The watch DISCUSSION thread

[bluejazzmonkey]

I have a small wrist. I am ok as long as the lugs do not extend past the edge of my wrist. That is 50mm lug to lug for me. My Speedmaster 57 is 41.5, but wears large because the lug to lug is 50mm. I have 42mm watches that are 48mm lug to lug. They definitely look large, but I am ok with it.

View attachment 1596881

That's a beauty.

 

[taxgenius]

My wife got me my Movado for my 25th. Still wear it 100% of the time. And no offense but it tracks time better than any automatic watches. BAM. No need to flex here. Just a genuine appreciation of my watch I wear everyday.

Wouldn’t a smart phone tell time more accurately?

 

[am55]

One other thought I had was this:

Most people have no idea how big their watch actually looks on their wrist because they only look at it close up when telling the time. Which, I suppose, is important in how it makes you feel. But much like how shoes don't look the same when you look down at them versus how others see them, I'd wager the vast majority of people who think their "small" wrists can't take even a 40-42mm watch because of how giant it looks close up when telling the time would be amazed to see how completely fine it looks seen from a distance—i.e. how other people see it.

We did some family portraits on the beach last year, I wore my 41.5mm Aqua Terra, which before then I occasionally wondered about being too big for my average-sized wrist. But then seeing the photos made me realize the truth—it's fine.

Spoiler: Crop

View attachment 1596845

Yes... but it's not just about the looks.

One of my favourite travel watches when I travelled only in Europe and didn't need to switch the time zone was a simple Seiko 5 military on nylon strap. I had more interesting stuff but always ended up grabbing it when packing last minute and heading to the airport. Its 37mm case with sort of rounded corners was unobstrusive and easily fit under any sleeve. It was light and robust, and wouldn't catch on your bag strap or coat shoulder when you slung either on quickly. This was also before thin smartphones made it easy to read the time - the Nokia bricks had to be switched off during flight!

For the same reason, I much prefer the 1655 to the 16550. The 16550 is possibly more in line with the rest of the offering, more up to date with modern sensibilities but the 1655 was a tiny rounded blob that didn't get in the way and its design with the thick visible markers and fat short arrow made it highly readable despite that. The more elongated 16550 loses some of that IMO. Even if it is by today's standards tiny.

 

[yshin10]

Wouldn’t a smart phone tell time more accurately?

You got me

 

[mhip]

mid-quality products that sell at a luxury price because people are mesmerised by the brand name

Voilà

 

[Dino944]

@Dino944 os that Daytona all-gold? The pics have a yellow hue cast on the watch but I can’t tell if it’s SS or YG.

looking good for a 27 yr old ??

That one that I posted yesterday is an all yellow gold 16528 Daytona. I also have its steel sibling, with the patina'd subdials people refer to as a Patrizzi dial (I wear it, but I baby it so it's in nearly new old stock condition and has never been polished).




https%3A//i.imgur.com/0vZJInzl.jpg[/img]']

 

[Viral]

That one that I posted yesterday is an all yellow gold 16528 Daytona. I also have its steel sibling, with the patina'd subdials people refer to as a Patrizzi dial (I wear it, but I baby it so it's in nearly new old stock condition and has never been polished).


https%3A//i.imgur.com/MiHDg86l.jpg[/img]']https%3A//i.imgur.com/0vZJInzl.jpg[/img]']

BALLIN!!

?

 

[radicaldog]

Honestly your anti-Rolex stance just comes across as petty and thinly-veiled bias. The fact that you are clinging to the Walt Odets takedown betrays your intentions.

You could make a strong case for Rolex as the best movement maker in the world if you care about durable movements built to function at a high level for a really long time. High end horologists love to noodle on tourbillons, remontoirs, fancy escapements, etc. but do any of them really outperform a simple Rolex time only movement? If they do on day one, do they 5 years later without any services? We've all heard plenty of stories of 20 year old Rolexes still keeping great time. I've made it clear I don't appreciate people converting opinions into facts so I'll be clear and say that I understand why people apply superlatives to Rolex movements. I have a couple of Rolexes that are seldom worn but without fail when I decide to check how they are keeping time - it's always bang on. I can't say the same for my other timepieces.

Sure, quartz movements work better but what does that have to do with what Rolex is making and selling? I accept Rolex at face value - they are largely designing and building heirloom quality tool watches and other simple watches that are meant to function at a high level for a really long time and they are arguably doing it better than anyone else. Some may prefer Patek, but their movements tend to be less robust and have more frequent (and more expensive) servicing requirements. Patek isn't really in the every day heirloom market like Rolex.

Is it true that the people @radicaldog looks down on also like Rolexes? Sure, no one is questioning that. But the fact that it bothers you so much shows that your view is largely about perception and not really about Rolex the watchmaker. There are ****** people buying great products of every kind in every market. I know people who buy Birkins and Rolexes. The fact that ****** people buy nice things for the "wrong" reasons doesn't mean we should ignore the "right" reasons.

Moreover, and most importantly in the SF arena, these transparent attempts to devalue Rolex in this forum are tiresome. You may have such a highly refined sense of design and intellectual purity that you can't live with the Rolex aesthetic and production choices and that's perfectly fine. Don't buy a Rolex because they aren't right for you. But the way you advocate against Rolex and in favor of your idiosyncratic modernity preferences is reminiscent of another strident poster who is obsessed with defining objective superiority and it's no more entertaining.

Look, I made this thread so people could post and discuss their controversial views without having to rain on other people's parade of actual watches. So, first of all, thanks for contributing to the discussion.

Just to be clear, I don't claim that my view is objectively correct--as I said elsewhere, I think objective/subjective, fact/opinion etc. are distinctions that are too complex to be fruitfully deployed on here. I just made a case for a view. Or more of a by-the-by remark, really.

I've really got to do some work now but I'll try and return to your post later to address your substantive points. You make some good ones, I think, but I also think I've got some rejoinders. Yes, I happen to like argumentation. If you find it tiresome, just ignore me?

 

[Adsky Luck]

: mid-quality products that sell at a luxury price because people are mesmerised by the brand n.

very interesting and here is a little background story on that Walt Odets review which was legit.
the first thing that popped up when I googled walt odets timezone

eta: well and the review is still up and what a fine read it is honestly, especially part 2 and the conclusion )


Infamous:

For the person for whom accuracy of rate in a mechanical watch is the only criterion in buying a watch, and for whom value-for-the-dollar is of little concern, the Explorer might be a choice. In the current watch market, the poor quality of the movement–and relatively good quality of the case and dial–suggests that this watch should retail in the $600 to $800 range. To my tastes, a quartz-controlled watch would provide the functionality of this watch, do it even better, do it with better reliability, do it at an appropriate purchase price, do it at much lower routine maintenance costs, and, in most cases, provide a better piece of craftsmanship in the bargain. Obviously, for the person who wants “a Rolex” for reasons unrelated to the watch itself, this watch might be a choice.

 

[radicaldog]

For the person for whom accuracy of rate in a mechanical watch is the only criterion in buying a watch, and for whom value-for-the-dollar is of little concern, the Explorer might be a choice. In the current watch market, the poor quality of the movement–and relatively good quality of the case and dial–suggests that this watch should retail in the $600 to $800 range. To my tastes, a quartz-controlled watch would provide the functionality of this watch, do it even better, do it with better reliability, do it at an appropriate purchase price, do it at much lower routine maintenance costs, and, in most cases, provide a better piece of craftsmanship in the bargain. Obviously, for the person who wants “a Rolex” for reasons unrelated to the watch itself, this watch might be a choice.

Thanks, Adsky. Odets expresses an aesthetic sensibility similar to mine, I think. But the review was of a 14270 from around 2000. Is there any reliable information and assessment on how Rolex have upped their game since? For instance, they introduced the Parachrom spring and Chronergy escapement. (This doesn't change my concerns about design coherence for a firm with an ostensibly modernist aesthetic, but still, I think it would be relevant information.)

And also, some people on the fora say that Odets's review was coloured by his experience with high-end watches, and that he changed his mind somewhat after reviewing other comparable "workhorse" watches. Any links? I couldn't find anything but only had time for a super quick search.

Edit: some relevant info and links here, esp. post #12. Now back to work for me!

 

[Rasputin13]

Brothers, I’m planning on purchasing an Omega Seamaster 300M as a gift to myself. Does this watch come in only one size of band or are there various sizes? I have smaller sized wrist.

 

[Phileas Fogg]

Brothers, I’m planning on purchasing an Omega Seamaster 300M as a gift to myself. Does this watch come in only one size of band or are there various sizes? I have smaller sized wrist.

I believe the bracelet can be adjusted.

 

[Texasmade]

Brothers, I’m planning on purchasing an Omega Seamaster 300M as a gift to myself. Does this watch come in only one size of band or are there various sizes? I have smaller sized wrist.

Are you getting the Diver Pro with the wave dial or the Master Co-Axial with the straight lugs and retro vibe?

The latest Diver Pro with the wave dial I believe has a normal rubber strap and a short rubber strap.

I'm not too sure about the retro looking Seamaster.

As Phileas Fogg mentioned, the metal bracelet can be adjusted.

 

[zippyh]

I believe the bracelet can be adjusted.

Why do you even comment if you don’t know?
Virtually all bracelets can be adjusted. Some easier than others. Straps too although some are a permanent adjustment like some rubber straps Omega uses where you cut to fit but there’s some adjustment in the clasp.

 

[Dino944]

very interesting and here is a little background story on that Walt Odets review which was legit.
the first thing that popped up when I googled walt odets timezone

eta: well and the review is still up and what a fine read it is honestly, especially part 2 and the conclusion )


Infamous:

The review is still there, and it is an interesting read. Still IIRC, there were numerous issues with that review even back then. In addition, it is important to keep in mind back in the the late 90's it was about a $2,000 watch that could be purchased for $1,700-$1,800, new at an AD, depending on the clasp (non-oysterlock v. oysterlock). I would imagine if one looked at an Omega Seamaster, Breitling, or IWC you weren't going to see a higher quality movement. Possibly IWC had a better bracelet but at that price the movement was a basic ETA. Also, if that was his opinion of a 14270, I can't imagine he would have said kinder things about a 1016 other than the dial has a certain charm that only vintage watches have.

Today, a modern Explorer is a drastically different watch in terms of movement, anti-magnetism, far higher quality bracelet and clasp. So it isn't as though they are still selling the same watch, but at a higher cost.