/fa/ - Fashion

>>15866484
Try this, sweaty.

Do a search for two-tone Rolex Datejusts. Look at the pricing possibilities compared with condition, box and papers (or lack thereof), year, etc. You know what you'll find? A shittonne, far more than could ever be sold to an adoring public. You know why? Because they're undesirable. They don't increase in value after they're sold. You compare that with ANY steel sports watch from Rolex and it's entirely different. Daytonas, Deepseas, etc, all increase in value the moment they leave the boutique. They're desirable in an artificially induced market...gotta go...

>>15857696
I can't agree with you, at least on the watch market. The difficulty in procuring something is precisely what can make it rare. Rarity is not a single factor, it's a combination of what it is and how many want them. This is why the term 'comparatively rare' is used so often, especially with goods. Water is not rare, but it's rare in the desert.

I chose Dubuis specifically because they are high quality watches, but at the moment in our current economic situation there are many who are wanting to sell (to free up funds) but very few who are willing to buy. So you have tonnes of them on the open market. They were rare...when people wanted them. Now they're not.

Perhaps we're just arguing over semantics though. My contention is that desirable Rolexes are hard to find and you have to pay inflated prices for them on the open market because ADs won't sell these watches to the common person who walks in the store. Therefore the ability to get one is restricted, and it's a 'rare' occurrence to the common man. You're perhaps looking at it the other way, which is that Rolex manufactures thousands of watches a year, and therefore they're not 'rare' by the sheer number of them produced. If price and desirability were not taken into account, then I'd agree.

Lord only knows how many two-tone date-justs there are on Chrono24 that people are desperate to offload. Ugly as sin watches. Those are not rare in any sense of the word, using either definition.

>>15436759
Normally when Anons here say they are poor, they're saying they can afford a Seiko 5 but not a Breitling Navitimer. Just how poor are you Anon?

There are priorities in life, but watches aren't one of them. How is your job situation?

>pic is something I'll never be able to afford...but I'll still enjoy looking at anyway.

>>15297361
I can't fault the craftsmanship, but I don't like the aesthetic at all. Personal taste. Prefer Daniels and protege.

>>15216759
Jesush fucking crhist. It's obsviously a Cal. 321 Omega speedy, pre-Professional moniacker, on an fucking 'sharktrail' adjustible bracelet (probably because the original was lost or damaged or it was on leather and they couldn't find a new one). Original lume (tritium, see the 'Swiss made T" at the bbotom), and gently depressed subdials. Hour and Minute hand hae been replaced, (i.e. probably 80's given the colour), but teh hour and upraised inner circle indicate original second hand plus original dial.

Bezel also original or highly fucked up becaus eof neglect,

The straight lugs you mention are idiomatic of this verison of the Speedy. You're a fucking uninformed novice. On the open market, in this condition ,is probably 10-12kUSD depending on the market.

Do research before you discard a fucking icon. (i.e. most of the watches that went to the moon were this calibre and year, not the 1969 that had the curved modern lugs and the Professional marking on the face).

You're own lack of knowlege triggers me. Learn before you critique, democr.

>>15094697
No, you absolutely can criticize them, but it's akin to yelling at the moon for looking so sad.

>it's not your fault Anon...

>>14527535
Jesus fucking christ anon.

1) the subdials are above the centerline, but not enough to suggest the golden rule. So, the result is looking like an owl with down's syndrome.

2) The hour markers suggest a railroad style watch pocket watch, however the font is so poorly designed (large at the top, slender at the bottom) that it distracts the eye instead of informing it.

3) The crown is not flush with the casing...an accident waiting to happen, but obviously either design flaw or casing/installment error.

4) The face doesn't look luminescent; if it was, I could pass the idea, but if it's not, then it sucks.

5) Lugs are surprisingly appropriate for the watch, so that's not bad. The extra leather in the strap suggests a nato design but using leather. Ugly and shit.

6) Did i mention it looks like an owl with down's syndrome?

>>14527537
FUck that. I've met watch people in the real world and they're either rich people who larp (i.e. they collect watches like wines, not because of their innate fascination but because they can afford it and no one else can't) or they're turbo autists who have 3 awesome pieces in their collection and keep talking about the same three because they'll never be able to afford any more. Boring.

In this world, there isn't enough time to listen to idiots. That's why I come here...at least you Anons are honest.

>it's all about proportions, BreguetAnon

>>14510843
Agreed, but it is the way it is nevertheless. Because of the built-in obsolescence and the ever quickening pace of IT development, the latest phones are only good for 2 years, the latest computers for 4, etc. That being said, you need the latest computers soft and hardware to run the latest games, you need the latest phones to keep up with the latest apps, etc. Mechanical watches are completely foreign as an entity to all of this; the developments happen over decades, not months, and with servicing you can wear the same watch like my Dad has since 1966 and it's as good if not better than the modern namesake (we both wear Seamasters). It's stupid really, if you think about the whole thing. In the 60's, every man needed a watch, and all watches were mechanical. Today, every man needs a phone and a computer, and both of those tell time more accurately than any mechanical watch.

Anyone who's seen my long drunken rants before knows how I feel about this, but I think I've just accepted it as the way things are. I love watches for what they represent, but I understand why they are in the position they're in with regards to society, disposable income, wealth and status, etc.

Are any of you real? Something feels very 'off' about all of this...

>>14335608
It's okay Anon...it's not a bad thing really, it's just a feeling that I've come to over the past few months. To be honest, I've always wanted the Speedy, so that would never be a regret or anything. It's just...lately material goods in general have lost their lustre. I'm not drawn to buying things the way I was when I was younger, and at this point the Seamaster does the job perfectly day in day out. Another watch is just...another watch, if that makes any sense.

It's not that watches don't sing to me anymore...the new Day-Date absolutely does, it's fucking beautiful. But the reality of daily life always returns to my mind, and I can't help but think that if these days I only wear my Seamaster and almost never wear any of my other watches....well, another watch is just going to be sitting 'until the weekend'...you know what I mean? I don't know...I'll probably change my mind tomorrow. But the Port does bring out some honesty in my feelings. In other words, if I had 10 watches...I have a gut feeling that I'd always reach for my Seamaster first thing in the morning.

Nothing wrong with a Yacht-Master! I think people here just shit on Rolex because it's easy to shit on. Considering that many watchmakers swear by Rolex in terms of their ease of service, the reliability and functionality of the parts and internal design, etc....I don't really have a problem with them, though I may have the one or two aesthetic problems with a few of their models.

I can understand leaning towards the Royal Oak...it's iconic. I don't know...if it were me, I'd ask myself, 'what do I not have in the collection that can do something different than the others?'.

>>14179862
You have to put yourself in the shoes of a perspective buyer.

1) Can't afford housing, because it's too expensive. Job may crap out, so possibly save like a demon if possible. 3000$ Watch is out of the question, with servicing of 250$ every 5 years or so. Furthermore, student loans.

2) If making good money, then why blow that money on a watch and not technology (new computer, new phone, better car, better housing, etc.). And since men are the primary buyers anyway, we have to ask: does an expensive watch attract women? Today, not as much as in the 80's.

I think the watch companies could survive if they did a social advertising campaign a la DeBeers. Make it something that is socially a requirement, tied in with sex. Like, an advertising campaign that says that women only notice men with Rolexes. Or men judge other men by the quality of Omega on their wrist. Something like this.

That's the only way they'll sell.

>>14169906
To offer a different, if drunken thought. Modern watchmaking IS gatekeeping, and the Chinese prove it. The cheapest mechanical chronograph, the cheapest tourbillon, etc. are all Chinese made Seagull movements. The Tourbillon goes for just under 1000$...and from every report I've read it keeps time just fine.

You are interested in performance? Then the ETA movements are what you're looking for, because for the most part they are the most reliable, most universal movements that all watchmakers know how to regulate and service. Next up are the Valjoux variants, including the 7750 chronograph movement which has been used in everything from Omega to IWC.

Appreciating watches is a nice thing, but we can't get away from the modern reality. Unless you're looking in the vicinity of JLC and up, you're going to be dealing mainly with outsourced parts to outsourced movements. That's not a terrible thing, it's just a reality of the financial scheme.

To get something 'special', you either have to go with something that has a personal history that is either important to you or important to someone you know, or you have to pay the big bucks.

One other thing: what standard of performance are you looking for? If mechanical, I would assume COSC and within...which therefore would include ETA. If quartz...then what? Seiko probably would cure that idea.

Maybe the question should be asked differently. What do you want the watch for? Why are you buying it? What itch does it scratch?

>>14108409
Maybe because you're remembering the times you had with the watch. That's the ultimate value, btw...not the name on the face or the Geneva stripes, or even the look of admiration/disgust it might elicit from a complete stranger. All that matters is what you did while wearing the watch.

>>13991489
Fuck...forgot the usual pic. Too much (or not enough) Port...

>>13955814
Disagree. Youtube and Social media aren't the problem, they merely amplify the stupidity of humanity en masse. When anyone can post digital graffiti for anyone to read, you're going to get rubbish everywhere.

I agree with you wholeheartedly on this:
>If you like the watch, get it.

But you have to understand...people would only tell people how to live their lives if it was profitable for them. If it wasn't, and if people stopped listening to the 'experts', then this shit would die out the way that Ghostbusters 2016 has disappeared into the ether.

There will always be a market for stupid people who want to be smarter by getting 'professional' advice, and as a result there will always be professional hucksters who make profits off of this ignorance. That's human nature, and it's not something we can remove from society unless we do serious biological engineering. The internet merely makes it disseminate faster and further afield. But you can't blame cars for how badly stupid people drive.

Also, regarding the size of a watch on the wrist. I've always found that after wearing a watch for about 4 hours straight, the watch starts to look fine and normal, regardless of size. So, I'm not entirely sure if your position of 'if it looks too big for your wrist, it probably is' is accurate. I've experienced the opposite completely, without any negative social side-effects...

>>13941237
If you go mechanical, you can always go Seiko as well: other Anons can vouch for them and give you more info.

Finally, just remember that in many situations, no one cares what watch you're wearing. If you're wearing a suit, it'll be under your sleeve, and since most people today don't wear watches anyway, it's not going to matter if you choose not to spend money on one. If you buy a watch, it should be something you want, not really something you need...at least in this world.

>pic recommended, but a little expensive.

>>13906610
Well, glad you made it. Have a drink, pull up a nice watch or two, and chill.

>>13898426
That is wild! I had no idea. Thanks for the explanation...it's so far out of my normal experience.

>>13898562
>all the aesthetics
I disagree with you on that. Aesthetics include not only the visual proportions of the watch but also the feel, the weight, the temperature....everything. In the same way that gold watches simply feel like gold as opposed to watches that are gold plated. Sorry Anon...your argument doesn't really hold up

There is an argument to be made for people who buy expensive goods so that everyone knows they can afford it. You see this sometimes with people who leave the tags on, for example (usually on clothing). But considering the R+D, materials, manufacturing tolerances, etc., certain watches are not overpriced.

I had this debate on another forum about leather jackets the other day. Anons were talking about 800 being unreasonable to spend on a single item of clothing, but when you do the research and break down the cost of each section (skin supply, tanning, design, stitching and finishing) then you tend to reach about 600, and higher if the leather is more choice or refined. There will always be companies that bulk up their price, of course, which is why the common wisdom with watches (as with cars) is to always buy them second-hand or pre-owned so that you don't take the usual 15-20% hit you get walking out of the boutique.

I haven't felt 'pride' owning a watch since I bought my first one...now I just buy them for myself and I don't really care if other people like it or not. So perhaps you need to consider it as the first step of owning something expensive that others can see.

>>13883137
No, but from what I've heard there are a few Canadians here. One of them has a beautiful Lemania 5100 Speedy, but I haven't seen him around lately. Or he's not on when I'm on. Drink hearty anon!