/fa/ - Fashion

>>17837500
They were great when they used eta movements. Now that they've switched to Sellita, I can't be bothered to consider them.

>>15857784
>>15857809
cont. Do you want a watch that is easily legible in bad lighting situations? Do you want a watch that has complications (i.e. a date function, a chronograph, a power reserve indicator, etc.). Do you want a watch in precious metals (gold/white gold, etc.), or do you want it in stainless steel or perhaps a combination of the two? Do you want a circular watch or something different (rectangle, square, oblong, etc.)?

Then we have to ask 'are you anal about accuracy to the second'? Because if you were, then I'd suggest going back to quartz or going the pocket-watch route, because pocket watches are far less expensive and can be regulated into remarkably tight tolerances of +/-.

There are a lot of things to consider here.

>>15762591
Thank Christ...I thought you'd never leave.

It's not your fault Anon.

>really, it's not your fault.

>>15060238
There ya go! Pocket watches from the early part of the 20th century are very good with temps, though positions are dependent heavily on how well the movement was originally adjusted. The problem is that many watchmakers don't want to go through the trouble of adjusting them today, and if you get one to do so it's usually costly because it's time intensive. So if you go vintage, much of the time it's a crapshoot if you get a movement that performs well within 5 positions (depending on the model and make, they might only be adjusted to 3 positions). Also, pocket watches are different to wristwatches in that the only positions that mattered heavily were the crown at 12 or 3 or 9, as that was the way the watch was carried for the majority of the time, though I think in daily use dial up would be a position that needed to be considered too, as I can't imagine too many average joes would store their pocket watch upright in a drawer as opposed to dial up on a night stand.

>>14909391
I can't remember what mine is...it's the 21 jewel automatic movement from about a decade ago. Apparently it was standard in a lot of low-end mechanicals. Aside from my gripes about the rate, the movements are in fact reliable if you treat them well and have them serviced properly; there's nothing wrong with them, in other words. But they do not allow for precision regulation in the way that more advanced movements do, at least in terms of ease of manipulation of the various components.

Regarding the Orient in-house movements...I have no idea. It's rated as +/- 15, which isn't bad, but isn't great. Better than the older Orient -25/+35. It hacks and has handwinding (which the older movement didn't). 40 hour power reserve, at 21,600 vph (which is 6 'clicks' per second).

If you can handle the loss/gain, then there's nothing wrong with it...I assume.

>>14909395
If you love the watch, that's all that matters. What I figured out about myself is that there is always a better watch that I can't afford. If I can live with that reality, then I can be happy with what I have. I have a Seamaster, but I could have a double-red Seadweller. I have a Waltham Vanguard but I could have a Patek Complication of something. I have my Seagull 1963 but I could have a Speedmaster Cal. 321 from 1968. There's always a higher end watch to the ones I have, and unless I spend ludicrous amounts of money (i.e. enough to buy a house) it'll never be 'the best'. So it becomes 'what makes me happiest'.

I find this debate comes and goes in my head regarding Flieger watches; I love the look of the Laco without any branding; it looks closest to the original 55mm without being impossible to wear on the wrist. But are Laco better than IWC and their Flieger? Nope. But they do look better....so....?