or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › good value watch for under $300
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

good value watch for under $300 - Page 3

post #31 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metlin View Post
And why not? Simpler (and certainly more advanced) technology, bigger bang for buck, more features (at a cheaper price) and so on, ad infinitum.

If anything, going quartz or quasi-digital for that price will give you some really good options (e.g. Tissot T-touch).

I've never understood going with a wind-up or an automatic watch, unless you are planning on going to the moon or to a place where you are magically going to be away from a battery store for the next few years. And even then, just carry another bloody watch.

If you want brand name and elitism, then fine, go with an automatic or whatever. But if you want good functionality and superior technology at a cheaper price, nothing can beat quartz.

some people just don't understand watches.


Oh, and once you get bored with your quartz pieces (like some inevitably do), good luck with selling them anywhere near the percentage of original price accessible to mechanical watch owners.
post #32 of 64
Seiko's monster line, Marine Diver from International Watchman, or Invica's Pro Diver


Marine Diver
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/43/10...803ba9.jpg?v=0

Invica's Pro Diver
post #33 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by gdl203 View Post
Yes. and ?

Timekeeping is the purpose of a wristwatch.

Your personal choice to reject quartz is just that - a personal choice to which you are, of course, entitled. A blanket rejection of quartz for anyone is hardly justified. For what it's worth, I have several mechanicals and several quartz watches and love them both for different reasons.
post #34 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by 0b5cur1ty View Post
Timekeeping is the purpose of a wristwatch.

Your personal choice to reject quartz is just that - a personal choice to which you are, of course, entitled. A blanket rejection of quartz for anyone is hardly justified. For what it's worth, I have several mechanicals and several quartz watches and love them both for different reasons.

Jewelery is the purpose of a wristwatch. Time keeping is better left to your cell-phone or a radio-clock that synchronizes with the WWVB radio signal that broadcasts America's official time via Atomic Clock.
post #35 of 64
Quote:
by the way, I find Overstock.com has a good selection if you are looking to pick up a Hamilton (Khaki for $129?) or a seiko(diver auto for $220) or something like that.
I just bought this Hamilton Khaki today for about $340 (tks to the forum guys who PMed me on it btw). Go through the Overstock.com Paypal link and there are 10% discounts there for paying via Paypal, as well as $2.95 US shipping (big thanks to CTGuy for taking that for me!). There are a bunch of other Hamiltons starting from under $120 once the Paypal discount is applied, so some really good deals.
Quote:
Timekeeping is the purpose of a wristwatch.
Casio digital it is then! OP - you should find yourself with around $290 change. BTW - not saying I disagree with the assertion, but by that logic, the purpose of shoes is to avoid bare feet (close shoeporn threads), and the purpose of clothes is to provide warmth in winter and conceal nudity in summer (close entire forum, moderators go home, get some rest).
post #36 of 64
Looking at Overstock.com... am I the only one that finds it humorous that you can save $23,000 on a watch?
post #37 of 64
metlin and obscurity - I have nothing against quartz watches if your budget is really low and all you're looking for is the time keeping functionality of a watch. If one is interested in watches and the way they are made, the way they work, there is no good reason to spend more than $50 on a quartz watch IMO.

What fascinates me in watches is how they work and the fact that with a few wounds of a spring, it actually can keep nearly perfect time. You don't have to share my passion, but this is how I feel. I'm more interested in a mechanical watch that can keep time at +/- 3 seconds a day on the sole basis of a mainspring and a few wheels, than in a watch than can keep time at +/- 1 second a week because it is driven by an electronic circuit (or an atomic clock). I have absolutely zero interest in the latter. If all I need is time, it's everywhere around me. Watches are just more than simply time keeping for me - it is how they keep time that interest me.
post #38 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by gdl203 View Post
metlin and obscurity - I have nothing against quartz watches if your budget is really low and all you're looking for is the time keeping functionality of a watch. If one is interested in watches and the way they are made, the way they work, there is no good reason to spend more than $50 on a quartz watch IMO.

What fascinates me in watches is how they work and the fact that with a few wounds of a spring, it actually can keep nearly perfect time. You don't have to share my passion, but this is how I feel. I'm more interested in a mechanical watch that can keep time at +/- 3 seconds a day on the sole basis of a mainspring and a few wheels, than in a watch than can keep time at +/- 1 second a week because it is driven by an electronic circuit (or an atomic clock). I have absolutely zero interest in the latter. If all I need is time, it's everywhere around me. Watches are just more than simply time keeping for me - it is how they keep time that interest me.
The thing is, I do share your passion - and you describe it perfectly: it is how watches keep time that is important and interesting. It is indeed amazing that high quality mechanicals can perform to within a few seconds a day "on the sole basis of a mainspring and a few wheels" and I love them for that too.

My point (and the objection to your original post) is that you treat all quartz as alike, and equally uninteresting, when that isn't so. There's a world of difference between a standard quartz movement that will keep time to within say 15 seconds a month and a movement that, by dint of a specially formed high-frequency crystal or thermocompensation or any of the other high-end quartz technologies used through the years, can give that sort of accuracy (or better) per year. It's those quartz watches that interest me greatly - they are the modern exponents of the relentless quest for accuracy that motivated the original development of the mechnical movements you enjoy today. That's why I posted the two Seikos next to each other - to try and show how both are interesting and valid ways to spend the OP's money.

That you personally wouldn't want to invest in a quartz watch is, of course, your own affair; but to state "there is no good reason to spend more than $50 on a quartz watch" is incorrect. There are plenty of good reasons - they just don't happen to appeal to you.
post #39 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by 0b5cur1ty View Post
That you personally wouldn't want to invest in a quartz watch is, of course, your own affair; but to state "there is no good reason to spend more than $50 on a quartz watch" is incorrect. There are plenty of good reasons - they just don't happen to appeal to you.
Hence the "IMO" which you left out of my quote...
Quote:
Originally Posted by gdl203 View Post
there is no good reason to spend more than $50 on a quartz watch IMO.

Of course, people have plenty of good reasons to collect anything. Some people collect antique spoons or exotic toilet covers and I'm sure they're willing to pay large sums of money for them. Doesn't mean that I think it makes sense to me.
post #40 of 64
so this is a good deal?
http://kseiya.zoovy.com/product/S-SC...5_SCVS015.html
post #41 of 64
seiko spirit
post #42 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by gdl203 View Post
Hence the "IMO" which you left out of my quote...
I read your statement as an absolute, my apologies if you feel I mis-quoted you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gdl203 View Post
Of course, people have plenty of good reasons to collect anything. Some people collect antique spoons or exotic toilet covers and I'm sure they're willing to pay large sums of money for them. Doesn't mean that I think it makes sense to me.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree... Enjoy your mechanicals. I'll continue to swing both ways.
post #43 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by 0b5cur1ty View Post
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree... Enjoy your mechanicals. I'll continue to swing both ways.
Sounds good. Enjoy your collection.
post #44 of 64
I purchased my Oris Williams F1 TT2 used from the sales corner at timezone.com for just a bit over $300. I thought this was a fantastic deal for a virtually pristine condition watch (I know ETA movements are the most plebian workhorse movements... but I can't really complain for $300).

If you wait it out long enough, some pretty good deals will occaisionally pop up on timezone from monied fellows with too many watches that want to thin out their herd.

post #45 of 64
0b5cur1ty,

Could you recommend additional high quality/high-end quartz, thx.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › good value watch for under $300