/fa/ - Fashion

>>15864993
Interesting...my understanding was that any condensation (like when they do a block of ice on the crystal test) that forms is 'not good'...I'll have to read up more about that.

15865006
Not adding any information, experience, cool pics, or insight should be a bannable offense

>>15864995
If you're a lefty why not get a Destro from Panerai, or any number of left-handed variants of flieger watches (does Stowa do this, or is it Lacos)? I wear mine on my right and I'm a righty, and I honestly don't care because it's genuinely comfortable.

>>15865014
A Timex?

>>15388945
Interdasting...thanx.
I agree about the globemaster; it really looks good in promo shots, but on the wrist something is off about it. Admittedly I'm not a fan of the aqua terras, but these things happen.

My Seamaster will never see saturation diving, but it's been in the water a lot. No complaints, but then again I have the gaskets and water resistance checked annually so it's no problem. Wear in good health Anon; hopefully things in the world will open up soon.

>>15301947
It is in shit condition. Ask them for a pic of the movement as well before doing anything else. If it's waterdamaged or anything, you'll need to factor that into the cost of purchase.

>>15301948
Try it on first. You can't argue with the technology, prestige, or build quality. So the issue then becomes if it sings to you when you put it on. It did for me, and it's the only Rolex that ever has.

>pic unrelated but just as awesome.

>>15094746
Hmm...is it possible to buy one at one of those airport dealers? Occasionally you'll find them in the windows...and if you frequent places like London Heathrow you'll see them multiply before your very eyes. Anyway, I can't stand the new subdial arrangement. Once you see, you can't unsee.

>>15094750
I can't be sure if I would as well. It would have to be 1:1, no compromise. Anything less would be...well...a little odd. I've thought seriously about getting one of the Fortis' that uses the same movement and facial configuration, just to see how it works and how it feels. Far less than the 25g that a normal grail would be on the open market right now...

>pic obviously unrelated.

>>15090360
Okay. You're still objectively wrong. If you need a comparison base, check out Glasshute original...then you'll understand why Lange gets it right. Then factor in the mother-of-pearl dial and engraving and shit...well....what can one say. You'll see my point in a few hours..days...years.

>have another odd watch.

>>14852728
Further to my last post, I think there's more to it though regarding quartz. For me, I'd rather companies used chronometer rated quartz in cheaper cases. Not cheap cheap, but imagine a Seiko high end quartz that could keep to 2 seconds a year, put into a casing and design that would cost you $200 or less. That would be cool. You'd have the convenience and the accuracy, which is essentially the whole point of Quartz. But they do have to gate-keep or else they can't make a profit, so I understand. That's yet another reason that if you go Quartz you go vintage Seiko; best bang for your buck for that technology.

>>14852865
One thing to keep in mind is that dress watches were a reaction to the technological advances of the time as well as the move away from pocket watches. The idea was 'who could make the smallest and most accurate watch'. This carried into the 50's because the war years meant aesthetic stagnation.

Fast-forward to the late 80's where everything was bigger, including clothing and fashion. The more, the better, and watches began to follow suit. Then athletes and body-builder celebs began wearing and endorsing specific brands, and you have the 2000s.

The reason why smaller sizes may not come back right now is that there is no interest in minimizing technology of this kind anymore; it's not seen as higher status to have a smaller mechanical watch. Most customers want bigger because it shows off the watch and the fact that they're spending their disposable income on a luxury item. I can't see this changing because the function of a watch will not change; it's an unnecessary luxury now, not a tool that everyone needs.

>>14852918
When I was younger I used to buy watches in this design line a lot, though they were all 100$ or less quartz from Citizen. This style will always be timeless, so you can't go wrong. What you can do though is go on Chrono24, set the budget you want to spend, and start looking.

>>14510853
Well, I'd put it this way regarding the Sinn. If you want it, find a dealer, try it on, see how it is on the wrist, and find out what kind of warranty and stuff you'd have on the piece if you bought it. That's really the only way that you'll know if you want to save up for one or not to bother. You'd be surprised at how quickly one's opinions can change on a watch when you strap it on for the first time.

Case in point: a year ago I changed jobs and my income was far larger than it had been before. Thus, I decided to start going into watch shops to try on watches I'd never dared think about before but were now within the realm of possibility. All were disappointing except the Rolex Day-Date, which is glorious in person and on the wrist. The most disappointing was a surprise to me: the JLC Reverso. I hated it. It looks amazing in pics, but on the wrist it feels like cheap plastic, and the finishing isn't impressive in the least. I remember leaving the boutiques feeling rather sad at all of it...because the illusion was destroyed. I don't know, maybe I need to try one on in gold or something heavier like platinum...but it still looks and feels wrong in my eyes.

When I tried on the Speedmaster for the first time, it felt right, it looked right, and it sang. Silly, corny, but true. So that's how I knew I'd want to save up for one. Pretty simple.

>>14114092
They're nice, but I hadn't thought about spending that kind of money honestly. I just wanted a mechanical pocket watch, and the railroad watches seem to really hit what I'm looking for and the price range. Now I just have to decide if I want a power reserve on it or not....it would be handy, but then again, I like the dials uncluttered at the top as well.

>leaning towards the Hamilton 992b or the Waltham Vanguard

>>13898252
I remember when this came out, and I honestly hated it...lol But when I saw how unique the design was, really and truly, compared with other watches in this sphere...I have to admit, it's grown on me a bit. I still think the numerals are too far apart from each other...but I know that it has to be done.

Interesting...two Langes already....no interest in Patek, Breguet, Zenith....

>>13898256
lol I did the same thing with my Seamaster at the Science Museum in London, though I never did take a pic with it. I'm curious though...is it the history, or the ruggedness of the watch that appeals to you? Or neither? For me, the Speedy always had the perfect face in terms of proportions for a chronograph; everything is perfectly legible, everything is perfectly spaced. It's a perfect watch. The only thing that bothered me recently when handling one is that the crown protector guards in the case make winding surprisingly difficult for my fingers...but perhaps that's just me.

>>13898263
Yeah, that makes sense. I haven't kept up with their recent developments; I wonder what they have next in line? I mean, how do you beat the Lange 31 or the Zeitwerk? What do you do?
Regarding the timezone...it's the same as having an encyclopedia from 1985 or a globe that has 'USSR' on it; it's a piece of history, that's all. It's not like the whole thing would be out, right? Just a city....

>>13883231
>>13883335
Sorry Anons, another question: is there any reason not to go with the Hamilton 950b?