- Mar 7, 2002
- Reaction score
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!
Seems like a lot may depend on the model and if you could get it at retail. 1k-10k seems like a relatively reasonable range to accomplish the idea of something like a mid-range bucket - Don’t get me wrong, 10 isn’t a cheap watch, but it’s relatively attainable IF it’s your thing and you’re saving up to grab one piece. That range would catch everything from say OP, DJ, Sub (if you can find it or 2nd hand) but could also drop down into say Tag/Oris/Sinn which sounds about right to me.What's considered middle class? Some people consider Omega/Rolex middle class while others consider them upper class.
I agree with other comments that that dial color looks (in the photograph at least) truly spectacular, but that the watch overall has too many other letdown aspects. This blue model is more interesting to me than the white-dial in the comparison video, but in both cases it feels as if opportunities were lost, and in the process the original power of the great pie-pan dials not really maintained, certainly not improved.
Maybe. I guess my point is that I don't see a huge jump in quality between the Tissots and Hamiltons compared to many of the watches in the $1-3k range. It's just a big bunch of watches with ETA or Sellita movements and the only difference is what individual people find aesthetically appealing. It's all good, I just don't think it is a situation that leads to much interesting conversation.Tissot, to me, is the poster boy for extremely boring watches.
You’re saying Rolex used to be good at making Datejusts but now cannot produce them anymore? What am I missing here?I agree that Rolex used to do the DJ aesthetic best, but since they can't be bothered to offer that anymore, the solution may be to look elsewhere ;-)
But, as noted above, I dislike enough things about this watch that it isn't in serious consideration for me - it was mostly offered up as a current production pie pan for UrbanComp.
I find some of the stuff in that range to be pretty interesting.Maybe. I guess my point is that I don't see a huge jump in quality between the Tissots and Hamiltons compared to many of the watches in the $1-3k range. It's just a big bunch of watches with ETA or Sellita movements and the only difference is what individual people find aesthetically appealing. It's all good, I just don't think it is a situation that leads to much interesting conversation.
(I happen to own a Hamilton, a Tissot, a Longines and an Archimede, and have in the past owned Seikos. Nothing wrong with any of them, they just aren't that interesting to talk about).
Tissot is definitely on there, but the "extremely boring watches poster" does not, cannot possibly, feature only one single shining star; it is much more like a K-Pop boy band meets Whitesnake meets Boston Pops Orchestra ensemble cast extravaganza.Tissot, to me, is the poster boy for extremely boring watches.
The other tricky thing is that, with a few notable exceptions (Nomos, Tudor, maybe Oris), I think the watches in the $1-$5k range are kind of boring. I feel like it's a huge dead zone and personally I would look to watches like Seiko, Hamilton, Tissot, etc. before I bought something in this zone.
I agree, this range is good for microbrands if you like them. I have an Oak and Oscar and the new Aquastar Deepstar re-issue, both of which were just under $3K.I find some of the stuff in that range to be pretty interesting.
Monta, Christopher Ward, Direnzo and others.
It's when you get down to the NH35 watches that it seems super derivative.