them both being able to show a second time zone. Is the Chopard a worthy watch? Most certainly. Is it a substitute? Absolutely not.

Send the Watch Snob your questions at editorial@askmen.com or ask a question on Instagram with the #watchsnob hashtag.

You Might Also Dig:

Watch Snob Questions the Term Dress Watch

In With the Old, In With the New

I have my heart set on a JLC for my next purchase (having a modest rotation of a Credor Phoenix, Submariner and a Longines Heritage Conquest). Previously my work watch used to be a Longines Heritage Conquest 35mm, but to commemorate my second child’s birth (it’s a girl) as well as sneaking in an upgrade for myself, here we are.

RELATED: Watch Snob Last Time: The Snob Returns From Summer Break

My question is twofold. My heart aches for the Reverso, but logically to replace the Longines, I should be thinking about the Master Ultra Thin (or so I think). Am I off my knockers about the Ultra Thin?

Second, assuming I’m going with the Reverso, which complication (or not, quite frankly), would the Snob advise as interesting? I am undecided between a pre-owned Reverso Ultra-Thin (yes I know), and a Reverso Classic Duo.

I don’t think you should think so much about the next watch being a replacement for the Longines, as you should think of it as a complement to the Longines. Unless you plan on getting rid of the Heritage Conquest entirely, the next watch will be an addition to your collection, not a replacement. This is by way of saying that there is no reason for you to feel that your next watch should in some sense, tick the same boxes as the one you have now, except perhaps in a more general sense — naturally, if you have a sense of your own personal aesthetic preferences and tastes the next watch should appeal to them as much as the first.

The Longines Heritage Conquest is in my view an extremely underappreciated wristwatch; it is exceedingly beautiful and if not entirely faithful to the original in some specifics, it is very closely allied to it in spirit. It is an extremely pure, classic example of mid-century wristwatch aesthetics.

I say all this by way of pointing out that you do not necessarily need to confine yourself to another round, classic wristwatch. Moreover, unless you are looking for a pre-owned Master Ultra Thin with the caliber 849, you are no longer getting a true ultra-thin watch. The current selection of so-called Master Ultra Thin watches from Jaeger-LeCoultre are many of them very beautiful watches but none of them are what the original Master Ultra Thin was, which was a hand-wound watch based on a true ultra-thin movement.

I would therefore suggest the Reverso as the next logical choice; if you travel much, the Reverso Classic Duoface is a charming timepiece and a wonderful logical evolution of the Reverso design. If not (or even if you do, if you find the design sufficiently compelling; I would) I would suggest the Grand Reverso Ultra-Thin — as wonderfully pure an expression of the Reverso spirit as Jaeger-LeCoultre has produced in many, many years.

Baby Got (No) Back

Thanks for an interesting and enriching column. I work as a library manager. I am in my early 30s. I have a NOMOS N553 (NOMOS Ahoi), which is really great. I chose to go for the sports model, since I also have small kids, which require an active lifestyle, and a watch that can withstand unforeseen rough handling.

In recent years, I have bought many watches, often from Kickstarter, but sold almost every one and [now I’ve] got my eyes on real quality. Next to the watch from NOMOS I also have a Dwiss RC1, which I think is a nice dress watch. I also have a Steinhart Marine Chronograph, but will sell that because [at 44mm] it is too big.

I see several nice watches I would like to buy, which will be at a significant cost, and then everything should be perfect before making the decision. For example, I have a good eye for JLC 1538530, but here there is no sapphire on the back of the watch to look at the movement. And in a way, there is a reason for me to not buy this watch.

Is it right to hide well-decorated movements, and can that be a reason to look elsewhere? And do you have a recommendation for a watch that you think can fit a library manager of almost two meters [or 6’6”] with an active lifestyle.

I have to say, I have never heard of Dwiss before (an unfortunate name; it sounds like a portmanteau of “Swiss” and something both unspecified and uncomplimentary) but with my curiosity piqued by your missive, I unbent myself from my disgracefully battered club chair and hied me to my computer. Without offering an opinion on their watches overall, I will say, I struggle to understand how anyone could possibly characterize these as dress watches but perhaps at two meters in towering height (that is six and a half feet, for my American readers, which are legion) maybe you can get away with considering certain things “dress” that others could not. Certainly you see well-adapted for work in a library; at your height, no volume would be able to elude you.

Now as to the Jaeger. (The watch, to save folks the trouble of looking it up, is the Master Chronograph). I have no idea why Jaeger-LeCoultre declines to offer the watch with a display back; the caliber 751G is perfectly respectable and while it does not offer the highest kind of hand-done finish you would get from, say, Patek, Vacheron or Lange & Soehne, it looks to me as if it would present perfectly nicely through a display back (certainly better than a lot of other movements which other brands show off through display backs).

All I can tell you is that if you find the solid back a deal-breaker, there is nothing more to be said; certainly one could defend the decision to not have a display back, as in keeping with traditional watchmaking and traditional chronograph manufacture, but nowadays there is probably an at least equally valid argument to be made that if you are a company like Jaeger, which takes pride in its history of creating literally hundreds of movements, letting folks look at one might be a more commercially intelligent decision.

For a library manager of almost two meters, with an active lifestyle, there are a whole plethora of watches I could recommend, but I have nothing further to go on than your previous selections. The Dwiss is a head-scratcher (at least for me; if you like it, you like it and there is no accounting for taste); the Steinhart is simply a knockoff of Ulysse Nardin and therefore unworthy of further discussion (I have no quarrel with affordable watchmaking, but blatant lack of originally should be deplored irrespective of price point) and the NOMOS in combination with the others, simply adds to the confusion.

I would suggest certainly looking at the usual suspects — Tudor, entry level Rolex, certainly Seiko, possibly another NOMOS and even that Jaeger if you can get past the closed back — but I have in this case, relatively little data (and I would encourage readers asking for advice to as clearly as possible, delineate your requisites — more interesting and amusing for me, and more helpful for you).

Easy as One-Two-Three?

Hi Snob. I am an avid reader of your blog. After enjoying the Speedmaster for the past six years, I decided that it is time to move on and keep it as my second more casual watch. I am between three watches in pink gold: the Vacheron 56, the JLC Ultrathin Moon and the A. Lange & Soehne Saxonia moonphase (which has now been discontinued).

I know that you like the 56 and the Lange. So between the two watches which one would you choose and why?

Would the JLC ultrathin even be considered by you? What is your opinion on pink gold?

Pink gold is different from yellow gold in being (a) more pink (this is owing to the presence of more copper in the alloy, which gives it its signature roseate sheen) and in being (b) a better material for lending clarity to case geometry, or at least, so it has often seemed to me. It is a fine material under certain circumstances and seems to have a bit more of an impassioned character than yellow gold but as I get older I seem to reverting to a preference for the latter, which seems to me a better expression of the fundamental character of gold: it is golden.

These watches are all close competition, and I can give you an order of preference but again, I emphasize that it is very close: Lange first, Jaeger second, and Vacheron third. However, again, it’s very close — I have against the Jaeger only that they call it an Ultra Thin watch when it really does not fit the classic definition of an ultra thin watch especially well; I have against the Vacheron, only that it is perhaps not what one first thinks of when thinking of Vacheron (but maybe we should be more flexible in that regard; on its own merits I find the 56 Collection overall rather appealing. Maybe it is the contrarian in me but I like several of them very much).

The Saxonia Moonphase, however, is in its own class (I know, I know; I just said that it was very close, and it is, up to a point). The movement is delicious and the overall fit and finish is everything one could expect from Lange, but it is also very much more than the sum of its parts — a timepiece worth seeking out and once found, worth striving to own.

You Might Also Dig:

Watch Snob Returns From Summer Break

Deep Dive in Shallow Waters

I have loved reading your articles. First I wanted to thank you for your sage advice, as well as the hilarious candor you often express. I think your column here is gold.

Onto my question. I am a man of humble means when it comes to [disposable] income, but I firmly believe that a well thought out timepiece is an important expression. I don’t care much for clothing, and can usually be found in shorts and a T-shirt, but I have pieced together a collection of a few watches that make me smile.

RELATED: Watch Snob Last Time: AskMen Watch Awards 2019

My first move was to sell my Breitling Super Avenger, and purchase a more modest, yet interesting to me [Omega] Speedmaster Moonwatch which I wear on bracelet, leather and Nato. Next I added a Rolex Milgauss with a beautiful Z-blue dial. I then added a Tudor Ranger to my collection, and finally added a Seiko 5 Sport watch.

I have recently been kicking around another watch style, as I do not own a “Diver” or GMT with blue face, so I have been eyeballing Longines, Tissot, [Christopher] Ward, etc. in the near [or under] $1,000 range. I then came across Certina as an option, and I think this is the direction I am leaning currently. Are there any others you may consider for me to add to my collection to continue my brand variety trend? Not many Certinas here in the USA, which is one of the reasons I find it so appealing.

I have never spent much time with a Certina but based on what little I have seen of them, they seem a perfectly honorable choice. The problem with dive watch in the $1,000 and under price range is that it is relatively easy to find adequate ones and relatively difficult to find one that really seems worth going after.

The Certina is fine; so are dive watches made by everyone from Citizen to Seiko to Orient to Zodiac to Oris (okay, the Oris perhaps is pushing things price-wise) to smaller-and-micro brands such as Unimatic and Baltic, and on and on. This is without getting into the quartz models, which are legion and which include light-powered divers from both Seiko and Citizen, both of which have every right to be considered honorable watches in their own right, given the history both brands have of technical innovation in quartz-regulated dive watches in particular, and dive watches in general.

I don’t know – having written that, perhaps the problem is not so much that there are too many merely adequate dive watches at or under $1,000, but rather that we are spoiled for choice. And the classics from companies like Seiko or Citizen are easy watches to love, and have served probably millions of owners honorably and with great satisfaction given, for decades.

I don’t know that “because you don’t see them very often” is necessarily a reason to go with Certina; it would be better to have something a bit stronger than that to motivate you because while you may not see them very much now, if you buy one you are going to see it on your wrist every day (or at least reasonably frequently) and it needs to be interesting — perhaps asking it to do as much for you emotionally as your Milgauss is asking a bit too much, but given the plethora of choices you have, I would say at least be sure you like the watch on its own merits and not just for its relative obscurity.

S'Amuser Dans Le Noir

What is your view of the Cartier Santos Noctambule? Is it too obtrusive?

This is the sort of question which makes me wonder about the nationality of my correspondent (sometimes I know from things a correspondent has said, and sometimes I don’t). This seems (and I hope I do not betray any prejudice against French culture, which I admire very much and without which modern watchmaking would be very different) in saying this sounds like something a Frenchman would say.

“Alors, cette montre, est ce intrusif?” Or perhaps, “Alors, cette montre, je n’aime pas, est … intrusif” or whatever the best equivalent to “obtrusive” is; you must excuse my exécrable French, j’avais le vocabulaire pour les montres et pour horlogerie and for damned little else, chaps. (One of my tutors liked to say that a gentleman does not need to know Greek, he merely needs to have studied it; I always you might say the same of French).

Anyhow, forgive the digression. The Noctambule (to spare my readers having to look it up, it is a large, black, skeletonized Santos with luminous material on the Roman numerals) is a kooky watch; it is a bit of a gimmick; it is in a word, a bit obtrusive, if I take the sense in which you mean the word correctly. It’s also a rather fun watch, especially after dark.

I am I admit something of a sucker for anything that glows in the dark; for a gent of a certain span of years there will always be something magical about that sort of thing, and if you happen to find it entertaining, pourquois pas maintenant?

Third Time’s a Charming Conundrum

I have been a long time reader and have heeded your advice unwaveringly, and I now find myself at a crossroads for my next (third) watch.

My collection — if you can call it that — consists of an Explorer (14270) and a Speedmaster Professional Moonwatch. My next watch will ideally be simple and with a white dial to add variety from the other two — I am not too concerned whether it is formal or casual, date or no date.

Herein lies my conundrum: I find myself considering the Cartier Tank (and tempted by the JLC Master Ultra Thin, but that is out of budget for now). My fear is that my collection is fast headed toward an accumulation of “classics,” with nothing “out there” that shows a little bit of character. I would be very grateful for your thoughts and any other recommendations.

Well, look at it this way. In your Explorer and your Speedmaster, you have two very classic watches indeed in just about every sense of the word, and which represent in many respects the best of mid-century watch design; they are benchmark timepieces which continue to exert an influence over watch design even down to the present day. In fact, my dear sir, with those two watches in your possession an argument could be made that you simply don’t need another watch.

Now, it is a legitimate point to raise that both the Cartier Tank and JLC MUT are indeed a bit more of the same, but it is also true that both of those watches as well, represent excellent taste in design and indeed, an important part of horological history (for slightly different reasons but it comes to the same thing). It is absolutely true that you could go for something deliberately outré but that alone is not a reason to buy a watch — you are a bit like the other fellow this week, who wonders if he oughtn’t buy a certain timepiece because he doesn’t see them around very often; that can be a factor in the decision but you have to like the watch on its own terms as well.

I intuit from the fact that you have not mentioned any specific “out there” watch means you don’t actually want one. Maybe someone told you at some point that you have boring taste but on the strength of your watches, you don’t have boring taste. You have careful, albeit somewhat conservative taste that has served you well thus far. I bet you would have lots of fun wearing a tank — a lot more than you would have wearing … I don’t know, a flaming orange Casio Baby-G.

As a matter of fact, you could get the Tank and the G-Shock and find out just how interested in an “out there” watch you really are; it would be an interesting experiment.

To My Readers:

Some of you have been kind enough to enquire after me whilst I was on hiatus last month, and whether or not the hiatus was anything like permanent; I assure you it was merely a well-deserved and brief sabbatical from my toils here. You may rest assured, I will be here “on the regular” as one of my younger friends likes to put it, moving forward; and at the regularly scheduled weekly intervals. Am gratified and thank you for your interest and concern.

You Might Also Dig: