/fa/ - Fashion

>>15858020
No, but autism contributes to the discussion heavily, as it does with weapons, cars, or chess.

>>15447671
They're okay for modern dress watches, but the tradition was one of luxurious comfort. While a bracelet indicated refinement in manufacture, it still would take away the eye's interest from the watch head, so the leather band is a 'neutral' element to the design, allowing all the attention to be focused on the horological execution.

For women it's different, of course: the more precious metals and diamonds the better. But for men, you're looking for something that could be described as 'understated'. This literally means 'efficient' in terms of legibility, simplicity, and aesthetic balance.

>I don't own this, but I think it's an excellent choice for a 'dress watch' in this budget range. What do you think?

>>15342314
I don't like it, never have. I've always thought the rest of it was perfect: the crown, the porcelain dial, the deliberate hands, etc. The crescent moon is the only non-abstract component in the design; it's not open to interpretation, and thus I find it to be only capable of a single level of understanding or transmission of intent/message. I hate that when the rest of it is beautifully abstract.

I say this knowing that we'll debate this here, and the debate is the whole damn point of this thread. Let it be.

>always thought pic related was the most beautiful quartz watch ever made by anyone.

>>15143142
You'd think there'd be more Anons here if most are off work.

>>15143146
Jesuss...every choice is woefully average. Do you ahve no ambition Anon?

>>13941237
Sorry about the pic...it's essentially the same watch, but with a white face. I think it looks awesome....but that's just me.