Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Post pics of your watches ***Please NO QUOTING PHOTOS***
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
Lads. One word. Watchwinders!
I have a few but never got on with them. The cheap ones are loud and magnetise the crap out of the watch. Also a number tend not to have enough settings to get a good wind on a unidirectional watch. Got a wolf winder but the batteries dont last long in the safe. I also take issue with running a watch all the time, it seems unnecessary wear and tear, the old thoughts that the watch will gum up if left to relax is long gone with any reasonably modern watch.
Winders look cool, but if I had a expensive perpetual calander I would not run it 24/7 on a winder. They are also like display cases for burglers.0 -
Lads. One word. Watchwinders!
I have a 4 slot Chinese one, 4 winding and slots for another 4.
I kind like it in my bedroom, as a watch display.
I haven't actually had it switched on in months tho, its solely a watch stand.
I kind of agree with Fitz in that there's no real need for winders now that there's far more viscous and less gummy oils in use and its an easy lift away for any burglar....
but!
They look so bloody nice with a few watches on display
0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
They look so bloody nice with a few watches on display
They look nice and you don't have to set your watch any time you pick one to wear!
Dunno about any of the cons people mention here. My one is cheap, yet silent. In several months using it, I haven't seen any negative impact on any of my watches. No doubt a winder is gentler on a watch than actually wearing the watch. The motor is rated 3W and is only on about 10% of the time, so the electricity use per year is just a few cents. And I don't care about thieves. My home is insured.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Cyrus is not boasting about his IWC. Maybe his VC or AP if he was in the mood. Seriously chap, we are trying to move the conversation on here, leave it be. Give us your thoughts on watchwinders, or tell us what else is in your collection, where do you buy watches? You a new or second hand guy? Like sports or formal, braclets or straps. Cyrus has a long and genuine history on here of thoughtful and tasteful watch collecting, you are not going to get anywhere trolling him.
But Unkle...you dont have a watch that need naming on the insurance any more:p:p:p:p. My insurance only covers my watches if they are in my safe ( and they have strong opinions on what safe I should have) or on my person. Sitting in winders doesnt count.
Now here is a winder I could get behind.....
0 -
-
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,085 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 59014
[Caveat to the above post. I'm weird]
Today as we head into the Autumn season, Faaaaalll for any American folks, I decided World War one was "in". Current is soooo not.
1914(or 15, can't exactly recall) 15 jewel movement Trench watch in a silver Borgel case, an early and the most widespread attempt at keeping the outer world from the inner. The case of the watch is one piece and the movement and dial screw in from the foront. In an example where the case threads aren't worn out to feck they're actually quite "waterproof", certainly splash proof, which tends to mean their movements are usually in better nick than in other more open cases of the period. We had to wait until 1917 before a true "waterproof" wristwatch came along in the form of the "Submarine", an order from British submariners placed with a Scottish jewellers. It was also antimagnetic and used no ferrous metals in the movement, because of the batteries used in submarines while submerged. Another very long term grail....Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
-
-
-
[Caveat to the above post. I'm weird]
Today as we head into the Autumn season, Faaaaalll for any American folks, I decided World War one was "in". Current is soooo not.
1914(or 15, can't exactly recall) 15 jewel movement Trench watch in a silver Borgel case, an early and the most widespread attempt at keeping the outer world from the inner. The case of the watch is one piece and the movement and dial screw in from the foront. In an example where the case threads aren't worn out to feck they're actually quite "waterproof", certainly splash proof, which tends to mean their movements are usually in better nick than in other more open cases of the period. We had to wait until 1917 before a true "waterproof" wristwatch came along in the form of the "Submarine", an order from British submariners placed with a Scottish jewellers. It was also antimagnetic and used no ferrous metals in the movement, because of the batteries used in submarines while submerged. Another very long term grail....
You picked the worse possible time of the day to show off the hour hand! Cool watch though, what's the case size?0 -
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,085 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59014
True. Me taking phone pics..You picked the worse possible time of the day to show off the hour hand! Cool watch though, what's the case size?
The case is 35mm. The Borgel cases generally came in IIRC 32mm and 35mm. I've seen a couple smaller, but none larger so far. I suppose at that early stage of the wristwatch game they were still working out the right size. Bigger meant (in very general terms) bigger movements and more accuracy, but more vulnerable to impacts, smaller meant less accuracy, but less vulnerable. I've found myself that wearing my bigger watches I'm much more aware to some degree of not hitting them off something, whereas with the sub 35mm stuff that isn't nearly in play to the same degree and youtend to forget you're wearing one.
In the days before wristwatches lattery became more bling jewellery for men(though they always had some of that going on) watches, even most tool watches were a lot smaller. Wearing a 40mm+ watch for most of the 20th century would have looked very odd to others. Unless you were an actual pilot or an actual diver(and even then the majority of such tool watches were sub 40mm). Men's watches for the most part ranged between 30-35mm(women's watches were positively microscopic). Men tended to be smaller too of course with smaller wrists compared to our more well fed population today. I do remember wearing my 30's Zenith(42mm) when I was in my late teens and getting comments about the "clock" on my wrist and unkind references to Flavor Flave.
I'd reckon the big shift in size came in the 70's. Not just stylistically, but with the coming of quartz. Because of the tech of the time early quartz movements were large and that meant larger watches, most of the early stuff was lugless because the cases were so large for the time and they tried to hide it. Interestingly as the quartz tech progressed men's watches started to shrink with it. By the late 70's men's quartz dress watches were tiny by comparison to today's tastes, digitals grew large because of the more features means more sales kinda thing, but they weren't considered dressy.
A few pages ago I posted about my pair of Longines VHP quartz from the 80's and how my recent find was "large" at 37mm, compared to my dad's bought in 85 34MM. The advertising reflected that trend.
The lady's version required an electron microscope to read.
Though I would reckon the ginormous watches trend of 45mm etc of latter years has passed its peak and now 38-42mm seems to be the sweet spot.Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
wersal gummage wrote: »If I'm not mixing you up with someone else, you have a lovely collection of watches, or is that a collection of lovely watches.
Grand Seikos etc?
Thanks - I do have too many watches, but not too many GS
wersal gummage wrote: »I have my eye on a mm300, ideally one like yours and not the newer prospex branding. If selling prices on chrono24 remotely resemble asking prices they are a very expensive watch.
How does it wear? Could you wear it with a suit / under a shirt?
Sorry for not responding until now. I wasn't watching the thread.
It wears very comfortably, and changing the bracelet for a strap is very easy. Off the bracelet, for pure comfort, I like it on a 20mm isofrane (but you will need the skinny seiko spring bars to fit that correctly). I am a little ambiguous on the looks of it on the isofrane - the short lugs mean most straps leave a gap between watch and strap and I don't like that - but on balance I like it and it is extremely comfortable.
Note, the black 20mm isoframe is noticeably better/more pliable than the navy/green one, at least when I was buying them 5 plus years ago.
A great alternative for much less money is the stock strap from the BFKs, which looks and feels great in my view) works really well. It fills the lug gap perfectly and the slightly flared style works really well. It is a bit of a dust magnet.
Wearing with a suit/shirt, in short, it depends. If you wear french cuffs with cuff links, it will slip under those absolutely fine. At 14.7 mm tall it's in the region of many dressy chronos using a valjoux 7753, for example, and people wear those with dress shirts all the time. It helps that the sides are not 'slab sided' and the watch overall sits low on the wrist.
Again for comparison a PO 2500 42mm is 14.2 mm thick. The MM300 is not so far off and wears similarly in my view. I personally quite frequently wear my PO and my MM300 with a suit and tie and would never not do so to thickness, but I also always wear french cuffs.
I have casual single-cuff shirts, and some of them work find but anything a little more snug does not. If you wore a tight fitting jumper over the shirt, compressing the cuff, you would be occasionally conscious of the cuffs hanging up on the watch and a need to slip it under the cuff if that sort of thing bothered you.
The bracelet itself can take a little bit of work to get a good fit due the long links, but you will get there, and the clasp design is certainly a bit clunky compared to modern watches. It's not the standard stamped Seiko clasp though, thankfully. However, clasp should probably be seen as a weak point, for what they are now charging for the watch at least. When it was better value, this was not an issue. I would stress, the clasp is perfectly secure and has never failed on me.
Hope that helps feel free to ask any other questions. I do wholeheartedly recommend the watch. They are tremendous.
edit: if you're around Dublin city centre and want to try it on drop me a line.0 -
Advertisement
-
I get the logic behind the reserve displays, I just don't tend to rotate every few days - more like a week. So my autos are generally either completely dead or charged. That's just me, but I think they're a far more useful thing on a handwound.
Definitely handy on a manual.
I like it on my 1815 and glad I opted for the one with the “up down” indicator.
0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
My Astronaut is back after its further tweaking.
I missed it more than I thought, it fills a need I never knew I had until someone posted its history on here
Little things like the hum, the vibration when you hack to change the time and the way it wears on the wrist.
0 -
My Astronaut is back after its further tweaking.
I missed it more than I thought, it fills a need I never knew I had until someone posted its history on here
Little things like the hum, the vibration when you hack to change the time and the way it wears on the wrist.
That is a truly lovely piece.
I can't believe its history and significance is not more widely known.
Well wear with your piece of sled driver history!0 -
Advertisement
-
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement