Who Watches the Watchmen (Our Chit Chat Thread)

Thirdfox

Fitz II wrote: »

I would be reluctant to bring a watch I cared about the condition of to the beech, not the water but the sand and rocks...too many dinging opportunities. Never any issue swimming in a pool or shower or what not, but not the beech..

What about oak? Walnut might be a tough one to crack too :P

For watches with mineral crystals I'd be more concerned about (sandy) beaches too - the silica/quartz in sand will often be harder than the mineral crystal and *could* lead to scratches.

On the other hand I'm the type of person who thinks that tool watches having tool marks on them from being used gives them character - wouldn't necessarily want that on my dress watches to be fair.

One thing after going for a dip in salt water is to make sure you do give it a rinse under tap water - salt water can wear away at 316 (or even 904 :P ) steel too... less concerning if using titanium.

If you're less worried about water on your watches it also makes them a lot easier to keep clean - some fairy liquid and a toothbrush and some warm water scrubbing around your watch keeps it looking sparkling fresh too (and gets rid of dead skin and other gunk that attaches to your watch over time).

Birneybau

After Donald Trump and his gold f'ing toilet, an embarrassing article about Joe Biden's choice of watches. Let's just say Fitz of this parish has nothing to worry about.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/22/fashion/mens-style/rolex-biden.html#click=https://t.co/ysKzblk0r6

unkel

Fitz II wrote: »

Other issue is if a spring bar decides to let go in the Sea a good chance that watch is gone

That used to worry me a bit, but now with the expensive watch all risks insured, I would be covered if that happened

And tbh the one thing I look forward to the most in this dreadful extended lock down period during a cold January, is for a bit of spring to come with a bit of sun and lock down gone so I can have an invigorating swim in the sea. Maybe early April.

And I never worried about a watch and sand / rocks. So it will get a few scratches on the bracelet or even a ding in the case. So what.

Fitz II

Thirdfox wrote: »

On the other hand I'm the type of person who thinks that tool watches having tool marks on them from being used gives them character - wouldn't necessarily want that on my dress watches to be fair.

There is a valid case to be made that all watches are dress watches these days. This concept of a "Tool" watch does niggle at me quite a bit. The concept of a tool would go hand in hand with the idea there is a job to be done that requires the tool. A dive automatic dive watch no matter how well specced is only a backup for a dive computer. An awful lot of dive watches are brought diving for validation rather than function

I use a lot of tools in my work, a lot of them cost many times more than my most expensive watch. I spend an inordinate amount of time ensuring that they stay pristine, functional, clean and calibrated. Mostly this involves using them when necessary for the task they are designed for, and never exposing them to unnecessary wear and tear.

I dont believe in the notion of an quality automatic watch as tools. If you have need of telling the time on the beach, that what gshocks are for. If the job is posing on the beach then maybe a Rolex is the right tool (or the tool has the right watch?), or working on that perfect IG photo with the sea in perfect bokeh but I dont see the point of that but a lot of collectors are not comfortable & confident with calling their watches jewellery. Nobody cares about my watches but me, and if I care I dont expose them to risk and I care when they are damaged.

unkel wrote: »

That used to worry me a bit, but now with the expensive watch all risks insured, I would be covered if that happened

And tbh the one thing I look forward to the most in this dreadful extended lock down period during a cold January, is for a bit of spring to come with a bit of sun and lock down gone so I can have an invigorating swim in the sea. Maybe early April.

And I never worried about a watch and sand / rocks. So it will get a few scratches on the bracelet or even a ding in the case. So what.

You have a lot of faith in your insurance policy, it reminds me of Doug DeMuros "bumper to bumper" warranty.

Going for a swim is a noble pursuit indeed without doubt. If you lost your watch would you be able to get another for the pay-out? Is the hassle of claiming worth looking at the time while the seawater chills your nads? Any increase in value of the watch is not covered, insurers often wont pay over RRP even if the watch is insured for more and any excess is your responsibility. Most policies have a clause of personal responsibility (you are Zurich they state in the T&C "You will take all reasonable steps to protect the property and prevent accidents" and I know people who have been denied playouts under this clause.). When I put my cars around Mondello insurance is void, even though thats what they are designed to do. Its also very hard prove to the insurance that the item is lost at sea.

Poor condition especially damage to the case will devalue the watch. More than loosing the papers or box. Ding on the case needs laser welding. Thats a grand come resale time. I think its fair to say you care somewhat about money and are known to sell a watch or two so there is a bit of cognitive dissonance there. Pretending to be Jacque Cousteau is not worth a grand to me (I do hold a dive certification it not just jelousy at rugged action men), and trying to mind a watch on the beach kinda spoils the relaxation.

"Fitz opinion disclaimer : wear what you like, do what you want with your own property, feel free to hold differing opinions, discussion forums are pointless without discussion"

Lorddrakul

Interesting points here, and exactly what I was hoping for.

I love to see differing opinions and attitudes towards the things that commonly inspire us all.

For my part, I understand now that I do not have expensive watches, despite what my natural tight git senses might send.

I love the idea that I can have a tool of a profession I admire and am inspired by, such as pilot, diver, racing driver/rider. That may be the same paddock stands that are used by a superbike reaching team, or it may be a COSC chronometer designed by a company with aviation heritage as a navigational aid.

However, neither one, in my employ, is going to be wrapped in bubble wrap, never to see the light of day.

I don't really need either, but the little frisson of excitement I get from being able to minimally use either in my daily needs is, to me, worth it.

On the diver thing overall, I'd describe my approach as cautious. On holidays, unless I am going diving, I wear something that could disappear without financial ruin, if not a few tears.

Given the nature of Irish holiday makers, jumping in some body of water is inevitable, so I want whatever I wear to be up to it, while still giving me some pleasure when I look at it. For a classic, overkill is the way to go, for something modern, the bare minimum of fine.

893bet

I think watches are to be worn and certainly don’t keep any safe queens (would like a brand new Rolex with stickers on for the safe for 10 years but that’s a different convo). But there is no point taking risks either with expensive jewellery.

Would I go swimming with my aquanaut. Would I ****. I ain’t leaving 35k at the bottom of the ocean and having to explain to an insurer ........”I lost it”...........and that’s before you consider the 2 euro gaskets that are providing the waterproof seal. Nah.

redlead

Lorddrakul wrote: »

I don't really need either, but the little frisson of excitement I get from being able to minimally use either in my daily needs is, to me, worth it.

.

I'm exactly like this. Classic example is my Swiss army knife. I insist on using it to open tins even though my tin opener is a better tool for the job. I have no idea why, but every time I can find an excuse to use it, it brings me a small bit of private childish happiness. I get the same pleasure from using a diver bezel to time my dinner.

In saying that, I'd kind of have a 1500/2000 limit on what I'd be bringing into the sea.

Fitz II

Lorddrakul wrote: »

Interesting points here, and exactly what I was hoping for.

I love to see differing opinions and attitudes towards the things that commonly inspire us all.

For my part, I understand now that I do not have expensive watches, despite what my natural tight git senses might send.

I love the idea that I can have a tool of a profession I admire and am inspired by, such as pilot, diver, racing driver/rider. That may be the same paddock stands that are used by a superbike reaching team, or it may be a COSC chronometer designed by a company with aviation heritage as a navigational aid.

However, neither one, in my employ, is going to be wrapped in bubble wrap, never to see the light of day.

I don't really need either, but the little frisson of excitement I get from being able to minimally use either in my daily needs is, to me, worth it.

On the diver thing overall, I'd describe my approach as cautious. On holidays, unless I am going diving, I wear something that could disappear without financial ruin, if not a few tears.

Given the nature of Irish holiday makers, jumping in some body of water is inevitable, so I want whatever I wear to be up to it, while still giving me some pleasure when I look at it. For a classic, overkill is the way to go, for something modern, the bare minimum of fine.

Just to reitterate my points, I would never suggest a dive watch does not go in the water. I only say that the sand and rocks are too hard on a watch (actually diving is less risky for damage).

I wear a watch every day and I do a manual job with lots of water, chemicals, drills, sharp objects etc, so please dont think I am saying watches should not be worn, what are they for if not to wear. I just dont wear them when there is a high likely hood of damaging them like at the beach, mixing cement, gardening etc. I respect all my watches, and I worked hard for each and every one. I do not trust my insurance to make me whole in case of a loss. My phone is waterproof...but I dont take it in the beach either.

Scratch's, ding, chips out of the crystal do not appeal to me no more than scars on my face....sure its a testament to a life lived but I dont go seeking them out, and if I need to remarry it will make me less attractive (impossible but just for the metaphor). I wear a helmet on my bike too like a pussy. IMHO people sometimes justify bringing an expensive watch into an risky environment as a tool when its really there to flex with. I am all for flexing, its half the fun, but lets be honest.

893bet

I think to define tool watch you also need to think about it.

The average Rolex tool watch. Can that stand up to hardship. Yes. Definitely. It will survive no doubt working on a building site, mountain biking, deep sea diving etc.

Will it look like ****e after repeated exposure to a hard environment. Also definitely.

Fitz II

893bet wrote: »

I think to define tool watch you also need to think about it.

The average Rolex tool watch. Can that stand up to hardship. Yes. Definitely. It will survive no doubt working on a building site, mountain biking, deep sea diving etc.

Will it look like ****e after repeated exposure to a hard environment. Also definitely.

Hodinkee would have us believe a beat up watch has character, it authentic, cool and more valuable. Often these vintage watches have actually been babied all their lives and its the age related degeneration of the materials of the time that we are seeing, not adventures wrestling crocodiles, and undercover operations behind the iron curtain.

Rolex themselves feel that their watches are best factory fresh. They feel unaging ceramic bezels are the way forward.

Wibbs

Birneybau wrote: »

After Donald Trump and his gold f'ing toilet, an embarrassing article about Joe Biden's choice of watches. Let's just say Fitz of this parish has nothing to worry about.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/22/fashion/mens-style/rolex-biden.html#click=https://t.co/ysKzblk0r6

I reckon Biden's choices are pretty solid ones and better than the sniff of virtue signalling from the Timex/Casio wearing presidents. Obama at least went the "Made in America" route, though that's a stretch. A real pity for a manufacturing and watchmaking nation that once put the Swiss industry in the ha'penny place for quality innovation and value. The virtue angle has some history. In the 70's Gerald Ford's wife vetoed him buying one of the new Pulsar digitals because their very high pricetag at the time would send the wrong impression. He was later given one which took the sting out of that and he wore it daily. From the 50's on Rolex gifted a few watches to presidents, no doubt to increase awareness in the US where they had little or no presence at the time. Though the most commonly gifted presidents watch was a Vulcain Cricket, a watch with an alarm in it. When the brand was revived in the early 80's every president since has received one as a gift, though I've never seen or heard of one being actually worn. Presidents used to give watches to diplomats and staff, usually US brands like Hamilton and Bulova, though post WW2 they themselves almost always favoured Swiss brands.

Fitz II wrote: »

There is a valid case to be made that all watches are dress watches these days.

+1000 I would say all but a basic casio digital(unless worn for show or irony) are dress watches, or a personal fancy for men. The personal fancy angle is more for the vintage collectors, though there can certainly be a dress watch angle to that too, certainly in the last 20 years. EG Bugger all are buying a 50's Rolex, even a 50's Patek for the horological history. That's one reason the often snooty term "fashion watches" kinda irks. They're pretty much all "fashion watches", the main difference being cost and quality, though the latter isn't always informed by the former.

You have a lot of faith in your insurance policy, it reminds me of Doug DeMuros "bumper to bumper" warranty.

Going for a swim is a noble pursuit indeed without doubt. If you lost your watch would you be able to get another for the pay-out? Is the hassle of claiming worth looking at the time while the seawater chills your nads? Any increase in value of the watch is not covered, insurers often wont pay over RRP even if the watch is insured for more and any excess is your responsibility. Most policies have a clause of personal responsibility (you are Zurich they state in the T&C "You will take all reasonable steps to protect the property and prevent accidents" and I know people who have been denied playouts under this clause.). When I put my cars around Mondello insurance is void, even though thats what they are designed to do. Its also very hard prove to the insurance that the item is lost at sea.

This. Goes triple for any piece that's irreplaceable because of strong sentimental value or actual rarity. I've lost two watches in my life, one these days would be worth a little over a grand, the other more like ten grand. If I could wave a magic wand and get one back, it would be the former in a heartbeat*.

My phone is waterproof...but I dont take it in the beach either.

Nail on the head for me. All of my watches are vintage, the majority already show the wear and tear of the years, so for a start that is far less an issue for me. However, but like you I wouldn't risk further damage for no good reason. Even with vintage, patina is one thing, looking like it's been dug out of a cement mixer quite another. Though some are into the wabi sabi angle and fair enough, but they're a very rare breed and that angle is far more about dealers pushing the whole "tropical dial" and "case in fantastic unpolished condition with scratches and dings" ballsology to shift the bollocksed examples they have in stock at a higher price. 20 years ago they'd be "tastefully redailling" and polishing them to shift them, because buyers would avoid.

EDIT just saw this.

Hodinkee would have use believe a beat up watch has character, it authentic, cool and more valuable.

Exactly. See above re dealer ballsology. Great minds an' that.

For me, a beat up watch, so long as it's not utterly wrecked can have character and be more authentic and cool, but only if you(or a family member) who left it to you did the beating up and in an interesting way. Otherwise you're buying another person's "authentic and cool".






*Though as an aside I can see why car insurance on race tracks is the way it is. Never mind having low or no talent drivers losing control and flying into the kitty litter or hitting another car, the cars aren't actually designed for it. At least not in any sort of sustained way. A track day at Mondello can put significantly more wear and tear on a road car's components than driving on the roads.

James Bond Junior

I was a big proponent of buy, use it, wear it as is the wife. She has her Louis Vuitton bags and so on and uses them like any other bag. BUT I've reined myself in, seeing as playing golf seems to have shagged my Omega, I'll be a little bit more hesitant about being to rough and tumble in future.

Fitz II

James Bond Junior wrote: »

I was a big proponent of buy, use it, wear it as is the wife. She has her Louis Vuitton bags and so on and uses them like any other bag. BUT I've reined myself in, seeing as playing golf seems to have shagged my Omega, I'll be a little bit more hesitant about being to rough and tumble in future.

I think you were unlucky with the golf thing, you see the "Watch Eric" video where he shagged a AP doing the same thing?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MH1rg1P5YT4&ab_channel=CRMJewelers

Wibbs

I'm still kinda shocked about the golf thing J.

Wibbs

Fitz II wrote: »

I think you were unlucky with the golf thing, you see the "Watch Eric" video where he shagged a AP doing the same thing?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MH1rg1P5YT4&ab_channel=CRMJewelers

The first thing I noted and it very much plugs into your take on watches as male jewellery and dress watches; if it was the drunken golf session that killed his AP, he wore the watch for three days without realising it was stopped. :eek::D He clearly doesn't use it for timekeeping much. Then what he noticed was the date being arseways, not the fact the hands weren't pointing to the right time. Hell, he had to take it off and turn it over to see the balance wasn't running, surely you'd look at the feckin seconds hand first? It seems in this case and for this guy the watches are basically very fancy male bracelets rather than watches.

OldRio

Interesting reading this thread. I suppose it's different strokes for different folks.

The wife has a rolex, it's her daily. From riding horses to helping out on the farm. From shopping to going out for dinner. (Remember that) Day after day.
Yet the only outing my rolex gets is special occasions. I'm wearing a Casio Forester at the moment.

What I'm saying is its your watch enjoy it whatever way you want.

As an aside, it seems the President of the old USA and myself have the same watch. Datejust steel blue face. Blow me down with a feather. He probably wears his a damn site more than I wear mine.

Thirdfox

Wibbs wrote: »

For me, a beat up watch, so long as it's not utterly wrecked can have character and be more authentic and cool, but only if you(or a family member) who left it to you did the beating up and in an interesting way. Otherwise you're buying another person's "authentic and cool".

Exactly - if the ding on the submariner or pelagos or seamaster etc. came from skinny dipping with the missus in Costa Rica while sea turtles and whales sawm around you - you'll look back fondly on it (perhaps).

If it was from the third owner (of which you are the fourth) it probably means nothing to you and I certainly wouldn't mind it being polished out

unkel

Fitz II wrote: »

You have a lot of faith in your insurance policy, it reminds me of Doug DeMuros "bumper to bumper" warranty.

Going for a swim is a noble pursuit indeed without doubt. If you lost your watch would you be able to get another for the pay-out? Is the hassle of claiming worth looking at the time while the seawater chills your nads? Any increase in value of the watch is not covered, insurers often wont pay over RRP even if the watch is insured for more and any excess is your responsibility. Most policies have a clause of personal responsibility (you are Zurich they state in the T&C "You will take all reasonable steps to protect the property and prevent accidents"

A lot of good points there Fitz.

Just want to address this one. The insurer wanted a valuation of the watch from a jeweler. That's what they got, the jeweler does a quick check on chrono24 of comparable watches and then puts a value on it somewhere on the average scale. Which is more than RRP and more than I paid and I'd have a reasonable chance of getting the same watch again for that value even taking into account the insurance excess that's deducted. If the watch would go up in value in a few years time, I'd just get another valuation done.

A pain in the hole of course having to claim and then being stuck to the insurer for several years while they likely bump the premium

If you buy a rugged diving watch and go swimming or diving with it and you lose it, you have done nothing unreasonable and your insurance company will pay out

So I'm not changing any of my habits I've said before that if I had to use a cement mixer I'd take it off. When building PC's I sometimes take it off too (if I remember), many sharp edges everywhere, could do real damage real quickly. That's about it.

893bet

I think there would be a lot of discussion back and forth in the event of a claim where you had a valuation above the RRP.

As it stands they use that valuation to calculate your premium. In the event of a claim then they would actually look it much more closely.....would likely see you as over insured ......and only pay out the RRP of the watch if currently available or the current model of the same watch.

Same as if you get your car valued at 100k over market value by a random garage then they will insure you away and charge the price accordingly on your valuation...... When you try and claim then they will be looking very closely and if the car can be bought for 50k new...that’s what you will get......even if...you can’t actually walk into the shop to buy one which is the case with many of the watches worth insuring.

unkel

An appreciating watch is not the same as a depreciating car though, is it? I don't think there would be much grief getting the insurance company to pay out the jeweler's valuation minus the excess, unless they can come up with a valid reason why that valuation was too high (i.e. if the jeweler picked a value at the higher end of the Chrono asking prices or even one higher than any of those prices )

893bet

unkel wrote: »

Appreciating watch is not the same as a depreciating car though, is it? I don't think there would be much grief getting the insurance company to pay out the jeweler's valuation minus the excess, unless they can come up with a valid reason why that valuation was too high (i.e. if the jeweler picked a value at the higher end of the Chrono asking prices or even one higher than any of those prices )

Principal of being over and under insured is the same. The valuation you give is used to calculate the premium. It’s irrelevant when it comes to a claim. Will the insurer see the market value as the 10k RRP or the 20k grey price. Cynic in me suggests they won’t just bend over....

unkel

Yeah I know all too well about being over and under insured unfortunately

The valuation of my watch is solid though. I honestly can not see any insurer doing much arguing about that. The one thing where I would lose out is if I had a complex claim and I got an accomplished professional to handle the whole claim for me. They usually take about 10% of total payout.

893bet

More thinking of my aquanaut.

17k RRP.
Grey market 30k plus.

Not a conversation I would like to have with an insurer.

Fitz II

I have dealt with insurers many many times and they will always try to pay out replacement value or less, they will tie you in knots getting valuations and letters to say these watches cannot be purchased. They might say you should sit on a list and wait for one at RRP if its still in production. What you have the watch insured for is totally irrelevant. You could have it insured for a million euro and all they will pay is replacement cost or a low valuation....its an argument I wouldn't like to have as they could pull the unreasonable risk clause on you as that is at their discretion to judge (well Mr Unkle when was the last time you can show you serviced the watch and the springbars and clasp were in good order? Can you prove the spring bars were original? Did a professional size the watch for you if so receipt please?). Also how do you prove you actually lost the watch? Burglary, mugging much easier to prove and there is no element of your own blame for the loss. If you lost it diving you buddy could witness for you.

Could mitigate all the risk by leaving it at home I suppose, but nobody would suggest you dont do whatever you want to do, but I would caution you are not as covered as you think you are. Its a open water dive watch, not a swimming watch, the distinction could be important.

I remember surfing in Peru, and I had some seiko kenetic on. Got washing machined by a wave and ripped the thing clean off my wrist as I was dragged along the bottom of the sea. Really hurt my wrist too.

Look at Time on the forum, he got stung on his claim and that was robbery. If it was that easy insure a 15k watch for 80 euro a year and no questions were asked people would be loosing watches all the time.

No need to worry about getting the watch revalued in time you will have it flipped by then. :pac::pac::pac:

banie01

Everytime I see that Milgauss I drool
(Just a comment on the photo thread where I'd dropped this post in error)

Due to an essential bit of travel today, I got to try on my FILs Daytona today, 116500 ref.
Absolutely lovely watch but after having one on my wrist for an hr or so...
I have opinions that may be controversial.
I think it's too small. It wears beautifully, it's super comfortable but it falls into a strange place between sports watch and semi-formal that does work, but is not for me (as if I'd ever get a call for one anyway).
But doesn't do either very well, sports watch needs legibility, and formal needs less extras.

I know I'm 41 now and the eyesight is at the stage I need glasses on occasion, but I found the main hands near invisible at times depending on how I moved my wrist.
They seem to blend into the watch face in a way that means a quick glance, turns into a head shake and wrist wobble to see the time.

The dial itself, is lovely but the panda version is far too busy for my liking as a daily driver.

The ceramic bezel, is bloody lovely as is the watch overall.
But!
I'd always thought I wanted one, until I tried one on.
Just not for me and for chronos in particular...
My dodgy eyes need a bigger dial

Fitz II

banie01 wrote: »

Everytime I see that Milgauss I drool
(Just a comment on the photo thread where I'd dropped this post in error)

Due to an essential bit of travel today, I got to try on my FILs Daytona today, 116500 ref.
Absolutely lovely watch but after having one on my wrist for an hr or so...
I have opinions that may be controversial.
I think it's too small. It wears beautifully, it's super comfortable but it falls into a strange place between sports watch and semi-formal that does work, but is not for me (as if I'd ever get a call for one anyway).
But doesn't do either very well, sports watch needs legibility, and formal needs less extras.

I know I'm 41 now and the eyesight is at the stage I need glasses on occasion, but I found the main hands near invisible at times depending on how I moved my wrist.
They seem to blend into the watch face in a way that means a quick glance, turns into a head shake and wrist wobble to see the time.

The dial itself, is lovely but the panda version is far too busy for my liking as a daily driver.

The ceramic bezel, is bloody lovely as is the watch overall.
But!
I'd always thought I wanted one, until I tried one on.
Just not for me and for chronos in particular...
My dodgy eyes need a bigger dial

Yep, you have nailed the Daytona. I think that because they are hype central people are disappointed when they see its just a watch. Legibility is poor on them and yes they are smaller than you would think. Still and iconic, desirable and recognisable watch but at the prices they go for now they are playing with the big boys.

Wibbs

Just looked on chrono24 at the Daytona prices. Bloody hell! :eek: They're an OK watch sure, but not near Lange territory in quality, or design, or operation. More robust mind you. When vintage Longines 13zn's can be had for well under 10k... Totally different market of course. I suppose it simply boils down to the Rolex brand recognition, whereas Lange for most people would be "Who?". Mad.

893bet

Wibbs wrote: »

Just looked on chrono24 at the Daytona prices. Bloody hell! :eek: They're an OK watch sure, but not near Lange territory in quality, or design, or operation. More robust mind you. When vintage Longines 13zn's can be had for well under 10k... Totally different market of course. I suppose it simply boils down to the Rolex brand recognition, whereas Lange for most people would be "Who?". Mad.

All Rolex are terrible value for money really when you compare it against watches at the same price point. Especially if you pay grey.

For a 16k gmt batgirl or what not you are into Lange and not just entry level. For a Daytona you are into a complicated Lange or Patek.

But........residuals and ease of resale win for most. Where as trying to turn the 20k Lange back into 20k is much more of a challenge.

Thirdfox

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3z3XIl2nYfA

Just a reason why I have a love of minute repeaters (and much respect for JLC) - 1050 parts and yet still just 43mm and 14mm thick - 5atm wr too - so I can even take it diving

Wibbs

Do not go golfing wearing that.