/fa/ - Fashion

>>18081549
What other reason is there to spend multiples more than a stainless-steel version? Even the practical elements degrade in front of your eyes. Gold is softer, more prone to scratches. It's not more resistant to corrosion than modern stainless steel. It's not more water-proof, or anti-magnetic, or anything else. It's just gold....a material that is a wealth-signifyer in many parts of the world. If you want a stealth-wealth, go white gold or platinum...but if yellow-gold (and moonshine gold), then it's a flex. C'mon...are you being serious?

>>18081551
Check out Archer's posts on WUS regarding the differences between the two. I trust his assessments and photographic evidence. In short, there is usually more wear on specific elements and/or parts on Sellita movements than on the ETA movements they are based on, simply because the Sellita designs cut corners to save costs and/or are derivatives of already proven movements.

I would avoid Sellita like the plague. But ultimately most people today don't have the luxury. If a watch is disposable, then no problem...when you get it serviced, just drop in a new Sellita movement. But if you want something tuned to your habits, go for ETA every time in this price bracket.

It's probably a reason I tend to hate modern microbrands. But I think I'm just an old fart. It's easy to laud the Lemania 321 or 5100, or the Valjoux 7750 variants....tried, tested, and true. But they have time on their side. I have no idea if the 3861 will last (now that they've fixed the center pinion issue), or if the Rolex 33xx movements are truly corrected. It's all the same in the end; does the watch perform the way you want with the reliability you require?

Chinese movements are shit...but if cleaned up and regulated, they can run well....for now. I think the 'expectations' of modern horological enthusiasts are far out of line for what is possible and capable.

Why do you think I love vintage watches more than modern?

Take care Frens, I'm off.

>>17844180
All watches that are valuable have gone up, and we have all lost in that regard. But we can't change the past, we can only look forward. Perhaps it's a chance for you to reassess what you truly want in the watch-world. Sometimes a forced-check is a good thing....sometimes.

>>17634206
Depends...I own both of my favorites.

This one:

>>17561391
The double-beveled caseback is found on all 105.012s except the -66, so the modern 3861 is definitely doing a 'general' homage to the first watch worn on the moon (which was also a 105-012, I think -64 or -65, CB case). The bracelet details are all random and can be, and I'm glad that they finally put the on-the-fly extension on the latest generation...but the proportions on the dial are what matters to me the most, and I'm convinced that in typical Omega fashion, they get things 'nearly' right so that there is no way that an authentic vintage watch can be mistaken for the modern recreation. In other words, the change to the chrono seconds hand, as an example, is done on purpose. It's the one thing that stops me from buying a modern 321, and by every other metric, the Ed White is a fantastic watch. I'm just sad that it looks wrong.

Have you had a chance to handle the 3861s in store? They're really wonderful watches and they seem to perform really well too. Now that the pinion issue is resolved, I've been half tempted to get one just to complete the set. I'll have to though, if they take one back to the moon.