- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, Maximum:1000 KB, Thumbnails: 600x600 pixels
- Currently 1165 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply [Last 50 posts][ Reply ]
239 posts omitted. Last 50 posts shown.
Expand all images.
|>>|| No. 5907
I was sure we had a wristwatch thread, but maybe the topic just came up elsewhere. A relative of mine has just offered to get me a watch for Chrimbo, with a budget of up to 120 quid-ish. I'm in over my head so I thought I'd ask for some advice. I've narrowed down my options but only slightly.
First option is a fitness watch. I bought a £20 quid Fitbit knockoff a year ago that inevitably broke and whose heart monitor was a bit shit, but is the extra Fitbit functionality worth paying four times the price? I actually quite liked the look of it, but I wouldn't feel great wearing it on a date.
Next option is just a classic Casio digital watch, but will I look like a complete tryhard arse wearing one? I have no idea what the fashion protocol is here. And I suspect that women would be rather put off by it. Which is a vain concern admittedly, but vanity has to be at least a small factor in this decision somewhere.
Lastly, and probably my preferred option, is just a classic analogue. Absolutely nothing that has gold on it, and nothing that's the size of a dinner plate and adorned with lots of pointless doodads that clutter the face. I like silver, white and black minimalist styles that don't look too feminine if that helps - pic related is my sort of style, although the face is a bit large for my liking. Does anyone know of any decent brands in the £100 range? I'm getting good at identfying the Chinese knockoffs with vaguely-European sounding names, but it's a lot to sift through. If there's a British manufacturer in this range than all the better.
Apologies for having an unhelpfully large scope, I'm under a bit of time pressure since they want to order it this weekend. Any help is greatly apppreciated.
|>>|| No. 6622
Citizen Promaster watches in the sub-£500 category, including the Nighthawks, enjoy a very good reputation in terms of technology and value for money. They're not as highly regarded as Seiko by watch enthusiasts, but they are still a good choice.
If 380 quid is your budget though, I would look for a radio controlled model on sale somewhere. I bought the CB5000-50L last November and paid around £330 for it, and that feature is really nice to have. Also, I would always go for a sapphire crystal. Not saying a mineral crystal is a bad choice as such, but sapphire just gives you that extra bit of scratch resistance.
|>>|| No. 6629
I haven't used them personally but I plan to - I know they're adverts, but both Techmoan and Just One More Watch have endorsed them in the past, which to me feels like a good sign.
|>>|| No. 6630
What's the finacial incentive to collect watches? Rarity and resale to enthusiasts? Besides fine craftmanship I can't tell what's actually valuable about them.
>Super effective on water-type!!
Puts me in mind of the sort of thing you'd find in a arcade penny pusher.
|>>|| No. 6631
I just like watches/clocks and don't intend to resell any of them. The value is personal.
|>>|| No. 6632
Pikachu is rubbish though. If they had a Charizard or Kadabra one I'd be interested.
|>>|| No. 6633
They made chronographs for the Kanto starters, but they're too garish for me. The nicest looking one is the Eevee watch, but I'm not enough of a ponce for that.
|>>|| No. 6634
If I could commission a couple of watches with a fat Lopunny on them I could bilk you pair for tens, if not dozens, of pounds.
|>>|| No. 6636
Is Etsy not full of people hamfistedly painting bespoke watch dials and hands?
|>>|| No. 6637
Watch kit came today so I could finally start playing around with my Seiko 5.
The first thing I did was remove the pin from the clasp, which flew fuck knows where due to the spring mechanism, so I had better access to the back of the case. Played around with the links to make sure I could adjust them if need be before putting them back on and removing the metal bracelet; only bent one pin and blunted the fork end of the spring bar tool along the way. At least putting on the new strap was a piece of piss.
|>>|| No. 6638
Got an email from Dan Henry to say their latest watch, the 1945, will be launching 5pm on Thursday.
|>>|| No. 6640
They're an American brand, so most of their audience will be unfamiliar with 24 hour clocks.
|>>|| No. 6641
The more I watch videos on youtube by watch dealers and self-proclaimed experts and aficionados, the more I wonder what the real appeal of mechanical watches is to those who prefer them over quartz.
To me, it just seems almost unreasonable to potentially spend loads more money on a watch technology that even at the best of times will be off by two minutes a month. I do understand the fascination of having a fully mechanical timepiece, but why go through the trouble of buying a relatively inaccurate technology that also needs somewhat frequent servicing to maintain even that limited accuracy, when you can have a much more worry free, less expensive and more accurate quartz watch.
I'm absolutely loving my radio-controlled Citizen Promaster quartz watch which I bought last November. It's pin-point accuracy was a huge selling point to me and it still is, and I couldn't imagine trading it in for a mechanical watch.
|>>|| No. 6642
I sort of get it, and sort of don't. I really, really like the intricacies of a tiny clockwork machine, and I do understand the appeal of owning something fully mechanical. If you're into 'watches' as a concept, then logically you'd want to own the heritage too.
But on the other hand, quartz is just as much a part of watch history. We're at the stage still where quartz is seen by 'horologists' as an evil, corporate invention that ruined the magic of watches, but actually it's a fantastic, ingenious technology that massively improved the accuracy and affordability of watches, and more than likely quartz is the only reason watches survived the digital age at all. I think in 10 to 15 years, 90s quartz will but just as revered.
Not to mention that although quartz is seen as this cheap, mass produced thing, it's not like the Seiko NH35 or the ETA 2824 (or Sellita SW200) isn't the heartbeat of 80% of the watches that enthusiasts bleat about anyway - any 'hand made' movement is expensive enough to be entirely out of reach to almost anyone anyway.
For me, I like quartz/radio controlled for work when I'm actually doing the part of my job that requires relatively precise timing, but I will never not enjoy staring at the tick of my Oris Aquis outside of work. But I think Oris is about as expensive as I'd ever go now. It's still a ludicrous price for a watch, but £700 for it second hand is very reasonable for a swiss diver in this mental hobby.
|>>|| No. 6643
Same reason people still listen to vinyl records or drive classic cars I'd imagine.
There's an intangible pleasure that goes beyond the immediate functional purpose and objective qualities of the thing itself, which is often even more important, when you really think about it, than the strictly rational reasons for owning a thing or performing an activity. We are not rational creatures, we are much more emotionally and symbolically driven than we like to think.
Zizek calls it "surplus enjoyment", I seem to recall.
|>>|| No. 6644
I think that goes for any hobby. There'll always be those who take it too far or disappear up their own arseholes.
I like automatic watches because I like the way you can watch the movement spin around through the back.
|>>|| No. 6645
>Same reason people still listen to vinyl records or drive classic cars I'd imagine.
Quartzlad again here. While I was a complete convert to MP3s as soon as Napster came along and never looked back, classic cars are different from watches to me. Because even a 60 year old car can reliably get you from A to B. It may rattle and squeak a little more than your Tesla or late-model VW Golf, but basic fitness for use isn't limited by the fact that a 1960s car had a carburettor and drum brakes.
Whereas a mechanical watch has its fitness for use at least somewhat limited by the fact that it's only moderately inaccurate. Even the most basic Swatch watches I've owned were usually off by no more than 15 seconds per month, and some mechanical watches costing considerable money can almost manage that in a day. Which essentially means that it won't even show midnight accurately on the same day that you've last set it.
>For me, I like quartz/radio controlled for work when I'm actually doing the part of my job that requires relatively precise timing
I was at my orthopedist's the other day and I noticed that he had an expensive looking mechanical watch on his wrist. I was unable to make out the brand and was afraid to ask because he seemed in kind of a hurry while he was seeing me. But it struck me as a bit noteworthy that somebody heading a visibly very busy doctor's office didn't seem to see the need to have a watch that allowed him to keep precise time.
|>>|| No. 6646
How often, really, do you need to know the precise time to the second? As much as it's frustrating because there is a precisely correct time, the world simply doesn't work that way.
|>>|| No. 6647
He's got to rationalise his radio-controlled Citizen Promaster quartz watch somehow.
|>>|| No. 6649
To be clear, I work in aviation. I don't 'need' my watch to be any more accurate than a couple of minutes either way in reality, because my planes have ACARS and GPS so will always report accurate time themselves. By having an atomic controlled watch, I can save the occasional hassle of having to change a report slightly when the planes time disagrees with me or one of my dispatchers or controllers.
I think anyone who actually needs millisecond accuracy already has a far more reliable timing system, and then maybe a casio as backup. Diving I suppose is the most obvious example, who on earth is using their Submariner for compression timings when dive computers exist?
|>>|| No. 6650
>who on earth is using their Submariner for compression timings when dive computers exist?
There was a time when your life near enough depended on a reliable dive watch during decompression, but those days are clearly behind us. And Rolex as such from its beginnings actually had a strong toolwatch tradition.
I read an article a while ago which argued that the need for a wristwatch as such has never been as small as today with all the many other ways of reliable time telling that are all around us all the time, but that at the same time, the demand for well-made watches has never been as high as nowadays.
It was probably vital to have a good timepiece on your wrist in a trench in WWII or on board a bomber, or indeed as a diver and probably in a whole host of other professions, but even the lowliest office worker today has a system time in the bottom right corner of their computer screen. Even supermarket tills show the time on their screens.
In that respect, maybe wristwatches are an obsolete piece of technology altogether, quartz and mechanical alike. But a handsome looking watch to me is still a statement.
|>>|| No. 6651
>It was probably vital to have a good timepiece on your wrist in a trench in WWII or on board a bomber
Lots of attacks and manoeuvres went awry precisely because of poor timekeeping. Officers would have a reliable watch, but what was vital is that they synchronised them with each other, and with operations on as large a scale as those, they often didn't get chance or didn't bother.
By WW2 radios were more common so it wasn't as big of a problem, but there were cases in WW1 where battalions started their attacks as much as ten minutes out of sync, which you can imagine the consequences of. Battles in those days were planned to a timetable, because there was no way of keeping in contact with command once the fighting had kicked off. You start charging over the top under the assumption your artillery has already moved forward, or that the other lot supporting your flanks are already on their way to back you up, except your watch was five minutes early.
|>>|| No. 6652
I think a lot of people, well, men, forget or refuse to acknowledge that a watch is jewellery. It's got a bit of functionality, a bit of mechanical intrigue built in, because plenty of men would reject entirely a wrist adornment that does nothing but just look nice. But a watch ticks and tells the time, so it's not frivolous - it's a tool! How much we choose to pay for that tool is where the rabbit hole starts, but I feel like that's the basic idea, it's why watch marketing is nearly always what environment the watch is supposed to be built for - diving watches, pilots watches, the Rolex Explorer II is for cave exploring - thats the idea they're selling us. Tools for different applications.
|>>|| No. 6653
It's about selling a lifestyle. I'm willing to bet that very few people who spend considerable money on a dive watch will actually ever use it for its intended purpose. It's probably the same with pilot or flieger watches. I know I'm not a pilot, and never will be, but I like the idea that my Promaster was conceived as a pilot watch, and that Promasters actually enjoy some amount of recognition in the aviation world, at least in the sub-£500 category. The idea is that you've got a piece of kit that's associated with adventure. With something that is more than your humdrum day-to-day life. And even if it's "just" a dress watch, that, too, can sell a lifestyle.
A bit like loads of people who drive a 4x4 but will probably never actually take it offroading. It's about pretending to yourself that you're partaking in some sort of rugged, adventurous lifestyle, when you're really anything but, and your 4x4 is really just a glorified people carrier in daily life.
|>>|| No. 6654
Are you really sure you're not trying to justify your purchase? You sound like you're trying to convince yourself more than the rest of us.
|>>|| No. 6655
Rolex still make the Milgauss. Even back in the day, there were perhaps a few dozen people in the world who needed a watch that could withstand high magnetic fields. Still, there's something delightful about wearing a piece of precision engineering that was specifically made for a handful of scientists and engineers who worked on particle accelerators or hydroelectric generators in the days before quartz.
Manufactured objects have functional and aesthetic value, but they also have narrative value. There is a story behind their creation that says something about the people who created it and the world it was created into.
The Toyota GR Yaris is a very fast hatchback, but there are lots of very fast hatchbacks in the world. The GR Yaris is a homologation special, a production car made for the sole purpose of subverting the rules of motorsport. You say we need to base our competition car on an ordinary production car? Fine, we'll build a production car that was designed from the ground up to be a good base for a competition car, even if we lose money on every unit.
That's a totally absurd reason for something to exist, but it's also profoundly meaningful. You can drive to the shops in something that speaks to the fundamental oddness of human nature. A homologation special is a completely pointless waste of effort and ingenuity, but so is a song or a novel or a painting.
|>>|| No. 6656
Lad. 330 quid was not a financially crippling purchase to me that I need to go around justifying to random people on .gs.
Homologation cars have been hit and miss in the past. The Renault 5 Turbo was an absolute beast of a car, as were the Peugeot 205 T16 and the Audi S1 Sport Quattro. But at times, homologations were less exciting cars, such as the Audi Quattro Competition, which was a homologation of Audi's 1994 STW championship entry. It had a two-litre, 140-hp 16V engine. A good friend in the Netherlands had one a few years ago, and it was very sluggish at lower revs with the permanent all-wheel drive and really only came into its own between 3500 and 5000 rpm, which meant that for daily driving, you were almost better off getting a bog standard Audi 80 2.0E which the Quattro Competition was based on.
|>>|| No. 6657
>Lad. 330 quid was not a financially crippling purchase to me that I need to go around justifying to random people on .gs.
Yet here we are. Did someone say your Nighthawk looks like it came out of a Kinder egg and it hurt your feelings?
|>>|| No. 6658
My last watch was a Casio F-91W. I've gone through at least three of them. Real good value for money. I got a Tissot Sea Touch for my 18th many moons ago, but it needs a battery change and a new strap (original strap was too big for my weedy wrists so had to be altered, but now my current grown man wrist is too beefy). I imagine the cost of new battery and new strap would be much higher than using a series of Casios.
|>>|| No. 6660
It's not a Nighthawk. Not that it's probably of any relevance to you. Nighthawks, while also part of the Promaster Sky range, all have black or dark grey dials, and often some additional features that are geared to aviation, like dual time zone displays. My dial is blue.
|>>|| No. 6662
The Blue Angels ones generally also have black dials. They're pretty nifty watches, but they've just got too much going on on their dials. I wanted a watch with instant split-second legibility, and the Nighthawks and Blue Angels dials are usually just too busy for that. My CB5000-50L also has a lot going on, but it's still very legible.
|>>|| No. 6663
I'm not sure I've ever seen a pilot actually wear a pilots watch. There's a great many functions on them that just don't make that much sense for a commercial pilot, certainly not short and mid haul ones like I work with.
World time? Who cares, you're on the ground for an hour, and the entire aviation industry uses UTC time. Chronograph, countdown/count up functions? If between your flight instrument panels, your kneeboard (aka iPad) your phone, and so on, you can't find a working timer, then you have bigger problems. Slide rule? If a modern airliner pilot is in a situation in which they need a slide rule, the microscopic one on their wrist will likely be unsuitable for the task. And if I ever saw a pilot on the ground trying to earnestly calculate their specific fuel weight with their watch, I'd get them sectioned.
All this to say that I like this style of pilots watches, but I suspect they're only called pilots watches because that sounds cool to the majority of people who do not realise that pilots are deeply uncool.
|>>|| No. 6664
A lot of GA pilots have been buying Garmin D2s, but that's more of a smartwatch that happens to be a backup navigation system.
A pilot's watch might have been genuinely useful item back in the 60s, but it's pretty much just wrist bling now.
|>>|| No. 6665
>A pilot's watch might have been genuinely useful item back in the 60s, but it's pretty much just wrist bling now.
It's hard to think of any profession where a toolwatch designed for that profession is still essential nowadays.
That said, the Breitling Navitimer is still touted as being AOPA certified.
|>>|| No. 6666
I don't think any watch could be considered essential to a job now, let alone one designed for a specific profession.
I suppose if you want to get technical, the wristwatch as we know it (I'm conspicuously ignoring the decades of bracelet watches preceding this) was designed for soldiers to wear to war, and a modern soldier still needs a watch to do their job?
Tudor would probably argue that their Pelagos FXD is actually, currently used by the Marine Nationale for their very specific underwater navigation exercises. But in reality, all these divers are doing is timing their swims - so any waterproof watch with a bit of lume and a count up bezel (or, indeed, a casio with a stopwatch function) could do that.
Incidentally the FXD is a great example of what we're talking about here - that watch appeals to me because I love the idea of a watch that's built for a specific purpose. Fixed bars, a specialised bezel, the phrase "built to the specifications of the marine nationale", I won't pretend I'm not enamoured by that sort of stuff, even though I know very well it's all marketing. If I actually DID do tethered partner, shallow dive combat navigation, I'd probably actually want to wear a G-Shock, but the idea of doing a cool man job with the cool man watch, speaks to me in ways I can't quite articulate. Again, I know I'm being marketed at, but I can't help it sometimes.
Anyways, the Pelagos FXD is blue, so I don't want it.
|>>|| No. 6667
>I suppose if you want to get technical, the wristwatch as we know it (I'm conspicuously ignoring the decades of bracelet watches preceding this) was designed for soldiers to wear to war, and a modern soldier still needs a watch to do their job?
Apparently, military watches are still a thing. Probably with good reason, because all your electronic combat equipment could fail or be damaged in combat, including electronic helmets that some troops wear nowadays, but for a military-spec wrist watch to fail, you'd probably have to have your arm shot off, in which case you'll have far bigger problems than being late for an ambush.
|>>|| No. 6669
Bought the cheapest watch I could find to stick on me bike. Not bad at all for £4.76. I might even start wearing it if I develop a penchant for jewellery.
|>>|| No. 6670
Are you sticking it on your wrist as you ride the bike? Or on the bike itself?
|>>|| No. 6672
Christopher Ward are starting to stock older models with the newer logo.
|>>|| No. 6673
200 metres water resistance sounds like a bold claim for a watch that was less than five quid. Then again, for that kind of money, who cares.
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]