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 2739  

post #41071 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dino944 View Post

I'd rather have an original design than a "Me Too" design any day...and if its out of my price range...then I'll gladly admire it from afar.  

I thought you owned a PP Nautilus? devil.gif
post #41072 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grammaton Cleric View Post


I thought you owned a PP Nautilus? devil.gif

 

You can't say anything not positive about PP on the internet!  I hear every time it happens, an angel loses his wings.

post #41073 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grammaton Cleric View Post 
I thought you owned a PP Nautilus? devil.gif

Nope, a Royal Oak.  I wouldn't mind having a Nautilus.  Then it might show the progression of Genta's design ideas. 

post #41074 of 48312
Did you mean regression? stirpot.gif
post #41075 of 48312

I always preferred the Ingenuir :cool:

 

although, I can't actually spell it

post #41076 of 48312

I'm going to come out and say it. I think Grand Seiko's Hi-Beat GMT is quite beautiful. I would be more inclined to look closer if they put in a bit of lume - which they no-doubt left out to emphasize the laser faceting of the markers. But even still, I struggle to find much fault with it. I suppose they could have fewer than three brand logos on the dial. That does put me off a bit.

 

 

 

But the more I look into these GS mechanicals, the more I start to cast a doubtful eye on popular criticisms of them. The finish is spectacular for the price point and the designs display many Japanese qualities: utility, readability, a combination of elegant simplicity and meticulous attention to detail...  right down to that mirror polishing techniques originally developed for Samurai blades. And a silicon balance spring that puts out 10 beats per second with a -3/+5 second/day accuracy - not bad. Three-year service interval - not great.

 

They lack proper heritage, you might accuse? Let us recall that Seiko competed at the Astronomical Observatory Chronometer Concours in 1968 taking 2nd and 3rd place. Of course, they invented quartz movements a year later and mucked things up for horology at large... Now they hold themselves to higher standards than you find with COSC Chronometers.

 

I'm beginning to believe the only real arguments against the Grand Seiko mechanicals harken back to the recent discussion of brand loyalties - or lack thereof. Eg: "You paid WHAT for a Seiko?"

 

I suppose resale value is another consideration. Not that it necessarily should be.

post #41077 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottcw View Post

I used to discount the Datejust in comparison to an Explorer or GMT, but the simple dial is growing on me. Any thoughts from owners past and present?


CREATOR: gd-jpeg v1.0 (using IJG JPEG v62), default quality

I caved and bought the above today. Description from the seller:

"Here's a 1965 Datejust reference 1603 in excellent condition, serviced in Switzerland in 2014. Here's the details: ROLEX (SS/SS Oyster Perpetual Datejust Chronometer) - Excellent 36mm signed stainless steel screwback case (reference 1603, #12689xx) with crenelated stainless steel bezel, signed 26 jewel calibre 1560 chronometer automatic movement (adjusted to 5 positions and temperature), excellent signed original silver satin dial with raised silver markers, raised silver Rolex "crown" logo at 12:00, silver hands and sweep seconds, signed original screwdown crown, "cyclops" crystal, signed stainless steel jubilee bracelet. The stainless steel screwback case on this vintage Rolex is in excellent condition, and features an unusual crenelated bezel, not the usual fluted style. The inner case back is signed Rolex with the reference number 1603 and a production date in the second quarter of 1965. The reference and serial numbers also appear clearly between the lugs. The signed 26 jewel calibre 1560 chronometer automatic movement is running fine, keeping accurate time, and the calendar function works as designed The movement was totally overhauled in Switzerland in April, 2014, and service papers are provided. The silver satin dial is original in excellent condition with minor aging, and is signed, "Rolex, Oyster Perpetual, Datejust, Superlative Chronometer Officially Certified, T Swiss T." The signed original folded stainless steel jubilee bracelet is in excellent condition with moderate stretch and wear, and will fit about a 7 inch wrist without additional links. The bracelet itself is worth about $500 on the open market. This is a very nice 1965 vintage Rolex Datejust, all original and complete and ready to wear!"
post #41078 of 48312

If resale value is a concern, then start by buying a used one.

post #41079 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghostcat View Post

Question on that Nautilus: do you ever feel like it isn't robust enough for daily wear? I've been thinking about getting my first true luxury watch, but I can't help but worry that they won't be very hardwearing (choosing between a Nautilus and a RO, by the way). I might be fretting for nothing since I work a desk job and barely ding my current watch.


I'm assuming your question is directed at me, given that I posted my 5711 a few pages ago. I find my Nautilus to be tough enough for most of the things I've thrown at it. I swim often with it, I have gone diving with it, I have worn it to the gym and done Burpees while wearing it. When I'm at the beach I do rinse I off with soap and water at the end of each day. I once went a week without doing this and sunblock funk is a bitch to clean.

The only time my 5711's clasp came off was when I was at a "fire truck ride" at Legoland with my kids. We had to pump up and down fast and hard to win a "race" - and the clasp came off hahah. No big deal, I just put it back on.

With that said, most of my watch loving friends tend to be aghast when they see what I do with my 5711. From my experience, not the norm.
post #41080 of 48312
Frilly, what is the water resistance rating of the 5711?
post #41081 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by BostonHedonist View Post

I'm going to come out and say it. I think Grand Seiko's Hi-Beat GMT is quite beautiful. I would be more inclined to look closer if they put in a bit of lume - which they no-doubt left out to emphasize the laser faceting of the markers. But even still, I struggle to find much fault with it. I suppose they could have fewer than three brand logos on the dial. That does put me off a bit.







But the more I look into these GS mechanicals, the more I start to cast a doubtful eye on popular criticisms of them. The finish is spectacular for the price point and the designs display many Japanese qualities: utility, readability, a combination of elegant simplicity and meticulous attention to detail...  right down to that mirror polishing techniques originally developed for Samurai blades. And a silicon balance spring that puts out 10 beats per second with a -3/+5 second/day accuracy - not bad. Three-year service interval - not great.

They lack proper heritage, you might accuse? Let us recall that Seiko competed at the Astronomical Observatory Chronometer Concours in 1968 taking 2nd and 3rd place. Of course, they invented quartz movements a year later and mucked things up for horology at large... Now they hold themselves to higher standards than you find with COSC Chronometers.

I'm beginning to believe the only real arguments against the Grand Seiko mechanicals harken back to the recent discussion of brand loyalties - or lack thereof. Eg: "You paid WHAT for a Seiko?"

I suppose resale value is another consideration. Not that it necessarily should be.
I would love to love a Grand Seiko. But I have yet to see one whose design isn't awful. What is baffling to me is that so often, Japanese design is fantastic. But I don't see anything Japanese in the design. I understand that the execution is meticulous, in that typical Japanese way, and that is great. But every single GS I have seen is ugly, or at best characterless and derivative.
post #41082 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by no frills View Post

Good stuff. If it isn't obvious yet, I'm a huge fan of the perpetual calendar complication and aesthetic.

It has been brutally cold in NYC over the last couple of days. Lucked out as I took the family to Mexico for the week. My usual routine here - back and forth to the beach to fetch water for my girls about a thousand times a day.

20690d06b5e8f09ce1d1f4eb9bb83d72.jpg

Frills! Your watch is getting wet!
post #41083 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by in stitches View Post

Did you mean regression? stirpot.gif

:rotflmao:  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TradThrifter View Post
 

I always preferred the Ingenuir :cool:

 

although, I can't actually spell it

 

The Ingenieur is a nice watch....but I'd gladly take a RO, Nautilus, or 222 over one.  Just my 2 cents. 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BostonHedonist View Post

 

But the more I look into these GS mechanicals, the more I start to cast a doubtful eye on popular criticisms of them. The finish is spectacular for the price point and the designs display many Japanese qualities: utility, readability, a combination of elegant simplicity and meticulous attention to detail...  right down to that mirror polishing techniques originally developed for Samurai blades. And a silicon balance spring that puts out 10 beats per second with a -3/+5 second/day accuracy - not bad. Three-year service interval - not great.

 

They lack proper heritage, you might accuse? Let us recall that Seiko competed at the Astronomical Observatory Chronometer Concours in 1968 taking 2nd and 3rd place. Of course, they invented quartz movements a year later and mucked things up for horology at large... Now they hold themselves to higher standards than you find with COSC Chronometers.

 

I suppose resale value is another consideration. Not that it necessarily should be.

I don't recall anyone saying that the finish is not well finished for its price point, nor do I recall anyone suggesting they do not have proper heritage.  Sure they are not well known for making high end watches, particularly in the US, but they have been making good solid, reliable clocks and watches for over 100 years.   

 

As for the COSC thing...its not really an important factor today.  Whether or not a watch is a certified chronometer hasn't played any role in my purchases in many years,  That is more of a marketing tool than a necessity for a fine watch.  Most PP, Lange, AP, VC etc are not certified chronometers.  

 

I will say I do have an issue with their designs.  I just find them generic.  I don't dislike them, but on the other hand I don't like them, nor do I find them better looking than anything else on the market.

 

I think the biggest obstacle to people purchasing a Grand Seiko is that most people have difficulty with the idea of spending several thousand dollars/Euros/GBP on a Seiko, when for the same money they can buy an Omega, Breitling, IWC, or Rolex.  Brands that have greater prestige and recognition.   Maybe it makes those people "Brand whores."  If Kia or Hyundai made a car that cost as much as a BMW 7 series sedan, and it was made just as well, I would bet a lot of people would still buy the BMW just because it may have been their dream car and it carries a certain level of prestige, while a Kia probably wasn't their dream and is seen as less prestigious.  When we look at or talk about watches we tend to look at the finish, the functions, their technical merits, the design, etc...but at the end of the day a mechanical watch is still an emotional purchase.  I don't think I could get excited about spending Omega/IWC/Rolex money on a GS...but that's just me...maybe I'm a brand whore.  If you have found a GS that really makes you smile, then put your money where you mouth is and pull the trigger on one.  

 

IIRC, only Hayward has taken his admiration for the brand beyond praise and actually purchased one.  I guess we will just have to wait and see if you take it to that next level. :lurk:

post #41084 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by tifosi View Post

Frilly, what is the water resistance rating of the 5711?

I believe its 120m.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ghostcat View Post
 

Question on that Nautilus: do you ever feel like it isn't robust enough for daily wear? I've been thinking about getting my first true luxury watch, but I can't help but worry that they won't be very hardwearing (choosing between a Nautilus and a RO, by the way). I might be fretting for nothing since I work a desk job and barely ding my current watch.

A few years ago I considered a Nautilus.  However, the bracelet seemed a bit thinner, almost too thin for my liking as I wanted to wear it everyday...so I went with the 5711's nemesis the RO ultra thin 15202.  However, Frills is certainly proof the 5711 can withstand much more than just paperwork at a desk.  I don't subject my RO to half of the things Frills subjects his 5711 to, but then again I'm a bit of a scratch/dent avoidance fanatic.  If you are mainly working at a desk, you can go with either and be fine.  Try them on and go with whatever makes you smile the most. 

post #41085 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dino944 View Post
 

I believe its 120m.  

 

 

Oh wow. I thought it would be similar to the RO at 50m. That makes the Nautilus even cooler.

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...)