/fa/ - Fashion

>>12803253
It certainly looks nice, but I guess if you don't wear it there's not much point in owning it. Do you never dress up? Maybe get a nicer strap for it and wear it a few times at least to see if you like it.

I don't know why smooth sweeping seconds are supposedly a Rolex thing, every mechanical watch beats several times a second and Rolex has never used particularly high beatrate movements. In fact I'm pretty sure those high frequency GP movements are 36,000bph which is smoother than any Rolex.

>>12572018
I'm personally not a fan of putting a strap on a watch with that case shape, since it's designed to mate neatly onto a bracelet. Most real dress watches will have thinner and straighter lugs instead of that sculpted Oyster style. As far as the watch itself, every Seiko 5 has the same movement and they're basically the same quality. It should be a good value for the money and look good, if that's the style you want then go for it. I used to have a different Seiko 5 and it was nice enough.

See pic related for what I mean about dress watch lugs. Also this watch is on a Hirsch strap, I think if I remember right it was like $50 or so and it looks great.

>>12564857
Buy an Omega. Seamasters are cheaper, Constellations are nicer. Make sure you do lots of research, buying old watches is hard.

>>11207622
Yeah he's retarded, 6105s are cool as hell, I'm personally a really big fan of all those old Seiko divers. The new Turtle is a remake of the 6309 which is nice too but like you said it's less desirable and a lot more common than the 6105. If I had a 6105 and it had sentimental value I would totally get it fixed up, that's pretty awesome. I know I love wearing my grandpa's watch even though it's pretty beat up too.

>>9617651
Dude nice, now we can be clean vintage omega bros instead of beat up vintage omega bros. What does the 30 mean anyway? I'm guessing it's not 30m or 30atm because there's no way either of those is right.