/fa/ - Fashion

It should be pretty obvious but no, not a single one of these are worth even a fraction of their price. With watches, you are basically 100% paying for the brand name. That being said, if you really like a watch and you're in a position where you can comfortably spend that money then go ahead.

>>13223925
after going down the watch rabbit hole for 3 years now, here's a few things i've learned that might relate to your situation.

>I was thinking about getting a rather expensive (pre owned) watch for years.
whats your budget? can you afford the watch without going into debt?

> But now my guilty conscience asks me more and more if it's actually worth it...
watches are a vanity item nowadays, if you wanted usefulness you\d buy a 50dollar quartz watch off Amazon. If you like the watch and can afford it you buy it.

>was your purchase actually worth it in terms of your effayness or is it more a enthusiast thing.
I can tell you right now, if you're in it for "effayness" you're going to regret your purchase. trends change all the time with watches, and there are so many types of watch you'll be constantly questioning if you made the right decision. being a watch "enthusiast" means you basically sometimes wear an uglier watch but it's got a nice history/pedigree to it. what you want is to look nice, so all your watches will be expensive looking and cost more (most of the time)

did that help? feel free to ask anything

>>13223925
Watches arent even fashionable right now. Only suits and bros currently wear them

>>13223949
pleb. watches will always be timeless

I'm not going to pretend I've ever owned a highbrow watch, but I think it's a matter of values. Do you personally absolutely need to spend a premium to have the best craftsmanship available? Is it fiscally reasonable?

Personally, I think Rolex, Omega, Patek, and other are incredible bits of fine machinery but I would have to be considerably richer that I ever expect to be to seriously consider it. Especially when you can say, buy a Seiko Skx for 200 dollars that is still a very respectable and attractive piece that is basically indistinguishable in form and function from a Submariner from more then 3 feet away.

>>13223925

obvisoly their not wort u monkey

If you are an average slum you can put those 5000 dollars towards a house or retirement or invest in the market and make even more money.

>>13223949

>>13223992
what if i made 80k/year? would that be more acceptable, to then blow 8-9k on a watch?

>>13224019

probably, still depends on your situation.

>>13223946
This

I'm getting into watches because I love the engineering, art, and history of mechanical stuff, but I fully except the fact that they are almost completely useless. Smartphones and modern quartz is more accurate and don't require as much care or attention, but I love them because of that, they have more of a "soul" than everything else. If you like watches for that reason or similar, then go for it. If you're getting it for fashion purposes, don't, fashion changes. If you're getting for status purposes, don't, the only people that notice are other watch guys and gals (from my experience) and as soon as they start a conversation because of it, if you don't know your stuff it will become readily apparent.

Going poorfag vintage is the way. Soviet vintage pieces can be aesthetically really interesting and have an amazing history involved in space and arctic exploration.
Vintage Swiss is also very nice but you shouldn’t be paying less than 300€ for a decent piece, I have one Omega Genève from 1973.

waste of fucking money.

they'll deteriorate in 5 years and become unusable or ruined. you have to pay $500+ to service them each time.

just buy a cheap watch and an apple phone if you want to flaunt

>>13224312
Jap vintage watches, especially Seiko and Citizen, are also cool but their prices are rather inflated because they are soyboys’ only choice lately.
I wish I had a Seiko Pogue.

>>13224312
How the heck does the Sturmanskie's internal bezel rotate? There's no separate crown to operate it, unlike on the civilian version (pic related).

>>13223925
These are questions you have to answer for yourself, anon. But just for some food for thought, I know quite a few wealthy/high society guys as a function of my job, and other than guys who collect them as a hobby, very few of them seem to care much about luxury watches.

IMO, there's nothing wrong with a mid range watch, and there's something to be said for not going too gaudy -- the richest dude I know wears a Timex Easy Reader.

>>13224378
The military version just doesn’t have a rotating bezel. As you can see it’s a fixed one with a different design.

>>13224455 (checked)

Thanks bruv. I didn't even consider that a possibility.

>>13223925
If you have to think about the price then you shouldn't but one, there's a reason why they're marketed towards 40-something middle-managers and not people in their 20s

>>13223925
>not getting petty snickers your way when you're wearing anything less than an AP

i can tell that everyone's a pleb on this board

>>13223925
I would say no. It really is just for clout now. Wth the inventions on cell phones why would you even need a watch anymore?

>>13223925

my problem is that I can't seem to like really average stuff. I really realy classy minimalist watches. What I have now is a solar powered citizen stilleto, which is perfect for my needs. This thing doesnt need any servicing costs, is cheaper, is more accurate than a mecanical, more resistant and more anything so I can justify it purely based on utility.

The only thing missing is that it's not the most aestetically pleasing watch, for that I need to go to mechanicals. And I don't like any of the sports or super fuking oversized watches. I want something classy like a VC patrimony traditionel. The price on this one? 20 grand. 20 fuking grand on this super simplistic watch. like wtf. And I can't settle for something that is middle of the road in aestethic, it's got to be either all out utilitarian or all out aesthetics.

Like, I'd wish some1 made solar powered that are also aesthetically pleasing. The closest ones who are doing this thing are grand seikos, but like I said, I'm into dress watches, not sport ones

>>13225292
What about a JLC or even cheaper a Zenith ultra thin?

The Zenith is great.

>>13225292
This is the Zenith, that happens to be even thinner than the JLC.

>>13225242
This is /fa/ not /tools/. Other than smartwatches (and even then) most watches are fashion pieces first and timekeeping devices second.

i have a custom rolex from dipolmats in sudia arabi and no one ever notices it except strippers.

i'm too scared to wear it out because i dont want people think im a trust fund kid (although im well off and have a good paying job)

>>13223949
>Watches arent even fashionable right now
Moron

Guys i fucked up on catawiki, but i never bought anything and i changed all my information, from email to name etc.
Will they be able to find me if i win the auction and i don't pay?

>>13223925
How many overpriced luxury items can a man acceptably wear every day right on his wrist?

Get that one watch you really want, when you can, and wear it like you own it. Wear it until it doesn't owe you a cent. Enjoy it fully.

Be a guy that had a Rolex as his watch.

Only if you have a high social standing, a.k.a if youre a doctor/lawyer/own a company/etc.
If you are a weeaboo NEET or some average blue collar Joe then you will just look stupid wearing a watch you have spend a few month to earn.
If you have a good watch then you must have good shoes/pants/etc, its all connected.

>>13223925
>rolex
how awfully nouveau riche

>>13227232
Hoy many monthly income would you spend in a watch? My most expensive one is a bit less of 1/3 of my monthly income after tax...

>>13223941
You clearly dont know what you are talking about. You prob say this also about luxury bags dont you.

If you cant appreciate the art and craftmanship; luxury goods are not for you

>>13223941
This is a dumb post

https://forum.replica-watch.info/forum/audemars-piguet-ap/278358-comparison-of-gen-15400-vs-jf-15400

This is a detailed comparison review with one of the highest quality replicas of the Audemars Piguet Royak Oak vs s genuine.

Real watch enthousiasts will always appreciate and value the craftmenship of the genuine watches, but most people will fall for even decent reps. It totally depends on what your goal is

For me personally a datejust is worth it, check out some used watches on Chrono24, the older 5 digit models are affordable and timeless beauties. If you dig the replicas you can check the 904L models from ARF, with some adjustments they are very close to genuine for a fraction of the price.


https://www.repgeek.com/audemars-piguet/278009-jf-ap-15400-15450-review-gen-comparison.html

>>13227232
bullshit. I've gotten more compliments on my watch in the 3 months I've had it than on anything else about my appearance/clothing in my entire life

>>13225292
Get a '60s Omega mechanical. Or maybe a quartz Mondaine, which I used to like when I was more minimalist.

>>13225334
I've seen steel '60s Zeniths that are almost identical on eBay. Servicing isn't always necessary, and it's a drop in the water compared to buying new.

>>13224312
man i dunno, if it's not vintage patek/rolex/AP or whatever I don't think its worth it. vintage in general is always finicky because you're going to have to baby the watch. if you get a vintage rolex they're more likely to have spare parts. all vintage watches are going to require some sort of housekeeping and if i make the commitment it might as well be for something recognizable. just my .02

>>13226016
wow, please post a pic.

>>13227232
why should you have to care what other people think? and before you say anything, we're talking about watches not an autistic style or trend, they're functional. some people spend thousands on bags, shoes, whatever. watches are the same thing. I want to buy my first Rolex next year, it'll cost me a bit but i've wanted one for a long time. when I get it i don't care if anyone notices it or not, it's something I've wanted to achieve

>>13228410
must suck that the most complimented thing about you is something you bought

Well first of all remember that assuming you take good care of it luxury watches tend to hold their value quite well so if you do regret it its easier to recoup than a pair of geobaskets.

>>13228498
Yeah I'm fairly ugly

>>13228509
Im sorry

If it is solely for influencing your appearance then a fake cheap reproduction (with a quartz movement inside).
If you watch only serves to tell you the time go for a quartz watch also.
Remember that most of these luxury brands almost only make mechanical watches which are more prone to damage from shocks and impacts than a quartz movement due to the fine and fragile sprockets, balance wheels etc. Quartz essentially only has a tiny motor inside. Moreover quartz is much more precise. Let's say a deviation of a few seconds a month or per year for HAQ watches. The best mechanical watches have a deviation of a few seconds PER DAY. Also mechnical watches need (expensive) maintenance every 5 years or so. For the major brands like Rolex, Tudor, Breitling, Omega we are talking about 300$ or 500$ for a service. Quartz just needs a new battery every 2 to 5 years and it goes on...
There are really nice quartz watches out there which are per definition more precise than the famous brands, need almost no service and are in general MUCH cheaper. Just bought a new quartz myself as I got bored of my 18 years old previous one (swatch) which is actually still prefectly fine. My new one should last as long I hope.