That guy's wrist relative to his hand is unnervingly thin.

>A relative of mine has just offered to get me a watch for Chrimbo, with a budget of up to 120 quid-ish.

That's a bit bizarre. By the sounds of things you don't even particularly want a flash watch.

>And I suspect that women would be rather put off by it.

Women can jog on if they think they can lecture anyone on fashion, but yeah, there's no real point in a Casio. It gives off a slightly asparagus vibe and your Bin Laden-chic will inevitably end up collecting dust as it won't help pull any outfits together which is all today's watches are for.

>>5908

Do you think there's been some photoshop involved?

>First option is a fitness watch

They're worth it if you're planning to use it for all of its functions. The heart rate and so on will be much better on a pricier model, but unless you're actually interested in tracking your steps and sleep and all that then I wouldn't see the point in having one as an everyday watch.

Casio digital are wonderful and really go with anything. You certainly won't look like a tryhard wearing one, they are practical as well as stylish. I also wouldn't worry about what women think about your watch, most women (actually, most people) will barely notice your watch, especially an understated Casio digital. For what it's worth I just asked my girlfriend what make of watch I wear and what it looks like, and she got as far as 'it's silver?'

>classic analogue

Fossil are actually a very decent brand in this price range, so if you're wanting something like that then pursue that line, they do smaller diameter cases for sure (though as pointed out, I think that chap has exceptionally thin wrists) you should be able to find out the diameter easily enough.

A Seiko 5 or a Citizen eco-drive would be the two mainstay classics of the minimalist analogue styles - plug both of those into Amazon to see the ranges. If it was me, the one watch I'd want in this price range would be the Orient Mako, though you might not like the bezel with the numbers and such on it.

Really, a Seiko 5 is the smart choice here. It's a 'proper' watch and works well anywhere. There's a few variants so go nuts.

>>5910

Probably - men tend to buy larger watches, so making it look bigger is a conceivable marketing practice.

>>5909
>>5911

Thanks for the feedback. I do fancy a watch, which is why it came up when she asked what I wanted. She's actually rather wealthy, and I somehow suggested the price range since I know she'd happily pay a lot more than that - expensive gifts make me feel guilty, something that would no doubt interest a psychologist.

Getting back on track, my eye was drawn to the Fossil brand and they're certainly my style. Thinking about it, what I'd really like is a watch I'd feel comfortable wearing on first dates and to formal affairs. A fitbit or Casio doesn't really fit the bill, so I think I'll make that a purchase of my own come January, as something for day-to-day wear. I imagine she'd prefer to give me something more personal anyway.

I was considering this one. It's by Skagen, who are predictably minimalist as a Scandi company, they're rather like Fossil in fact. What do you lads think? I know it's slightly above the price range but I guarantee that's not really an issue.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Braun-Analogue-Stainless-Bracelet-BN0211BKMHG/dp/B01GJ3BH5I/ref=sr_1_2?s=watch&ie=UTF8&qid=1544914851&sr=1-2

This is my personal favourite, insofar as that I've made a custom watchface for my smartwatch to mimic this.

>>5914
I remember looking at that and liking it, I just couldn't get past the yellow second hand (it is possible to discuss your taste in watches without sounding like a nit-picking ponce?) and the fact that it has the same logo as my razor. I'm settling on two of them now, I'll post a comparison.

I like this one because it shows the date, but unlike most with this feature is only 5mm thick. The Skagen above is 8mm thick and 40mm in diameter - I don't have huge wrists so it might end up looking silly. It's impossible to tell online sadly. It's suitably minimalist, I like the sapphire background and it's also the cheapest, which is a factor for me at least.

Whereas this Skagen is exactly the style I want, but lacks a date option and doesn't have luminescent hands. It's a very, very nice watch though. And only 5mm thick, which suits me since I dislike chunky watches.

Which would you lads pick?

>>5917
The Skagen. You use your phone for telling the time and date like a normal person would, goofball. Watches have become male jewellery.

>>5917

I prefer the looks of the Skagen, but the lack of lume on the hands would annoy me greatly, but if you never find yourself looking at your watch in the dark i can't see it being an issue.

>>5918
>>5919
I found that having a smartwatch, even just for telling the time, reduced the amount of pointless fiddling I do with my phone - if I pull it out to check the time, I'll probably end up having a little scroll down Facebook too.

>>5920
I have a Samsung Gear Fit 2 as my first smartwatch. It's not hugely functional compared to others - by design of Samsung, because even though it can run apps perfectly well they market it as a fitness band - but fuck me is it comfortable. Normally watches dig into my wrist but with this baby's ergonomic shape I usually forget I'm wearing it. So fuck 'fancy' watches - it tells the time and it's really comfortable, that's all you need.

>>5922

A smallish watch with a NATO strap can be extremely comfortable. A NATO strap runs underneath the watch case, so there's little or no metal in contact with your skin. The Timex Weekender is an inexpensive classic.

https://www.timex.co.uk/weekender-stripe-38mm-nylon-strap-watch/Weekender-Stripe-38mm-Nylon-Strap-Watch.html?dwvar_Weekender-Stripe-38mm-Nylon-Strap-Watch_color=Chrome-Blue-White&cgid=weekender-shop-all#start=1

Thanks for the advice everyone, in the end I settled for the Bering.

I agree that the Skagen looks a little better, but looking through their reviews there appear to be a lot of QC issues, especially with later models. This apparently has become worse since Skagen was acquired by Fossil a few years ago. The Skagen 2-year warranty notably doesn't cover the glass, which is apparently liable to crack with little provocation. The model I'd eyed is particularly thin and with a large face, which is asking for trouble in that department.

In any case I like the luminescent hands and date display - I know I can use my phone for that, but I don't fancy whipping it out for anything that trivial - I'm getting a bloody watch after all.

On an unrelated note, I was under the impression that I had rather small wrists and measured them last night to discover they're over 7". Is that about normal size?

>>5924

It's pretty much dead on average. The fashion in recent years has been for absolutely massive watches, which makes a lot of men feel small-wristed for no good reason. My wrists are smaller than 6", which is a genuine nuisance if you're into watches.

My wrists are barely over 5.5" round.
Which is a bloody pain because I like watches. Even small dress watches look big on me.

I literally have a thicker cock than my wrists. That's not bragging, I just have pipe cleaners instead of arms.

Can I even manage to get a watch that isn't for kids?

>>5927
You could always wear the watch on your cock

>>5927>>5928
Is it thicker on the soft or just hard? Maintaining an erection for the entire time you're out of the house could be a serious ordeal.

>>5927
> I just have pipe cleaners instead of arms.
Are there any exercise routine to buff them up?

>>5930

Exercise won't make your bones bigger.

>>5925
Hmm, depending on how tightly I measure,somewhere between 7.5 and 7.75 inches. How do you spindly lads not break all the time? (maybe you're less clumsy than me, I guess).
inb4 'no such thing as big boned' tedious shitstorm.
My current watch is getting old, and the tritium glowy bits are becoming annoyingly dim after 15 years or so. I like the combination of clockwork and radioactivity, but Traser don't seem do do anythign any more with that combination, which isn't some glaring adventure type thing with garish tat all over.
https://www.traser.com/our-collection/active-lifestyle/p67-officer-pro/p67-officer-pro-automatic-black/
seems to be the most subtle, and it's not what I want, at all.
Ideally, I'd like hands, numbers and date, with glowy bits in useful places. Can live without the date.
Any suggestions from you lot?

>>5931 Exercise won't make your bones bigger.

Then how come my right wrist is substantially bigger than the left?
Might be too late to change it now, but I'd imagine that the habits of my youth made a difference.

>>5933
Pretty sure regular micro fractions can make bones bigger and harder over long periods of time. Something something Jackie Chan punching sand.

It's not a watch, but my mum gave me the early Christmas gift of a really thick, silver, bracelet and I have no idea why. It makes my wrist look tiny and I have no idea why she thought I'd like it, I think this is the year when I tell her "socks and pants are the only clothes you can buy me". Last year she got me a burgundy graphic t-shirt of a bird with the words "KAW!" over it.

>>5934

This is absolutely true. Bone structure can be considerably changed by activity. Resistance and "impact" type training not only increase bone density but also cross-sectional measures.

Note that tendons and other tissues can also thicken with activity. You'll normally notice a difference in the forearms between dominant and non-dominant hands.

>>5936

So what activities should I do to get hench wrists? Wanking obviously doesn't work because I do more than enough of that.

I don't see how there's much I can do really. I'm quite slim in general but not underweight. My forearms just taper inwards like a conical flask. There's no muscle on that part of your arm no matter who you are, and I'd have to be morbidly obese on the rest of my body before it started to go there.

>>5932

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Traser-p5900-506-33-11-Wristwatch/dp/B000NNY078?ref_=fsclp_pl_dp_9

https://mwcwatches.com/collections/tritium-gtls-self-luminous-watches


If you've got cash to splash:
https://www.nitewatches.com/store/gb/

>>5932

Tissot and Nite are the two brands that spring to mind when I hear 'tritium'. Nite in particular make very minimalist, but still quite lovely, military inspired pieces.

I think Mondiale also do trit watches but I can't be arsed to google it.

Hmm, £175 for new lights, a (probably null) service and pressure test. Probably worth it to keep old faithful running - I like the battle-scarred look along with the pristine sapphire.

Skagen have a number of watches in their sale, including refurbished hybrid smartwatches from £45.

https://www.skagen.com/en-gb/sale?cat=174&product_list_order=price_asc

>>5941
There's nothing there that really appeals more than the one I'd eyed, and a few weeks on I'm very happen with the Bering. For once I made the right choice.

>>5941
They have their full on smartwatch for £80.

I have my LG Watch Urbane but this looks far, far classier.

I'm tempted, but I don't really need it.

>>5941
What features does a 'hybrid smartwatch' have?

Their website isn't very helpful.

>>5944

Hmm, strangely resistible. I really ought to be the target market for smart watches, but I think I'll stick to clockwork and ignoring emails.

>>5943
Got home to order it and they are already all gone. Fucks sake.

>>5947
If it makes you feel any better, I just learned from today's episode of Couples Come Dine With Me that skagen is just the Swedish words for shrimps. A pretty awful name for a watch brand frankly.

Makes me even happier I picked the Bering, you never know when you're going to bump into a Swede who's longing for an excuse to sneer at lesser beings for their gauche fashion sense.

Bumping this thread because I am in need of a watch, but I haven't worn one in almost twenty years so I don't really know where to start. My budget is up to £150 but I'd probably be happy with something half that price. I'm looking for something simple and respectable looking rather than flashy style over substance, with a preference towards a leather strap and a white face.

Any suggestions, lads?

>>6370

The Timex Weekender range would likely suit your half that price budget, they are nice watches but tick quite loud - it will annoy you if you keep it in your bedroom.

For something closer to your upper limit, an Orient Bambino or a Seiko 5 (or Seiko Automatic) would suit. For me personally I'd strike somewhere in the middle with a Casio Lineage/waveceptor, but then you'd also have to find and fit a leather strap for that one.

>>6370

Skagen Signatur?

https://www.skagen.com/en-gb/products/signatur-brown-leather-watch/SKW6374.html

>>6371
Thanks, lad. I think the Seiko ones have the nicest looking watch faces but I read something the other day about them trading on reputation and having quality control issues these days.

>>6372
Skagen are one of the brands I'd been considering. Thanks, lad.

>>6370
Did the same thing a couple of months ago. like >>6371 said Timex's weekender and expedition ranges are definitely worth a look but they all have electronic backlights instead of luminous dials if that matters to you.

Citizen's Eco Drive range probably has something but they don't list everything on their website, especially the less expensive models so you're better off looking at reseller's sites. They're a bit more expensive than Timex but they're all solar powered and can apparently run maintenance free for over a decade as long as you don't over discharge the battery by leaving it in a dark drawer for months.

Fossil make some nice looking designs but people say the build quality can sometimes be a bit questionable, although it's hard to tell if it's a genuine issue or just watch collectors shitting on Fossil for being a "fashion" brand.

If you fancy something mechanical Seiko and Vostok make some good but not too expensive automatics in your price range.

Also you can get some really nice after-market leather straps so don't rule anything out just because of the strap it comes with.

>>6373
Only issues I've heard about with seikos is that the SKXs (now discontinued) had been having problems with misaligned dials.

>>6374
>Also you can get some really nice after-market leather straps so don't rule anything out just because of the strap it comes with.

That is a very good point, especially as I read something the other day that said you should always change the strap when you buy a watch so if you sell it on you can put the original back on to make it look in mint condition.

>>6375

I did see one of the more prominent (well, everything is relative) watch youtubers complaining about Seiko quality control in regards to the new lines of Seiko 5's.

However, I'd not let it put you off, provided you can be arsed to return a watch if you're not happy with it. I find watches are one of the easiest things to either have fixed under warranty, replaced or refunded with basically no drama - watch retailers are usually passionate about the products so understand the concerns, and everyone else is a megaretailer who has automated, no questions asked returns policies, backed up by the distance selling regulations.

It's a shame they seem to have been having issues, though, Seiko are perhaps my favourite watch brand.

What do you lads think of the Casio duro watch? It's about £50 on Amazon but it'd have to be imported from America as it isn't sold here. My main concern is it looks massive.

>>6378 here again.

I saw one in an antique shop earlier today for about £40. They are indeed fucking massive.

There's a perfectly good thread for you watch fags fellows here. All the more suiting that the board is labled /poof/.

You know what, I think I will go for a Duro. Which colour? I assume it'd be fairly easy to mod if I wanted a different colour bezel.

https://www.greatwatches.co.uk/collections/frontpage/products/casio-mdv-106b-1a1v-mens-duro-200m-2021-watch-analog-200m-diver-brand-new

https://www.greatwatches.co.uk/collections/frontpage/products/pre-order-casio-mdv-106b-1a2v-mens-duro-200m-2021-watch-analog-200m-diver-brand-new

https://www.greatwatches.co.uk/products/casio-mdv-106-1a-mens-duro-200m-2020-analog-200m-diver-sports-watch-brand-new

>>6423

I'd go for the pepsi dial personally (the red and blue), but it's all down to preference really.

You can indeed get bezel inserts, though a quick google suggests you'd have to order them from the US, and they'd cost about as much as the entire watch - though they're made of ceramic, which is a nicer, more scratch resistant material than the typical aluminium ones, so probably worth it.

Got a lovely solar powered and another kinetic Seiko for xmas.

Watch geek hapy.

I've ordered a chinese tourbillion, I'm quite excited for it as it's a little bit special despite being rather cheap.

>>6425
The missus got me a Mr Jones Watch. They're novelty, I suppose, but they work with artists to make fun little watches with unusual cartoony faces. Attached is not the one I got, but the best example of what they do.

Given that I still check my phone for the time even when I'm wearing a watch, it's a nice gift and I'll wear it every now and then as an accessory.

>>6427

I like these a lot. My friend has the sugar skull one, and it gets a lot of attention, it's a lot of fun. And it surprised me to find out they're automatic watches, I assumed they were overpriced fashion pieces, but in fact they're bang on the money for what they are.

I like this one a lot - the only reason I haven't bought it is because "MJW" is the initials of a very annoying colleague, and I don't want to think about him every time I look at my cool fun watch.

I bought a Citizen Promaster Sky CB5000-50L watch in November. It ticked all the boxes for me, although I'd never spent over 300 quid on a wristwatch. It just seemed like an outrageous amount, when even a £50 or £100 watch can do the job very accurately. But I absolutely love my new watch and haven't looked back.

My Promaster is radio controlled and solar powered, so it's almost zero maintenance for decades. The lithium ion cell inside it can last well over a decade if you take the time to recharge it very regularly (the manual is very particular about that) with sunlight or artifical indoor light. From what you read on the web, even a single deep discharge can damage the cell so that it needs to be replaced.

I have always valued quartz accuracy over the prestige of owning a mechanical watch, and it seemed like a selling point even at 330 quid, for which you can already get a halfway respectable mechanical watch. I've always felt that there's no point even owning a watch if it can't tell time with the highest possible accuracy. Why spend (tens of) thousands on a luxury watch, when it's going to be off by five seconds every day.

My only niggle is that the stainless steel scratches very easily. I've had stainless steel watches before, so I knew what I was getting, but it's sort of more annoying on a watch that you've spent that much money on. For about 100 quid more, you can get the identical watch made of more scratch resistant titanium, which I tried on in a shop, but titanium being much lighter, it just felt like a cheap toy watch. I like the heavy feel of stainless steel on my wrist. It just feels more like I got my money's worth.

>>6429
That looks really nice. I'm jealous of it being radio controlled, that's a neat feature.

>>6429

>I've always felt that there's no point even owning a watch if it can't tell time with the highest possible accuracy. Why spend (tens of) thousands on a luxury watch, when it's going to be off by five seconds every day.

Even though I do own mechanical watches (and they're more like +5 seconds a week but your point is valid), I think a lot about how the 'best' watch I will ever own is this, a solar powered, radio controlled, near indestructible g-shock. It's as accurate as it could possibly be, waterproof, shockproof, and will live forever. Perhaps the only way it falls down is that I wouldn't wear it to a wedding, but then again, I probably could. It cost £89.

Of course the fascination with mechanical watches for me is that they're mechanical at all, I like the engineering that goes into them. Do I like that aspect enough to buy a 15 grand Rolex? Do I fuck.

>>6431

>Do I like that aspect enough to buy a 15 grand Rolex? Do I fuck.

Even if you see a luxury mechanical watch as an investment, as some people do, your timepiece is only going to maintain its value and be a profitable investment if you have it serviced regularly, ideally at authorised dealerships. Which is going to cost a good amount of money and will diminish your net profit if you actually decide to sell it one day. And you are going to have to wear it sparingly and effectively you'll need an additional daily beater watch. It's in a way similar to investing in a luxury classic car. Just buying a classic Jag, Merc or even a Ferrari isn't going to be a profitable investment if you keep it parked in front of your house as a daily driver and scrimp on the repairs.


>>6430

> I'm jealous of it being radio controlled, that's a neat feature.

I didn't really see that as a selling point at first, as even a Swatch Irony quartz watch which I had before is only off by about 20 seconds to half a minute a month, but in a tech geek kind of way, it's really neat to have. Can recommend.

You can pick up a Rolex replica that'd be indistinguishable to the majority of people for about £300 to £400, but I don't really see the point.

https://geektime.cc/product/submariner-41mm-126610-ln-black-ceramic-904l-steel-vsf-vs3235/

https://geektime.cc/product/yacht-master-42mm-226659-vsf-3d-black-ceramic-bezel-on-black-rubber-strap-vs3235/

>>6432

I was going to make the car analogy as I read you first sentence. I'm into my cars as well, and could afford a Ferrari if I really wanted one, but paying £3000 for an alternator would bring me much, much less joy than buying whole fucking Triumph for the same price. Similarly, a watch movement that can't be serviced by the young lad in the Watch Lab Express or Timpsons does not make me feel special, it makes me feel like a fool whose money was easily parted.

I admire Rolexes too, but I don't think I could ever buy a new one (not that you actually can, right now - there's waiting lists for years for some) because I just don't think they're that exciting of a watch company. They do some interesting things, but they do them in an extremely soulless way - horology is, to me, about handcrafted luxury, not using expensive lasers to etch stuff on your dials. But that's getting a bit too into it, I think.

I think Rolex in particular is desirable for many simply because people know they're expensive - like >>6433 says you can get a swiss made replica for a fraction of the cost with the exact same quality and complexity. I fully support anyone who wants to look like a flash git on a budget. I think most people like Rolex because it's baked into us that a Rolex means you've 'made it', though that's an extremely recent interpretation of the brand.

For me as a watch nerd I'd not buy a replica, but that's more because I know I'd enjoy a 'real' seiko for the same price more. I also don't like drawing attention to myself, I don't necessarily want people to know how much my watches cost - I've never posted a picture of any of mine here. I wear a £1600 Oris to work every day and not once has anyone noticed or commented on it, and I like it that way - I have seen people wearing Rolexes get into all sorts of horrific conversations like "how much did you pay for that" or "what do you do for a living" - no thanks.

I'm thinking about making my most expensive watch purchase, a Grand Seiko snowflake. They're about five grand, which I accept is ridiculous, and I'd be extremely embarrassed if anyone knew what it was or what it cost. But I think they're absolute works of art, at least as close as you can get to that in something made as a product.

>>6434
>I think most people like Rolex because it's baked into us that a Rolex means you've 'made it'
Who taught you all this?

>>6435
Big Clockwork.

>>6435

Rolex have always been considered exceptionally well made watches, but for the longest time they were affordable. Their dive watches were tools for working men, their dressier watches were just a cheaper way for a middle class salesman to get a luxury watch on their wrist than Cartier et al.

I can only imagine the Rolex marketing division did a lot of work to get them into films, onto celebrities, and then that hype fed into itself. There's no denying Rolex make good watches - everything they do is made in house, they source their own precious metals, grow their own sapphire, build everything to the most exacting standards. But none of that matters, not really, when you can just say "Steve McQueen wore this one, it's £20000"

The price of everything even remotely collectable seems to have shot up in the last decade - classic cars, watches, vintage clothes, all used to be relatively cheap fun for those with particular interests, but I suppose the advent of get rich quick investment apps and crypto and all that has given us the idea that everything is speculative, everything's going to be worth loads in x amount of years. And so people pay 10 grand for a used Milgauss, a watch that has (had?) an MSRP new of £3000 and everyone said was the runt of the Rolex litter five years ago. But now, now it's a future classic, you see. And you can't buy one because of the waiting list, so quick, buy mine.

It's shite. Buy what you enjoy, if you can afford it, and if it's not made of bricks, or has moving parts, don't expect to ever get your money back. Better yet, buy something you love enough that you'd not sell it unless you really had to. That's what I do, and I can't say I've ever regretted buying anything.

>>6435

The funny thing is that however that idea started, it's absolutely true now. A new Rolex on the grey market costs more than the average uk household income, and to get one at the AD, to even be on a waiting list for the big releases, you have to be a very valuable customer. So at least you have to have a notable amount of financial success to have a new one on your wrist right now.

>>6437

>The price of everything even remotely collectable seems to have shot up in the last decade - classic cars, watches, vintage clothes, all used to be relatively cheap fun for those with particular interests, but I suppose the advent of get rich quick investment apps and crypto and all that has given us the idea that everything is speculative, everything's going to be worth loads in x amount of years

It's fascinating actually, I've seen a video or two and read at least one article somewhere on the idea that we actually are seeing some sort of meta-speculation bubble that's affecting basically all collectibles markets.

You can see a concrete example in the retro games scene at the minute- Sealed copies of twenty five year old Mario games, for example, going for hundreds of thousands, millions in some instances. The dead giveaway is the involvement of a verification company that will give you a valuation and a certificate- If you dig up the backgrounds of the people running this company, it's the very same people who engineered the collectible comics bubble in the 90s in a very similar way. Nobody wants to pay £200,000 for a sealed copy of Mario 64 for the intrinsic value of the item itself; but people who want to magically turn their money into more money for free certainly do.

he question is, will the house of cards inevitably come crashing down as it has done in previous speculative bubbles, or has our economy reached such a point of self-parody that it really can carry on growing forever, based on the force of nothing but sheer make believe?

>>6439
Will Beanie Babies make a comeback?

>>6439

>will the house of cards inevitably come crashing down as it has done in previous speculative bubbles, or has our economy reached such a point of self-parody that it really can carry on growing forever, based on the force of nothing but sheer make believe?

From the ways I have seen people in my 90's JDM car groups talk about how a rusted, non turbo Skyline is worth 20 grand because of the 'prestige of Nissan' then I would say it's definitely the latter.

I think the fact that we're all on the internet, that we're all sat in little groups telling each other that yes, a 1991 MX5 with more rust than metal left on it is actually worth £5k, because they're getting rarer, you know, and besides, I bought one for £4.5k a year ago so they're definitely worth it, obviously. I just don't see how the bubble can burst without external economic influence, not when there's so many echo chambers that can inflate prices without even really realising that's what they're doing.

>>6438

Same sort of prices as an ape jpg then.

>>6438

There's a small plot-arc in the early episode of Succession where one of the middle-management spends a huge part of his salary on fancy watch for his boss/father-in-law as a birthday gift and it just gets off-handedly used as hush-money for the parents of a child who gets psychologically abused by one of the rich people, for fun.

I'm not trying to attack you all for it, you seem fairly self-aware of the surrounding issues. I'm just thinking out loud here - but to place so much value in an item seems to be just as much a sign that you haven't "made it", not to the top at least. It's a rented pineapple; a fancy car parked outside of a council flat. Again, not meaning to criticise either you or the council house owner for your lot in life, but the way the object is implicitly signalling support for a system that exploits and doesn't value either of you. You both worked or work hard to have the valued object but they're circus participation medals.

>>6442

No, I know that. It's why I wouldn't buy one. I grew up poor, so owning a Rolex really was something I saw as a huge statement of wealth and success, but as you point out, it's small fry, really. Even in the watch world, in terms of luxury watches, a Rolex is nothing, price wise, compared to a Patek or an AP. And yet you could wear a £230,000 chrono Nautilus and nobody would have a clue. Rolex are perhaps the Dolce or Lambo of watches, they're the ones you buy when you want people to know you've bought them.

But like you say, a used Rolex, most people with full time jobs could buy one, maybe outright, or maybe with a reasonable deposit and a 0% finance deal. But their name alone, at least where I'm from, is what you're really buying. But I don't buy watches because they're expensive. The majority of my collection are Seikos. I like interesting watches, I like well made watches. I will pay a fair bit if those two overlap. I don't plan on selling any, I cringe at the thought of ever flexing any of them, even to other watch nerds.

I genuinely believe there are watch makers, even big names you recognise, even ones owned by the Swatch Group or whoever, who genuinely care about the watches they make, and aren't just doing it for the money. Rolex is certainly not one of those, they are a self perpetuating nightmare of veblen goods, even if their watches are actually made as well as they can be made, it's just not the same thing.

>>6437

>The price of everything even remotely collectable seems to have shot up in the last decade - classic cars, watches, vintage clothes, all used to be relatively cheap fun for those with particular interests

Just as an example, I saw a Ferrari Testarossa once in a queue in front of me at a car wash, circa 2008. The owner told me he had just bought it the same day, and for just over £40,000. It looked in very good condition. Testarossas were one of the most infamous dream cars of the mid- to late 80s, not just for being on Miami Vice, but because they were the embodiment of 80s ostentation. And no posters of it that you had in your younglad bedroom growing up prepared you for how absurdly low and wide the car is when you are standing right in front of one. But I digress. In 2008, they were cheap as chips in relative terms, and nobody quite wanted them. 40 grand was an absolute steal, considering you were getting a flat-12 supercar Ferrari for your money, at a time when even an upmarket family estate car could be in that price range. Nowadays, a well-kept example of a Testarossa will set you back at least £100K, probably north of £120K for a certified concorso condition one. If it had a celebrity previous owner, we'll be talking silly money altogether.

> but I suppose the advent of get rich quick investment apps and crypto and all that has given us the idea that everything is speculative, everything's going to be worth loads in x amount of years

I'd say it's still the cheap money and expansive monetary policies of central banks. You still get almost no interest on your money if you park it in passive-income financial investments, so people have spent over a decade putting their money in all sorts of other things, whose prices have then gone up based on the laws of supply and demand, and have given investors astronomical returns, which then need to be reinvested and drive up prices all over again. It's now the new norm, as there are still untold sums pouring both into the luxury goods and the property market, because people think the boom will last forever, and because those markets obviously haven't run out of idiots yet who are willing to pay even more for an item than you did.

As bubbles go, they all burst eventually. We saw a sharp drop in property prices and all manner of luxury goods from classic cars to watches following the 2007/2008 meltdown of the global financial system, which goes a long way explaining why a nice Testarossa could be had for 40 grand, and the biggest danger is to assume that that sort of thing can never happen again. The monetary value of most things that have gone up in the current investment bubble is almost entirely subjective, their price tag can be £200K one day and £20K the following week.

>>6444
>Ferrari Testarossa

I always end up with this stuck in my head when I see its name mentioned.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJC1bms0EVo

Then again, I struggle with the fact that Jeff is played by the same person who was Ray Von in Phoenix Nights.

>>6444

>As bubbles go, they all burst eventually

It's a real shame for someone like me, A shed dweller who accidentally now has enough money to buy my dream cars of the 80s and 90s, but simply can't allow myself to buy them at the ludicrous prices they're at now. Even if the bubble does pop, likely by the time it does, the cars will be rare by attrition anyway, and will naturally be more expensive as there's so much less of them.

>>6444
I'm sure this is what's happening to housing. It's the safest investment, so if you have 200 grand spare, you'd be a fool to invest in anything else. This results in me, personally, being specifically fucked over and I will never buy a fancy watch until I have a house first, so I'll leave you to your thread. I always get Sekonda watches because I like the name.

>>6447
House prices have been booming a lot longer than that. In the late 90s it became a lot easier to get a buy-to-let mortgage as the rules were relaxed and there was a large push to get rid of the stigma of being a landlord. The telly was constant property porn, which really fuelled the idea of seeing houses as being an investment rather than somewhere to live. The dot.com bubble and the financial crisis made many very wary about stockmarket investing whereas investing in a property feels safe as it's tangible; BTL also has the advantage of being able to use leverage. There's also the fact that the housing stock doesn't meet our demographics well enough; there's not enough bungalows for our aging population and a lot of family houses have been converted into HMOs to accommodate students and migrants.

>>6448

> The dot.com bubble and the financial crisis made many very wary about stockmarket investing whereas investing in a property feels safe as it's tangible


A lot of it depends on the envisaged time frame of your investment. Few people are in the business of flipping houses the way a lot of people buy and sell stock, but if you are, you can turn a loss on a property you've bought and want to sell soon. And with all the paperwork that comes with buying or selling a house, ordinary people almost without exception are in it for long-term ownership. Occasional market bubble bursts notwithstanding, it's almost impossible to sell a house you've bought for yourself at a loss, because you aren't forced to weather short-term fluctuations in resale value, as many people are who try to earn money with stocks.

Then again, ask somebody who has been living in their humble detached four-bedroom home in central London for decades if they see their house as an investment and if they feel wealthy for owning something that's worth the best part of a million quid on paper.

I'm not sure what's ahead for luxury watches. But when people start offering you completely silly amounts for your classic vintage jewellery or wristwatch, then it can be a sign that the market is topping out. You can only turn a pofit on something that is prone to market value fluctuations if you'll find the bigger idiot. Somebody who is stupid enough to buy the thing off you for more money than you paid. Markets crash when they run out of bigger idiots.

>>6449

>Then again, ask somebody who has been living in their humble detached four-bedroom home in central London for decades if they see their house as an investment and if they feel wealthy for owning something that's worth the best part of a million quid on paper.

Funny one that, because I would. But then, I can imagine to a Londoner the prospect of selling their million quid east-end mansion and moving up north to live in a much bigger house that cost a quarter the price, and living comfortably on the difference, is a lot like if you tell me that I could move to Poland and live like a king.

I shouldn't have looked at replicas. I'm now having to talk myself out of spending ~£250 on a Seamaster.

https://jtimewatch.net/product/seamaster-2018-diver-300m-vsf-11-best-edition-black-ceramic-black-dial-on-black-rubber-strap-a8800/

>>6450

>is a lot like if you tell me that I could move to Poland and live like a king.

There are places in some dirt poor shithole countries in Southeast Asia and Oceania where you're the fucking emperor with £25K a year. And you have picture perfect tropical beaches at your doorstep.

>>6451

And what will you tell people when they ask if that's a real Omega.

It's better to shop for a real watch that's in your budget than to pretend you splashed out on a luxury watch that would realistically break your bank.

>>6452

>And what will you tell people when they ask if that's a real Omega.

Why can't he just say "yeah"? It's not like people will know. I collect watches and absolutely couldn't tell a replica from a real one, unless perhaps you let me wind it.

By the way the real sign you've made it isn't a Rolex, it's how many ovens you have in your kitchen. Two is getting into top tax bracket, three or more is real money.

>>6452
>And what will you tell people when they ask if that's a real Omega.

Oh, I wouldn't wear it outside. I don't want to be mugged because people think I'm wearing a Seamaster worth several grand.

>>6454

>it's how many ovens you have in your kitchen. Two is getting into top tax bracket, three or more is real money.

Hardly, when you can get a brand-name built-in oven from Curry's for under 500 quid.

I'd say an elaborate free-standing cooking range by a trusted premium brand name that spans at least five feet in width is the real sign of success. It means that not only were you able to spend over 1,000-2,000 quid or perhaps much more on an appliance, but you have enough room for it in your kitchen, and you have the free time to be a cooking enthusiast, as a cooking range like that is a complete waste of money if you only use your kitchen to reheat take aways after work.

It used to be that the size of your TV screen was a mark of your financial and professional success. Before 40'' TVs could be had for a song and became the insignia of council flat dwelling dolescum smoking fags all day while watching Jeremy Kyle, anything larger than about 30 inches would cost you some very serious money.

>>6456

Yeah, you can get a cheap oven, sure, but have you seen a working man's kitchen? You just wouldn't have the room. Beyond that, you only need two ovens if you have the space, and the social freedom, to entertain. I thought you lot were good at readong too much into class signifiers.

An aga is either old money, or someone who earns less money than I do but wants to pretend like they do, or they recently moved to a village and are leaning into it.

>>6457

>Yeah, you can get a cheap oven, sure, but have you seen a working man's kitchen? You just wouldn't have the room.

I had friends who lived in a two-bedroom rented flat for a while, and although they both had steady jobs, they were hardly top earners. And their kitchen was a bit on the small side. And yet, they had two ovens in it.

>>6458

They probably had won the lottery, but didn't want to tell you.

>>6456

>a cooking range like that is a complete waste of money if you only use your kitchen to reheat take aways after work.

Yes, that's the point. It's important to have all the accoutrements, actually using them is besides the point. The entire middle class lifestyle is built upon having signifiers like this regardless of if you actually have a practical use for them; or indeed, in the Big TV Debate, if you would have a practical use for them, but choose to deny yourself it.

Have you even noticed middle class people hide their washing machine, dishwasher, ironing board, clothes drying rack etc out of the way in a separate room? Normal people have these things out in the open in the kitchen, where they get used, because they are in use regularly. Middle class people prefer to pretend there's magic elves that do it all out of sight and out of mind, because it's undignified to show your guests (and by extension, the world) that you put your own clothes in your own washer, by hand.

Middle class people are scum.

>>6460
Wait... not having your ironing board on view makes you middle class?

>>6460

This post made me laugh. As a working class lad growing up with a few siblings in a busy little terraced house, I remember my mother doing what seemed to be tonnes of washing and folding laundry in the kitchen.

I'm now living in a refurbished flat where the washing machine and dryer are in a separate room. I think it's mainly because of the noise the machines make, but I'd actually agree people are far too precious about this sort of thing. If you're comfortable enough with people to invite them to your house...

>>6461
More importantly, there are two types of people in society: middle-class people, and the entirely different ones, their polar opposites, the "normal" people.

May I recommend this excellent article from 2009 about differences between working class and middle class life in Liverpool.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8223453.stm

>>6464
The food timing thing was a massive shock for me when I got to uni. Teatime for me was always 4.30 or 5, but I was regularly eating an hour or two before anyone else.

>>6464
I always get a tickle out of people identifying as "lower-middle class". It's like "I'm not one of them, honestly".

>>6466
I usually say that because I grew up fully working class, but it's a but incongruous to claim that now, given I am an additional rate tax payer who lives in a four bedroom detached house.

>>6466
Being middle-class is our equivalent of when Americans talk about "white girls". They're everywhere, they're a massive demographic, and yet openly admitting to being one is absolute poison, like being a terrorist or a paedophile. It's ridiculous, but there you go.

>>6468

True enough, but you've got it backwards.

Americans talk about things like "white girls" because, much like their physically and symbolically mutilated cocks, they have had their class consciousness worn down to total numbness.

Truly there is no more a subjugated a people on earth than the American.

>>6469
Yanklad here, and I think I've mentioned before that "working class" over here is more or less only used for minimum wage workers and those living in poverty. It's very rare to hear anyone use the phrases "working class" or "blue collar" without them being disparaging.

>>6466

In fairness the reality is that most "middle class" people really aren't, they're just on the upper end of the wage slave scale and "aspirational" (read: delusional.)

I remember a sociology teacher introducing us to the concept by telling me and my sixth form classsmates that we were all middle class; and looking back, considering the kind of school I went to, either that showed she didn't have the faintest clue what she was on about or she was trying to intentionally brainwash us.

>>6470
Yeah, having lived in your lands for a while, I would like to suggest a translation. Working Class is a bit like Blue Collar, only many people are quite proud of it here. The Middle Class in the UK is kind of posh, and a bit hoity-toity, and very aspirational/acquisitive - not like your Middle Class at all. Most of us are reluctant to identify with that group of people.

>>6471

>In fairness the reality is that most "middle class" people really aren't, they're just on the upper end of the wage slave scale and "aspirational" (read: delusional.)


My theory is that large segments of the middle classes are in constant fear of social decline, and so they buy all kinds of expensive shit, more often than not on credit, just to assure themselves and others how truly middle class they are. It doesn't take much to fuck up your middle class existence and slip down to a kind of level where you have to move into a shit rented flat and stock shelves in Asda or man the graveyard shift at BP for a living.

True upper class, on the other hand, is above all that. You just know you are upper class and always will be, and the higher up you are, the less you will feel the need to show off your wealth, and just enjoy it quietly. Ostentation is something that the nouveau riche take part in as well as upwardly mobile new millionaires who recently made their fortune in a stroke of luck, but old money that has been wealthy for generations will downplay their wealth and underplay any and all class notions. Because unless you are exceedingly shit with money and gamble away or spend your inherited fortune and alienate all your upper class friends, there's never any real danger of you slipping down the social ladder into middle or lower class. And so you will not feel a big need for insignia to remind yourself that you're still a member of your social class, the way that middle class people do.

>>6473

I think the thing with being upper class is even if you're penniless, you're still somehow living a better life than any of us. Free to those who can afford it, and all that.

>>6474

>I think the thing with being upper class is even if you're penniless, you're still somehow living a better life than any of us.

That's another thing about upper class. It's at least theoretically possible that you are upper class but don't really have much money as such. It's the kind of environment you are born into and the upbringing you receive that makes you an upper class person. And perhaps knowing fellow upper class people who can somehow hold you over. When you're middle class, your social standing almost entirely depends on your work income. Once you're out of a job for longer periods of time, you run the very real risk of social decline, and it's unlikely that one of your fellow middle class friends will be able to help you out, besides attempting to get you a job at their company.

I read a story once about a second-rate, largely unknown struggling painter in the early 1900s who was born into a family of landed gentry but was an absolutely lazy sod and had almost no money of his own. He was doing illustrations and other occasional contract work to support his wife and kids, who were almost living like paupers. Except they were all enjoying free room and board at a friend's country manor who just liked having them around so that there was a bit of life at his residence. And that friend felt a strange kind of responsibility to keep somebody of his own kind from slipping down the social ladder.

>>6475

That's largely why in those days, painters and musicians and so on often were upper class. It also shaped the market- Many of the renowned classical painters were essentially in service to just one or two wealthy patrons, and what we regard as great works of art today were often just extravagant custom home decor. In only a slightly different timeline we'd have paintings of aristocratic fursonas hanging in the Louvre.

Thing is much the same applied to science and engineering. Pioneers like Antoine Lavoisier only made the discoveries they did because they were wealthy playboy aristocrat nerds who could afford to sit around all day fucking around with their toys, and hang out having the 1700s equivalent of stoned "Dude, what if we're all, like, in a computer, man?" conversations.

They were clever lads, too, don't get me wrong- But it makes you wonder how far we might have progressed if the social hierarchy had been less rigid (obviously it's still far from perfect) earlier on in history. The Romans had at least a notional idea of meritocracy, but feudalism and the early days of the industrial revolution probably squandered a locking people into such rigid lots in life.

>>6476
>That's largely why in those days, painters and musicians and so on often were upper class.

It's also why nowadays, most writers and authors are posh; most make so little money that unless you're already wealthy, you can't make enough to live off.

>>6476

In many ways, it would have been exceedingly difficult in those days to be a lowly wage labourer and also an explorer and natural philosopher. Nowadays, with government instututions and programmes in place that make it more than just theoretically possible for a working class child to go on to become a professor of theoretical physics, it's not immediately obvious that intellectual pursuits, with few exceptions, were the preserve of the wealthy who could afford to do fuck all else all day long. Even Charles Darwin was from a quite well to do upbringing, his father being a banker and financier, and Darwin could afford to just go on a years-long science voyage where he didn't have to work for a living aboard his ship, and had all day to pore over collected specimens and formulate his theories.

>>6475
>When you're middle class, your social standing almost entirely depends on your work income
>Once you're out of a job for longer periods of time, you run the very real risk of social decline

See, there I disagree with your definition of middle class. Having a good or well-paying job alone doesn't make you middle class, it just makes you better off. If you are still dependent on working for your lifestyle, then you're of the working class.

When asked for a definition of middle class, I'll always point to my partner's parents, who each had objectively average jobs (owned a furniture shop, and worked as a personal assistant), but who also own a handful of commercial properties around the city they live in. They retired from their day jobs well before the formal retirement age, and have been living not just comfortably but profitably without lifting a finger except to ring a maintenance guy to fix a door every now and then, and occasionally negotiating a new lease. They're in their mid-60s now and haven't had a care in the world since the mid-2000s, that's what I'd call middle class.

The idea that just getting a higher income elevates you to another social class, I think, is just vanity.

>>6479

>The idea that just getting a higher income elevates you to another social class, I think, is just vanity.

Yet everything you described of the parent's success was down to money.

>>6480
Money, not jobs.

Got one of these today as a present for someone - titanium and kinetic, very lightweight, great for 200 notes.

>>6482
And I also got this for myself, which I like very much.

My clock collection is coming along nicely. I have found a source of very very large LED units from China (think the things they use to make the price signs on a petrol station) - ie about 12 inches tall. Gonna make a YUGE version of this.

>>6482

Good choice. Nice looking watch.

What do you lads think of Spinnaker watches? I was considering getting one for ~£200 when I get a bonus in a couple of months.

https://spinnaker-watches.co.uk/collections/all/products/hunley-woodland-green-sp-5102-03

https://spinnaker-watches.co.uk/collections/all/products/fleuss-lagoon-green-sp-5055-0c

https://spinnaker-watches.co.uk/collections/all/products/hydrofoil-panda-black-sp-5086-11

https://spinnaker-watches.co.uk/collections/all/products/wreck-oxidized-blue-sp-5089-02

https://spinnaker-watches.co.uk/collections/all/products/hull-arctic-blue-sp-5088-02

https://spinnaker-watches.co.uk/collections/all/products/wreck-rust-brown-sp-5089-22

https://spinnaker-watches.co.uk/collections/all/products/croft-mid-size-nomad-sp-5100-02

https://spinnaker-watches.co.uk/collections/all/products/croft-sand-black-sp-5058-05

https://spinnaker-watches.co.uk/collections/all/products/bradner-pacific-blue-sp-5062-22

You can ignore the listed prices because they generally have 25% off at some point.

>>6485

Not really my thing, but you're getting a decent movement at a fair price.

>>6483
Well, if we're talking clocks i general: feature wise a Junghans Mega Alarm with it's 24h snooze. It's a bank holiday? Hit that button. Took the day off? Hit that button. No need to disable your scheduled alarms, no need to disable noithing. Just tomorrrow no alarm? One button.

>>6486
Thanks. I really wanted a Geckota C-04, even if it looks a bit like a knock-off Breitling, and I should have picked one up when they were reduced to ~£100 a few months ago but they've now all sold out.

For a while I've been interested in getting a G Gerlach watch which is a Polish brand, I think they've got a bit more character than a lot of the Swiss and Japanese watches available right now, although their website can be a bit clunky.

http://sklep.gerlach.org.pl/index.php?route=product/product&path=82_74&product_id=82

>>6489
Looks nice, but you'd probably have an £80 customs charge on top thanks to Brexit.

This is a Vostok Amphibia - they're Russian and very cheap (under £100).

Rather like the look of them, and slightly surprised it's taken me this long to find nice Russian watches.

>>6491
I prefer the look of the Komandirskie, even though it's just your bog standard diver's watch with added cryllic.

>>6492

I'd have to go with a K-43. The included leather strap is a bit nasty, but it'd look fantastic with a NATO strap. Subtle cold war chic.

>>6493

There seems to be something a bit contradictory about a Russian design with a "NATO" strap...

I'm joking, as I agree it would look good regardless.

>>6494

It's pure ally.

https://charliecharlieone.com/the-meaning-of-ally-allyness-and-allyness-saves-lives/

>>6493
Got to agree, that's a lovely face and a nasty strap. Can't stand leather straps on watches, they fall apart/go stinky/break too easily.

>>6496
That's because those straps are made of composite leather. They will be layers of materials, of which most won't be real leather. Compared to an expensive leather strap that will made from one solid leather piece.

>>6491
Amphibias are great, especially for a sub-£100 automatic. I love how customizable they are.

Love the look of these too and they're quite reasonably priced.

Zalsach. It's a watch for blind people.

>>6499
They remind me of the puzzles you'd get in a Christmas cracker.

>>6498
This is a CWC SBS - the official watch of the SBS, Marines and Special Forces - waterproof to 300m. Nice looking watch, but not sure it's worth 600 quid more than the Amphibia.

Interesting story in the rags today about a sailor who got caught nicking them from Naval stores and selling them on eBay.

I'd quite like a Casio EFM-100, but they're an older model so they're not easy to find on sale.

I've started to be annoyed at how inaccurate my automatic watches are. My most accurate one is still about 3 seconds a day fast, which doesn't sound like much, but when I'm at work and trying to time stuff against GPS controlled chronometers, it's beginning to grate on me - I still love a mechanical movement for the engineering feat they are, but at work, I'm constantly reminded of their inaccuracies.

The simple solution would be a radio controlled watch, but I don't want to wear a rubber/plastic G-shock at work, and all the metal Gshocks and also the Citizen radio controlled offerings are far, far too busy for my liking. I'd kill for something like the Promaster Tough, but radio controlled rather than basic eco drive. That's all I really want, accurate, legible, and doesn't look too silly when I dress smart-ish.

The other, much more daunting option is the world of high accuracy quartz. Grand Seiko sounds like a lot of fun, but there's not much chance of me seeing one in real life before I buy it. I could definitely see the appeal of having a watch that's accurate to within ten seconds a year, and most are reportedly much more accurate than even that. The finishing on the couple of GS I've seen in real life are amazing too, but they're not cheap. Nearly 3 grand for their quartz GMT is insane, considering I've never spent more than £1000 on even a swiss mechanical.

>>6505

I should add that I still don't need a hyper accurate watch, because smartphones exist, but it'd be fun if I could. I think it's the next level of watch nerdery to want "the best" quartz you possibly can get.

>>6505

The Casio Oceanus T200S ticks all your boxes - solar, radio disciplined, clean dial, elegant case.

It's a Japan-only model, but the radio time system works worldwide and they're readily available to import via Chrono24 or eBay.

Casio Unisex Black Resin Strap Watch. £7.99 at Argos.

What say you lads? Do you have a measure of respect for one of the cheapest, no-frills, functional watches on the market?

Personally I think it looks a lot smarter than one of those tacky hunks of metal you get with luxury watches.

>>6508

Pleasingly minimalist, but still quite cheap and nasty.

I've got no interest in massive military and diver watches, but a fine dress watch is a thing of joy.

>>6509
My dress watch is a nice Tissot Visodate that my parents got me for my 30th.

>>6508

My grandad wore a similar one quite often, so it carries a certain charm for me.

Minimalist is fun, but whatever Casio make their cheapest straps out of is very uncomfortable to me.

Of course most watch nerds will bang on about the F91w if you let them. And rightly so. Watch collecting as a hobby can get a bit out of hand, so having a (less than) ten quid Casio that does everything you could actually want a watch to do, can be quite grounding. Plus Bin Laden had one, so there's celebrity chic there too.

>>6508
I think I marginally prefer the Lorus equivalent for about £16.

https://www.argos.co.uk/product/8907129

You won't really go too far wrong with a Casio, Lorus, Pulsar or Sekonda watch if you're on a budget.

>>6510

Pukka.

>>6512

A Timex Weekender is about £40 if you shop around.

>>6505

>The simple solution would be a radio controlled watch, but I don't want to wear a rubber/plastic G-shock at work, and all the metal Gshocks and also the Citizen radio controlled offerings are far, far too busy for my liking. I'd kill for something like the Promaster Tough, but radio controlled rather than basic eco drive. That's all I really want, accurate, legible, and doesn't look too silly when I dress smart-ish

I'm the lad who just recently bought a radio controlled Citizen Promaster Sky Eco Drive CD5000-50L.

After about three months of owning it, I can honestly say it's the best watch I have ever had. It is just a very well made watch and goes with casual wear same as a proper black suit and tie. The Promaster Chronos all have kind of a "busy" dial going on, that's true, but Citizen also have a host of more simple watches that are still radio controlled and eco drive.

Take the CB0010-88L, for example. It still commands its kind of price, but it looks tidier than my Promaster, and honestly, looking at it now, I am feeling tempted to buy one as a second watch the next time I can afford to just blow 260 quid on a watch I don't really need.

>>6514

See this is what frustrates me about Citizen, and all the other japanese watch companies - this watch is exactly what I'm after, yet is not listed on the citizen.co.uk website, or, if it is, it's hidden somewhere that isn't obvious. I get that they make so many watches that they can't market them all, but just give us an obscure website with an official full range catalogue.

They have them on UK amazon so they're not JDM only, either. I'm a little tempted by the pricier titanium version, but either way, thank you, I think you've saved me about two grand.

>>6515

That watch just popped up on a random google search I did for my above post, I had no idea about availability in the UK.

That said, I don't see any reason why you couldn't order a Citizen watch from some mainland European retailer and get the full warranty, just because Citizen don't list that model on their UK web site catalog. There are videos on youtube where people have ordered a Citizen watch directly from a Japanese retailer and still got the complete extended warranty.

It is a handsome watch. I'll make a mental note to get back to it the nex time I've got £260 to spend frivolously.

Don't get a titanium watch, I tried one on at a jeweller's and they feel like a children's toy on your wrist. In any case, not like something you've just spent several hundred quid on and got your money's worth. Even if titanium itself as a case material makes the watch somewhat fancier than stainless steel.

>>6516

>>6517

>>6427
>>6428
I finally unboxed this last night and wore it out for the first time - attached is the one she got me, albeit with a black strap since I didn't have any watches that aren't gold/brown.

The quality of the manufacturing is staggering, and on this particular piece they chose to layer the artwork by having the foreground be painted onto the inside of the glass with the background on the face. That leads to a really nice effect, since you get the Fresnel reflection from the front of the glass, but only from the exposed parts of the back i.e. where the tiger isn't. They could arguably have done something more impressive with the motion, but the artist waxes lyrical in her vignette about how the theme of the artwork is Henri Rousseau camouflage, so it was an intentional move to bury the numbers.

I don't want an Apple Watch because I can't stand the idea of having something that I can't wear all day/night without charging every day (or week). When they get it to a month or so, I might bite.

But I am slightly taken with the vast array of Chinese smart watches that are coming on the market - they are ridiculous cheap - the ones pictured here are just over £20. I'm quite sure they'll be shit, but it's interesting and probably worth a twenty quid aliexpress/banggood punt.

>>6520

Don't buy a no-name Apple Watch lookalike, they're nearly all complete shite.

Xiaomi and Huawei do reasonably cheap smartwatches that aren't useless.

>>6429

You have finally inspired me to buy a Promaster, but of course being the awkward, picky cunt I am I ended up deciding on a japan only model, the PMV65-2271. I was quite tempted by yours, or at least the black dial version of yours, the CB5010, but one of the reasons I wanted a Promaster sky is because I will actually want to use the UTC dial, as an aviationlad, and having only one marked number on the dial I felt would make it difficult, if not impossible, to read at a glance. I was worried the whole watch would be tough to read, but finally seeing a similar Promaster in real life, this isn't the case at all.

I like the digital display, too - it means I can effectively track three time zones at once, which again is something I will actually, justifiably use. It appears to be the same module as the UK market 'navihawk', which I've always fancied, but IMO this one looks much better all round. Plus it's titanium, which I enjoy. I know titanium watches can feel cheap because of the lightness, I've had a couple before, but ultimately something scratch resistant is the better choice for the environment I'll be using it in.

If I win the customs lottery, it cost about £450. If I don't, it'll probably be closer to £600, but I'll still be quite happy with that price, for a perpetually accurate, tough coated titanium watch. I might even end up using the bezel for statute to nautical mile conversions once in a blue moon, further justifying the frivolous import.

The problem with Citizens, of course, is that they make so many variations, often obscured by the markets they choose to launch them in, that I will inevitably find something else they made that suits me even more. For example, I envy yours for the metal bezel, it looks so much more rugged. They probably make something with the module I want in a case with a metal bezel, but I failed to find it.

>>6522

Good on you lad, that's a handsome looking watch.

Citizen have a few of those with the additional LCD display, but for my purposes, it seemed slightly much. I really just need the time and date, and it's nice to also have a stop watch. The alarm is a bonus, although it's a bit tedious setting it, at least on my watch, because say it's 11 pm and you want to set your alarm for 7 am, then the hands have to go all the way round to the desired alarm time, and then when you've set it and go back into time mode, the hands have to travel all the way back to your actual current time.


>but ultimately something scratch resistant is the better choice for the environment I'll be using it in.

Steel watches always seems to be scratch prone, I've also had that problem on numerous Swatch Irony stainless steel watches, and Swatch aren't known to use low-quality steel despite their good overall affordability. I'm sure titanium has its practical advantages, but I just didn't like the light toy watch feel of it, as I've said before. With my Citizen watch now, I tend to take it off when I know I'll be doing something where the watch would be exposed to scratch hazards, e.g. when I'm working on my car or in the shed.

>For example, I envy yours for the metal bezel, it looks so much more rugged.

I've tried to get my head around how you do fuel calculations with it, but so far, I am only using the red mark at the top of it like you would use a dive watch bezel.


But anyway, I'm sure you'll enjoy owning your Promaster. I'm very happy with mine. It hits the spot for me as a watch that's attractive to look at, has a few nifty functions, is rugged enough to wear as a daily beater, and which gets at least a little bit of respect from watch connaisseurs as a halfway serious piece of kit, unlike many fashion watches that cost roughly the same but are far inferior.

>>6522
Where do you shop for Japanese only models?

>>6522
How is that remotely readable? It's just a jumbled mess of text and markings.

>>6525
It's too busy for me, but I can kind of appreciate it. I imagine it's the type of thing pitched at autists and those who fantasise about joining the TA.

>>6523

I'm looking forward to trying it on. I'm starting to think I'm not so much of a watch collector as I am just looking for the "one watch" that can do everything I want it to. This might be it. I'm getting quite bored of having to wind and set automatic watches.

>>6524

I wish I knew. I found this one completely by accident when looking at prices of a different Citizen. For buying, Chrono24.co.uk is an excellent way to buy watches that you already know exist, but I don't think you'd have much luck browsing for JDM models there. I think there's a japan specific watch site, sakura watches or something, but I've not really looked into it.

>>6525

Photos of watches are often quite misleading, in real life the hands and hour markers stand out much more. It's never going to be as legible as a clean, sterile dial, but it's not difficult.

>>6526

I suppose this one in particular is aimed at japanese men who want to pretend to be a pilot, so I can't say you're too far off.

>>6527

>Photos of watches are often quite misleading, in real life the hands and hour markers stand out much more. It's never going to be as legible as a clean, sterile dial, but it's not difficult.


Legibility is key to me as well. I want to be able to tell the time at a split-second glance without much fuss. Especially now that I'm getting to be an oldlad who is increasingly farsighted, too many bits and bobs on a dial and hands that don't instantly stand out just make it difficult to work out what time it is without straining or putting on your reading specs. The CB5000-50L is still instantly legible, mainly thanks to the broad white/lume coloured hands against a darker background with not too much going on. But if you look at watches like the CB5034-58L or the CB5840-59E, their dials are really a bit all over the place, and personally I would struggle to get basic fitness for use out of them.

https://www.citizenwatch.co.uk/promaster-navihawk-a-t-cb5840-59e.html

https://www.citizenwatch.co.uk/promaster-perpetual-chrono-a-t-cb5034-58l.html


Looking at their web site now, I have to say I quite like the
BN0191-55L. Maybe if I'm in the market for a diver watch at some point, that's one I could envision buying.

https://www.citizenwatch.co.uk/promaster-diver-bn0191-55l.html

>>6489
Polski currency has dropped by about 10% recently. If this war carries on you might be able to get a G Gerlach watch much cheaper than usual.

Think it's worth buying a broken watch and trying to get it repaired? For example:

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/175178662236

I believe it was around £200 new but they've all sold out.

https://newmarkwatchcompany.com/newmarknp/

>>6530

Quartz watches are rarely worth repairing, especially in that kind of price range, both new and used. There's also rarely any point tying to fix a broken quartz movement, so it's best to just get a new movement and swap it out.

Your watch apparently had the Seiko VK64 SII movement, which is still available online.

https://perrinwatchparts.com/products/quartz_watch_movement_sii_vk64

$26 isn't bad, and you can't really go wrong with a Seiko movement. Any skilled watchmaker can swap out a quartz movement for you, but with parts and labour and the £23 or more for the watch plus p&p, you're almost going to pay what the watch cost new. Unless these watches are super rare, I would just wait till a working example pops up on eBay. Much less hassle.

>>6533

What a smug cunt. I hope someone nicks it.

>>6534

It would be such an easy 20 grand. I don't think I've ever met a watch collector I couldn't just threaten into handing it over.

>>6533

As dive watches go, the basic arrangement on the dial looks as unremarkably pleasant as many others. But I never liked the colour green on a wristwatch.

>>6536
I think I could make an exception for the new Seamaster.

Do you watchlads have any recommendations for good books on the topic? I'm starting to get fairly enthusiastic about my small-but-growing collection, and a fairly developed idea of my tastes, but it would be nice to have some context.

I made it about a minute in before giving up. YouTube reviewers are weird.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2-CD8LyyiM

>>6539

I'd honestly spend 100 quid more and get something like a Seiko 5 instead.

https://www.seikoboutique.co.uk/product/seiko-5-sports-4/

You'll struggle to get respect from watch connoisseurs for buying a watch by a largely unknown brand for 150 quid that tries to look like a Rolex. But Seiko is a highly trusted name with a reputation, which has very good watches in that kind of price range.

>>6540
You can get a Seiko 5 for much less than that. John Lewis had them reduced to £125 around Christmas and they sometimes drop to £140 - £160 on Amazon or H Samuel.

I'm not interested in buying a Dapix watch but I was looking at what they offer earlier, I think having a Romanian watch could appeal to the type of person who likes obscure makes, and it led me to that video. I think he stumbled over almost every word he said.

>>6541

I'm still not tempted to buy a mechanical watch in that price range tbh, because any servicing you'll have done will likely exceed the watch's value.

That's true for a quartz watch as well, mind, but with low- to mid-range quartz watches, you kind of accept that they're an instant writeoff the moment you put them on your wrist for the first time. I've had my Citizen Promaster for four months now and it has suffered a few scratches here and there although I always make sure to take it off when I do any kind of manual labour where it might get damaged, but if I really wanted to flog it, I'd be lucky to get 50 to 75 quid for it on eBay, and even then probably only from somebody drunk-buying it on a lonely night in.

>>6542
>the watch's value

Value is a subjective measure - I would suggest that one doesn't collect watches for their intrinsic value, although lots do.

Talking of value - this watch is nice, but I wouldn't pay 32 grand for it.

>>6544

Non-standard dials are always kind of an acquired taste. To me, fitness for use always comes first. Even on an expensive luxury watch. Although I don't think I'd ever pay 32K for a watch to begin with.

Because financial risk from accidental damage also limits fitness for use. For example, you wouldn't use a vintage Ferrari as your everyday beater to do your shopping rounds in. Even if you're in the kind of income (or wealth) bracket where replacing a bumper on your 328 GTS at a licenced dealer is nothing to you.

>>6544
I actually quite like that idea. I'm going to implement it on my smartwatch and see how it is.

>>6546
I've got it on my watch now, albeit without the date ring because it was too busy.

I'm finding myself having to stare at it to read the time, but maybe it'll become easier.

>>6547
That's neat, well done - and yes, I also struggled to actually read the time off it quickly, which is probably a failure.

I can't quite figure out what the smaller dials do.

>>6548

>I can't quite figure out what the smaller dials do.

Top left is the seconds, the one at 9oclock is the oil temperature (no, really) and the last one is the day of the week, Saturday and Sunday being marked in orange.

>>6549
In my case, I've repurposed the oil temperature dial to battery %.

I have a feeling I won't be sticking with it too long, though. The lack of fixed position for the hours means it really isn't easy to even get used to, as cool as it looks. I think I might experiment with it and put a more traditional clockface on whilst still retaining the moving elements. I enjoy making my own watchfaces, and usually go for railway/public transit inspired (or copied) faces. The entire reason I got a smartwatch was because I wasn't paying £500 for the Mondaine Swiss Rail watch that didn't even have the correct movement.

>>6550
>The entire reason I got a smartwatch was because I wasn't paying £500 for the Mondaine Swiss Rail watch that didn't even have the correct movement.

What movement should it have?

>>6551
Circular, generally speaking.

>>6551

I assume he means the jumping minute hand :

Mondaine do actually make a movement which replicates this called Stop2Go for the watches, now. You can get a quartz version for a couple of hundred.

>>6553
Iirc, the Stop2Go isn't a perfect recreation -- I don't think the minute hand jumps forward. I may be wrong on that. But the s2g was about 400 in 2015 when I first got my smartwatch

>>6554

I was definitely wrong about the price, they do seem to be exactly as expensive as you said, but the movement does at least seem to act like the real one. That's still a lot for what it is, and I'd worry about it needing specialist servicing.

https://youtu.be/LJwPOBoy3V8

>>6555
That's it. The Stop2Go doesn't have a smooth sweep for the second hand, the real thing does. For half a grand, I'd expect that.

>>6553
This conflicts with my Swiss stereotypes. Why does the second hand hang at the top? Surely that means the second hand isn't actually travelling per second, and in fact is ticking every 1.017 seconds?

>>6557
The design was developed in the 1930s, if I remember correctly. The second hand is on a free-running AC motor, and is held at the top until a pulse from a central clock is received. This means that all clocks in a station are synchronised.

>>6556

>For half a grand, I'd expect that.

In fairness, to have a quartz movement with a relatively (for quartz) high beat rate of 4 per second, AND the unique jumping minute/stopping seconds feature, they're doing exceptionally well at that price. A smooth sweep quartz is incredibly power hungry, so I think they probably made it as smooth as is feasible.

Even at twice the price or far beyond, for a basic three hander automatic, you'd usually only be getting an 8 beats per second sweep, which is smoother, but not enough to fool the eye completely. The only real smooth sweep movements are electric, which obviously includes the real rail clocks, but in watch form, I can only think of the Bulova/Accutron electrostatic movement, which come at a considerable premium.

Not saying you should change your mind, by the way. Your smartwatch is definitely the right decision here.

Lots of scalpers about and kerfuffles breaking out for the launch of the Swatch and Omega collaboration, but I'm fairly certain it's not a limited issue and they'll be launching online next week.

https://www.swatch.com/en-gb/bioceramic-moonswatch.html

>>6560

Swatch have confirmed to many who have asked that it's not in any way limited edition, and they will be making them available at large soon enough.

I think this hype might make them quite hard to come by even in normal production numbers, like we saw with the "casioak" last year.

I really like them, though. If I can ever get the grey one I will. The best thing about this launch though is how many watch "enthusiasts" are thoroughly furious at the idea, saying things like Omega have devalued their "real" speedmaster, or that it's somehow bad to sell a watch at a low price, calling it a "kids watch". All they're doing is proving what we all knew, that they don't actually care about horology at all, just that they have a watch that is identifiably expensive, and now they're worried people will think they have a £200 watch on instead of a £4000 one. Fucking hilarious.

>>6561
I'm a little on the fence about getting one. I think I'd have to see one in the flesh, which I couldn't be arsed to go to London for, because my concern is that the bioceramic (plastic) crown and pushers do make it look a bit like a Happy Meal toy.

That said, I don't like the pale blue one but the child in me is tempted to own a watch with 'MISSION TO URANUS' engraved on the caseback.

>>6562
I'm really tempted. My mate has an Apollo 11 50th anniversary Moonwatch in blue, and the Mission to Neptune MoonSwatch looks just like it, albeit 40× cheaper. It's a nice watch and a good opportunity to wind him up.

>>6563
I'm leaning towards either Earth, Moon or Pluto, possibly even Saturn or Mercury, although it'll most likely be dictated by whatever is in stock.

>>6370
>I haven't worn one in almost twenty years so I don't really know where to start. My budget is up to £150 but I'd probably be happy with something half that price. I'm looking for something simple and respectable looking rather than flashy style over substance, with a preference towards a leather strap and a white face.

I've finally made my mind up and gone for a Seiko 5. Can you lads recommend a different (non-metal) strap for it?

>>6565
I'm a fan of Nato straps, but that watch probably leans a bit towards the smart side so maybe a leather strap would suit it better.
Depends how much you're willing to spend really. If you really want to do a deep dive there's all sorts of boutique brands but you're looking in the range of £50.
You can get cheap ones but the leather is naff and will crack and split in no time at all.

This is a really good place to start:
https://www.watchobsession.co.uk/collections/view-all-watch-straps

>>6566
Ignore what I said about £50 I mean thats a benchmark for a good but not overpriced one. You can easily spend £100 on a really good one. Decent ones probably start around 20-30 and any less than that isnt worth it.

>>6566>>6567
Thanks, lad. I've seen one with a Nato strap and it definitely didn't look right.

How easy is it to change the strap on a watch? It arrived this morning metal bracelet is too long so I'd need to take some links out of it if I ever wanted to wear it anyway; I bought it from Watch Nation for £95 and they only offer free adjustments when you spend over £100.

>>6568
https://www.wikihow.com/Change-a-Watch-Band
https://www.wikihow.com/Remove-Watch-Band-Links

So what do you two think of the new Moon Swatch then?

I think it's pretentious nonsense. For 200 quid, you can get a far better watch from a respected watch company, probably without a chrono function, but still better quality than a Swatch that tries to tell you it's somehow an Omega. And that's not even addressing the huge markup that flippers on eBay are asking right now while the first batch is out of stock.

https://www.swatch.com/en-gb/bioceramic-moonswatch.html

Some youtube reviewers have said that the "bioceramic" case, which is apparently 75 percent mineral and 25 percent castor oil, has a very plasticky feel to it which doesn't strike you as being ceramic at all. The strap's material and stitching is apparently also subpar for a £200 watch.

>>6576
>Some youtube reviewers have said that the "bioceramic" case, which is apparently 75 percent mineral and 25 percent castor oil, has a very plasticky feel to it which doesn't strike you as being ceramic at all.

Swatch have said all along that bioceramic is a plastic compound, so that shouldn't really be a surprise to anyone.

As mentioned earlier in the thread, I'd have to see them in the flesh because my concern is they look a bit like a Happy Meal toy.

>>6577

>Swatch have said all along that bioceramic is a plastic compound

It's probably some sort of high tech material where loads of research and engineering went into it, but if it's still plastic, at the end of the day, why not call it that. The word "ceramic" sort of elicits wrong ideas about what it really is.

So you then also have to justify asking 200 quid for what is essentially a glorified plastic watch.

You can get a stainless steel Seiko quartz chronograph for less than 200.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Seiko-Analogue-Japanese-Stainless-SSB377P1/dp/B08DKYKCFT/