Advertisement
Where is Report Post on mobile? We've made a slight change, see here
Have your say on the future of the 'Save Draft' feature in this poll
MODs please see this information notice in the mod's forum. Thanks!
How to add spoiler tags, edit posts, add images etc. How to - a user's guide to the new version of Boards

SOTC(state of the collection) thread.

1568101114

Comments



  • 893bet wrote: »
    Still think that the Milgauss dont fit but it is a fun Rolex not doubt.........Stick a VC overseas in there though............

    I can see this.....going to just wear what comes to hand first next few months and see whats not getting worn and take it from there. Tapped out this year on the watch spends unfortunately.




  • 893bet wrote: »
    It is an extremely refined 4 piece collection. Real heavy hitter watches. I am not into chrono's but that AP keeps looking at me!



    Still think that the Milgauss dont fit

    I don't agree. If I was to reduce it 3, the Daytona would be out. Has been replaced by a superior chrono now. But I suppose it is the sportiest now. I think I would replace it with a diver. James Cameron maybe :D




  • unkel wrote: »
    I don't agree. If I was to reduce it 3, the Daytona would be out. Has been replaced by a superior chrono now. But I suppose it is the sportiest now. I think I would replace it with a diver. James Cameron maybe :D

    Interesting, the Daytona is a column wheel chrono so unless you go turbillion you dont get a technically better one, unless you go split seconds or zenith defy type. I would see the Daytona as "peek Rolex" so to abandon it is to abandon all Rolex. Might put it on a Rubber B strap to see whats thats like? James Cameron is a bit big and top heavy for me and going to try move away from stainless if at all possible.




  • unkel wrote: »
    I don't agree. If I was to reduce it 3, the Daytona would be out. Has been replaced by a superior chrono now. But I suppose it is the sportiest now. I think I would replace it with a diver. James Cameron maybe :D

    I would agree if it was a stainless Daytona! But it’s a solid gold Daytona that is pretty much top of the Rolex foodchain so time speak.




  • Solid white gold blue sub new model then? Now that's a watch that I won't even call a grail watch as I will never be able to afford to own one. And the same goes for 99.9% of watch people I'd say.


  • Advertisement


  • Fitz II wrote: »
    Interesting, the Daytona is a column wheel chrono so unless you go turbillion you dont get a technically better one, unless you go split seconds or zenith defy type.
    Flyback would be another. Though unless you're going really cheap I'd have thought column wheel was a given these days? Though in fairness Fitz I wouldn't know as tbh I'd only be vaguely aware of the current lineups.
    I would see the Daytona as "peek Rolex" so to abandon it is to abandon all Rolex.
    It's mad how things change. Not that long ago Daytonas were barely on the radar. They weren't popular when they came out for a few reasons; Rolex had never been known for chronos and they were a bought in movement(Zenith IIRC?). It's why they're relatively rare in the vintage world. Few bought them. If I had a time machine I'd nip back to the 80's(even into the 90's) when you could barely give them away. :eek: Ker...ching! Then again with a time machine... :D
    going to try move away from stainless if at all possible.
    Good idea in my humble. If I were in the new market at higher price points I'd generally be avoiding the SS, as it's a fashion thing* which will pass and go for the actually precious metals; gold, white gold, platinum. Especially on the man jewellery front. Precious metals never go out of fashion in the long term.




    *some of that initially sprang from the vintage collectors market. In The Old Days(tm) a man's "good watch" was almost always gold(or plated) and in the higher end stuff the vast majority were made from precious metals. I mean if you're forking out what was a years wages for most you'd want to both see the money on the wrist and to telegraph that. The SS examples were the real rarities. You see this when some Patek reference XYZ1234 from the 50's comes up in steel and goes for mad money because so few, sometimes one or two were ordered, whereas gold examples could be quite "common". And since when did the term "reference" kick off? Hodinkee I suspect. Can't recall seeing it much at all before them. Makes things sound more fancy I suppose, but I digress.... :o

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.





  • 893bet wrote: »
    I am not into chrono's but that AP keeps looking at me!
    I only recently copped on why I never took to the Speedie I had years ago, I don't dig three register chronographs, but that AP is a bloody beauty. I know a chap with one and the quality "value" in the hand is very evident. Sure there's always going to be a luxury veblen good value, but you can see where your money is going in a way not nearly so evident in quite the number of other luxury watches out there.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.





  • im no expert but there's also the 'cam' operated speedmaster movements? non 321 - 861, 1861 etc? not sure if there's much difference accuracy wise... what i read was omega moved to cam operated chrono's as they were more durable and lasted longer with less issues... the column wheel ones are much smoother to operate? i wouldnt say my one is awful i don't think i need it to be smooth like the acceleration in a car
    Wibbs wrote: »
    Flyback would be another. Though unless you're going really cheap I'd have thought column wheel was a given these days? Though in fairness Fitz I wouldn't know as tbh I'd only be vaguely aware of the current lineups.


    It's mad how things change. Not that long ago Daytonas were barely on the radar. They weren't popular when they came out for a few reasons; Rolex had never been known for chronos and they were a bought in movement(Zenith IIRC?). It's why they're relatively rare in the vintage world. Few bought them. If I had a time machine I'd nip back to the 80's(even into the 90's) when you could barely give them away. :eek: Ker...ching! Then again with a time machine... :D

    Good idea in my humble. If I were in the new market at higher price points I'd generally be avoiding the SS, as it's a fashion thing* which will pass and go for the actually precious metals; gold, white gold, platinum. Especially on the man jewellery front. Precious metals never go out of fashion in the long term.




    *some of that initially sprang from the vintage collectors market. In The Old Days(tm) a man's "good watch" was almost always gold(or plated) and in the higher end stuff the vast majority were made from precious metals. I mean if you're forking out what was a years wages for most you'd want to both see the money on the wrist and to telegraph that. The SS examples were the real rarities. You see this when some Patek reference XYZ1234 from the 50's comes up in steel and goes for mad money because so few, sometimes one or two were ordered, whereas gold examples could be quite "common". And since when did the term "reference" kick off? Hodinkee I suspect. Can't recall seeing it much at all before them. Makes things sound more fancy I suppose, but I digress.... :o




  • Did someone mention column wheel chronos?

    6034073




  • Did someone mention column wheel chronos?
    Tidy up

    No expert here but the 4130 in the 116509 is a vertical clutch and does flyback, with smooth start and restart. It can be run continuously without additional wear. I get the impression that it hits most of the high points for chrono tech???

    The chrono in the moon watch is a good one, very nice to actuate, the valjoux based ones on the reduceded are not so great. Speedmasters are not for taking into water, I learned that the hard way.

    Daytona is nice to wear, good size and case shape, its complex, 100m water resistant. Would be hard find a more all round watch (assuming you like the design of the daytona).

    If you ever get the time machine going let me know Wibbs, I would buy up zenith daytonas all round me. I remember one on adverts for 9k in stainless about 3 years ago so you dont have to go that far back. Unpopular rolex tend to become collectable in time...thats why I would be loath to ditch the milgauss, its owes me very little.

    I feel that the AP is "peek stainless" just to streach the phrase. OK a Natullus is more watch, and I do have a graw for them. Just my budget doesnt go there nor do I see any value there.


  • Advertisement


  • Wibbs wrote: »
    I only recently copped on why I never took to the Speedie I had years ago, I don't dig three register chronographs, but that AP is a bloody beauty. I know a chap with one and the quality "value" in the hand is very evident. Sure there's always going to be a luxury veblen good value, but you can see where your money is going in a way not nearly so evident in quite the number of other luxury watches out there.

    Spot on there Wibbs, same as. I’ve had 2 Speedie and I felt too much going on.

    That’s why I am looking at the IWC Spitfire Chrono the 3rd dial seems very discrete




  • what i read was omega moved to cam operated chrono's as they were more durable and lasted longer with less issues...
    More like cheaper to make too. Cam chronos are or certainly were far cheaper to make and in the vintage world of cheap chronographs that's what you tend to find.
    Did someone mention column wheel chronos?
    Indeed. The tech is a century old and is straightforward to build these days with all those decades of experience and modern tooling. Of course the Swiss marketing machine would have us believe it's the work of enchanted elves in hidden valleys carving raw metal by hand instead of the high turnover industrial process it is and has to be to supply the market. Now what makes the difference are materials and especially finishing and you can feel that in the operation of them alright, but the tech itself is "old" and well practised.
    Fitz II wrote: »
    No expert here but the 4130 in the 116509 is a vertical clutch and does flyback, with smooth start and restart. It can be run continuously without additional wear. I get the impression that it hits most of the high points for chrono tech???
    Pretty much yeah. IIRC it was Seiko who rolled out the vertical clutch setup in their automatic chronos back in the late 60's.
    If you ever get the time machine going let me know Wibbs, I would buy up zenith daytonas all round me. I remember one on adverts for 9k in stainless about 3 years ago so you dont have to go that far back.
    True. The current madness is recent enough.
    Unpopular rolex tend to become collectable in time...
    Some do alright. Though Cellinis used to sell very well and the used and vintage market was very buoyant.
    thats why I would be loath to ditch the milgauss, its owes me very little.
    +1 a Very nice watch indeed.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.





  • Fitz II wrote: »
    ...Speedmasters are not for taking into water, I learned that the hard way.

    All this Speedy talk got me to take off the Starlight for a while and put my Speedy back on :pac:

    Q3lEIfnl.jpg

    3ATM can allow swimming too :D

    Though modern speedies moonwatch are 5ATM so even better piece of mind. I do swim with my 3ATM one (but it is pressure tested as you can see).
    Spot on there Wibbs, same as. I’ve had 2 Speedie and I felt too much going on.

    If you don't like the unbalancing from the 3 registers you can always go for the quad-compax layout (as seen above) :D

    A moonphase on a speedy is quite apt (despite it being a sports chrono) I think (I got it for the date feature rather than moonphase though).

    Here's a proper photo of it:

    omega-speedmaster-35752000-l.png




  • I like that!!!
    The idea of a speedy with a moon phase/date really appeals to me.
    I don't know why, but I'd much rather the moon/date at 6 rather than 12.

    Something like this maybe.
    205b6c54-69a0-4114-9555-8f2dfe235f07.png.800x800_q85_background.png




  • but thirdfox, I dare you press a chrono pusher in the pool :) They are not screw down and easy to knock off and depress when swimming. I would class a speedy as as hand washing proof no matter the 5atm rating.




  • Should a Speedie not have an Earth-Phase?




  • Fitz II wrote: »
    but thirdfox, I dare you press a chrono pusher in the pool :) They are not screw down and easy to knock off and depress when swimming. I would class a speedy as as hand washing proof no matter the 5atm rating.

    I find the chrono pushers pretty hard to depress (accidentally), as in my wrist bending backwards definitely won't cause them to depress and my right hand generally is nowhere near my left when swimming. Mileage varies for everyone but for me, I'm generally confident that I won't push a pusher by accident (don't jinx me now!)

    And yes - that 3ATM water resistance won't be any good if you push the pushers underwater - but the same can be said for the Seamaster chronos too which also don't have screw down pushers. People do swim and dive with those and also avoid pushing them underwater so I apply the same principle to the Speedy.
    Birneybau wrote: »
    Should a Speedie not have an Earth-Phase?

    Isn't that a day/night indicator? :pac: - ironically probably more useful than a moonphase (for those of us who aren't werewolves) but somehow a moonphase just seems classier than the sun/moon dials :D




  • Thirdfox wrote: »
    All this Speedy talk got me to take off the Starlight for a while and put my Speedy back on :pac:

    3ATM can allow swimming too :D

    Though modern speedies moonwatch are 5ATM so even better piece of mind. I do swim with my 3ATM one (but it is pressure tested as you can see).



    If you don't like the unbalancing from the 3 registers you can always go for the quad-compax layout (as seen above) :D

    A moonphase on a speedy is quite apt (despite it being a sports chrono) I think (I got it for the date feature rather than moonphase though).

    Here's a proper photo of it:

    I had thought about a GSotM




  • Here is my SOTC at the moment. I had sold off a good few watches in the last 6 months, but the empty spaces in my watch box have slowly filled up again without me really noticing it happen!

    YMTFQ9Hl.jpg

    The watches are:
    Tisell 9015
    Seiko Cocktail Time
    Seiko Blumo
    Casio Edifice
    Seiko Samurai
    Bobo Bird (gift from my in-laws)
    Seiko SNK805K2
    G-Shock DW-5600BBN-1ER
    Timex Easy Reader
    Steinhart 39 GMT premium 500
    Casio MDV106-1A
    Vostok Amphibia


    They all get worn, but some more so than others. I think there is space there for at least one luxury watch in the future (thinking a Milgauss at the moment, but that changes like the weather!); but I just bought a house at the start of the summer so I need to build up funds and justify it to myself!




  • My current Longines corner of the stable: :)

    526747.jpg

    From left; 1988, 1927, 1952, 1916, 1912, 1972, 1985.

    Missing are my 71 UltraQuartz and a 1916 half hunter Trench watch.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Advertisement


  • Very nice Wibbs, tell us more about that 1972 diver. When do you think they reached their peak? I know they won lots of prizes for accuracy in the 50s-60s but were the early 70s their best designs overall?

    If the seat's wet, sit on yer hat, a cool head is better than a wet ar5e.





  • How “original” are the 100 plus year old ones?




  • blue5000 wrote: »
    Very nice Wibbs, tell us more about that 1972 diver.
    That's an Ultronic(tuning fork, very smooooth seconds hand) diver only produced in 1972(Olympics year). Reference 8484 in Hodinkee speak :D

    269582-7e46b2419becb42bbb0af3eec4a5b5e5.jpg

    They usually come with an orange bezel, the green is much less commonly found. Very nicely built watch and expensive at the time. To give an idea, a Rolex no date sub was 300 dollars, a Speedie around 200, these were 500. A chap on TZUK with a large collection of very nice vintage divers of the period reckoned it's just as good quality, if not better than the Rollie of the time. I can say the dial and hand finishing is superior having compared the two myself. It's also a better design for a diver. The standout hands are the minutes and seconds, the ones that count. Low light visibility as you dive deeper is also better as are the colour choices. Florescent orange(and green) stays legible way down, as does white against a black background and the chrome never loses its glister. And lots of tritium. Even today after the trit has long lost any glow it's a very easy watch to read in low light. However the Rolex bracelet was better, the bezel clicks more positive and robust and the screwdown crown is far superior as the Longines relies on the newness of the rubber seals. Though neither were as good as a Doxa and a couple of others like Spirotechnic(who copied and improved on the Blancpain 50 fathoms design) at the time. Though for me the best of the best of the early divers is the above Blancpain 50 fathoms. It was the one that started everything and who everyone copied.
    When do you think they reached their peak? I know they won lots of prizes for accuracy in the 50s-60s but were the early 70s their best designs overall?
    Hard to say B, they had a few peaks over the century.

    Their current selling point at least in western markets is raiding their vintage back catalogue and firing out homages, usually much larger than originals. Funny enough in Asian markets they're more about their current designs. They're very popular among women in those markets as it happens. EG in China they sell the same percentage of women's watches as men's.

    Their 20's and 30's pilots watches, weems etc were a definite peak and a load of of the famous names wore them, folks like Lindbergh and Earhart. They also developed the first GMT in the early 30's. Then their chronographs of the same time(though they had chrono wristwatches in 1914). Their 30ZN is a real classic and blows the doors off pretty much all of the competition at the time and for a good while after(first flyback too). They've a fair history in military watches in WW2 and before. Though unlike Rolex, who were very admirably adamant from early on to not supply the Axis powers* and they didn't. All the other Swiss big names fed both sides, only reducing that to Germany after the Germans ran out of hard currency. Rolex were the only ones to take a stance and from the get go and it says much and well about the founder and his company that they did.

    In the chronometer trials Longines were winning from early on; 20/30/40/50's. They won more of the same in one year than Rolex won in the entire history of the trials, Omega were neck and neck. Zenith and Movado were big winners too. Oddly they rarely put customer models through for accreditation, though they could have, so they're very rare. Take that diver above. It used the same movement a the Omega f300's and they were all certified(and it would beat the mechanical criteria without breaking sweat, so a sure thing). It seems Longines didn't think it mattered so much from a marketing point of view. A bit silly IMHO, given they had set their rep on "The world's most honoured watch" early on.

    One thing I always liked about them was their movements. In Longines movements there were no low end/mid range/high end movements or finishes. They're 90% all the same frosted gilt and number of jewels.
    893bet wrote: »
    How “original” are the 100 plus year old ones?
    The round Trench watch on the left is - save for the lume - 100% original 893b. A matching numbers car. :D The movement is pristine. It looks like it was put away not so long after WW1. The watchmaker marks I can make out are mostly in the 80's(I got it in the 90's). Hence it runs like a train. About the most consistently "accurate" mechanical watch I have. In that if I wore it day in day out for a year I'd only be bothered to set the time when summer and winter times change. When new these level of watches were made and guaranteed to be accurate to a few seconds a day. I have a 30's Zenith that has a WW1 design movement in it that after some incredible servicing and balance work(a rare skill these days) was well within COSC chronometer spec. Like consistently fast(IIRC) 10 seconds a week on the wrist.

    The 1912 had a more storied history. Originally sold in Milan, it had been in the wars. When I got it it had a wrong and later(20's) dial and some modern cathedral hands. Over the years keeping a look out I sourced a dial and handset from 1914 that were correct. Note the Longines around the subdial, to leave room at the top for the retailer's name as was very much a thing at the time. In the UK Longines sent out a missive to UK retailers telling them they'd not put their names on the dial. Rolex and Hans Wildorf was the one who changed that in the UK by insisting on having the company name on the dial(not just Rolex but all their other brands at the time). My 1916 is very rare for a UK watch in that it did have Longines in the enamel(and the date letter on the dial back is correct). Many of the ebay Trench watches with Rolex and Omega and Longines are later additions, often the ink is still wet... Though they did have names in some of Europe and the Americas 90% of those from the UK are dubious(most have the wrong hands and crowns too). The movement is original and again all numbers match.

    Interestingly and further on the stuff above about the consistency of Longines finshes, it has a Geneva striped movement, not gilt. Gilt was much more an English thing and a large market for the Swiss as movement suppliers and full watches so gilt seems to have stuck after WW1.


    Jesus, that was a long one, as the actress said to the bishop. :o:D


    *save for in a very roundabout and it seems unofficial way with the original Panerai divers

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.





  • Fitz II wrote: »

    Screenshot-2020-09-14-182604.png

    That is a really stunning watch.




  • Terrible photo, but 4 of my favourites. Not pictured is my Breitling Airwolf (needs a new battery) - that and the Seiko Chrono have sentimental value, so will never be sold.

    50365236421_ba02b3ce69_b.jpg

    Rolex 114060, Seiko SNAC05, PAM 111, GS SBGN009




  • Very nice. The Panerais are growing on me. Very masculine watch and ever so perfectly matched with a good leather strap. Which is a bit weird for a watch meant to be used in the water :)

    The no date sub doesn't look like it's the maxi case. Is it the pre-ceramic version 14060(M)?




  • unkel wrote: »
    Very nice. The Panerais are growing on me. Very masculine watch and ever so perfectly matched with a good leather strap. Which is a bit weird for a watch meant to be used in the water :)

    They took a long time to grow on me, but I do like it a lot now. If you are looking, be sure to get one with a sandwich dial.
    unkel wrote: »
    The no date sub doesn't look like it's the maxi case. Is it the pre-ceramic version 14060(M)?

    It's the ceramic model, just sitting at a funny angle in the box.

    43295476235_8977c122ca_z.jpg




  • Ah yeah that pic shows it's maxi alright

    Richard Hammond got one recently and so did Andy Kirby. Not sure if either got date or no date. But you probably know of at least one of those fellas :D




  • @Eoin I don't say this very often, but that is a nice Rolex.

    Well wear.


  • Advertisement


  • I think this may be my 1st post in here as a "collection"
    But anyway here goes, my current collection minus the Arnie and my Sinn U2 that's off getting a little bit of work done :)

    MVIMG-20201006-133017.jpg


Advertisement