Originally Posted by no frills
On topic, here's a pic to support the notion of heirloom/sentimental value. From earlier this afternoon - me wearing my museum Movado.
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
OMG! Movado! Quartz! But hey, a his-and-hers pair was given to me and my wife when we got married more than a decade ago. My parents-in-law must have saved up for months to buy that, given what I know of their financial capabilities. I loved them for it, and honor their gift. Today they are retired, and we're fortunate to be able to support them as their retirement savings were obliterated by this and that financial crisis.
Yeah, we have several Rolexes and Pateks in our stable now but sometimes I still whip out my Movado. Frankly, I think it works well with the suit/shoe ensemble.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: What's on one's feet has far more impact on overall appearance than what's on one's wrist.
This photo is a perfect example; at a glance, that could be any slim watch from an inexpensive Skagen to a platinum Altiplano — and it doesn't even remotely matter, as you look absolutely minted
with those kicks. It always amazes me when certain watch-nerd types have no problem spending multiple thousands of $/€ on man-jewelry but balk at paying for decent shoes. Oh well, different strokes for different folks. I know which one I'd prioritize if forced to choose, though.
Originally Posted by JimC Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
My three better quality watches for your ridicule or praise as the case may be. Please excuse the poor iPhone photo.
The Oris was my first good watch. I loved it a little too much and the crystal is the worse for it. Not an economical fix I suspect. The bracelt is off as I was going to put an appropriate black strap on it, but I ran out of steam.
The Tissot caught my eye in an AD a year or so back and my subsequent research brought me to a great review by Teeritz on Watchuseek. Not the finest piece around but a pretty good no-nonsense watch.
Finally, the Submariner. I had always liked the Explorer, but when I went in to an AD to try one on the sales assistant suggested I try this one on too. I'm so glad she did. It sang to me and there was no turning back. I received a fantastic deal on it at the time, and it has hardly left my wrist since that time almost four years ago. And in that time it has seen some pretty serious abuse. I was in the navy at the time of purchase, and it saw service in many different and unforgiving environments.
It has a few scuffs to show for it, but I love the fact that my Submariner was actually worn by a submariner in a submarine, keeping periscope or bridge watches, and it's done its share of diving too. The submarine connection was a cliche that I was initially keen to avoid, but I'm glad I got over that. I now work in oil and gas, and this watch continues to serve me well, and it's probably quite thankful for the respite it's been given. I'd buy it in an instant if I had my time over again.
Funny thing about that watch; as much a vocal minority of WUSsy types like to dismiss it as the default choice of the least discerning — as if any normal person would notice and then judge what kind of watch you're wearing as long as it's not some truly obnoxious POS — it's chosen by a quite a few of those who are the most discerning about their watches as well. I don't think you could have picked anything better, and in the real world, it's near-impossible to trump a Submariner that's being worn by somebody who uses it for its intended purpose. It's up there with astronaut watches that have been worn by actual astronauts.
Also, why would you not
want something that's going to look better and become even more desirable with age? You can still be wearing and enjoying it ten, twenty and forty years down the road. Not to mention that you'll still be able to get parts and service at that time if necessary.
Fantastic watch, and many thanks for sharing the still-developing story behind it.Edited by Belligero - 1/31/13 at 1:47am