nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Watch features you dislike?

funkyouup

What features put you off a watch?

I personally don’t like chronos, or anything with additional dials generally.

Roman numerals, especially California dials.

Too much text on the dial, brand name and maybe one more line of txt and that’s about it.

Putting 2 micro adjustments, should always be 3 or more.

I’m sure I could think of more but it’s been a long Sunday.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Wibbs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118495152#Comment_118495152

Transparent case backs or any type of case really that lets you see the inner working. Always think there's something really tacky about it.

I dunno about tacky myself, but I just don't see the point or transparent casebacks, or fancy casebacks in general. I could understand it with pocketwatches because the whole case is on view every time it comes out of the pocket so jazzing that up with fancy engravings, enamel inlay and the like makes sense, but not on a wristwatch. A dedication from a loved one who got it for you cool, but otherwise wouldn't be for me.

[Deleted User]

o1s1n

Metal bracelets - I find they draw way too much attention to themselves and away from the actual dial itself. Love how a nice subdued leather strap lets the dial pop.

Transparent case backs or any type of case really that lets you see the inner working. Always think there's something really tacky about it.

funkyouup

65lp0tf0mec81.jpg

Looks so wrong without the Mercedes logo in the circle.

Wibbs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118490910#Comment_118490910

Maybe. Though I've seen them on other brands down the years and still nope. Even with the classic that is the Rolex Sub. Here are two 70's examples, both military issued, but one was 'refreshed' at some point(and lost a ton of cash because of it).

With Merc hands

Now with the original hands as issued(from a 60's Omega Seamaster).

I soooo much prefer the second one. Much nicer bezel with it. IMHO more elegant lugs back then too. My fave Rolex ever and by quite a margin. Though since I don't have a spare 300,000 quid laying around and personally wouldn't wear an homage that's that.

Actually another plus point for Rolex is their lume. That 'advice' you read that "dial and hand lume should always match on vintage or it's wrong 'un" is mostly BS. Unless it's a Seiko, dails and hands were made by different manufacturers, so slightly different mixes were involved. Plus the dial lume is thinner and only exposed on one side, the hand lume is thicker and exposed on both, so more open to ageing from damp and oxidation. I've seen plenty of perfectly fine even NOS vintage watches where the collar and cuffs didn't match. Rolex on the other hand seem to have been a general exception to this. Their lume on hands and dial tends to match much more. Older IWC stuff the same. Omega can be all over the place and Heuer can be laughably bad on this score.

Pablo_Flox

Mercedes hands for me... Wouldn't be a fan at all, and I have a suspicion that if it wasn't a Rolex thing that many more would feel the same!

Fitz II

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118490479#Comment_118490479

Except in the movement 😉

Cienciano

Oh yeah, jewels anywhere on a mens watch is terrible

CalamariFritti

There aren't many features that I really dislike.

Not mad on chronos but I saw nice ones for which I'd make an exception. In fact I have a couple of cheaper ones. Not a huge diver fan either but like to have one around for holidays etc.

The real NoNos for me are anything 'baroque' for want of a better word. Gold, two-tone, moonphase etc, full day of the week, roman numerals, 'elegant' fonts. Overelaborate non-tech dials with fancy swirls and mini sub-dials (smalls seconds not too bad). Anything over 40mm (although I don have small wrists) and anything that feels or actually is thick.

Also anything with a massive presence. I dont like 'statement' watches. Watches that draw looks and are shouting out to the world 'Im an expensive watch'. I'd spend a few grand on a watch if I really liked it but I wouldnt want it to be blatantly obvious that it cost that much. Working class guy at heart. 😀

partyguinness

Gold

Jewels on the bezel

Chronographs- I don't like features that realistically I will never ever use (says the guy with a 50ATM Pelagos)

Tachymeter- again, just hurt my eyes and pointless

Any watch that comes with a big fancy write up and box with all sorts of extraneous nonsense about the moon (Yes Omega Speedmaster I'm looking at you) or even worse James Bond (Yes Omega you again)

Lorddrakul

Gold - never mad about it, even two tone.

Rose gold - just no.

Dial adornment that reduces legibility - usually some kind of sparkle, sunburst or other ill advised bling.

Any kind of gem or cut stone indices - this should be punishable by the stocks!

Fashion watches that ape some design classic or style icon and then put an $8 movement in.

Manufacturers that insist their decades old design with known flaws are in some way innovative when given some minor make over that usually consists of a cost cutting exercise for mass production.

hitemfrank

Mercedes and snowflake handsets are not for me at all.

Dive watches with bezels that are just the same silver colour as the case.

Daemonic

Roman Numerals & square / rectangular dials are an instant no for me.

blackbox

I hate a date that is too small to read if you are older than a teenager.

The Floyd p

The cyclops on Rolex watches It's not necessary to be legible and I think it looks ugly.

The jubilee bracelet on Rolex watches. Often times it's too dainty.

Bund straps. Absolutely awful.

Blanchy90

Plain caseback

Non screwdown crowns

No lume on a dive watch

Overly busy dials

Fitz II

Hommage watches.

Tang buckles.

Pushers for adjusting complications.

Buss down watches.

Watches that are hard to read the time off.

Modular chronographs you thick feckers.

Movements that don't hack Patek.

Display backs on watches with nasty looking movement Seiko.

Brass watches...that not patina that's rust.

Watches that you cannot actually buy

Cienciano

Weird, I agree with almost everything! Always exceptions though. For instance, not a fan of roman numerals but I have a seiko and the numerals are sort of squished so they look almost like baton indexs.

Never liked small seconds, plain caseback, chronos, skeletons. Thing is, some are nice and i can really appreciate the workmanship, but I'd never buy one.

Jacob & Co and Richard Mille are all horrendous but don't think their designs are aimed at plebs like us.

893bet

Thick watches. Too thick is not something I can put a number on. It’s just something I decide.

Dive watches

Small seconds (and I have one)

Black coating

Titanium

Plain caseback (yes Rolex I am looking at you).

funkyouup

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118486153#Comment_118486153

For years i hated skeletonized dials but I do have a liking for one of the Hamilton Jazzmaster models, reminds me of the Terminator after he was missing part of his face.

Wibbs

Three register chronographs. I love cathedral hands, but for some reason I never liked Mercedes hands. 'Dive' watches where the hour hand is the one with a pointer. I'd be with you on California dials.

njburke

The Jacob & Co Astronomia used to sum it up for me. I didn't get it. Then I found out that Jacob did time in the big house and I learned a bit more about watches and watch culture. So something you dislike initially can grow on you or at the very least cause you to rethink.