Do you wear a watch?

OldRio

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

GPS , internet, time signals on LW and other broadcasts ...

GPS satellites are 20,000km up, so the furtherest away you can see one is less than 30,000Km.

Light travels at 300,000Km/s so once you pick up ANY GPS signal you have time accurate to +/- a tenth of a second.

As long as you are on planet Earth and your signal isn't being faked.

And when we have a power failure? No electric. Flat batteries. The shear panic some people have when their phone needs charging always amuses me.

Hillmanhunter1

Hillmanhunter1 wrote: »

Trivia question - On a watch with Roman Numerals, why is 4 o'clock IIII instead of IV?

Symmetry I believe.

Hillmanhunter1

Deleted User wrote: »

Symmetry I believe.

The answer seems to be that we don't really know:

https://monochrome-watches.com/why-do-clocks-and-watches-use-roman-numeral-iiii-instead-of-iv/

Wibbs

Cartier Tanks are a true classic and have been for a century. Not so 'fashionable' these days as "tool watches" are far more in vogue for men. Diving watches for guys who stay in the shallow end of the pool, pilots watches for guys who need a stiff drink before flying to Spain for their holidays. I suppose there's a lot more romance around diving and flying so those type of watches hold much more appeal. For most of the last century a guy wearing a specific tool watch would have looked odd outside the speciality he needed it for. James Bond likely had a big influence on this. A very well dressed and urbane Sean Connery wearing a Rolex diver watch(borrowed in a hurry from the film director on a crappy nylon strap that many pages of interwebs discuss) when he would have been expected at the time to wear a gold dress watch of some nature. Telegraphed the action man under the tailored suit.

Hillmanhunter1 wrote: »

Trivia question - On a watch with Roman Numerals, why is 4 o'clock IIII instead of IV?

There are all sorts of theories, most of them dubious. EG Louis XIV preferring IIII so insisting upon it on all his clocks(in which case he'd not be pleases I wrote XIV rather than XIIII ). In Roman times they often used both versions at different times and on sun dials too. It seems to be most likely a fashion that became a convention, though occasionally you do see IV, but it is rare. It might simply be down to aesthetics and IIII balances out VIII better than IV. On this 20's pocketwatch I have the numerals are large. If you imagine IV instead of IIII that side of the dial might look more "empty"?



Who knows, but fashion seems to be most of the reason.


EDIT and no I don't wear a pocketwatch. To do so I'd need to put on six stones and buy a fedora.

fryup

Wibbs would you buy this? a future classic?

OMM 0000

fryup wrote: »

Wibbs would you buy this? a future classic?

I'm not Wibbs.

Two problems with that watch:

1) It's a quartz, and those almost never become classics.

2) Tag Heuer are low on the "classics" scale.

But if you like the watch, buy it.

I would not buy it.

Bobblehats

OMM 0000 wrote: »

2) Tag Heuer are low on the "classics" scale

Otherwise known as “Tag Hewer”

McHardcore

It doesn't make sense to wear a watch. Functionally, they are surplus to requirements. We now have devices in our pockets that are far better at scheduling your day, and i'm not referring to pocket watches: You are either on a phone right now or sitting at a computer that is superior for timekeeping.
The only reason left for wearing them is for fashion. However, unlike, say, a nice jacket, a watch offers little to no functional use. They are already on their way to becoming the next monocle, tailcoat, wallet-chain or bum-bag.
I don't understand the old men who are into them any more than I understand those into Subbuteo sets, CB radios or painting toy soldiers. I can only imagine that it is an attempt to relive their youth or an attempt at peacocking by using them as jewellery.
A smart watch makes a bit more sense IMHO, in particular for sports.

OMM 0000

McHardcore wrote: »

It doesn't make sense to wear a watch. Functionally, they are surplus to requirements. We now have phones in our pockets that is far better at scheduling your day, and i'm not referring to pocket watches. You are either on a phone right now or sitting at a computer that is superior for timekeeping.
The only reason left for wearing them is for fashion. However, unlike, say, a nice jacket, a watch offers little to no functional use. They are already on their way to becoming the next monocle, tailcoat, wallet-chain or bum-bag.
I don't understand the old men who are into them any more than I understand those into Subbuteo sets, CB radios or painting toy soldiers. I can only imagine that it is an attempt to relive their youth or an attempt at peacocking by using them as jewellery.
A smart watch makes a bit more sense IMHO, in particular for sports.

An expensive mechanical watch is a status symbol. Sort of like wearing expensive shoes.

I agree I cannot really see the point in wearing a cheap watch, although I do love the Casio F-91W.

Personally I love mechanical watches due to the craftsmanship, how a bunch of springs and gears can keep over 99.9% accurate time, and how delicate they are yet they will last you your whole life. I 100% understand how that may not make sense to others.

Bobblehats

McHardcore wrote: »

The only reason left for wearing them is for fashion. However, unlike, say, a nice jacket, a watch offers little to no functional use. They are already on their way to becoming the next monocle, tailcoat, wallet-chain or bum-bag.

Remember the shrunken head craze?

barbara anne

It was because King Louis was a bit thick. Not the brightest at all and designed it like that and the clock maker was too afraid to call him out on it. And then all the clock makers complied because they didn't want to bruise Louis ego.

Hillmanhunter1

barbara anne wrote: »

It was because King Louis was a bit thick. Not the brightest at all and designed it like that and the clock maker was too afraid to call him out on it. And then all the clock makers complied because they didn't want to bruise Louis ego.

The story I have heard is that the use of IIII instead of IV has to do with the casting of the numbers - remember that all early timepieces were large clocks on churches and townhalls etc. the dials were large, as were the numerals which were cast from metal.

If you use the traditional numbering (i.e. IV) then the clock face will need 4 Xs, 5 Vs and 17 Is. If however you swap the IV for IIII the numbers are 4 Xs, 4Vs and 20 Is. If you have a single casting mould that has 1 X, 1V and 5 Is, then 4 separate castings will give you all of the required letters.

And you know, that might be true;)

davetherave

Wibbs wrote: »

The G-Shock. A fantastic innovation that revolutionised the notion of toughness in the wristwatch and made it available to all. The original brief was to have a battery life of ten years, be able to take 10 atmospheres of pressure and survive a drop from 10 metres. They've since exceeded the pressure and impact limits.

They really are. I've had two watches since the year 2000 (Three really, but the third is a "good one" that is only brought out when needed).

The first was from a mingi shop outside UNIFIL HQ in Naqoura, Lebanon.

The second was a replacement for that about fourish years ago, a smaller less chunky but seemingly as tough Baby-G.

They've been through rivers, over mountains, covered in the finest sheep ****e that the Curragh plains and the Glen of Imaal can through at it, diving in the glorious Caribbean and West Cork, been covered in sand, have had a minibus drive over it, knocked off wood, metal, gravel everything, and still in great nick.

Wibbs

fryup wrote: »

Wibbs would you buy this? a future classic?

As Omm notes the only quartz classics are for the most part the very early examples from the early 70's, when they were scarily expensive new, so top of the line. Top of the line pretty much always holds some value in the future. Then you niche areas like early digitals and first series G-shocks. Even then prices aren't terribly high. A budget of under 3k and sometimes well under would get the vast majority of them.

TAG Heuer were once the "good watches" of the aspirational back in the 90's which that has the look of, but these days the fashion wheel's turned again and against them. Vintage pre TAG Heuer's can be big money, TAG nope(even though they're better made). Plus "future classic"is a dodgy way to buy. Depending on era you were buying in, the opinion of the time would vary all over the place. In the 80's you couldn't give old steel Rolex away, today they've gone nuts, in the 90's IWC were guaranteed future classic status with prices to match, today, good luck. There is very much an element of Tulip mania and bubble at the moment. I'd avoid any "investment" stuff.

He nails it here too:

But if you like the watch, buy it.

I'd only add, if it's cheap enough and you're not buying it in lieu of a watch you really want.

Cienciano

Look at the cartier tank. I mean, it's classy and looks really well. A garmin watch or one of those square iphone watches just look terrible in comparison. While they are handy if you're training or something, a proper watch will always look better. It's like a guy wearing a t-shirt compared to a guy wearing a well made shirt. Or a pair of nike air max compared with a pair of hand made leather sole shoes.

As I type this I'm wearing a g-shock :pac:

Deleted User wrote: »

But it's easier with a watch.. I don't need time accurate to tenths of a second.

And physical buttons create muscle memory. I start my stopwatch without even having to look at my wrist, compared to taking out phone, unlocking it, clicking the time, clicking the stopwatch, and pressing start.

Yeah, anyone with a touchscreen in their car will know. Physical buttons are better.

banie01

Wibbs wrote: »

This today, pilot's chronograph from the late 1960's.

My own "cheap" Chinese knock off of this legendary piece is on my wrist this morning.

Hillmanhunter1

What do the cognoscenti think about Vostok watches?

They seem to make mechanical watches at exceptionally low prices - what's the catch? (Quality I guess?)

https://www.amazon.com/s?k=vostok&crid=2EJE5AM1PKR6B&sprefix=vosto%2Caps%2C384&ref=nb_sb_ss_ts-doa-p_2_5

fryup

banie01 wrote: »

My own "cheap" Chinese knock off of this legendary piece is on my wrist this morning.

whats it knocking off?

hitemfrank

Hillmanhunter1 wrote: »

What do the cognoscenti think about Vostok watches?

They seem to make mechanical watches at exceptionally low prices - what's the catch? (Quality I guess?)

https://www.amazon.com/s?k=vostok&crid=2EJE5AM1PKR6B&sprefix=vosto%2Caps%2C384&ref=nb_sb_ss_ts-doa-p_2_5

Decent watches for the money. Long time between servicing, and great water resistance due to their design. Acrylic crystal will get tighter to the watch the deeper it goes so gets better as it goes deeper. Until it fails at some point a good bit beyond the rated depth

Acrylic crystal will scratch easy though it's easy to remove the scratches with some Polywatch. The date set on the is a pain in the hole - you need to wind the hands manually between 8pm and 2am and repeat as much as needed to get the date correct.

Also you can order directly from their shop meranom.com for a full browse of their stuff.

banie01

fryup wrote: »

whats it knocking off?

Wibbs has a photo of the original up earlier in the thread.

Heuer Bund, a military issue twin register chrono from the 60's.
A watch that when I started looking, I wanted but couldn't afford.
So I went with an homage that's quite a lovely watch too imo.

Wibbs

Cienciano wrote: »

Yeah, anyone with a touchscreen in their car will know. Physical buttons are better.

Yep, though touchscreens are cheaper to implement across a range so that's why we get them in cars.

fryup wrote: »

whats it knocking off?

1960's/70's pilot's flyback chronograph made by Heuer, not available directly to non military, though the overall design goes back to the 40's.

Hillmanhunter1

banie01 wrote: »

Wibbs has a photo of the original up earlier in the thread.

Heuer Bund, a military issue twin register chrono from the 60's.
A watch that when I started looking, I wanted but couldn't afford.
So I went with an homage that's quite a lovely watch too imo.

I could never take to these kind of watches. I'm not a pilot or a diver or an adventurer of any kind, I'm a desk jockey.

I don't need a second hand - nothing in my life is measured in seconds. I don't need the date - I know it already, and I don't need it to be water resistant to 200m. If ever I'm 200m below the surface of the water I will not be wondering what time it is.

Cienciano

Hillmanhunter1 wrote: »

What do the cognoscenti think about Vostok watches?

They seem to make mechanical watches at exceptionally low prices - what's the catch? (Quality I guess?)

https://www.amazon.com/s?k=vostok&crid=2EJE5AM1PKR6B&sprefix=vosto%2Caps%2C384&ref=nb_sb_ss_ts-doa-p_2_5

The main problem, what hitemfrank said is setting the date is annoying. If you leave it for a while and it stops and you need to cycle through days to get the correct date, it's a pain. But the watch is good, if you want an automatic it's great value. I got one for travelling, easy to set the time, cheap so I don't mind if I lose it, waterproof and generally bullet proof. They look good too imho
Full selection here: https://meranom.com/en/amphibian-classic/

banie01

Hillmanhunter1 wrote: »

I could never take to these kind of watches. I'm not a pilot or a diver or an adventurer of any kind, I'm a desk jockey.

I don't need a second hand - nothing in my life is measured in seconds. I don't need the date - I know it already, and I don't need it to be water resistant to 200m. If ever I'm 200m below the surface of the water I will not be wondering what time it is.

It's horses for courses.
I use the chrono function on my watches for timing paid for work at my hourly rate (when I worked).
It was a handy back up tool to software tracking.
It also ties in nicely with a grá I have for aviation and aviation history.

I do dive and have a few dive watches, one of which even has depth gauge and dive computer built in.
I still check all those against my bezel times and NDC charts.
That said, lately my bezels are used far more for cooking times than they have been in the water.

They are my "jewellery" with the added spin of either a story or a mechanical or electronic interest that sparks a bit of curiousity on my part.

I wear watches, I own @7, I have 3/4 that will be constant and never traded out and a few that I trade in and out as something catches my eye.

The watches forum has really exploded my interest over the last few years.
From 3 that were constant and rarely worn to a peak of @10 and now back down to something more rational again.

fryup

Hillmanhunter1 wrote: »

If ever I'm 200m below the surface of the water I will not be wondering what time it is.

you'd be dead?

OldRio

Hillmanhunter1 wrote: »

I don't need a second hand - nothing in my life is measured in seconds.

Not what your wife says.


Boom boom.

Hillmanhunter1

OldRio wrote: »

Not what your wife says.


Boom boom.

I guess I deserve that for leading with my chin:)

Wibbs

Hillmanhunter1 wrote: »

I could never take to these kind of watches. I'm not a pilot or a diver or an adventurer of any kind, I'm a desk jockey.

I don't need a second hand - nothing in my life is measured in seconds. I don't need the date - I know it already, and I don't need it to be water resistant to 200m. If ever I'm 200m below the surface of the water I will not be wondering what time it is.

True enough. I'd reckon 90% of diver watches never get closer to the deep than the office water cooler. Seconds hands were often on watches just to let you know the thing was still running. There was a time when some watches were precision tools required for some pursuits. Diving an obvious one, flight navigation another, missile release to target timing etc. These days no, though they are still used as backups in some places. So that mechanical 1960's Heuer chronograph is still issued to a small number in the German military(another reason was in the threat of nuclear war, mechanical watches aren't affected by EMF bursts).

I've been collecting "old watches" since I was a kid and it was all about the curiosity and history in many of them. Snapshots on my wrist of a different time and place kinda thing. EH these two:



Both from the same brand, the one on the left from 1916, the other 1970. One mechanical with tech going back centuries and would have been understandable to a 17th century clockmaker, the other transistorised and cybernetic using tech even Isaac Newton would be scratching his head about. One made a decade after the first powered flight of 30 metres, the other when men flew all the way to were walking on the moon, using much of the tech within it. All within the span of a human lifetime. And I can wear that on my wrist and they're still doing what they were designed to do. That's what sums up my interest in watches tbh. Temporary values and fashion are much less in play.

I have a few watches but i mostly don't wear them as i hardly think of them. Nothing fancy just normal watches that i took a shine to

peasant

Cienciano wrote: »

The main problem, what hitemfrank said is setting the date is annoying. If you leave it for a while and it stops and you need to cycle through days to get the correct date, it's a pain.

Two possible solutions to this problem:
- buy them without a date
- buy (and wear) enough of them that you always find one lying about where the date is only out by a day or two