/fa/ - Fashion

>>17507854
My Speedmasters seem to do it, but in general anything Omega immediately becomes 'too poor for Rolex'. The sad thing is that it's probably true, as the only Rolex I've ever wanted is one that is old and absurdly expensive for what it is. Pic related...so beautiful.

>>17507875
I like the Citizen; why not keep it and just add something new?

>>17507921
I'd say it's okay if you're wearing a suit. If you are bare-armed, it looks awful unless you are sailing on your yacht.

>>17508037
It depends on a lot of factors. Do you take it in the water? If so, the water resistance should be checked pronto. If it's running slow, then it definitely needs a service.

>>17506123
'Solid' is an illusion. Heavier isn't better, and higher density isn't higher quality. Both the Black bay and the pelagos feel like cheap crap compared to the rolii sub and seadweller.

At least you're not too fat. Nice Rolex. Is it real?

>>15857673
Yes. Rolex controls the availability of watches from the ADs, and therefore it is difficult to buy a stainless steel sports watch from them at the recommended Rolex price. If you're a 'preferred client', then it's different, but the vast majority of people are not. Therefore, a new one at Rolex price is indeed rare.

The actual numbers are not, of course, but given the heavy desirability due to brand recognition, the numbers still work out.

If you consider that a Roger Dubuis 1-of-28 can be had for under 10K on the secondary market, precious metals, double certification, and all, but a Rolex Stainless Steel unfinished Submariner will be at least twice the price, then you will understand the word 'rarity'.

>the open watchmarket is what determines rarity, not the production numbers alone. Desirability is a factor

>>15691353
You see the same thing with other threads. Leather jackets becomes 'how can you afford a jacket that is 800 bucks?'...precious metals becomes 'how can you afford to get shipments every month?'...sexy women becomes 'I'm so lonely'...it's human nature to want what we don't have at the moment, and threads concentrate the disparity in the mind of the viewer.

At least no one is saying that there is no point in posting a pic of a double-red Seadweller because it is nearly 'unobtainium' in today's market...

>>15406308
Sorry, forgot a pic.

>overpriced to the max. But it's still beautiful to my eyes.

>>15302088
I'm sure there are, and I wasn't claiming that there aren't. But the point is that digital watches that tell the time either by quartz or by satellite relay are FAR more accurate and can be built more durably than mechanicals; to have a mechanical 'in the field' would be ridiculous from a practical standpoint in today's warfare.

>>15302091
>willing to eat shit.

How is making the choice to spend thousands of hard-earned cash on a luxury item considered 'eating shit'? No Anon, I can't agree with you here at all. Eating shit is being robbed at gunpoint and watching your loved ones raped and murdered before your very eyes, and then having a hand cut off as penance and a reminder not to look at that man on the corner of your neighborhood the wrong way ever again.

Regarding the second-hand Rolex market, it's robust because watches eventually get destroyed, like any other commodity that is being used. Artificial scarcity maintains the balance of what is available, therefore allowing the company to have a demand for their product at the prices they command. It's not rocket science, it's a proven and successful business strategy.

>>15302094
No, he's simply being schooled by someone who is right.

>>15302096
How do you define 'Prestige'? And to which social circle do you hope to be perceived as having prestige from? That directly affects what you buy and what pricepoint you're looking at.

>>15297379
Re-read the post: I was talking about Tudor divers, not the Seamaster. I just wanted to post the pic of the black seamaster with the original bond bracelet, which it was equipped with for about 2 years (or less) before they started to come with the Speedmaster variant bracelet which is less complex and arguably less choice.

That being said, every diver is compared to the Rolex Sub because that's been the standard for decades. The newer Omega Master Chronometers are potentially better in terms of performance, though reliability is still untested in terms of decades for the coaxial variant.

>another pic to confuse tired Anons

>>15116178
You only need to read the date one fucking time per day? What kind of work do you do? I have to do it several fucking times because the days are long and they run into each other. The 4th could be the 5th if it's a fucking Wednesday Anon. C'mon man.

You do understand that the cyclops doesn't affect the end point of the minute hand, so it doesn't affect the actual legibility of the watch unless you're on a galloping horse. It's like you've never written a fucking cheque...

I can always agree on the aesthetic Anon; I like clean crystals, which is why I like my Seamaster more than the standard Submariner. But if you see how small the date windows are on Rolexes, it becomes obvious why they're necessary.

If we were to argue aesthetics, then I'd say the solution is to prompt Rolex to enlarge the date window and get rid of the Cyclops. That would solve it. But to keep the date as small as it is without a cyclops is ridiculous.

>try one on...you'll see the problem.

>I was extending a courtesy to you by not just calling you a fucking retard but the time for subtlety is over.

Thank GOD....I was beginning to think I'd run into Bill again...

So, tell me what you really think.

>It's not your fault. Listen to me Anon...it's not your fault.

>>14909805
Nice; how's the performance? I just got my Dad's Seamaster serviced a year ago (it's from 1968/69)...holding within COSC easily.

>pic not related; my favorite Rolex ever.

>>14852195
Not drunk...yet. I'd agree with you that they're currently rather cheap (around 2900 for a good example) but they're aesthetically very...well....mediocre. Do you honestly want to look at that thing for the time?

The vintage Omega you have is far more interesting visually, and it'll keep as good time as a 70's 1500. Why not just use the Omega and save for a watch that is not a compromise?

Regarding pulling out a pocketwatch. There are lots of possibilities with this:

1) It's no different than pulling out a phone (or worse, people these days put their fucking phones on the dinner table) to check the time. If it's in a convenient pocket, you can look at it below the desk and no one cares.

2) Are you expecting people to judge you on what watch you're wearing? If so, going vintage Rolex is awful unless you can answer, 'yeah, it was my Dad's when he started his business...now I'm carrying on the tradition'.

3) No matter what, you shouldn't be caring if people judge you on a watch, which leads to the issue of carrying a pocket watch. Unless you think it'll make a difference for the worse, then wear a timex at work and wear the cool shit when you're out. Then if you want an average Rolex Date there is nothing stopping you.

I don't know Anon...I've stopped caring about that sort of thing, and the more people I encounter the fewer of them care about it either. I recently got my will updated, and the guy doing it was wearing a quartz seamaster. Why the hell would anyone buy a quartz seamaster? I don't know. I never asked. He likes his watch, so if it makes him happy, that's fine. But as a knowledgeable customer, I see it as an atrocious waste of money and 'judge' him accordingly.

Then of course I throw out the judgement because it makes no difference regarding the work he does. His watch doesn't matter, and that's the point. Your watch shouldn't matter, especially if you can do better work than your peers.

>>14169939
At the moment, the Master Chronometer rating. But none of it matters because Rolex holds its value far better than Omega, so if you're thinking long term and have no issues with aesthetics, go Rolex.

>>13954557
As far as I am aware, they used to produce railroad pocket watches that were highly respected for their accuracy. Now, their claim to fame is that they use tritium tubes for their lume, which is brighter than normal applied lume but must be replaced after a period of time (I've heard anywhere from 10-15 years). When I looked into them years ago, they were using ETA ebauches, like many other companies in that price range, and I don't know if they've developed their own movements yet (inhouse I mean).

Bottom line for me is that I liked the gimmick of the tritium tubes, but only on the watches they have with super-complicated dials. Simple watches (like in your pic) are quite ugly to me.

>>13898205
That's fair enough, though there's a lot of choice to be had. The original Speedy can still be had, in a sense, but you've got decades of changes between seamasters and submariners of old, plus all the possible combos (like the deepsea vs. submariner). Would you choose one specific one over another? And why? Would it be say, the Ploprof, just so you could have the strongest Omega in that lineup? Or a gold Submariner with diamonds in the bezel? What would your criteria be to choose?

>>13710931
Thanks for responding...I remember that a lot of the regulars moved to the discord, but I didn't join because I have no idea how the fuck it works and I don't trust the tech. But that's another issue....

>maintain at least four hours of watch content per day...

That might be the reason why. I've been working more lately, so I've had far less time to devote brain power to thinking about horological issues. It feels like watches just aren't as important as they used to be in my life...and that's what scares me because they were such a HUGE part of my life for so long.

I'm scared of losing my passion for things Anon...it seems to be happening with so much lately, and I don't know if there's something seriously wrong or if it's just a phase. Thanks for responding. What watch are you passionate about right now?

>pic was special to me...and now isn't, and is surprisingly generic even though I know intellectually that it isn't...

>>13671847
Interesting point of view. I agree with some of it, disagree with some.

The difficulty I have comes from the tag at the end of the first statement:
>...at a reasonable value
This is perhaps where we disagree entirely, but I'll put my thoughts in better order so that you can see what I mean.

In the end, what is the difference between the in-house movement of Tudor and a modified ETA that is COSC grade? I'm not talking about manufacture or materials, but purely performance. Does one last longer than another before service? Is one more consistent than another over time or through the spring tension uncoiling (I don't know the proper term, but I think you know what I mean)? Is one less prone to certain types of wear and tear, or is one more resilient regarding lubrication? In other words, in day-to-day use, is there a difference that would have a definite effect on the human wearing it?

I'm of the rather unpopular opinion that there isn't much of a practical difference at all. Unless you're dealing with the Zenith new regulator thing, then it's pretty much the same thing. Everyone is within COSC for their higher grades, with some having better positional variance than others, some having better power reserve, etc, but all in all...within the 24 hours of wear it's the same.

From my point of view, that takes the movement out of the running entirely, and makes me think that a Tudor movement would be no better/worse than a Rolex movement, for this kind of performance.

cont.

>>13560313
Sorry, correction.
They DID do a blue sword hand, but it had the black sword hand FACE, not the blue skeleton face. In other words, what I was trying to say was that they didn't do a sword-hand PLUS dot-hour-markers configuration ever. It was either sword hands with the old 300 markers OR the skeleton hands with dots. But there IS a blue version of the sword hands with 300 markers...and if I remember correctly, it's ELECTRIC blue, not just normal blue.

I like dots more, pic unrelated. But that doesn't change the fact that the black sword hands is by far the most legible Seamaster ever made.