You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Just acquired one of these:
[img] 
[/img]
Ooooohhhh... (Sorry, I think I just came).
Nice.
I like.
Time's wrong
No numbers, not for the likes of me!
[quote=scaredypants ]Time's wrong
wait a bit.
Time's wrong
Fun Fact: watches are (almost) always shown at ten past ten, because it makes a tick and/or a happy smile.
It's got 2 second hands. Is it a fake?
It's second hand? No new ones available?
If i'd got more money than sense, one of these would be nice.
[img] 
[/img]
Don't see the point in all this overpriced wrist watch malarkey. I guess I'm a bit of a heathen, but my Casio does the same job. I'm really not knocking it, but I'd love to hear why people spend so much money on them. Is it just that you've got so much that you can't think of anything better to spend it on? Wish I was that flush :-/
Edit; appreciate that this has probably been said (and answered) before; nothing new under the sun and all that.
I keep meaning to get one of these.
[img] 
[/img]
The perfect singlespeeder's watch?
...but my Casio does the same job.
Not if it doesn't look the same, and make the wearer feel the same.
Watches aren't just for telling the time.
Just like clothes aren't just for covering up your arse . Otherwise we would all wear grey boiler suits.
Not so fun fact watches and clocks are traditionally displayed at ten past ten as the hands frame the makers name and the longer minute hand balances the "heavier" 10 on the dial. That's what I was taught at horology in jewellery college anyway
Don't see the point in all this overpriced wrist watch malarkey. I guess I'm a bit of a heathen, but my Casio does the same job. I'm really not knocking it, but I'd love to hear why people spend so much money on them. Is it just that you've got so much that you can't think of anything better to spend it on? Wish I was that flush :-/
Just the same as bikes, cars, houses, clothes, etc. innit?
A simple 1 room wooden hut with a fireplace will likely keep you warm, dry and sheltered from the elements. A poverty-spec Tata will get you to and from work. A Halfords special will batter about the local canal paths without too much trouble. A £5 Casio will tell the time.
But if you have the cash and the inclination, why not buy a nice country pad, an Aston, a Santa Cruz, an Audemars Piguet? Variety is the spice of life and all that. And a well-made watch movement is a thing of wonder.
Is it just that you've got so much that you can't think of anything better to spend it on?
So, this then. Fair enough, I guess.
I suppose it's all relative. I can see the logic of spending fifty to a hundred quid on something that does everything you want, well. It must be that my hundred quid is another mans grand, five grand, relatively speaking. It really is just showing off though, if you're honest. JUST like posh cars, houses not so much. Thing is, at least with the cars, the houses, the bikes (to a point at least) you get something really noticeably better. The watch is still just a watch at the end of the day; some of the really posh ones don't even keep time all that well, or so I understand... 😯
I love nice watches.
However, I must have different taste to most, as so many of these threads here are full of bloody awful looking things, such as the Seiko 5 which gets so much love - I really don't get it!
one of the ugliest watches I've seen to be frank..
Is it a ladies watch?
v8ninety - Member
Don't see the point in all this overpriced wrist watch malarkey.
£89
Previous watch, had it for years, heavy/bulky and pins keep falling out of the strap and it got pretty scratched up:
[img] 
[/img]
so I thought it was time for some minimalism. The Bering feels a bit strange after looking at the over-decorated Seiko for all that time.
My new timepiece:
[img] 
[/img]
Bit too minimalist for me.
I quite like that Uno though.
🙂
These are great value, I keep meaning to get one as a birthday pressie:
Orient Bambino. About £80.00 from Creation last time I checked.
[img] 
?w=800[/img]
White or black faces, gold cases and different numeral styles availale if the blue doesn't do it for you.
When Swatch started getting creative I had an all black one with a matte black dial and gloss black hands. No numbers.
Minimal!
Edit: you can still get them.
[url=] http://www.watchshop.com/unisex-swatch-black-rebel-watch-suob702-p99937101.html ]
[/url]
Another fun fact. If your watch has Roman numerals, the 4 had better be IIII not IV.
Why's that eddie?
If your watch has Roman numerals, the 4 had better be IIII not IV.
por kwah?
Da core. Por kwah.
That Orient is bloody lovely and not very much money either, I can feel a treat to myself coming on...
Tradition. Just Google watch and clock faces. Probably to with predating subtractive notation. And visual symmetry. There's a good piece about it on the Greenwich site.
Interesting.
According to [url= http://blog.fossil.com/the-story-of-iiii-not-iv/ ]this Fossil blog[/url], IIII was a construct of Louis the Fourteenth because he didn’t like the looks of XIV, so he insisted everyone use XIIII. French and Swiss watchmakers followed suit. British watchmakers continued to use IV as an insult to Louis.
Orient do make some lovely watches, especially their premium OrientStar ones. I think this Retrograde seconds one compares favourably to some more expensive, well known Swiss brands.
[img] 
[/img]
Watches are jewellery.
What does a necklace or pair of earrings *do* ? Nothing. But they look nice.
What does an expensive watch *do* (except tell the time) ? Nothing. But it looks nice.
Same same. People who bleat about £5 Casios being just as good are completely missing the point.
Same same. People who bleat about £5 Casios being just as good are completely missing the point.
They are better actually...at telling the time.
People who claim there is something better about them other than looks (subjective) or quality (not always easy to demonstrate, and in terms of the movement, meaningless) are kidding themselves.
They are better actually...at telling the time.
thats great. i guess you have to weigh up your options, be accurate to +/- 0.7 second a day or be accurate to -4/+6* and be a nice looking mechanical timepiece. thankfully for those that dont feel the need to know the time within .07 of a second there are plenty of options available at various price points.
*cosc certified standards for quartz and mechanical movements.
thing is nobody ever looked at a quartz movement and said “that looks amazing”
[img] 
[/img]
$250k Patek split seconds chronograph
You seem (yet again 🙄 ) to be arguing against me, but aren't actually arguing against anything I have said.
thing is nobody ever looked at a quartz movement and said “that looks amazing”
I dunno MrSmith, some watch nerds might find the following pretty cool...
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
I'm not sure many people are claiming expensive watches are 'better' just that they like the look of them. Unless you spend huge sums, all watches are stamped out by the 1000's.
I have a cheap Casio, and a few more expensive ones (low 100's). The Casio is good for telling the time, the others I enjoy the look of.
MrSmith - Member
thing is nobody ever looked at a quartz movement and said “that looks amazing”
So very wrong.
[img] 
[/img]
Edit. And i'm pretty slow...
that looks like a science experiment kit you got for your 10th birthday.
You seem (yet again ) to be arguing against me, but aren't actually arguing against anything I have said.
??? ❓ 😯
i was agreeing with you??? a digital casio is better at telling the time [b]FACT[/b]
just saying there are other watches out there that if you don't need to tell accurate time to .07 seconds per day offer other qualities than accurate timekeeping. dont worry i’m not looking to prove you wrong or make you admit i’m right so i feel better about myself or anything like that. i like watches (non digital) i’m not looking to make you like them too. is that O.K? 😐
This is mine, bought for myself after getting a work promotion a few years back.
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
I have the limited edition Nurburgring STI version of this, just serviced, bargain at around 150GBP on sale.
My apologies MrSmith, I misinterpreted your post, you are pretty much saying the $250K watch is about looks.
jewellery for men. 😐
you say that like it's a bad thing? rockape63
All of the Orients listed so far are quite horrendous
How can the Bambino be horrendous? It's so subtle it could be classed as dull, albeit generally by those who haven't seen one on the flesh but horrendous?
Yes I own one, it's a mk1, not the ugly looking mk2 (that is a terrible design) or the slightly confused classic/modern looking mk3 above.
Just picked up my Stargate 2 - now just waiting on the sapphire and MM hands...
Orient black mako XL next on my watch list. 135 from Amazon.
I suppose it's all relative. I can see the logic of spending fifty to a hundred quid on something that does everything you want, well. It must be that my hundred quid is another mans grand, five grand, relatively speaking. It really is just showing off though, if you're honest. JUST like posh cars, houses not so much. Thing is, at least with the cars, the houses, the bikes (to a point at least) you get something really noticeably better. The watch is still just a watch at the end of the day; [b]some of the really posh ones don't even keep time all that well, or so I understand...[/b]
There is an international standard of accuracy, that watches have to comply with in order to be classed as a chronometer. A chronometer, is by definition, going to be a pretty expensive timepiece, because it would be used for navigation.
Not so crucial now we have GPS.
There was a post around christmas time about watches, one of the brands mentioned was nite, I got interested and bought one of their vision range, its heavy and very black but I really like it, it is so solid feeling and different to anything I have had before
Just remembered this:
http://www.chronocentric.com/watches/accuracy.shtml
[b]Are quartz watches always more accurate than mechanical ones?[/b]Typically they are, but not always. Accuracy and precision are not exactly the same thing.
It is important to remember that even when a mechanical watch is allowed to vary +6/-4 seconds per day, that does not mean it will consistently vary by that high an amount each day. Mechanical movements--except the very rare 'turbillon' movements that correct for it--are noticably affected by the gravitational pull of the Earth. It only takes a performance distortion of 1/1000th of a percent for a watch movement to be one second less accurate in a day. This causes the performance of mechanical movements to be somewhat different from day to day when not stored in a fixed position. The good news is that the actual variations of a mechanical watch will often cancel each other out. This means a mechanical watch will tend to be more accurate over a longer period than the single-day COSC measurement may imply.
[b]The day-to-day performance of quartz is much more consistent than mechanical under identical conditions. Quartz performance is affected mainly by temperature changes and weakened batteries. So a quartz watch that you measured to gains 0.5 second yesterday will be consistently increasingly off correct time by about that amount. You can be pretty certain that in 60 days, it will be about 30 seconds off. At the end of a year, it would be likely be over 180 seconds off.
Compare that to a mechanical watch that you measured to gain 2 seconds yesterday. It would seem that our example quartz watch is 4 times more accurate than this. But while the daily measured daily variations seem much higher, they are not likely to be as consistent, so will have a dampening effect. You cannot accurately predict that this mechanical would therefore be off by 120 seconds at the end of the same 60 days. It might be right on time, or it may be 200 seconds off. That broader range of variations allows most mechanical watches to stay closer to correct time than the daily variation rate implies. Over a year, some mechanicals can on average stay closer to correct time without having to be reset than a quartz watch might.[/b]
The last bit, in bold, is certainly my experience
Of course, as the article points out, in the real world, for most purposes, any difference in accuracy is utterly irrelevant;
What's important is the pleasure an owner gets from wearing a particular timepiece; I get little pleasure from wearing the Casio, it's bulky and not very comfy to wear, and it's almost impossible to read in the dark, because the lume is really poor, and the backlit digital section is really dim too.
My Seiko is really bright, has huge markers and hands, and is bright enough to read clearly at 3-4am, if necessary.
Still, it's unlikely anyone would want to steal the Casio, they might take the Seiko, however, because it looks like very pricey watch.
And [i]of course[/i], a quality watch is an item of jewellery, for both men [i]and[/i] women; I know women who like wearing a quality timepiece; one of the women I work with has a really nice, understated titanium-cased Seiko man's watch, and she loves it to bits, much as I do my Seiko, I wouldn't swap it for anything, a more expensive watch wouldn't do what it does any better, and I've seen very few that are as aesthetically pleasing, and that's the most important thing.
Plus, it was effectively bought for me by my mum, with money I was left.
Why wear something cheap and ugly, when you can wear something nice that give the wearer pleasure.
Actually, wearing a cheap Casio is very much a socio-political statement in itself, and is as much an item of male jewellery, like wearing cheap bead or woven bracelets and necklaces, showing everyone how cool the wearer is, not being tied to material things, blah, blah, blah...
Hey. You can some pretty nice casios, you know. Mines solar powered, waveceptered, made of titanium AND you can read it in the dark...
My problem with expensive watches is a simple one: I'd end up breaking them. Or at least badly scratching them. No point spending lots of money on a watch which is gust going to look like a tank drove over it in six months.
Best I found for durability was a titanium Protrek - solar so didn't have to worry about batteries, it got pretty bashed and covered in paint but kept working, but I've now lost it.
Thanks to Count Zero - I didn't realise any of that. Very interesting.
Agree with the second half of the post too.
Titanium Breitling here wear it as a daily and never had any problems. Servicing costs are high but only need doing every 3 odd years.
Horses for courses really - everyone is different and have different hobbies/passions etc.. Its what makes us Human.
Most of my mates look at my MTB and go why does it cost so much when you can get an Asda special... granted they are true.. you can still only go so fast etc etc but it wont ride as well blah blah at which point we just carry on drinking and move on to teh next topic
Same for watches,, same for most hobbies.. there is always a cheaper alternative bit of kit which gives you the same if not slightly less performance that what you have got but if you like what you have then thats all you ever need to please
Reserving the Bering for outside of work only - don't want it going the same way as the Seiko from contact damage.
Using the off road timepiece for work (Origo). Times the coffee brew and everything...
[img] 
[/img]
jewellery for men
Correct, and that is no bad thing at all. I don't wear any jewellery bar a wedding ring and a watch. The ring is a constant, the watch I can change depending on what I'm doing and where I'm going. Today I'm wearing a G-Shock, mainly as I rode my bike last night and forgot to change it this morning. Tomorrow I'm out socialising at some nice bars so I'll wear something different, Sunday it's Sunday lunch with the inlaws, so something different again. I'm lucky enough to own a few watches, most were bought to signify or remember something and I like them all very much.
And you know what, I don't know why anyone would think of this as a bad thing.
Just for giggles, here is my current timepiece (on the rare occasions I wear one):
[img] 
[/img]
A bit flash maybe, but I'm worth it 😉
Crikey. Does it do this?
[img] 
[/img]
Pfft, at the moment I'm wearing one of these:
[img] 
[/img]
😉
That watch needs a DeLorean to pose with. 😯
Coincidentally that's the one car I really want to own.
That is one cool watch.
The scrolling map display is ace - and the battery lasts 1000x longer than the iWatch battery 😉
bencooper - Member
The scrolling map display is ace - and the battery lasts 1000x longer than the iWatch battery
But can it randomly voice dial when you don't want it to?
(I'm assuming this will be a feature enabled on the iWatch because Apple love it so much you can't disable it on the iPhone.)
I do have another Casio which has a phone number memory, and a little speaker - you select the number you want, hold it up to the phone, and it tone-dials the number for you.
The coolest, and most utterly pointless watch I have has to be the Cosmo-Phase:
[img] 
[/img]
It has an orrery to show the positions of the planets and Halley's Comet 😀
This thread has [i]literally[/i] single handedly just +lots, to my 'watches I'd like to own' list.
Damnit.
I'd love a watch like this
[img] 
[/img]
But….
My problem with expensive watches is a simple one: I'd end up breaking them. Or at least badly scratching them
^ that means i'll settle for my cheap yobokies seiko lookalike as i don't really mind when i do this to it.
[img] 
[/img]
😀bennn - Member
This thread has literally single handedly just +lots, to my 'watches I'd like to own' list.Damnit.
I was also considering one of these...
[img] 
[/img]
Classy, prefer the Orient myself though.
Edit; is there a 'such a thing' as too many watches!?
Are we just posting pictures of our own watches yet...still in love with this, simple/classic design and if I'm wearing it means it's finally the weekend!
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
Nice!,
Some lovely watches. I've always been tempted to get one of these. Anyone seen/had one in real life? Are they as awesome as they appear to be on teh interweb, or just plasticy 80's junk?
[img] 
[/img]
love a watch like thisBut….
My problem with expensive watches is a simple one: I'd end up breaking them. Or at least badly scratching them
I know what you mean, but having said that, I have a colleague who wears that same watch on a daily basis, work and out of work, and it's not got a mark on it - Aren't Rolex's meant to be pretty tough?
His father bought it for him when he turned 21, but said he wasn't spending all that money for it to sit in a drawer.
Plasticky 80's junk - you say that like it's a bad thing! I think they're pretty unreliable, but that's not the point really.
If we're doing LEDs, though, there's this:
[img] 
[/img]
Weighs a ton, has three batteries to drive it, but it can do calculations [i]on time itself[/i]...
Drool... it's like a digital typewriter for your wrist... man...
So whilst all the usual suspects are assembled - and still playing nicely without major squabbles 🙂
Can I ask a watch question?
I've never spent much on a watch. I never wear one for work because it would get trashed and I like having my hand connected to my arm (I've seen too many people with missing fingers etc - one even with a missing arm). I don't even have a wedding ring for this reason.
But I've now done 26 years with the same company and I get £500 (voucher) to go towards a watch. The singlespeed framebuilder side of me likes mechanical, automatics etc. But what will be the reality if it hardly ever gets worn (so rarely gets wound / energised)? Would a "good" quartz be more sensible?
I never wear one for work because it would get trashed and I like having my hand connected to my arm
Maybe just don't do it up so tight?
There is something lovely about a nice mechanical watch
Not that I've ever had enough to buy one for myself, but I can't walk past a jewellers or watch shop without spending at least 10 minutes looking and thinking one day..
I'm not sure what it is about them, it just seems like a great combination of engineering and artistry
I'm not one for showing off at all, I just love well put together things