• We would like to welcome American Trench as an official Affiliate Vendor. American Trench is a Philadelphia based outerwear, apparel, and accessories brand, making all of its products in the United States at (mostly) family owned factories. . Please visit the American Trench thread and welcome them to the forum.

  • STYLE. COMMUNITY. GREAT CLOTHING.

    Bored of counting likes on social networks? At Styleforum, you’ll find rousing discussions that go beyond strings of emojis.

    Click Here to join Styleforum's thousands of style enthusiasts today!

thuhoan

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2016
Messages
239
Reaction score
232
What makes this better aesthetically than a million other time only watches you can buy? I mean, it's got a clean look and I'm sure it's nice in person, but it's not exactly interesting. I have the same opinion of the Rolex Oyster Perpetual...there's nothing there, it's just a watch that could have been made by 100 other companies.
I don't think every watch needs to be "interesting". As long as it is interesting to the owner, that should be enough. Define interesting though. OP's design stood the test of time, that could be something interesting.
 
Last edited:

Texasmade

Stylish Dinosaur
Joined
Apr 26, 2008
Messages
20,145
Reaction score
24,541
Why settle for a Seiko that is merely Grand, when you can have the King!

-25 / +15 seconds a day—for $2000? That’s fucking embarrassing and hardly befitting a watch with a royal title. Why even publish numbers like that? Just say: “It generally tells the time!”

View attachment 1743140

Maybe Seiko wanted to keep it historically accurate with the shitty time specs.
 

mak1277

Distinguished Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2019
Messages
2,799
Reaction score
4,032
I don't think every watch needs to be "interesting". As long as is it interesting to the owner, that should be enough. Define interesting though. OP's design stood the test of time, that could be something interesting.
No, not every watch has to be interesting. But if I'm spending multiple thousands on a watch, I don't want something that looks like any mall brand could have put out.

What specifically is appealing about that King Seiko, for instance?
 

thuhoan

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2016
Messages
239
Reaction score
232
No, not every watch has to be interesting. But if I'm spending multiple thousands on a watch, I don't want something that looks like any mall brand could have put out.

What specifically is appealing about that King Seiko, for instance?
For me its the case shape and bracelet that I don't see often. The way the bracelet plays with the light like a RO though not to the same extent. At first it looked like an angular version of the skx bracelet

Edit: some people like to blend in, where as others like to be more "interesting" (RM for example)
 

pmeis

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2014
Messages
517
Reaction score
1,052
No, not every watch has to be interesting. But if I'm spending multiple thousands on a watch, I don't want something that looks like any mall brand could have put out.

What specifically is appealing about that King Seiko, for instance?
I mean most watches, especially time only, can be drawn down to this level of simplification thats what you want to do. Preferences for this type of stuff, isn't that much different than why somebody's favorite color is green instead of blue.
 

mak1277

Distinguished Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2019
Messages
2,799
Reaction score
4,032
I mean most watches, especially time only, can be drawn down to this level of simplification thats what you want to do. Preferences for this type of stuff, isn't that much different than why somebody's favorite color is green instead of blue.
Yes, I don't disagree. If someone has a strong personal preference for one vs. the other, then they should go that direction. I just think that there are probably a dozen different varieties of watches that look reasonably the same and are of reasonably the same quality as that Seiko that could be had for substantially less money.
 

pmeis

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2014
Messages
517
Reaction score
1,052
Yes, I don't disagree. If someone has a strong personal preference for one vs. the other, then they should go that direction. I just think that there are probably a dozen different varieties of watches that look reasonably the same and are of reasonably the same quality as that Seiko that could be had for substantially less money.
Aspects of the case design of this KS reissue are fairly tied to that era of King Seiko design and the "Grammar of Design" lanuguage. While the dial design isn't particularly unique/interesting, if a person has found the historical KS references of interest, it is mostly tied to the case design and that, combined with the disappearance of KS is the appeal of this. I briefly owned the 2020 KS reissue and the case was certainly different than most anything that I had owned previously. I did not particularly enjoy it on my wrist in person and quickly moved it on for what I paid for it, but I was happy to have had that experience however brief it was.

 

UnFacconable

Distinguished Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2007
Messages
3,094
Reaction score
4,487
I thought the main reason most people don't wear a Sub or other mechanical dive watch for diving is because most modern divers use dive computers. I've worn Rolexes swimming (I don't dive). They got a few scratches, they survived.
Similarly, most mountain climbers don't wear metal mechanical watches. I wear a Casio ProTrek (with altimeter, barometer and compass) when I'm in the backcountry. Not something I need, but I like to have it. Rolex built tools decades ago and has incrementally improved them. A Submariner isn't a watch for divers in 2022, it's an updated version of a watch that used to be a dive watch 50 years ago and beyond. At this point it almost amounts to cosplay. The fact that Subs function better than ever isn't particularly meaningful when they are incredibly uncompetitive at the task that they were originally designed for. Explorers are the same. Rolexes still builds old fashioned tool watches but the vast majority of their customers are buying them as jewelry. In other words, no one looking for a tool for diving or mountain climbing would end up with a Rolex.

If high tech materials are your thing there are other makers besides RM, who have produced watches in materials such as carbon, titanium, tantalum etc. RM is futuristic, but to me they seem like a lot of independents who make futuristic watches (Urwerk, MB&F, Vianney Halter etc) that are bold but weird looking. Although, looks are subjective and no watch can be everything to everyone.
This isn't really what I'm getting at. I'm not interested in random futuristic watches. As I've said from the get go, I don't even like the way RM watches look. This has never been about RM as jewelry. I don't want "futuristic" materials, I'm interested in mechanical watches that are directionally targeting what I consider to be interesting challenges in 2022. Most of the legacy makers are targeting antiquated challenges from the days of Louis Breguet. Patek thinks I should consider complications the "pinnacle of the watchmaker's art" but why? The fact that traditional complications mattered a long time ago and are tough to build doesn't necessarily make them a compelling feature to me. For people more focused on history, heritage, etc. Patek may be perfect. To me, they've largely become irrelevant.

I think there is a misunderstanding as to what I'm saying because RM is polarizing for a lot of reasons. I can only say this so many different ways, but I'm not interested in RM for the way the watches look, the luxury component or the signaling of their customer base. I'm purely interested in the fact that RM conceptualized that a modern mechanical watch brand could be focused on innovation geared toward challenges that exist for mechanical watches in this century.

Put it this way, it would have been so awesome if Rolex had focused on the sort of innovation that RM is pushing in order to create truly modern tool watches.
 

mak1277

Distinguished Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2019
Messages
2,799
Reaction score
4,032
Similarly, most mountain climbers don't wear metal mechanical watches. I wear a Casio ProTrek (with altimeter, barometer and compass) when I'm in the backcountry. Not something I need, but I like to have it. Rolex built tools decades ago and has incrementally improved them. A Submariner isn't a watch for divers in 2022, it's an updated version of a watch that used to be a dive watch 50 years ago and beyond. At this point it almost amounts to cosplay. The fact that Subs function better than ever isn't particularly meaningful when they are incredibly uncompetitive at the task that they were originally designed for. Explorers are the same. Rolexes still builds old fashioned tool watches but the vast majority of their customers are buying them as jewelry. In other words, no one looking for a tool for diving or mountain climbing would end up with a Rolex.



This isn't really what I'm getting at. I'm not interested in random futuristic watches. As I've said from the get go, I don't even like the way RM watches look. This has never been about RM as jewelry. I don't want "futuristic" materials, I'm interested in mechanical watches that are directionally targeting what I consider to be interesting challenges in 2022. Most of the legacy makers are targeting antiquated challenges from the days of Louis Breguet. Patek thinks I should consider complications the "pinnacle of the watchmaker's art" but why? The fact that traditional complications mattered a long time ago and are tough to build doesn't necessarily make them a compelling feature to me. For people more focused on history, heritage, etc. Patek may be perfect. To me, they've largely become irrelevant.

I think there is a misunderstanding as to what I'm saying because RM is polarizing for a lot of reasons. I can only say this so many different ways, but I'm not interested in RM for the way the watches look, the luxury component or the signaling of their customer base. I'm purely interested in the fact that RM conceptualized that a modern mechanical watch brand could be focused on innovation geared toward challenges that exist for mechanical watches in this century.

Put it this way, it would have been so awesome if Rolex had focused on the sort of innovation that RM is pushing in order to create truly modern tool watches.
I wear my Sub when I'm backpacking, for whatever that's worth.
 

Vocans

Distinguished Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2017
Messages
2,448
Reaction score
18,735
Similarly, most mountain climbers don't wear metal mechanical watches. I wear a Casio ProTrek (with altimeter, barometer and compass) when I'm in the backcountry. Not something I need, but I like to have it. Rolex built tools decades ago and has incrementally improved them. A Submariner isn't a watch for divers in 2022, it's an updated version of a watch that used to be a dive watch 50 years ago and beyond. At this point it almost amounts to cosplay. The fact that Subs function better than ever isn't particularly meaningful when they are incredibly uncompetitive at the task that they were originally designed for. Explorers are the same. Rolexes still builds old fashioned tool watches but the vast majority of their customers are buying them as jewelry. In other words, no one looking for a tool for diving or mountain climbing would end up with a Rolex.



This isn't really what I'm getting at. I'm not interested in random futuristic watches. As I've said from the get go, I don't even like the way RM watches look. This has never been about RM as jewelry. I don't want "futuristic" materials, I'm interested in mechanical watches that are directionally targeting what I consider to be interesting challenges in 2022. Most of the legacy makers are targeting antiquated challenges from the days of Louis Breguet. Patek thinks I should consider complications the "pinnacle of the watchmaker's art" but why? The fact that traditional complications mattered a long time ago and are tough to build doesn't necessarily make them a compelling feature to me. For people more focused on history, heritage, etc. Patek may be perfect. To me, they've largely become irrelevant.

I think there is a misunderstanding as to what I'm saying because RM is polarizing for a lot of reasons. I can only say this so many different ways, but I'm not interested in RM for the way the watches look, the luxury component or the signaling of their customer base. I'm purely interested in the fact that RM conceptualized that a modern mechanical watch brand could be focused on innovation geared toward challenges that exist for mechanical watches in this century.

Put it this way, it would have been so awesome if Rolex had focused on the sort of innovation that RM is pushing in order to create truly modern tool watches.
It sounds to me like you bought into the exact kind of marketing RM is selling. At the end of the day, no matter how much innovation you think they might have to make them better suited as tool watches, the only people who are wearing them as such are those sponsored athletes who likely have it in their contract with RM that they're required to golf, play tennis, etc in their free RM.

To everyone that buys one, it's the same piece of IG eye candy that will be babied and stored in a safe that a Rolex or Patek is. There's no point in a tool watch that costs $300k because you'd be silly to spend that kind of money and abuse it.
 

Michigan Planner

Distinguished Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2010
Messages
5,994
Reaction score
8,239
Why settle for a Seiko that is merely Grand, when you can have the King!

-25 / +15 seconds a day—for $2000? That’s fucking embarrassing and hardly befitting a watch with a royal title. Why even publish numbers like that? Just say: “It generally tells the time!”

View attachment 1743140

It is a sharp looking watch but agreed that the accuracy is pretty bad, especially at that price point.


No, not every watch has to be interesting. But if I'm spending multiple thousands on a watch, I don't want something that looks like any mall brand could have put out.

What specifically is appealing about that King Seiko, for instance?
For me it's the case shape and bracelet design, KS name (I'm a bit of a Seiko fanboy, so King Seiko probably means a bit more to me than a lot of others), and Zaratsu polishing. I've had a couple Grand Seikos with the Zaratsu polishing and it really is something else in person.

I wouldn't spend $2k on this one but thankfully it's not a limited edition so maybe I'll be able to snag one on the secondary market for a better price. The 6R31 movement is one that can be regulated to near COSC specs so that's always an option. In the end though, I have enough watches though and cycle through them frequently enough that it probably wouldn't be on my wrist for more than a couple days at time so I might not notice the accuracy. However, if I were going for the "one watch" mindset, then the accuracy would become much more of an issue (if I couldn't get it regulated).

A couple unsolicited pics of my vintage King Seiko:


 

Dino944

Distinguished Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2011
Messages
6,983
Reaction score
6,727
Similarly, most mountain climbers don't wear metal mechanical watches. I wear a Casio ProTrek (with altimeter, barometer and compass) when I'm in the backcountry. Not something I need, but I like to have it. Rolex built tools decades ago and has incrementally improved them. A Submariner isn't a watch for divers in 2022, it's an updated version of a watch that used to be a dive watch 50 years ago and beyond. At this point it almost amounts to cosplay. The fact that Subs function better than ever isn't particularly meaningful when they are incredibly uncompetitive at the task that they were originally designed for. Explorers are the same. Rolexes still builds old fashioned tool watches but the vast majority of their customers are buying them as jewelry. In other words, no one looking for a tool for diving or mountain climbing would end up with a Rolex.



This isn't really what I'm getting at. I'm not interested in random futuristic watches. As I've said from the get go, I don't even like the way RM watches look. This has never been about RM as jewelry. I don't want "futuristic" materials, I'm interested in mechanical watches that are directionally targeting what I consider to be interesting challenges in 2022. Most of the legacy makers are targeting antiquated challenges from the days of Louis Breguet. Patek thinks I should consider complications the "pinnacle of the watchmaker's art" but why? The fact that traditional complications mattered a long time ago and are tough to build doesn't necessarily make them a compelling feature to me. For people more focused on history, heritage, etc. Patek may be perfect. To me, they've largely become irrelevant.

I think there is a misunderstanding as to what I'm saying because RM is polarizing for a lot of reasons. I can only say this so many different ways, but I'm not interested in RM for the way the watches look, the luxury component or the signaling of their customer base. I'm purely interested in the fact that RM conceptualized that a modern mechanical watch brand could be focused on innovation geared toward challenges that exist for mechanical watches in this century.

Put it this way, it would have been so awesome if Rolex had focused on the sort of innovation that RM is pushing in order to create truly modern tool watches.
Thank you for clarifying you position. I understand what you are saying and can agree with various ideas you mentioned. I can appreciate the fact that a Tourbillon is difficult to make. However, I've never had an interest in owning one as it serves little purpose on a wristwatch, as it doesn't sit all day in the same position in a vest pocket, the way pocket watches did years ago. Now that you have explained your thoughts on RM, I understand most of it. The only issue is, I don't see RM as having solved any specific challenges. Take away their appearance, and the use of futuristic materials - and they make tourbillons, world time watches, extra flat watches, diving watches, flyback chronographs, time only watches etc. But maybe we will just have to agree to disagree about RM.
 
Last edited:

RobinMA

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2022
Messages
261
Reaction score
133
Why settle for a Seiko that is merely Grand, when you can have the King!

-25 / +15 seconds a day—for $2000? That’s fucking embarrassing and hardly befitting a watch with a royal title. Why even publish numbers like that? Just say: “It generally tells the time!”

View attachment 1743140

great author
 

RobinMA

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2022
Messages
261
Reaction score
133
There are people who say that things like cables and AC/DC "cleaners" and so on make a difference in high-end hifi.

Why not.

But then shouldn't the brand of a quartz watch's battery (looking at you, quartz Aquanaut) also make a difference in accuracy, desirability and/or authenticity of a watch?

Those who don't like quartz Aquanauts please refrain from participating in the discussion. Remember that we are discussing finishing of the inside of lugs, and other detailed details of things, too. We discuss things like antimagnetic cases, silicone hairsprings or even tourbillions, things which make no or very little difference to how a watch does its job, at least under real-life conditions.

So what is the original brand and specification or PP's quartz batteries (Japanese? hopefully Swiss?), how do you thing about "upgrading" batteries or even having them made "bespoke"?

Of course, some naysayers and trolls will argue for the sake of arguing, saying that a silicone hairspring is a totally different matter because of the following 1,000 reasons. But we all are enjoying our hobby and therefore all small things matter, be it flaws in a PP case which only a watchmaker can detect, or tiny variations in batteries that drive a quartz movement.
 

Featured Sponsor

What's Your Favorite Summer Shoe?

  • Loafers

  • Boat shoes

  • Espadrilles

  • Sneakers

  • Desert Boots

  • Sandals


Results are only viewable after voting.

Forum statistics

Threads
475,375
Messages
10,161,341
Members
213,619
Latest member
Lesarchives
Top