/fa/ - Fashion

>>18105669
I altered the positions purposefully and measurably; some days it would be upright (crown up), some days dial up, all through the positions. It was always wound at the 24hour mark, so essentially it was 'full wind' for the entirety of the year.

I wasn't doing the thing I do with my other mechanicals where dial up will go faster, crown up slower, crown down slowest; it was just 'what day are we' and then check the rubric and follow through. I was genuinely curious, given that it performed flawlessly for a week when I got it back from servicing, so I wanted to see how to get it to go wrong. I already knew that past 24 hours power reserve it starts to get slightly slow, and given that deck clocks are always at least within the 24 hours, I thought I should run mine like that too.

Amazing pocket watch. You know the only downside? It won't be like this forever. Eventually it'll start running slightly slower, and positional variances will increase, and then it won't be as accurate. But for that year...it was a champ.

I'm convinced that with an excellent movement and an excellent watchmaker, almost any mechanical watch should be able to run very close to 0. Most people don't have a trusty watchmaker at hand, nor do most people want to void the warranty by having someone other than the brand open it up. This Zenith ran perfect, but was serviced by Zenith with no one else touching it. Bless those people in Schweiz....

>>17989735
I really like it, but it's in the same 'bucket list' as other co-axials that I like...I'm simply scared to own them because I don't have a trusty watchmaker who can work on them. My own watchmaker is getting old enough now that I think I may have to get someone new, so I don't want to get anything with co-ax unless my watchmaker has an Omega account for parts. I love the proportions of the dial though, specifically the hand length, hour marker length, and the pie-pan proportions. Excellent watch, ugly as shit bracelet. Blue is better than the white.

>worth every pfennig...

>>17855064
I think it's awesome man. If you love it, and the price is right, get it.

>>17851029
I always enjoy your pics, HamiltonAnon. Be well.

>>17851046
why?

>>17851097
Good afternoon, Anon.

>>17851200
Yes: I hate ugly objectively watches.

>>17851354
The great thing is that when I wear pic related, no one knows it's different from a 'mall watch'.

>>17851374
It's awful in real life. You'll be disappointed if you already own a Speedy.

>>17851404
"broke down" assumes a mechanical failure. The watch worked, but the crystal had popped off. You can't use a watch on the moon if the crystal is gone, so you have to use something else. Given that the Bulova timers in the LM weren't working during Apollo 11, and Armstrong's Speedy was left inside the LM as a backup to Aldrin's Speedy which he was wearing outside, it's fair to say that all the tech suffered unexpected issues.

>>17851437
Try it on in person; it's large, reasonably finished for the price, and cumbersome. The quartz movement, while very good, is sad. If they'd made it with a proper mechanical like the original, it would be much more enticing to collectors. With the quartz movement, however, it's just a quartz watch disguised as the original which uses marketing cope to draw customers who can't afford the real thing.

>>17851476
The movement is special though; the original 321s were remarkable not only for their architecture, hardiness, and beauty, but also because they were far more adjustable than their successors, which allowed for everything to be fine-tuned in a way that wasn't possible later on. It's not just a meme...the 321 was better in many ways, but it did require a more talented watchmaker to manage it.

>>17851495
I don't know if anyone here has it. I don't have it, but I do have the first generation of the most accurate movement in the world.
>pic related.

>>17851509
This.

>>17851526
No, it's about fidelity to the original. If Bulova released a Lunar Pilot with the original movement WHILE keeping the current quartz one on the market, it would be a success.

>>17844166
Disagree. This watch has more soul than any other Japanese watch I've ever seen or handled. Bless those underpaid and overworked employees who give their entire existence to create something timeless. I am in their debt, forever, and the beauty will last beyond my lifespan.

What's the ref of this watch?

>>17818428
I wish I could pull off square watches, so since I can't, I think you should wear the Doxa.

>>17818438
Lots of the watches were gold-filled and gold-plated, even back in the pocket-watch era. When the gold top layer wears off, it looks awful and cheap. I agree that steel sports is shrinkflation, but then again, at least titanium is affordable.

>pic related: accurate and light as a feather.

>>17545921
Yup, the same. See pic.

>>17545924
It's gorgeous, you mean....