Fitz's Youtube Channel

Fitz II

Latest Audemars Piguet Royal Oak Chronograph

God damn that watch looks good in the vid, love it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iR2SqyjdQrQ

https://youtu.be/iR2SqyjdQrQ

Oh yes Number 5 and number 3 won the watches check the vid page (colm18 and duckmusic whoever you guys are on here?)

wanderer 22

Wohoo! I'll take the Patek, cheers Fitz.

;-)

893bet

colm18 wrote: »

Wohoo! I'll take the Patek, cheers Fitz.

;-)

Good choice. Ducksmusic will have to select from the beaters left over.

Damn that AP gets better every time I see it. Not sure I could wear it. As it’s got too much wrist presence for my liking. Maybe I could on a strap. But half the point of an AP is in the bracelet. But it really is a a stunner.

Fitz II

Sneak peek of tomorrows vid.

Fitz II

Latest Review The Zenith Chronomaster Sport with many thanks to Mr. Cyrus for lending me this lovely watch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBn45aIBrc0

https://youtu.be/vBn45aIBrc0

Cyclingtourist

Good comparison-review Fitz. Thanks to yourself and Mr. Cyrus.

Wibbs

I also learned that the Daytona has asymmetric lugs. :eek: I did not notice that before at all and I've had a few of them in the hand. That Zenith is a nice watch alright. I'd far prefer it over the Tudor.

njburke

The motion of the zenith's second hand was interesting, not what I'm used to seeing on a mechanical watch. Very fair and objective review I thought.

Fitz II

=Wibbs;117460266]I also learned that the Daytona has asymmetric lugs. :eek: I did not notice that before at all and I've had a few of them in the hand.

You can count in weeks on your hands how long I have known that, and I have thousands of hours wearing one, but once you see it its so obvious. A sign of good design I suppose.

The zenith is a tasty watch and I am not easily impressed.

Cyclingtourist

I'm conflicted between the Zenith and the Daytona, suppose I will just have to get both.

banie01

Really enjoyed the comparison Fitz, thanks to @Cyrus for lending the watch.
Enjoyed the 1/10sec timing and it makes it a nice option for athletics/swimming in notional terms at least.

Deep Thought

Don’t make for about the IWC yet as I might cry :-)

Thirdfox

Fitz II wrote: »

You can count in weeks on your hands how long I have known that, and I have thousands of hours wearing one, but once you see it its so obvious. A sign of good design I suppose.

The zenith is a tasty watch and I am not easily impressed.

El primero movement is impressive (plus the history behind saving the movement during the quartz crisis).

For my graduation watch it came down to triple date zenith or a speedy moonphase - the zenith was a little too expensive for me at the time (even with the BT employee discount) and no regrets about getting a speedy - but will probably end up with a triple calendar el primero at some point (they can go for rather cheap on the second hand market actually).

Fitz II

16610LV Kermit Review

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKZodIQGvA0

https://youtu.be/PKZodIQGvA0

unkel

Another good one. The "who should buy this" is really turning into the trademark of your channel, Fitz. Kind of a unique selling point. I like it a lot.

Fitz II

The underrated Tudor Royal

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5ArdHoaOC8

https://youtu.be/P5ArdHoaOC8

Cyclingtourist

Nice opinion piece video Fitz.

However my opinion, for what it's worth, is that it is an ugly design. Hate the segmented bezel, the diamond indices and the roman numerals. You said it it's a 'mishmash'. An over-priced ****ter as a certain Aussie Youtuber would say.

Wibbs

The segmented bezel seems to be referencing a 50's Rolex/Tudor design I've seen a few times(but fecked if I can find a pic), though the overall design was more balanced in the older one IMHO because of the proportion of bezel to dial and watch. Plus it was of course a much smaller watch. 35mm IIRC. Which simply wouldn't work today. There's the hint of a tint of the OysterQuartz going on too. I would say that's more in play than the Royal Oak, at least directly.

Fitz II

Cyclingtourist wrote: »

However my opinion, for what it's worth,

CT you know how much I value your opinion.

Is not overpriced at all, and non diamond versions can be had close to 2k, its very good value for the money. Obviously it not aimed at people who dont like how it looks, but its no sh1tter. Having actually worn the watch I find it rather nice and I think it would make a great entry level watch for a budding collector of quality watches.

Wibbs wrote: »

The segmented bezel seems to be referencing a 50's Rolex/Tudor design I've seen a few times(but fecked if I can find a pic), though the overall design was more balanced in the older one IMHO because of the proportion of bezel to dial and watch. Plus it was of course a much smaller watch. 35mm IIRC. Which simply wouldn't work today. There's the hint of a tint of the OysterQuartz going on too. I would say that's more in play than the Royal Oak, at least directly.

Agreed Wibbs there is a certain amount of oyster quartz in there and the old Tudor oyster prince, enough said that it certainly draws its design from other sources I am trying not to draw comparisons from watches viewers may not have seen, doing that makes the vids very didactic

Cienciano

Cyclingtourist wrote: »

Nice opinion piece video Fitz.

However my opinion, for what it's worth, is that it is an ugly design. Hate the segmented bezel, the diamond indices and the roman numerals. You said it it's a 'mishmash'. An over-priced ****ter as a certain Aussie Youtuber would say.

I tend to agree on the 3 points you made about the design. Personally I don't think a diamond has any place on a mens watch. Reminds me of mens diamond stud earring. Some people love it though. The world would be a boring place if we all liked the same stuff.

Fitz II

Cienciano wrote: »

I tend to agree on the 3 points you made about the design. Personally I don't think a diamond has any place on a mens watch. Reminds me of mens diamond stud earring. Some people love it though. The world would be a boring place if we all liked the same stuff.

Yeah not a fan of diamonds myself. But we dont mind the rubies and sapphire on a display back. However times are changing and that sort of thing is getting more and more fashionable.

Cienciano

I'm not a fan of roman numerals but the last watch I bought has roman numerals. It only needs to make sense to the person buying the watch

Fitz II

https://youtu.be/SHAa2LhYKh4

https://youtu.be/SHAa2LhYKh4

Fitz II

This one should get the blood pumping

https://youtu.be/VRx0nHyJTuE

https://youtu.be/VRx0nHyJTuE

Cyclingtourist

Stop being treated like carp by Rolex ADs, buy Omega.

mailforkev

https://boards.ie/discussion/comment/117624012#Comment_117624012

Dolphinitely, it’s awful fishy business with Rolex, you’re only codding yourself.

Fitz II

https://boards.ie/discussion/comment/117624012#Comment_117624012

Or just for the Halibut buy Tudor and get value for money. Seaweed rather hold out hope of a RRP sports rolex no matter how sick to the gills we are of it. I blame the flippers.

893bet

I sea what ye have done there

Cyclingtourist

Carpe diem.

banie01

I was ring shopping with the Mrs recently and was offered a "luxury watch" consultation appointment in Keane's Limerick a couple of weeks ago(the benefit of wearing 893's former VC).

Put it on the long finger as medical stuff is mounting up and a trip abroad for surgery could be in the offing. But it was intimated that aside from Rolex, if I'd bought the ring there and then that waiting list for almost anything else wouldn't be an issue.

Didn't buy from them in the end, had a far better sales experience a few doors down in Matthew Stephens and saved a couple of grand on a far nicer ring too. If only they carried Tudor or Omega!