Quick Question To Watch Enthusiasts

[af1snaikboi]

I recently read an article (which i forgot the name of) in a publication (which I forgot the name of)

Basically it stated that there is a very respectable watch which is around or under I believe $100 which is deemed "the starter dress watch" for watch enthusiasts.

I'm basically in search of a cheap and respectable dress watch. Does such a model exist?

Thank You

 

[radicaldog]

Seiko 5 automatic?

 

[acidboy]

seiko, yes

 

[RoyalPaJamas]

Seiko 5 Auto for sure. Plenty of very nice looking watches for <$100.

 

[ferry1950]

While I love the Seiko Automatic (I have one i ordered from Tokyo), I think the article was in Esquire, in "essentials" and they were referring to the Swatch auto watch as a great starter watch andwas was selling for 89 pounds. I bought one in London last year, like it expect the band is a deep blue/black.

 

[TheFoo]

I had a Seiko 5 that broke after two months of use. Maybe that was just a fluke, but I don't see much of a reason to buy a non-fine mechanical watch these days unless you are a lover of mechanical watches (which I totally get). After all, a dress watch need not be mechanical. For $100, you can get a very nice and presentable quartz watch that will be at least as dependable as a Seiko 5.

 

[rohde88]

Originally Posted by mafoofan

I had a Seiko 5 that broke after two months of use. Maybe that was just a fluke, but I don't see much of a reason to buy a non-fine mechanical watch these days unless you are a lover of mechanical watches (which I totally get). After all, a dress watch need not be mechanical. For $100, you can get a very nice and presentable quartz watch that will be at least as dependable as a Seiko 5.

I think yours was likely a fluke.

Mechanical watches represent an appreciation for the design and manufacturing, not really dependability (although if you're stuck on an island, the quartz will eventual run out).

 

[TheFoo]

Originally Posted by rohde88

Mechanical watches represent an appreciation for the design and manufacturing, not really dependability (although if you're stuck on an island, the quartz will eventual run out).

I get this--I am a watch enthusiast myself. My point is that a dress watch does not necessarily mean a mechanical watch. If your only goal is to get a dress watch for under $100, and your preferences are otherwise similar to most people's, quartz is probably your best bet.

 

[rohde88]

Originally Posted by mafoofan

I get this--I am a watch enthusiast myself. My point is that a dress watch does not necessarily mean a mechanical watch. If your only goal is to get a dress watch for under $100, and your preferences are otherwise similar to most people's, quartz is probably your best bet.

oh, ok. Well then, I agree with you. Dress watches don't need to be mechanical.

 

[MBreinin]

Well, you don't "need" a watch at all, epecially if you carry a phone, or work before a computer, etc.

However, I just have a thing against cheap quartz "mall" watches. But, that is me.

So many beautiful mechanical vintage watches out there that can be had for a song on E-Bay and will say so much more than a flat, plated POS with a battery you paid $100 for.

This IS the Style Forum, right??

Mike

 

[rohde88]

Originally Posted by MBreinin

Well, you don't "need" a watch at all, epecially if you carry a phone, or work before a computer, etc.

Mike

I disagree, there are many times when I am in meetings, carrying files, in court, etc. where I cannot pull out my phone to check the time.

A watch is a subtle way to check the time and wouldn't be considered rude.

 

[TheFoo]

Originally Posted by MBreinin

Well, you don't "need" a watch at all, epecially if you carry a phone, or work before a computer, etc.

However, I just have a thing against cheap quartz "mall" watches. But, that is me.

So many beautiful mechanical vintage watches out there that can be had for a song on E-Bay and will say so much more than a flat, plated POS with a battery you paid $100 for.

This IS the Style Forum, right??

I love mechanical watches, but I don't see how a mechanical movement in one's watch affects his style. Yes, you don't need a watch to tell time anymore. But let's face it: men like to wear watches as a form of jewelry. Insofar as one wants a watch merely because he likes the way it looks on him, I think it's silly to pay extra for a mechanical one and deal with the lesser utility. And yes, it will cost extra. Even if you can get a cheap vintage watch, the service expense will far outstrip the cost of a battery change in a quartz watch.

 

[radicaldog]

Originally Posted by mafoofan

I get this--I am a watch enthusiast myself. My point is that a dress watch does not necessarily mean a mechanical watch.

I'm not sure about that. Is a clip-on tie really a tie? I would say that a dress watch with traditional design should be mechanical, whereas more modern designs are fine with quartz movements.

 

[emc894]

Originally Posted by radicaldog

I'm not sure about that. Is a clip-on tie really a tie? I would say that a dress watch with traditional design should be mechanical, whereas more modern designs are fine with quartz movements.

Quartz is superior in accuracy and reliability. I think its like Bemberg lining over silk or non natural thread.

 

[rohde88]

Originally Posted by radicaldog

I'm not sure about that. Is a clip-on tie really a tie? I would say that a dress watch with traditional design should be mechanical, whereas more modern designs are fine with quartz movements.

If you follow a descriptive theory of naming, then a "watch" is defined by the common forms. Quartz certainly is popular and found in a lot of high-end makers' watches.

A quartz is a watch.