/fa/ - Fashion

>>15340114
>pic related. It's one of a kind, unobtanium, and the maker who wore it regularly is dead. It's two sided, and fucking awesome.

>>15340836
Dead on, but the Omega was considered (for a brief period of history) to be the most accurate wristwatch ever created. There is historical value in it, if one values that sort of thing.

>>15341130
It would be awesome if they didn't have the damn crescent moon second hand balance. Everything else is Japanese kino.

>>15341474
My pap has a Seamaster from the 60s that he has worn all of my life. It was giving trouble years ago, so he had to wear other watches (including his father's Omega), but when I got it serviced for him (as a surprise) he was overjoyed and now he wears it every day, all day even though he's retired. It was a 'rite of passage' of sorts for boomers to save up from their first job and buy their own watch...and for whatever reasons it holds sentimental value to them beyond anything we can understand in a hyperconsumerist culture.
>granted, I just pulled the trigger on my own '1 watch'...we'll see if it holds up to the 'meaning' I want it to have.

>>15341490
This Anon's got the right idea. Wear it and use it.

>>15341500
Given your options, I'd suggest either a new complication (i.e. GMT, day date, etc.) or an upgrade in terms of aesthetic appeal and technology. You didn't really mention a budget though. I would avoid all the options you posit, and save up for another few years to take you into a new bracket. On the secondary market you can get into JLC at reasonable prices...there's no reason not to if the seller is legit. So that's what I'd suggest. Forget the mid/low tier...save and go higher. You'll be happier.

>>15341507
Yes, you water it. The Anon who owns one has a very interesting and diverse collection. Fucking awesome if you ask me.

>>15341621
If you like the aesthetic, go for it. I hate the half indices though...

>here we go...

>>15299674
Yes and no. Reputable brick and mortars have a watchmaker onsite who services watches when the come into the store, and then they sit on display shelves until sold. In this case, it's fine. When buying online, it's COMPLETELY unknown, so the assumption is that you get it serviced immediately if you plan on wearing it regularly.

The problems with mechanical watches multiply if there are single issues; a single wheel that has bent or broken teeth can lead to shredding of other teeth, which can result in metal bits and shrapnel getting lodged in components, further multiplying the damage. If it's a rare watch or a watch that hasn't been made in a long time, parts might be scarce, and then replacement can increase significantly in cost.

Buying vintage watches is fun and awesome, and you can get great deals in super technology that is reliable and accurate over the long term. The problem is that you need to know your shit or you'll be disappointed AND have to foot the bill in order to get a watch working.

>...I'm afaid even that will look oversized on me.

You do realize that in normal parlance, this is an opening for someone to either reassure you or realize your fears directly.

Anon, don't you even Psychology? Fuck sakes.

>you stupid faggot

Don't project, it makes leftists look weak.

>impression
You misspelled 'certainty'.

>>15116206
>Hey, Anon...listen to me. It's not your fault. It's not your fault.

>>15090226
Have you?

>>15090231
Yes, it's inevitable. The assumption is that mechanical perfection removes humanity from things, and while you can argue that from an artistic standpoint (i.e. human created artforms like music, dance, painting, etc.) it is utterly useless when it's dealing with a mechanism that does something practical.

While I respect grand seikos, I hate their aesthetic design line, and like Zenith they will never appeal to me no matter how beautiful their finishing is. But watch snobs still don't understand that their opinions are actually valueless for the majority of the population and utterly wasteful to other watch snobs who think they're the only ones who are right. That's why I don't listen to them about aesthetic opinions...their lives exist in an ever closing circle of people who are likeminded in the strategy but combatative necessarily raison d'etre. They have no joy, and when they think they've found it someone else tears them down on just as easily quicksand as the target.

>you guys know what I mean.

>>14844672
Lucky bastard...I love Daniels stuff. I haven't seen a Smith in person though, so I have no idea what it's like. I know he puts a lot of work into it though...but the general aesthetic is not to my taste.

>>14844679
I do, and for all of humanity. The only place mechanical watches are necessary are in poor sections of southeast asia, where it's cheaper to have a mechanical that can be fixed than a quartz that relies on button batteries that are hard to come by.

>>14520661
Cool. Are you ever worried about chemicals splashing on your watch by accident, or is it under the glove nearly all the time? Also, don't they have proper clocks with timers in labs? <please forgive, never worked in a lab before>

>>14508385
The lowest one I found on Chrono24 is 2276USD. Good luck, and you'll figure it out.

>>14116172
Obivously...

>>13961185
I've never actually seen a two-tone that I've liked...ever. I'm not sure what the purpose is...to look 'kinda formal'...or 'not rich enough for full gold'. I honestly think it's stupid aesthetically...
>the only two-tone I'll accept

>>13880531
As always, thanks for your ideas and research. You made me look up the 'Seiko mopping the floor with the Swiss' comment...I had no idea that those things happened at Neuchatel and caused them to stop testing...lol Fucking hilarious if you ask me.

I am a little sad though...after seeing the watches themselves, I don't find any of them aesthetically pleasing in the least, so while I definitely appreciate the technical aspects, I'd never want to wear one. Such is life.

Anyway, thanks for the conversation...as always with you, it's an informative one.

>>13875137
Hmm...fair enough. Well, here's hoping it works Anon. I must admit, I've thought about picking up a basic accutron out of sheer curiosity. I've always wanted to hear it hum.

>Pic unrelated but obligatory

>>13846732
One of many...

Guys, big problem. I've spent a few hours this evening on Chrono24...and I've come to a rather sad conclusion.

You see all these watches, all within a price range you can afford...and you begin to realize just how much of it is all the same. What I mean is, the ultimate function the watch provides is to tell the time, and with a few complications (moon phrase, chronograph, etc.) you get something somewhat extra. But really...in all reality if you only wear a watch once a day and switch it out for another the next day, then a non-chronometer or non COSC certified watch will do, and added to that one that is manual wind is fine (an automatic wind isn't necessary anymore).

I was looking at pocket watches in particular today, because I've always wanted a 'proper' one...and there are many. But then I started looking at the normal watches too, and I don't know...I just got really dispirited about the whole thing.

I have a few 'grails', but as of this evening, I can't see any reason to save up to get one. It's like the passion about watches has been extinguished, and the only explanation I have is because I've seen so much sheer excess in terms of numbers of what is available that it all seems so abundant and somewhat wasteful.

I'm thankful with what I have right now, of course...nothing will change that. But I'm very cognoscente of the possibility that if I got any new watches, I simply wouldn't have the 'time' to wear them, and I definitely wouldn't enjoy them with the same passion as I did my first mechanical.

Anyway, thanks for listening to a few drunk thoughts...I think I may have lost the passion...and I don't know why. Am I growing old? Or just...less materialistic?

>>13674969
It's aesthetically perfect, it's highly coveted, it's automatic wind (as opposed to the manual Speedy), it's still considered a serious status symbol, and the resale is comparable with day-dates and valuable subs.

My point stands, as a Rolex in today's world is also for 'people who have too much money'. C'mon now...you think that people buy Swiss watches now thinking, 'hmm...this is a good value purchase'....

I may be drunk, but I'm not stupid...(though I may get a little more direct). These things are luxury items Anon. Why not accept that and get something luxurious? I fail to understand this kind of thinking at all. Do you believe that the Daytona is a shit watch? Or perhaps the manufacture is of a lower quality? Or maybe the movement isn't any good?

C'mon now. At this stage in history, it's bullshit to consider this kind of argument of people buying specific watches 'because they have too much money' or 'money to burn'. No one needs a mechanical watch today. They're PURE luxury, there is no necessity at all.

pic unrelated but fucking awesome nevertheless