Do you wear a watch?

peasant · 27-02-2021 1:20pm

10 past 12 and drizzly ...

fryup · 27-02-2021 9:32pm

is it still customary to give a boy a watch on his 13th birthday?

Wibbs · 27-02-2021 9:40pm

I remember that tradition alright. Doubt it's still in play these days. Another one was gifting a watch to a girlfriend was damn near considered a proposal. I've given a couple of my longtermers watches as presents. None of yer muck either, vintage Tudors and Omega's, though back when values weren't mad to be fair. I do recall a couple of mates and parentals being all like "eh wut?" at the time. I could tell which ones approved and which ones didn't.

I don't know if that's still a thing either?

fryup · 27-02-2021 9:42pm

how would you rate Tissot and Tag Heuer in the prestige stakes?

Sephiroth_dude · 27-02-2021 10:26pm

Haven't worn a watch in years but I had a calculator watch back in the day and my eldest brother brought a casio tv watch but it didn't work on our tv so he had to bring it back.

Esel · 27-02-2021 10:39pm

moonage · 28-02-2021 6:35am

FlubberJones wrote: »

I wear two, a nice mechanical on one and a Garmin tracker thing on the other

You've got a lot of time on your hands, you two-timer.

Filmer Paradise · 28-02-2021 5:00pm

fryup wrote: »

how would you rate Tissot and Tag Heuer in the prestige stakes?

https://relozo.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/watch_heirarchy-scaled.jpg

This should help.

CrabRevolution · 28-02-2021 5:10pm

Started wearing a watch in my late teens, not just because they are good for telling time, but I felt that wearing a watch made you look like you knew what you were doing.

I have 3 that get rotated in and out of use as I lose and find them; 2 Sekondas and a Rotary.

That said I've fallen out of the habit of wearing them a lot since the pandemic started, as I work in healthcare and the new intensity of PPE, handwashing etc. made a watch awkward to wear in work.

biobot · 28-02-2021 5:13pm

km991148 wrote: »

Let's Face it, that was pretty poor..

I second that...

Vestiapx · 28-02-2021 5:20pm

893bet wrote: »

Also this thread is pointless without pics. Wearing this for the last ten days or so. Badly due a rotation this weekend.

exotic names

That's some flex.

valoren · 28-02-2021 6:56pm

I have a G-Shock, a vintage Seiko dress watch from 1966, an Invicta Diver my wife bought me on honeymoon, a Henry of London Moonphase with leather strap, a Citizen World Time quartz chronograph, an Omega "Bond" Seamaster automatic and an Omega Speedmaster Professional. I mostly wear the Seamaster.

Junkyard Tom · 28-02-2021 6:59pm

https://www.tiktok.com/@zzhuo021/video/6931146966697118981?sender_device=pc&sender_web_id=6933112463005828614&is_from_webapp=v2&is_copy_url=0

fryup · 28-02-2021 11:13pm

anyone watch Antiques Roadshow tonight?? they a ladies Cartier bracelet watch circa 1920 encrusted with tiny diamonds, valued at 8k

personally i thought it would be more

The One Doctor · 28-02-2021 11:45pm

Let's face it, watches are for showoffs, ponces and ladymen.

Filmer Paradise · 01-03-2021 12:32am

The One Doctor wrote: »

Let's face it, watches are for showoffs, ponces and ladymen.

....and people who need to know the time..

fryup wrote: »

anyone watch Antiques Roadshow tonight?? they a ladies Cartier bracelet watch circa 1920 encrusted with tiny diamonds, valued at 8k

personally i thought it would be more

Ladies watches are always worth a fair bit less than gents.
Watch enthusiasts are almost always male.

Capt'n Midnight · 01-03-2021 1:43am

Filmer Paradise wrote: »

....and people who need to know the time..

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.

01-03-2021 1:52am

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.

mrm · 01-03-2021 2:18am

fryup wrote: »

anyone watch Antiques Roadshow tonight?? they a ladies Cartier bracelet watch circa 1920 encrusted with tiny diamonds, valued at 8k

personally i thought it would be more

Wasn't it the non original bracelet strap that impacted the valuation? Had ruby lugs also.

Would feel naked if I left the house without a watch on. And there is enough digital sh*t dominating you life already without having it possess your watch too inspector gadget! (general comment, not aimed at you fryup)

Capt'n Midnight · 01-03-2021 2:24am

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.

The point is that cheap electronics can easily beat the most expensive mechanical chronometer. In the past you needed to spend the a lot to get that performance. A stock phrase from old military or heist films was "synchronise watches"

The design of a user interface is a dark art indeed and woe betide anyone who change it without good reason and having the users permission first:)

gammygils · 01-03-2021 3:19am

Yes I always wear a watch. I own 10 watches, 2 fancy fairly expensive watches that herself bought me for milestone wedding anniversaries that I wear on special occasions and an actual pocket watch that has yet to be worn
I also have a selection of cheap Spanish market digital watches which I love but they only last a few years
And a FitBit also a present that I'm not really gone on but wear it sometimes
And my Dad's Gold Seiko watch he got for his retirement that I'll never wear

I also have a D&G watch worth about 250 Euros that my daughter won in a raffle and gave to me but it is absolutely horrible and I'll never wear it

California Dreamer · 01-03-2021 9:24am

The One Doctor wrote: »

Let's face it, watches are for showoffs, ponces and ladymen.

My watch is about 40 years old. My dad wore it and gave it to be on my 21st birthday. He died a few years after that. It never comes off my wrist except for a yearly battery change.

If that makes me a showoff, ponce or a ladyman well then so be it! :rolleyes:

OMM 0000 · 01-03-2021 9:42am

Currently wearing an 18k Omega Constellation from 1956. A beauty.

OMM 0000 · 01-03-2021 9:43am

California Dreamer wrote: »

My watch is about 40 years old. My dad wore it and gave it to be on my 21st birthday. He died a few years after that. It never comes off my wrist except for a yearly battery change.

If that makes me a showoff, ponce or a ladyman well then so be it! :rolleyes:

Firstly, anyone who has an issue with people with nice watches are total clowns, probably jealous, and definitely unhappy.

Secondly, it's a quartz.

fryup · 01-03-2021 9:49am

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Currently wearing an 18k Omega Constellation from 1956. A beauty.

ooooooooOOOOOOOOOO

showoff

California Dreamer · 01-03-2021 9:51am

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Firstly, anyone who has an issue with people with nice watches are total clowns, probably jealous, and definitely unhappy.

Secondly, it's a quartz.

I wouldn't care if it was a wind up watch that came from a box of cornflakes.

OMM 0000 · 01-03-2021 9:54am

fryup wrote: »

ooooooooOOOOOOOOOO
showoff

I can admit I do get some pleasure telling people I'm wearing a 65 year old 18 carat gold luxury watch... haha.

California Dreamer wrote: »

I wouldn't care if it was a wind up watch that came from a box of cornflakes.

I know. I was kidding. Glad you have a watch you love.

OldRio · 01-03-2021 9:58am

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 · 01-03-2021 10:00am

20 year old steel Cartier Tank Solo. I've worn it every day and I love the simplicity and classic design. Probably the cheapest expensive watch around. I can't seem to upload a photo of mine - but this is the model:

Tank-Solo-in-Steel-%E2%80%93-Large-Model-%E2%80%93-Men%E2%80%99s-Watch-%E2%80%93-WSTA0028-Marshall-Pierce-Company-Chicago-Authorized-Dealer.jpg

Tank-Solo-in-Steel-%E2%80%93-Large-Model-%E2%80%93-Men%E2%80%99s-Watch-%E2%80%93-WSTA0028-Marshall-Pierce-Company-Chicago-Authorized-Dealer.jpg

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

893bet · 01-03-2021 10:05am

The One Doctor wrote: »

Let's face it, watches are for showoffs, ponces and ladymen.

Ooooooooooooh what en edgy opinion

OldRio · 01-03-2021 10:05am

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.

01-03-2021 10:19am

Hillmanhunter1 wrote: »

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

Symmetry I believe.

Hillmanhunter1 · 01-03-2021 10:27am

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 · 01-03-2021 10:30am

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"?

6034073

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 · 01-03-2021 10:40am

Wibbs would you buy this? a future classic?

OMM 0000 · 01-03-2021 10:54am

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 · 01-03-2021 11:05am

OMM 0000 wrote: »

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

Otherwise known as “Tag Hewer”

McHardcore · 01-03-2021 11:08am

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 · 01-03-2021 11:10am

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 · 01-03-2021 11:20am

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 · 01-03-2021 12:03pm

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 · 01-03-2021 12:12pm

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 · 01-03-2021 12:20pm

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 · 01-03-2021 12:25pm

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 · 01-03-2021 12:27pm

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 · 01-03-2021 12:29pm

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 · 01-03-2021 12:35pm

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 · 01-03-2021 12:37pm

banie01 wrote: »

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

whats it knocking off?

hitemfrank · 01-03-2021 12:45pm

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 · 01-03-2021 12:47pm

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.

Do you wear a watch?

Comments