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 2741  

post #41101 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by aleksandr View Post

The Nautilus has never quite appealed to me. I know they probably share some DNA, but I feel the Royal Oak just does everything.. better.

+100
post #41102 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by DLJr View Post
 

I need to see you for some training. I think I have one bad scratch or ding on every watch. Even though I've gotten to the point where I don't let it bother me, it would be nice if I could work on being a bit more careful.

Ah, my friend it has taken me nearly 44 years to perfect this level of craziness, not to mention it runs in my family. My father is huge on overcompensating and buying a new item if something gets dented, stained, or damaged.  My wife usually tells her friends, she considers herself lucky that I'm only half as crazy as my father.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tifosi View Post


Still only 50m with screw down crown.

Interesting... I guess with the screw down crown I presumed  it had greater water resistance. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cant kill da Rooster View Post


I've been meaning to ask...how much do you guys trust the depth rating of watches 100 WR or more that do not have a screw down crown? Would you even take them swimming?

Most watches that are water resistant to 100m or more, DO have a screw down crown.  The bulk (but not all) watches without a screw down crown tend to be water resistant to 30m.  

I know a person that swam with a Cartier Santos, no screw down crown, water resistant to 30m and they had not realized the crown was pulled in the out position and nothing happened.  IIRC, I read in one article that when the Royal Oak was designed, it was designed so that it is water resistant even if the crown is open or not in place.  In the end,for me, whether a watch goes swimming isn't merely a function of water resistance, but also how costly it is.  Why chance it with a really expensive watch.  Granted the phrase really expensive is relative, to one person it means Rado, to another a Rolex, to another its a Patek.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tifosi View Post

That's what I'm trying to figure out. I plan to get the RO 15450 and it is 50m with a screw down crown. I really want to be able to swim with it. I guess just wading in a pool with it would be fine, but I probably wouldn't take it in the ocean. Guess I'll have to hang onto my Explorer to take on vacations.

50M is more than adequate to go swimming.  Until sometime in the 1980s, all Rolex watches with the exception of Sub and SDs were only water resistant to 50m.  Plenty of DJs, GMTs, and other Rolex watches went swimming without any problems.  

 

You could certainly take it in the Ocean to swim, but I wouldn't go scuba diving with it.  However, to be honest I wouldn't wear any watch in water that I could not easily replace.  Underwater seems pretty and harmless, but that is often where lots of scuffs, scrapes, and dings take place...due to coral, sand, or even the rough surface around the edges of a swimming pool (miss judge the edge of a pool as you come up out of the water and BAM...that RO bezel has a nasty ding).  My Explorer II got a few nasty scuffs when swimming...so its the only watch I'd take swimming.  My RO, will never see the inside of a pool or ocean...its just not worth the risk to me.  Hell, I don't even want to bang up my other fancier Rolex watches underwater...but that's just me.  

post #41103 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by aleksandr View Post


The Nautilus has never quite appealed to me. I know they probably share some DNA, but I feel the Royal Oak just does everything.. better. I tried on a friend's 5711 recently and it felt overall quite meh to me. At least it looks better than an Aquanaut though..

Besides, I paid significantly less for my 15400 than my friend did for his 5711 - the difference is enough to buy a sub with some cash leftover peepwall[1].gif

The RO and the Nautilus tend to both be love them or hate them watches.  Some people think the RO is too industrial looking and ugly, and they weren't initially a sales success. A lot of brands thought the RO was too expensive and was a gamble that would put AP out of business.  We now know they were wrong. 

 

Another guy I know is not a Nautilus fan and says, to him they look like old TVs from the 1950s.  In fact, the real old school Patek collector/Patek Snobs in the 1970s through the 90s thought the Nautilus was an ugly entry level Patek hardly worthy of the Calatrava Cross.  The Nautilus used to langish in ADs show cases for ages.  Real interest in them only took off when there were rumors in the early 2000s that Patek was no longer going to make steel watches, and the Nautilus was going out of production.  We all now know that didn't happen...they just revised the size and came out with the 3712 which became the 5712 and then there was the 5711 and a whole family of spin offs.  

 

I've said it before, but out of luxury sports watches that I looked at before buying my RO, the only watch on par with the RO's fit and finish was the Nautilus.  All other watches were a step down.  I like the Nautilus, but felt the thinness of the bracelet felt a tad dainty even next to the thin bracelet of the RO ultrathin 15202.  So I questioned whether it would wear well as a daily wearer (although through Frills we can see it can live a very active life).  Beyond that, I've always preferred the looks of the RO to the Nautilus.  So as mentioned, I like the Nautilus and wouldn't mind having one in my collect with a RO...but it would never be instead of a RO.  

 

I can definitely see that allure of a 15400 plus still having enough left for a Sub and some extra cash.  Pricing is closer on the 15202 and the 5711 so no free Sub for me  :(  ...but I do love my RO even without the free Sub ;)

 

I've never been an Aquanaut fan. 

post #41104 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgtownsyou View Post

I just picked up this watch that I've become pretty fond of. I've really been liking the mesh bands lately.  warning (Click to show)


Enjoy! My first good watch was an ESQ. I still have it
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grammaton Cleric View Post

+100

Agreed.

---

I love every Dino post I have ever read.
post #41105 of 48312
Screw down crowns do nothing on their own to make a watch more watertight; i.e. cranking down hard on them won't have any effect on the sealing. It'll just wear the parts out faster and get things stuck, so go easy on the torque, guys.

The main benefit of locking things down using a threaded fastener is that it relieves the stem and seals of applied forces on the crown. An additional plus is that the crown is reliably fixed into position, but it's definitely possible to have a diver's watch without this design.

The Vulcain Nautical is good for 300 m, and neither the pusher nor the setting crown screw down. The lower crown does, but that's just to prevent it from moving around once it's set. It's designed to be operated underwater to calculate the times for decompression stops while you're actually diving. Same deal with the main (non-screw-down) crown and pusher; back in the day, you were meant to fiddle with the alarm via those bits while diving to let you know when your bottom time and decompression stops were done. Some people get all paranoid about operating pushers underwater, but it was fine in 1961 and it's still fine now. You can even operate the chronograph on your Daytona while you're in the water if you want; I have.


photo of my watch by @loevhagen

The decompression table and alarm will still do their job, of course, but it's highly unlikely that anyone uses them as a primary safety system any more now that there are dive computers.
post #41106 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sander View Post

What is this kind of dial treatment called? I hate shiny dials and this is very nice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by in stitches View Post

I don't know the official name of it, but it looks almost like it is sandblasted. I have seen it in person and it is absolutely amazing.

Thanks. But there has to be a term for this, right? @Dino944?
post #41107 of 48312
^
I've seen that Duomètre dial referred to as "grained", "parchment" and "eggshell". Personally, I'd go with "eggshell".


"Grained" is too general of a term, and this one's more what I'd call "parchment":






Although if you really think about it, any term from the business card scene in American Psycho would be applicable. "Bone", anyone? wink.gif

post #41108 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Belligero View Post



photo of my watch by @loevhagen

 

 

Very interesting watch. Where is the strap from? Looks similar to the one on the JLC Deep Sea. I've been considering something like that for my Speedy.

post #41109 of 48312

I really do like that GP.  Just saying.

post #41110 of 48312

+ 1, although the word "automatic" bugs me a little. I think a few months ago someone else showed some pics of a variation on this model, which were truly stunning. Can someone remind me what the model is? Dammit, every time I look at this thread I add another watch to my 'to do' list.

post #41111 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dachshund View Post
 

+ 1, although the word "automatic" bugs me a little. I think a few months ago someone else showed some pics of a variation on this model, which were truly stunning. Can someone remind me what the model is? Dammit, every time I look at this thread I add another watch to my 'to do' list.

 

It's a GP "Vintage 1960" chrono, powered by (if I remember correctly), an ETA-derived movement with a Dubois-Depraz 2030 chrono module on top, the same as the late 1990s - early 2000s Omega Dynamic twin-register chrono. 

 

I think that the GP "Vintage 1960" came out in the mid-2000s which is, shockingly, 10 years ago now.

 

I remember that a local shop had one with a rose gold case and an ivory dial that looked really nice. However, I already had the Omega Dynamic so I managed to resist the temptation to get the GP and saved my money, even though the GP was more formal/dressier. Also, I wasn't really a fan of the cushion-shaped case on the GP at the time, although I've come to like the shape more over the intervening years. It just looked too 1960s - 1970s at the time which, of course, was precisely the point with the GP, given its name. 

post #41112 of 48312

Thanks, and I think the one I saw previously was rose gold. Is it, as the name suggests, based on a vintage model and, if so, which one?

post #41113 of 48312

A lot going on in TWAT overnight!  A couple comments:

 

1.  Why does the Grand Seiko use so many fonts and sizes?  That is what bugs me about them and I am not a fan of the designs I have seen though I haven't looked too in depth at them.

2.  Kia and Hyundai have made pretty expensive cars to rival the Germans but you don't see many of them.  LeBron James isn't even helping with the Kia9000 or whatever it is called.

3.  That GP dial is nice.

post #41114 of 48312
1. Because they have no background in making true high-end luxury watches and lack the nuanced attention to detail that some others have. They make $200 watches that are sold in Macy's. That is their sweet spot.

2. Rival is a relative term.

3. Agreed!
post #41115 of 48312

Grand Seiko vs Credor?

 

what say you

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...)