Watches: Gadgets or Jewelry

[in stitches]

Originally Posted by Imhoff

Should have figured, since your post rate is about 100 day. I kid.

iz. all. good.

 

[Metlin]

Originally Posted by bimmy

It frankly seems that you need a reality check. Yes, that's what most people do. Personal experiences are not identical; your reality is not everyone else's. Just because you need a watch, does not mean everyone else does. Watches are not the primary means of telling time for the vast majority of people. Even with your go-go jet-setter life, keeping your electronic devices should not be difficult. I worked in plenty of places that had iffy electricity and I managed to keep my cell phone and netbook from dying.

...that paragraph was not intended to be hostile, please don't interpret it that way.

I am not saying that not one person on Earth uses a watch, just that most don't. And how many people that have chronographs, GMTs, diving watches actually use them for those purposes vs their aesthetic qualities?

Well, my point was merely that the fact that watches are obsolete would be valid if there were reliable alternatives. There are alternatives, sure, but they come with their own set of limitations. I'm not talking about any extraneous functionality (although I do use the compass on my Casio Pathfinder when I go climbing - not the other features, though). I'm just talking about the ability to tell time, and how important it is. And I'm certainly not the only one, since I've a dozen other colleagues who feel similarly -- the first time you're stuck in a foreign country with your cellphone out of charge and you need to know the time, you look at your wrist.

Are there ways around it? Sure, you can ask someone or look around for a clock. But then you could do it anywhere, so that point is quite moot.

I'm truly surprised if you've never run out of juice on any of your devices on your trips. In my experience, South America is often the worst offender -- it is pretty hard to find power outlets of any kind in most airports.

 

[gladhands]

Originally Posted by was385

I've always found the overall opinion towards watches on SF strange. It seems like a large percentage of the posters here come in and knock high end watches for being expensive when something much cheaper could do the same thing. IMO it's very similar to our collective fascination with high end clothing. How is a Patek any different than a pair of Edward Greens?

I think we admit that once clothes and shoes reach a certain level of quality in terms of materials and construction, any premium we pay is purely based on stylistic preference or *gasp* status conferred. If you accept that watches are jewelry, then they become analogous to clothes. The problem lies in the fact that many watch aficionados like to pretend that they're in it for the craftsmanship. Also, a really high end watch will set you back as much as a high-end car...so there's that.

 

[Akeem]

I love watches, mostly for their aesthetics. I consider it to be jewelry for men as I don't like any other accessory. Gadgets are toys to be played with like an iphone. Watches are mostly just looked at and admired. A patek is just art that moves.

 

[E TF]

A cheap quartz watch is more accurate than an expensive mechanical one right up until the point the battery runs out. I like automatic (self-winding) mechanical watches because like magic they keep running, with no electricity, no manual winding. I like the thought of all the tiny cogs and levers whirring away to themselves all day long, with no electronics involved at all - a rare thing these days, as if from another age (not unlike the experience of hand-made or bespoke clothing I suppose). They may lose a minute or so over a month, but that's fine by me. They need not be all that expensive - swatch sell automatic mechanical watches for less than £100.

And I check the time on my watch all the time, and always have done since I was a boy - it's quicker, more convenient and more discrete than pulling my phone out my pocket all the time - and somehow more elegant. In fact, some days, if I don't feel like being contactable, I leave my phone at home (shock horror).

 

[was385]

Originally Posted by gladhands

I think we admit that once clothes and shoes reach a certain level of quality in terms of materials and construction, any premium we pay is purely based on stylistic preference or *gasp* status conferred. If you accept that watches are jewelry, then they become analogous to clothes. The problem lies in the fact that many watch aficionados like to pretend that they're in it for the craftsmanship. Also, a really high end watch will set you back as much as a high-end car...so there's that.

I'm not saying we don't admit it, I'm just always interested in how a lot of posters can essentially say it's ridiculous for anyone to spend that money when we obviously have a similar disposition for clothing. I'm not here to call anyone out, I'm definitely a watch person (and I think it's a little unfair to call people out for liking the craftsmanship, watch movements are an incredible feat of engineering) but believe me I understand people who aren't in to watches.

 

[lenahan]

Originally Posted by E,TF

And I check the time on my watch all the time, and always have done since I was a boy - it's quicker, more convenient and more discrete than pulling my phone out my pocket all the time - and somehow more elegant. In fact, some days, if I don't feel like being contactable, I leave my phone at home (shock horror).

Previous to WWI, the wristwatch, an invention of Cartier, was considered a feminine accessory, something which no self-respecting man would ever touch. Men used large, masculine pocket watches, attached to their dress by a strong chain. The pocket watch fell out of fashion following WWI, as the experiences in the trenches demonstrated the inherent inefficiency of constantly taking the watch out of a pocket, and if it had a hunter case, opening up said case. Many soldiers, and as the war progressed, companies, began modifying pocket watches by adding rings, etc... to accommodate a leather or rope strap. This was far easier, especially as trenches were cramped and filled with men and equipment, and at any moment one might be attached. The cell phone, iphone, ipod, etc... has the same problem, and I personally find it incredibly rude for people to constantly take out their phone. It is just as inefficient as the pocketwatch, and is further prone to the issues with running on battery.

 

[westinghouse]

Originally Posted by bimmy

a watch is almost completely unnecessary in today's world...they are fashion statements/accessories

So are $1,000 suits and $700 shoes...

 

[riverdaniel]

I am planning to purchase silver jewelry online and send it directly to my girlfriend. Does anyone know how the jewelry is packaged? Is it in a nice pouch? Box? Just wrapped in a bubble wrap? I would appreciate any specific answer I can get.

 

[E TF]

Originally Posted by lenahan

Previous to WWI, the wristwatch, an invention of Cartier, was considered a feminine accessory, something which no self-respecting man would ever touch. Men used large, masculine pocket watches, attached to their dress by a strong chain. The pocket watch fell out of fashion following WWI, as the experiences in the trenches demonstrated the inherent inefficiency of constantly taking the watch out of a pocket, and if it had a hunter case, opening up said case. Many soldiers, and as the war progressed, companies, began modifying pocket watches by adding rings, etc... to accommodate a leather or rope strap. This was far easier, especially as trenches were cramped and filled with men and equipment, and at any moment one might be attached. The cell phone, iphone, ipod, etc... has the same problem, and I personally find it incredibly rude for people to constantly take out their phone. It is just as inefficient as the pocketwatch, and is further prone to the issues with running on battery.

Fascinating, thank you. Funny as I think of watch chains as a bit dandyish when I see them now - the exact opposite of how it was back then. Mind you I suppose the same is true of many other Edwardian staples, like capes or bowler hats.