or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › The Watch Appreciation Thread (Reviews and Photos of Men's Timepieces by Rolex, Patek Philippe, Breitling, JLC etc...)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Watch Appreciation Thread (Reviews and Photos of Men's Timepieces by Rolex, Patek Philippe, Breitling, JLC etc...) - Page 1910  

post #28636 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Betelgeuse View Post
 

Tried on this watch today... I loved it!

 

 

Is something like that considered too busy for a formal'/dress watch?

post #28637 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by ridethecliche View Post

Is something like that considered too busy for a formal'/dress watch?
I think so.
post #28638 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith T View Post

Calling all cars, calling all cars....

Will somebody please steer me away from this *quartz* Tank Solo...it has become this week's obsession:

Simply a perfect dress watch, design-wise.

I mean PERFECT.

Dead serious.....I would not change a single thing about it aside from the movement.

The size works great for my wrist, I love the yellow gold, the Romans, the tang buckle, the history of the watch and the Cartier brand itself. (Still wear my Roadster all the time.)

Before anyone recommends one, I know they currently make automatic versions-- which are slightly larger, and they also have a day-counter and sweep seconds. They just don't appeal to me, or maybe I haven't warmed up to them.

I also am aware of the Tank Louis Cartier XL hand-wound, which again is larger, and comes in rose gold...in fact, Dino has one and it's a great. piece. Much respect for that watch and in particular the movement...but I don't think that one is the Tank for me. (Maybe I should try one on the wrist though....I DO know this....always sound advice).

Lately I've looked into some vintage models as well, and there are some mechanical versions in YG available for similar pricing (or less), but they also come with vintage sizing, around 23 X 30mm. I have a Gruen curvex close to that size and I like it, but I feel that I would want something a touch bigger in a Tank.

There's something about this model (REF: W5200004) that proportionally just looks so "right" to me.

Also, FWIW I used to have a Tank Francaise which I traded (and don't miss)....but damn if I don't have a watch boner for this stupid quartz right now.

Somebody please slap me.

Logically, it seems like a stupid waste of watch funds.

I should be thinking maybe something more like a Reverso, right? Something else with pedigree and an honest-to-god "ticking" movement.

But I see pics like this and it makes me want to tell Cartier to shut up and take my money.



SOS.

Hi Keith,

 

IMHO, the Tank is the quintessential rectangular watch.  Its been around for almost 100 years and it still looks smart, relevant, and is a great change of pace from the usual round watches that we usually consider.  I've probably said it at least a dozen times here, that I love wearing non-round dress watches.  When I wear round sports watches most of the week, putting on a square/rectangular watch feels quite dressy.  I suppose its like going from wearing sneakers all week, to putting on a pair of EGs.  

 

As much as I like Cartier and their products, there are other pieces from them that I would prefer to a Tank Solo.  First, IIRC, the Tank Solo isn't actual gold, I believe the old ones were plated (I don't like the idea of having to replate something years from now).  In addition, I'm not in love with the flattened case shape.  The tops of the case sides of the classic Tanks are usually, gently rounded.  As for the quartz movement, I believe in this model its a rather basic one from ETA.  If you were getting say a Tank Francaise Chronograph, that would have a rather high grade quartz Piaget "Chronoreflex" movement that is also a perpetual calendar.  Still, on most watches, I would prefer a manual wind or automatic.  The only exception I made is for a Rolex Oysterquartz. I liked its rugged construction (by standards of the day it was far more advanced and had many features that took years to trickle down to Subs, Daytonas, and Oyster Perpetual DJs), it used a very high grade quartz movement with 11 jewels, and I liked its design.  

 

As for the Tank  sizes, its always best to try them on as they vary quite a bit by model.   Actually, the current ultra thin Tank XL is considerably larger than my Tank XL.  Tanks have been around for many years and there are many variations on the theme.  Perhaps you should expand your search to include other pre-owned Tanks.  Wishing you luck on your search, or luck being talked out of getting a Tank (if you truly wish to be talked out of it).  

post #28639 of 48312

Keith - I have talked to the Misses about a Tank Solo XL in SS which can be had for $3K.  The quartz version in SS is what? $2,200?  Might as well pay the extra.  As for buying YG quartz, I wouldn't do that for $4-5K.  I know Dino has an Oysterquartz but I personally would not buy quartz when an auto version is similarly priced.  Just let the urge subside and think of the grail pieces you are saving for.

post #28640 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by ridethecliche View Post
 

 

Is something like that considered too busy for a formal'/dress watch?

 

 

On a strap you could wear that chrono as a dress watch, definitely.  It's not a stupid size, the two subdials aren't in weird colours or anything, and those blued feuille hands are really quite elegant. I think on a bit of black croc that would sit with a suit perfectly reasonably.  I mean, look at the Daytonas and Royal Oak chronos that people wear with suits, and they're usually on bracelets.  I'd say this one needs leather to dress it up, but I think a dashing young buck like RTC could make this a very lovely dress watch.  And a lot prettier than that Orient with its flies open.

 

For what my opinion's worth, I don't mind the subdials and the bitten-out numbers on that: unlike my learned brother Mr Barwick, I don't see this at all as being a short cut on ready-made dials.  It looks very deliberate to me: leaving the numbers there makes the subdials appear to float above the dial, more prominent and catching the eye somehow.  It seems very deliberate design and quite fun.  I think that's an attractive watch overall.

 

Anyway, I'm glad @Betelgeuse mentioned that watch, because I've been thinking about a Longines chrono for ages, although specifically this one in my case:

 

 

 

This is another version of the "Heritage" chronograph, and is around from about $2500.  I like it because it has the stick markers and this particular layout of subdials, although Betel's is nice too.  The dark brown croc with contrast stitching really works as well.  I've added the second picture because it shows more accurately that the dial on this one is kind of off-white, giving it a more subtle vintagey feel.

 

Anyway, one of the things that got me really noticing this range of chronos as opposed to, say, a cheaper Tag or a definietly-cheaper Tissot, Hamilton, Sinn etc., is the movement.  Of course it's a modified ETA movement, from within the Swatch family.  But it's also a special one, as I'm sure most of you know:

 

 

OK, so it's just yet another Valjoux 7750 adaptation (not that that's a bad thing, right?).  But it's got a column wheel.  Which, ETA or not, demands a special level of precision, as far as I can tell.  And it's blue.  And blue things are cool*.  And it's $2,500, for which there are a few other things I'd like, definitely, yet this seems like a contender.

 

I like this watch.  I would be very tempted to own one.  Is this wise?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jbarwick View Post
 

Keith - I have talked to the Misses about a Tank Solo XL in SS which can be had for $3K.  The quartz version in SS is what? $2,200?  Might as well pay the extra.  As for buying YG quartz, I wouldn't do that for $4-5K.  I know Dino has an Oysterquartz but I personally would not buy quartz when an auto version is similarly priced.  Just let the urge subside and think of the grail pieces you are saving for.

 

I think I agree with this, although part of the point seems to be that this particular quartz is a cheaper GOLD Cartier?  But yeah, I think a gold quartz watch would be a great present for my daughter.  But it wouldn't be for me.  Whereas that Solo XL is definitely on my list of candidates for  "under $3k, you know I almost could..." possible purchase.

 

 

*Except the Smurfs.  They are assholes.

post #28641 of 48312
I'd rather have the Longines with the column wheel modified 7750 than the one Betelgeus posted with the modular movement. I have had problems with 2 out of three modular chronograph movements I have owned (1 GP, 1 Longines).

Mimo - the watch you posted is one I would be happy to own - and have been tempted by in the past.
post #28642 of 48312

@mimo

 

Mimster, I was asking more because the hamilton I have is on a metal strap. It's got a chrono as well and I was wondering if that's also 'dressy' enough.

post #28643 of 48312

Show.  And also, buying a new strap might be a neat option to save you buying a new watch for now.

post #28644 of 48312
Question for you guys. Would it be completely ridiculous for your wife to have/wear the exact same watch as you? I'm not talking about his and hers Datejusts like what Cleav posted (which I think is a lovely concept), but literally 2 identical men's size watches.
post #28645 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by TC (Houston) View Post

Question for you guys. Would it be completely ridiculous for your wife to have/wear the exact same watch as you? I'm not talking about his and hers Datejusts like what Cleav posted (which I think is a lovely concept), but literally 2 identical men's size watches.

 

I think this depends on the watch.  And the wife.  And the husband.

 

But I've had no problems or complaints when I went out with my wife and she wore my 3970 in yellow gold and I wore my 3970 in platinum. 

Guess that doesn't qualify for "identical" since the metals are different...

post #28646 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by RogerP View Post

Beautiful watch. But I would not buy a luxury gold watch with a quartz movement. Ever. But that's me and how I choose to spend my money.

Totally get that. And to be clear, this thing actually has a stainless steel back! Even worse. shog[1].gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by in stitches View Post

I have quartz-a-phobia, but ymmv. Wrist shots would help, looks like a very small watch.

Don't have any personal wrist shots of it stitchy, but having tried it on a few times, I'm not worried at all about the size of this piece relative to my wrist. It pretty much fits me like a modestly-sized, slim dress watch should.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dino944 View Post

Hi Keith,

IMHO, the Tank is the quintessential rectangular watch.  Its been around for almost 100 years and it still looks smart, relevant, and is a great change of pace from the usual round watches that we usually consider.  

[...]

Actually, the current ultra thin Tank XL is considerably larger than my Tank XL.  Tanks have been around for many years and there are many variations on the theme.  Perhaps you should expand your search to include other pre-owned Tanks.  Wishing you luck on your search, or luck being talked out of getting a Tank (if you truly wish to be talked out of it).  

(emphasis mine) ^^OMG THIS^^

But I will definitely keep looking....and Dino, I believe yours is a limited edition, right? It's got that sweet "Paris" on the dial, and also an exhibition back, compared to the current offering from Cartier....do you know the actual case size on it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mimo View Post

[...]I think I agree with this, although part of the point seems to be that this particular quartz is a cheaper GOLD Cartier?  But yeah, I think a gold quartz watch would be a great present for my daughter.  But it wouldn't be for me.  Whereas that Solo XL is definitely on my list of candidates for  "under $3k, you know I almost could..." possible purchase.

The fact that it is YG is definitely a big part of the attraction for me. And I'll even admit that given current tastes, this particular version could be seen as unisex. And yet I'm totally okay with it for some reason.

Maybe I just freeze the Amex in a big block of ice and wait for the fever to subside LOL. That usually works.
post #28647 of 48312
TC, Oh so that's what you meant about the silver dial AP she mentioned to you. Didn't realise same size. Depends on fit etc I'd say, why not? Why ever not!

I'm not gonna ask the Duchess for her opinion as it might plant the seed to some serious expense. smile.gif

Mimo, that's the style longine I pictured in my response to Betelg earlier. I like that one too. What's not to like.

Keith, looks like it has bitten you, also looks like you not bought it in your head. For all the positive reasons mapped out by you Dino and others it's good, for all the neg reasons mapped out by you, Dino and others it ain't good. No real dilemma I feel, I think your head has the answer
post #28648 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by TC (Houston) View Post

Question for you guys. Would it be completely ridiculous for your wife to have/wear the exact same watch as you? I'm not talking about his and hers Datejusts like what Cleav posted (which I think is a lovely concept), but literally 2 identical men's size watches.
I wouldn't do it, personally. I'd even have a hard time with the same watch in different sizes. YMMV.
post #28649 of 48312
If she's down with wearing a man's watch, why wouldn't you get something different so you have two watches to choose from?
post #28650 of 48312
Longines make some fine watches. The wife wants one, so I'll show that one off here as soon as it's on her wrist.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
This thread is locked  
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › The Watch Appreciation Thread (Reviews and Photos of Men's Timepieces by Rolex, Patek Philippe, Breitling, JLC etc...)