The Watch Appreciation Thread (Reviews and Photos of Men's Timepieces by Rolex, Patek Philippe, Brei

[NonServiam]



Agreed. Not sure if anyone here noticed their new moonphase - a steal at ~$3,500!! No, that is not a typo!!

I love it! Even though lends heavily from smiliar watches from other brands. The execution looks very good. But 42mm? A tad bit too large for a dressy watch, no?

 

[mimo]

But it doesn't have a dot between the 31 and the 3. Or a 2. Ah well, who needs even numbered days anyway?

 

[no frills]

But it doesn't have a dot between the 31 and the 3. Or a 2. Ah well, who needs even numbered days anyway?

Teehee! I see what you did there.

But wait - really now, aesthetically speaking, see how "7" is followed by what looks like a "6" in the moonphase as you go clockwise? That choice to flip the numerals at "9" actually does turn a bunch of folks off. Others would have said "keep the 9 in line with 7 and do the flip at 11, which is "palindrome-ic" anyway.

Doesn't bother me though. Or maybe I should take another closer look...

 

[mimo]

You've looked close enough. Dino will have an aneurism.

 

[Belligero]



yikes let's do anything EXCEPT talk about Nazis ok?

so question... I'm looking for a new dress watch that will usually be worn with natural/neutral tones and leathers... about a $2K budget and I'm wide open to suggestions. Round face, 40mm max, auto preferred, simple and classic aesthetics, Roman numerals a possibility, no yellow gold...

Come on, guys — there was a winky face there! What, too soon!?

Agreed with the Nomos recommendations. That would be my first choice for a currently-manufactured watch around that price, too. Many modern "dressy" ones of comparable cost screw it up by adding a badly-drawn date window (often floating in the middle of an oversized dial) or messing up other elements. Nomos' attention to detail is very impressive; they're fluent in the language of design in ways that many of their competitors wouldn't even understand.

Another one to consider around the $2K mark would be an older 34 or 36 mm Rolex, like an Oyster Precision, Air-King, Date or Datejust model. While they're not strictly dress watches, they can look great on a strap, are certainly dressy enough for most situations, and offer quality, reliability and serviceability that can't be beat for the price. They have the same no-compromise movements that went into the sports range, as well.

There's heaps to be had out there in vintage-land, too. This sunburst-dial Enicar, bought from a former watchmaker in a Budapest street market, occasionally gets worn on the pictured strap for dress-watch duties — at least when it's not on someone else's wrist as a gateway drug into watch addiction. There are heaps of high-quality older watches out there from formerly great manufacturers that can be had very reasonably, and were skillfully made to standards that today aren't seen in new stuff anywhere near their price.

 

[mimo]

an older 34 or 36 mm Rolex, like an Oyster Precision, Air-King, Date or Datejust model

Yes indeed. There's so much out there, and a decent SS 36mm Datejust is definitely dressy enough in my book, even on a bracelet. It's simple, modestly sized but solid and manly.

 

[Stefan88]

Got some pictures of the used watch I´m looking at. Too me it looks fine, but if anyone can spot any warning signs from the 3 pictures I´d love to hear them. I sent a mail asking for a confirmation on the movement, its condition, and the condition of the sapphire glass. They do however not have the case or the certificate card, but it is sold by a reputable Japanese watch store (not only internet). Kinda between buying this and a new Oris right now.

 

[DerekS]



yikes let's do anything EXCEPT talk about Nazis ok?

so question... I'm looking for a new dress watch that will usually be worn with natural/neutral tones and leathers... about a $2K budget and I'm wide open to suggestions. Round face, 40mm max, auto preferred, simple and classic aesthetics, Roman numerals a possibility, no yellow gold...

used air king or omega...but id go with an air king

 

[in stitches]

Stefan88 - not the best pic ever, but looks legit.

But wait - really now, aesthetically speaking, see how "7" is followed by what looks like a "6" in the moonphase as you go clockwise?  That choice to flip the numerals at "9" actually does turn a bunch of folks off.  Others would have said "keep the 9 in line with 7 and do the flip at 11, which is "palindrome-ic" anyway.

Doesn't bother me though.  Or maybe I should take another closer look...

that 9 should be flipped. the numbers for me, should be as if they were written in a straight line, and then bent into a circle by pulling the end down and attaching it to the back of the 1. so essentially, there really is no flipping at all.

 

[dopey]



Stefan88 - not the best pic ever, but looks legit.
that 9 should be flipped. the numbers for me, should be as if the written in a straight line, and then bent into a circle by pulling the end down and attaching it to the back of the 1. so essentially, there really is no flipping at all.

This is a perpetual debate. really, there should be a definitive essay describing the different approaches and which one is really better (not joking). Clearly, on rotating bezels and when you have numerals only at the quadrants, you don't flip. But when, if ever, is it ok to flip? I think you should treat each numeral like a ferris wheel car and it should always hang straight (there is a design term for treating design elements as real objects, but I forget it)..

 

[Dino944]

30th birthday gift from my wife, very simple I live it.

Happy birthday! You've got a great wife and now a great watch! Congrats and enjoy it.

Many thanks Dino - sadly, can't argue much with any of the solid points you are making here. Very helpful. I am assuming this version would be (slightly) more appealing to you:

I think thats a slightly better version, but even as someone that loves asymmetric dials or watch cases, this watch just doesn't sit well with me.

I suspect this sums up everything about you here - how utterly impossible you are, and why we yet revere you for your excruciating attention to detail.

Mimo, what can I say...it isn't easy being Dino...but I do my best !

Quote:

Incidentally, Dino, to me it's always important that she looks just as good from the back. I'll take this one over Cindy...

Agreed!

Thank you Dino - at 38mm it is quite oversized for a vintage piece - and fairly unique. I will be meeting with the owner on Tuesday to look it over, and also a contemporary Omega piece that he is tempting me with as well.

At 38mm thats quite unusual for a vintage watch. Keep us posted Roger, I hope the deal works out for you.

I do understand this sentiment. We've written before about not wanting to compromise for anything, given the stratospheric price points of some timepieces. I do think part of the nature of whether you think something represents a "compromise" or not is certainly personal and subjective (which you always allowed for).

For example, the 3970 has been criticized for not quite having an ideal "size to height" ratio. That it looks "too fat" because its case size is 36mm but it is relatively "tall" at 12.9mm (chronograph movements usually add a bit of thickness). It has even been called a "hamburger watch." Yuck, who would want to own something like that?

Here is a picture of the "hamburger watch" - at an angle to hopefully show its relative thickness versus its "small" case size.



For me, however, I think it's absolutely perfect. It's one man's "fat" versus this man's "perfection." I will happily stay "married" to this piece until it's time to give it to my daughters.

To continue the supermodel analogy, this young lady was "roundly" (sorry for the pun) criticized when these pictures came out:




"OMG - she's fat," others crowed. "No way she should be modeling on a catwalk!" - others said.

Sports Illustrated and thousands of other men - including myself - disagreed. Twice on the cover of SI Swimsuit Edition!




Again, if her "look" ain't your cup of tea, that's all good. From my perspective, she looks mighty fine.

To use a watch analogy, I'm quite impressed by the lovely balance of the subdials and lugs, and the finishing looks first rate.

Frills, I've tried on the 3970 in the past. No doubt about it its a beauty. Yes, some collectors may have issues with the case height to diameter ration, but no watch can be everything to everyone.

Regarding the mole comment, supermodels have a reputation for being high maintenance so why settle for one with a defect? Its like buying a nearly perfect vintage watch and accepting one with stain on the dial. Sorry, I'd rather wait for a perfect version even if it costs more. As for Kate Upton, now thats my kind of supermodel !!! A perfect case shape, and no imperfection on the dial, like a dot that could start growing hair or be a sign she is ready for a part as the Wicked Witch of the West.

 

[apropos]



Regarding the mole comment, supermodels have a reputation for being high maintenance so why settle for one with a defect?  Its like buying a nearly perfect vintage watch and accepting one with stain on the dial.  Sorry, I'd rather wait for a perfect version even if it costs more.  As for Kate Upton, now thats my kind of supermodel !!!  A perfect case shape, and no imperfection on the dial, like a dot that could start growing hair or be a sign she is ready for a part as the Wicked Witch of the West. 

Ah, but on that watch the, er, links will, er, loosen and stretch with time... Think about those saggy links, which will make an aged Jubilee look positively, um, perky.

A wise man once told me - getting a nice looking, er, watch is a young man's game. After a certain point in your life, it's less about what the, um, watch looks like and rather more about (wink wink) what the watch will do...

 

[Cylon]

Ah, but on that watch the, er, links will, er, loosen and stretch with time... Think about those saggy links, which will make an aged Jubilee look positively, um, perky.

A wise man once told me - getting a nice looking, er, watch is a young man's game. After a certain point in your life, it's less about what the, um, watch looks like and rather more about (wink wink) what the watch will do...

OF ALL IMAGES TO HAVE A BROKEN LINK!?!?!?

 

[suaviter]

It looks nice, but if I were you, I would hold out for the Speedy Pro. This B&M is likely equipped with a Valjoux 7750, judging by the 6, 9, 12 subdial configuration and date. It could also be the ETA equivalent. Sturdy, robust movements. Aesthetically it is not my favorite thing out there, but that is a choice only you can make!

With discount, a Speedy Pro will run you ~$3,300. If you go used, you can easily get it under $3,000. Personally, I think it is better to hold out for what you really want. Otherwise you just will not be completely satisfied. My recommendation is exacerbated by the fact that this watch and the Speedy will play similar 'roles.' When you acquire a Speedy, what role do you foresee this watch playing?

This is new? I have been looking and retail on the Sapphire Sandwich version is much, much higher than that.

 

[in stitches]



This is a perpetual debate. really, there should be a definitive essay describing the different approaches and which one is really better (not joking). Clearly, on rotating bezels and when you have numerals only at the quadrants, you don't flip. But when, if ever, is it ok to flip? I think you should treat each numeral like a ferris wheel car and it should always hang straight (there is a design term for treating design elements as real objects, but I forget it)..

the ferris wheel i deal is neat, sound like it would look good too. the main thing to me is that when you look at the number, it is clear what it is, and that the presentation be pleasing to the eye.