Advertisement
How to add spoiler tags, edit posts, add images etc. How to - a user's guide to the new version of Boards
Mods please check the Moderators Group for an important update on Mod tools. If you do not have access to the group, please PM Niamh. Thanks!

Blanchy Talks Watches - Youtube channel

  • #1
    Registered Users Posts: 749 ✭✭✭ Blanchy90


    Hey I thought it would be a good idea to start a post for my channel.

    Huge thanks to everyone from boards that watches my first video, I can see from the analytics a large amount of my views came from here.


    I've got a better set up for my next video, new light phone mount and remote. I'm still very much learning as I go so any feedback would be great.

    So here it is, for this video I reviewed an Omega Seamaster 300 quartz. I was very luck to get a lend of this for the review ( I'd actually never held an Omega before this haha)




    Let me know what you think and if you liked it subscribe for more videos.

    Cheers


«134

Comments



  • Subbed and watched. :)

    Few enough were innocent in the past, few enough are innocent in the present, we just don’t know why yet.





  • Thanks Wibbs :)

    I'm going to aim for one video a week and mix it up between reviews, how to mods, full builds and who knows what else lol




  • I thought it was good. One a week is about where its at on these I think. I am finding the ring light needs to be angles away from the watch, its its parallell to the camera you get terrible reflections. A CPL filter on the camera helps a bit, but watches are shiny. I am battling with them myself and its a bollox to get right.

    Question is do you now lust after an Omega?




  • Thanks Fitz, the light can definitely be a pain I think I'll need to reflect it of something to get a softer effect. It's all part of the fun figuring out what works.

    I'm recording on a Samsung S10 at the minute. I've been filming in 1080p 30 but I realised that I can actually film in 4k 60 on the phone so I'll try that next.


    Honestly no, it was a lovely watch but for 2.5k I expected to be blown away. I did really like the bezel action though haha. Delighted to get the chance to review it I fully expected to have to review my own collection (all budget watches) for months or years before being given anything to review.




  • Blanchy90 wrote: »
    Honestly no, it was a lovely watch but for 2.5k I expected to be blown away. I did really like the bezel action though haha. Delighted to get the chance to review it I fully expected to have to review my own collection (all budget watches) for months or years before being given anything to review.

    I could see you struggling with turning the bezel, thats the problem with the bezels on those omegas, imaging doing it with wetsuit gloves on, no grip on it at all. Dont be afraid to say those things in your reviews, if its your opinion then thats what people want to hear.


  • Advertisement


  • I hadn't thought about wetsuit gloves that's a great point




  • Setting the date must be difficult while wearing dive gloves. :rolleyes:




  • Setting the date must be difficult while wearing dive gloves. :rolleyes:

    Why would you want to set the date with dive gloves on?




  • Fitz II wrote: »
    Why would you want to set the date with dive gloves on?

    Precisely, why would you want a date on a dive watch? That is if you are actually going to use it for diving.




  • Precisely, why would you want a date on a dive watch? That is if you are actually going to use it for diving.

    What an amazingly original observation. Have you thought about publishing? :pac:


  • Advertisement


  • Precisely, why would you want a date on a dive watch? That is if you are actually going to use it for diving.

    The date is the most useful complication on a watch in my opinion. Dive watches weren't designed solely for diving so having a date function is extremely useful when not in the water. The bezel function is the part designed for diving and so the part where the ergonomics of using with dive gloves would come into play. I don't particularly like the aesthetics of them but I imagine that the raised part of the bezel you see every quarter on a lot of breitling bezels is very useful for actual diving.




  • Precisely, why would you want a date on a dive watch? That is if you are actually going to use it for diving.

    Not your best effort there. Could do better. ;)




  • Precisely, why would you want a date on a dive watch? That is if you are actually going to use it for diving.

    I know your not looking for an answer....

    But saturation divers can live and work underwater for weeks at a time. I know if I was living in a small pressurised tube under water for weeks I'd be pretty interested in what date it is




  • Fitz II wrote: »
    Not your best effort there. Could do better. ;)

    At least I try. :)




  • At least I try. :)

    Indeed you are trying




  • IMO the date complication is much more useful on that watch than
    the helium escape valve is.




  • If nothing else its worth having the date so you can tell people about the unusual quick date




  • Blanchy90 wrote: »
    If nothing else its worth having the date so you can tell people about the unusual quick date

    And how it's best shaken not stirred.




  • scwazrh wrote: »
    IMO the date complication is much more useful on that watch than
    the helium escape valve is.
    +1 especially given the teeny tiny number of even divers that will require it.

    Few enough were innocent in the past, few enough are innocent in the present, we just don’t know why yet.





  • Wibbs wrote: »
    +1 especially given the teeny tiny number of even divers that will require it.

    That and the fact that if you have to remember to unscrew the helium release valve , I would assume it’s as easy to unscrew the crown during compression instead ??now I know nothing about diving so could be wrong .

    The Rolex system seems much better being automatic.


  • Advertisement


  • Let's be totally honest here, nobody is buying a Seamaster or a Submariner as their primary dive watch. If they are, or claim to be, they probably haven't spent much time diving. Equally most racing drivers don't time their laps on Daytona's or Speedmasters and most pilots don't use Flieger watches. If any of the above do, it's likely they're doing it to justify the piece. These are 100% luxury goods, having been replaced long ago with more appropriate technology.

    But great video and looking forward to more :)




  • Shamrock92 wrote: »
    Let's be totally honest here, nobody is buying a Seamaster or a Submariner as their primary dive watch.

    Dunno about that. The previous owner of my Deepsea is a professional saturation diver. He is keeping his other one, the previous model, and claims to be the first diver to dive with the James Cameron soon after it launched in 2014. Told me the most important feature of the watch was the helium escape valve. Many of his colleagues have a Deepsea too. Not quite a Submariner though and they don't have helium escape valves I think, so that actually kinda proves your point :p

    What do you think people buy as their primary dive watch?




  • unkel wrote: »
    Dunno about that. The previous owner of my Deepsea is a professional saturation diver. He is keeping his other one, the previous model, and claims to be the first diver to dive with the James Cameron soon after it launched in 2014. Told me the most important feature of the watch was the helium escape valve. Many of his colleagues have a Deepsea too. Not quite a Submariner though and they don't have helium escape valves I think, so that actually kinda proves your point :p

    What do you think people buy as their primary dive watch?

    Certainly interesting, and I have seen many a diver wear a Rolex, but I'd imagine more as a statement piece than primary dive timing. I would imagine a Suunto or similar would be the primary dive computer in 100% of cases.

    My point was more towards the mention of turning a bezel with wetsuit gloves on. Similarly, I find a 'wetsuit extension' entirely useless and more of a copout for not including a more useful micro-adjustment feature.

    There was an article on Hodinkee recently about various 'Rapha' and 'Tracksmith' (Essentially the Hodinkees of cycling and running) employees and what they wear for their respective sports. In all my years running, cycling and competing in triathlons, I have never seen someone wearing a Rolex Explorer to time a split....just get a Garmin. I think it's more aimed towards the romanticising of the history of the watches rather than utilising them for a functional task, but I just found it a bit forced/fake.

    There's a rant I didn't expect :D




  • All pro divers and most recreational divers will use a suunto,cressi, aqualung or other dive computer.

    But, divers rely and are attached to redundancy.
    A dive watch and DC times will(or at least should) always be part and parcel of dive plans.

    The divers extension clasp, if you wear a watch that covers both normal wear and diving is essential.
    Most good dive watches have an easily adjustable clasp, anywhere from 5-10mm usually.
    That's nowhere near enough adjustment to fit over a wetsuit, hence the extension clasp such as Tudor, Sinn, Rolex and Omega et al.offer on their "pro" dive watches.

    It's a contraption that makes no real sense until you actually use it.
    Then, it's a huge timesaver and very convenient.




  • Kinda like issued military watches or those brands who use that in marketing where actual military guys very rarely wear issued pieces any more and instead wear G-Shocks. Timex Ironmans and the like. Issued watches largely came about for the average soldier in the early half of the 20th century because they were usually working class lads who didn't have or couldn't always afford watches of their own, or officers who did have their own watches but that were totally unsuitable examples for the tasks at hand. Even then in WW2 you see an awful lot of 30's style Tank dress watches in evidence.

    Few enough were innocent in the past, few enough are innocent in the present, we just don’t know why yet.





  • My take is that the mechanical watch, or any watch with an analogue dial is a dress watch ( a watch you wear for appearance over function). You might choose a dress watch in the style of a diver, or a pilot or a explorer. This is an aesthetic choice rather than a functional one as anyone who uses a watch as a critical piece of safety or operational equipment more than likelybe better served with a digital watch or computer.

    The historical uses of watches are just that, and I think its cool, it connects these objects to the past. (Now unkles example is the exception that proves the rule, but saturation divers live at pressure so there is lot of time sitting around so its nice to have "cool sh1t" with you). But you are choosing a dive style watch because that the type of aesthetic you connect with. Having said that on a 5k seamaster I feel that if you are spending that much on a dive aesthetic it should also be functional as a dive watch (vintage cars are better then they can be driven, not that most people will take their vintage porsche on the track, but its good that it can). Omega should make those bezels turn a little more easily, its the same on the new sm300p as much as that early 2000's version

    I dont discount historical functions as pointless, they serve a very real point. Looking cool and having that aesthetic we are after. The seamaster is a classic design now, and a He valve at 10 oclock is part of it same as the locking crown guards on a panerai or the turtle case on a seiko.




  • Nail on the head. Though on the analogue/digital front a lot of research down the years has shown that information acquisition is faster with analogue and there has been something of a roollback in areas like aviation that went a bit futuristic with the digital stuff for a time. German aircraft researchers pre WW2 noted this and fettled aircraft instruments so that when all was running ok with the engine(s) the hands would point vertically, so if one parameter went off you'd spot it. Now all this may change with a generation that gets their time from phones usually in digital format. Apparently some younger types can't read an analogue clock/watch face.

    I got into old watches because I found the digitals popular at the time hard for me to read. I'd have to read the time and then absorb it as it were. It was an extra step. With analogue it's a shape that directly says "quarter to five" or whatever to me. Now I'm wired funny(shock) and apparently have some sort of dyscalculia going on so...

    Few enough were innocent in the past, few enough are innocent in the present, we just don’t know why yet.





  • That's very interesting about the hands pointing vertically on instruments, makes sense to be able to tell at a glance if anything is wrong.

    I find analogue quicker to read than digital too I think it's similar to yourself that I see the shape before the actual time




  • I know both a pro diver, he always laughs at my dive watch because he says literally no one uses watches like that professionally. Too expensive and delicate was his reason. And mine was a lot cheaper than a sub. Dive computer and backup smaller dive computer was what he used. Mine watch even had a pressure sensor with depth gauge and he laughed at how useless it was, so I'd imagine submariner or seamaster wouldn't be used much


  • Advertisement


  • Cienciano wrote: »
    I know both a pro diver, he always laughs at my dive watch because he says literally no one uses watches like that professionally. Too expensive and delicate was his reason. And mine was a lot cheaper than a sub. Dive computer and backup smaller dive computer was what he used. Mine watch even had a pressure sensor with depth gauge and he laughed at how useless it was, so I'd imagine submariner or seamaster wouldn't be used much

    What watch was that?


Advertisement