/fa/ - Fashion

Complex Citizen Edition

>Poorfag guide:
https://imgur.com/a/NFMXDuK
>Watch essentials 102:
https://pastebin.com/Rc77nnXV
>Purchasing used watches:
https://pastebin.com/f44aJKy2
>Purchasing straps:
https://pastebin.com/SwRysprE
>Should I buy this MVMT / DW / "minimalist" fashion watch?
https://imgur.com/a/6CNO8
>Should I buy this Armani / Michael Kors / mall watch?
https://imgur.com/a/Sw1FsAn

"Suggest a watch"
>Your budget
>Watch type, e.g. cope, larp, poor
>Movement, e.g. automatic, hand wound, quartz, solar
>Desired features, e.g. water resistance, day/date, 2nd time zone
>Preferred strap option, e.g. leather, nylon, bracelet, rubber
>Wrist size or desired case size ex: > 40mm marabout, 37-39mm preop, 33-36mm patrician, < 33mm gf tier

>Watch news websites:
https://www.hodinkee.com
https://www.ablogtowatch.com
https://www.fratellowatches.com
https://monochrome-watches.com

Previous thread:
>>17949613

>>17487920
It only came in the black dial and mother-of-pearl dial, although the ivory dial was available with yellow gold case (in the 17k range). A fucking fantastic watch...I'm actually slightly sad I didn't just go for the yellow gold one, but that's life.

>>17488095
Agreed, amazing watch. I prefer the all black though.

>>15860041
Hell yes! It's my only beater, and it's fucking awesome.

>>15857846
Well, there are lots of options on the website, but as far as I know, they used to use Japanese movements (Miyota mainly), and those are as reliable as any other in the price point. What you have to understand about these things is that they're reasonably well made, and the movements do what they should, but you should not be expecting accuracy of -4/+6 seconds per day...it's usually a much larger range (-5/+15) or so.

Regarding the 'lasting years without problems', I've found that my Rotary did well with daily use (though when I got it it was running +22 seconds per day fast), and I wore it for 2 years straight. I still have it in my drawer, and wind it up once in a while for nostalgia. I wouldn't expect it to break down, but just keep in mind that factory recommended servicing intervals for 'luxury' timepieces is from 5-8 years, sometimes 10 depending on the company, so the idea is that you should get it serviced maybe every 6 years or so.

What you have to understand about servicing is that a mechanical watch movement has a lot of impacting zones as well as areas of friction that are normally cushioned by the use of lubricants. As the lubricants get redestributed or dry out, the friction becomes metal on metal which can result in microscopic bits of metal flying around the movement. If these bits of metal 'dust' get caught by the lubricant, then the lubricant is no longer a lubricant but an abrasive paste (like toothpaste or Polywatch), and this serves to accelerate the wear and tear.

That's why servicing is an issue, but it's also why if you buy a watch for 300$ or less, then you're at a pricepoint where watches are disposable, and since there is no point to servicing them, you almost might as well go for the cheapest one you can possibly get.

The ability for a watch to last over the years is dependent upon the build quality and the movement, and both of those elements are directly tied to the money you put in. Unless you go quartz.

>>15446474
Pic related satisfied my craving for a sliderule. Awesome quartz, and the only one in my stable that I wear regularly (usually when shooting).

>>15447560
I'm not. You're the only person I know who owns a Master Chronometer, so I can ply you with questions about its reliability over the long term.

>>15447591
late 80's terrorbased...

>>15090274
Citizen or Seiko will be fine; just shop around and try them on. Here's the nighthawk. It's a more expensive option, to be fair, but it's what I wanted. If I were going for cheaper, there are always options with Seiko or Citizen, and with eiether company you can't go wrong.

>>14848824
I'm not mistaken, just old enough to remember. There are still Anons who come here once in a while who have serious and in-depth knowledge of niche areas of watchmaking, though as I have been away from here for a long few months I can't begrudge them doing the same. That being said, there have been times when /wt/ on /fa/ has been fruitful, interesting, and insightful, and it absolutely can be again. The shame is that you either never experienced it yourself or have lost the belief that it can be different than it is now. For the other Anons who share your perspective, that is the real loss.

>>14848827
If you already own the MOTMFM, then you don't need a 1963. Hell, if you have a MOTMFM, you don't need any of the watches you've put on the pic. So, if you're going with 50$ watches, desu what does it matter if it craps out in a year?

Regarding the 1963 as a beater with 0 water resistance. To me the question is 'how hard do you treat your watches?' Let's be clear; the 1963 is fine if you get it wet in the rain or ride a motobike. If you submerge it for 2 minutes in water, it's probably a bad idea, and if you take it on a roller coaster I don't know what would happen.

I have a Citizen beater (pic related) that I use for anything that is rough, but I don't lead a rough life so I wear the 1963 as if I were wearing a Vacheron. I'd be careful with the Vacheron, and I'm careful with all my watches, so it's not an issue.

Regarding the 1963; it doesn't stop if you clap your hands. It's a Venus 175 movement which was one of the most reliable and hardy chronograph movements of the 60s. The only difference is that the Chinese have changed one or two parts, and removed one or two to make it easier to produce, but other than that it's no more problematic than an average chronograph from the 60s.

All that being said, if you have a Speedy, do something different, but save for it.

>>14738156
I'm afraid it comes with the territory. The black/black North American version isn't made anymore, and the Japanese ones are going fast if you want one. All watches with sliderules are large...if you go with a Breitling it'll be just as present on the wrist. But that's the function; it's not a dress watch, it's not something that should fit under a suit or a collared shirt sleeve cuff. It's a 'military' style watch. Enjoy it for what it is, and if you want something different, look for something different.

>>14538102
Saving, budgeting, etc. That, and keeping an eye open for a good deal.

>>14538974
I've been tempted by a Stowa or a Laco for a long time; both produce fliegers, in my budget, and with movements that are fine for the purpose. There's nothing wrong with them. That being said, I just got a flight watch, so now the flieger has moved down the list in priority.

>>14534518
Yes, it can. But living expenses were far less than they are now, so you could 'save' for a month and have a watch. In today's world, it's more like saving for 6 months for many people, given what is normally required to survive. Back in the day, the first job happened around the same time as the boy was still living at home, establishing a career. So, he could theoretically throw that money at something that he was going to use for life, and it was perfectly acceptable as a first purchase. Incidentally, after the watch, the next thing to buy was a motorbike or a car, and then after that you bought a wife.

>>14534520
Several factors.
1) It was FAR more accurate than mechanicals.
2) The tick was cool because it was never seen before in a wristwatch. It was only seen on pendulum clocks. Furthermore, it added the prestige of having something that was 'precise and accurate'.
3) The first quartz watches were status symbols in themselves, as they were very expensive and represented 'modern technology'. Eventually, they were made cheaper, and you didn't have to set them once a week or anything like that. There is cache to something that is new technologically, as well as being against the trend.

Finally, after a few years the cost became far lower than the standard mechanical, which is what induced the first quartz crisis. If you can buy a watch factors cheaper, factors more accurate then a mechanical, then why not? Mechanicals were as a result 'outdated' technology, which while well made, were obsolete.

Consider what happened when cell phone technology graduated to the point where people could carry them in their pockets. Before, cell phones were large, cumbersome, and were most conveniently found in cars (our car had one). But as soon as it was possible for people to easily and reliably carry them in a pocket (Nokia), then no one ever went back.

>>14532145
I prefer the Daytona Rainbow; be advised that Rolex's gem setting is second to none in the watch industry.

>>14532147
I don't see why not.