/fa/ - Fashion

>>15572246
It's not just "well, quartz", it's a noble quartz, homegrown, aged in oak barrels, temperature compensated, hermetically sealed, and as a result, impossibly accurate. Looks nice too.

>>13632067
No.

>>11020780
Because OP got into watches yesterday and thinks "automatic is le gentlemans only choice because of the all gears and stuff, and because it's #menswear".

Watch doesn't have to be mechanical/automatic to be a good watch. It's purely subjective. If you value the history behind the engineering and the prestige etc then get an mechanical watch. Objectively speaking quartz movements are better in every way, they are more reliable, they don't require maintenance, and they are more accurate. Only thing that is better about mechanical is their resell value: Mechanical Seamaster is easier to flip than a quartz version. But considering /fa/ mostly discusses cheaper 200 buck watches it's not really an issue. It is entirely up to you if you see the "soul" in mechanical watch or don't. Additionally, you could easily view quartz movement as more impressive engineering feat than mechanical movements if you wanted to view it purely from that way.

It's kind of the same thing why some people must drive a classic Mustang from the 60's even though it requires ton of work and is pain in the ass sometimes, and some might see it as a piece of junk, and some see the "point", the romance.

Also, I'd much rather have a quality quartz movement like thermoregulated Grand Seiko 9F or Citizen A660, than some robot manufactured bulk 2824 ETA mechanical(that they use in up to 2k $ watches btw...) Just trying to make a point there there are differences also in quartz movements and it's not that black and white some people make it out to be.

I own four mechanical watches and only two quartzes but I don't force them to everyone who asks. For some, quartz is a better option. If someone doesn't especially ask for mechanical, then I won't suggest one instead of quartz.