/fa/ - Fashion

So, still no "shortcut" watches that don't cost $5-10k but they're better than the "luxury" watches then? You've got to pay your dues to join the "big boy club" and there's no way to be cool without dumping the money into Shekelberg's account?

>>16002098
Depending on your criteria, a watch you find at the bottom of a cereal box can be thought of as "better" than a "luxury" watch. Change your outlook, change your life

it's ok to buy a <$100 or a >$10,000 watch, but you're a fool to buy anything in between

>>16002105
the sarb alpinist is $600.

>>16002101
Yeah I meant in the actual material reality though.

>>16002096
Like I said, subjective. In my eyes both Rolex and Casio make very attractive watches, in different ways. Is a Rolex good enough for the money? In my eyes, it is not.
>>16002108
And it's overpriced at $600

>>16002092
Known /wt/ personalities:
>Explorerfag
>GS macro photo autist
>Nomos+Omega jerk-off
>"Daytona indices are blobs" faggot
>Chinese Fleiger/Seiko sliderule "don't tread on me" larper retard
>"Couldn't afford a rolex?" monkey
>Superlative Chronometer dickhead (may be the same fag as "couldn't afford a rolex?" monkey)
>"External finishing costs contribute more to pricing than brand hype" pseud (may be the same fag as "couldn't afford a rolex?" monkey and Superlative Chronometer dickhead)

Am I missing anyone?

>>16002120
You forgot the "thinks everyone with the same valid point that goes against his retarded worldview is the same person" guy i.e. you.

>>16002120
You got all the fags but your missing based monster bro, hammie bro, and the chad with the deadbeat seconds omega that knows shit. Also the guy that owns like 10 presages kek

>>16002124
Found the rolex fag everyone! Post your rolex btw

>>16002127
True although I hate to break it to you but the Hamilton guy and the chinese fleiger/seiko sliderule guy are the same person

>>16002120
You missed the anonymous poorfags that wear Casio (including myself)

>>16002114
>overpriced
whats an extra $300? its one of the best looking watches ever

>>16002137
The Seiko guy is the same faggot posting shitty Casio and saying they MOG everything too. Honestly that guy is obviously also the Rolex shitter and the poor fag crying about being poor. It's all the same homo

>>16002145
Based casibro

>>16002151
I think there are a couple of Rolex simps that come around here. Maybe the Seiko guy is the "couldn't afford a rolex?" guy—would make sense to me if he were—but do you think he is also the one who is obsessed with the rolex "Superlative Chronometer" standard and gets triggered whenever someone mentions Grand Seiko or Omega?

>>16002153
Fug that looks gud

>mechanical chronograph
>under 40mm
>under $300
>distinctive looks
>even comes with display caseback so you can ogle the mechanism

so whats the catch with this meme watch?

>>16002179
It costs more to service than it does to buy a new one so it's basically disposable after a decade or so when it starts to really loose accuracy or have other mechanical issues.
Otherwise wearing a Chinese military design on your wrist is a negative for some.
Overall it seemas like a fun little shitter, and it's easily the cheapest mec chronograph

>>16002151
>>16002120
>>16002137
Take your meds.

>>16002179
Can’t afford a Rolex?

>>16002146
That's literally double its reasonable value, and I hate spending more than $500 on a watch. I also think it's one of the ugliest current offerings from Seiko, but I know most people like it.

>>16002184
On its defense with a little DIY spirit you could replace the movement for $150 including tool cost. Tbh most microshitters and cheap seiko are hard to justify servicing as an nh35 is like 50 bux

>>16002179
>whats the catch with this meme watch?
It’s Chinese, but you really can’t be picky if you’re after a mechanical chrono on a budget.

>>16002120
I find the GS macro shots the most fascinating. The same pictures posted for years with some weak bait about Swiss inferiority somehow still manages to get dozens of replies and derail multiple threads every single time.

>>16002120
Guess I've been away too long...

>>16002179
As >>16002184 said, it costs more to service than to buy, so it's a 'disposable' column wheel chronograph. Mine has given excellent performance so far, but I don't wear it anymore since I acquired the Speedmasters. Get one if you want the 'mechanical chronograph' experience without spending +500, but there are alternatives that use the same movement but have aesthetics that might be more to your liking.

>>16002224
>I don't wear it anymore since I acquired the Speedmasters.
So stop shilling poorfag shit when you know it's just cope and you'll throw it in the trash as soon as you get a real watch.

Never in my life I heard anyone say "yeah I got an Edifice as my first watch then I bought a Rolex but Edifice was so much better that I threw the Rolex in the trash" IT DOES NOT HAPPEN so might as well save up and not waste money on shit in the first place.

>>16002231
Believe me, I agree with you; the 1963 was a placeholder for the Speedy Man on the fucking moon. But I got the 1963 at a time in my life when I didn't have the money for a Speedy and I wasn't sure if I wanted to have a manual-wind watch. At that time, a manual-wind seemed ludicrous if I were to pay so much money...to me an automatic wind should be a given at a price range above 150$. So, it was a test of if I'd like it, and if I'd like to wind it daily/every other day.

Remember too that the 1963 movement is essentially a clone of the original Venus movement, which is tried and tested. So, at least you're not getting a shit movement. The quality problems only come into play if the movement isn't clean or lubricated.

Chillax Anon. I haven't thrown my 1963 in the trash...but I haven't worn it in about 6 months...

>>16002231
Based opinion. This is why I only purchase one watch every few years. Shitters are an insidious temptation that only lead to regret in the end.

>>16002120
You forgot me

>>16002245
Yes, until the level at which your personal 'shitter' rises. For someone who is used to Omegas, a Poljot is a shitter. For someone who is used to Vacheron Constantins, an Omega is a shitter. For someone used to Roger Smith, the Vacherons are shitters.

These things are relative, so the best you can do is work with what you have and what you can afford or save up for. Hell, I'm still tempted by that 99$ Flieger from China that has been on the board lately; I've never owned a proper flieger, and since the damn thing only tells the time, I wouldn't want to make a 1000$ mistake by buying a Stowa or Laco first (or even a humongous error like buying an IWC first) and then hate it.

Same with the Chinese tourbillons that you can buy for 600$; why not get one, see how much you like it (or not), get bored by the movement, and then at least you didn't make a 25000$ mistake.

I will always love my Omegas because they're what I have always wanted, but I know that if I went into Smith territory....well....nothing underneath it would suffice.

>>16002231
>rolex
>not shit
nice joke

>rolex wins in design
They've been riding on the same designs for over 50 years. All they've done is make them fatter, they're creatively bankrupt.

>>16002231
rolex forums are full of people who buy rolex without thinking or without being even sure they like sports watches in the first place and now have to mentally gymnastics themselves into thinking they actually do like the watch

and most actually cannot actually afford it comfortably so it becomes a sunk cost fallacy and they get so scared of damage on the watch they dont even dare to change straps on their own

they dont own the watch
the watch owns them

>>16002279
>(or even a humongous error like buying an IWC first)
Why is buying the most famous flieger brand a mistake? In before "hurr durr irrelevant technical bullshit" which doesn't matter because everyone knows IWC makes fliegers and fliegers are made by IWC and it's the brand you get if you want a flieger.

>>16002137
is sliderule guy gray sheet guy? Cause that's me and I don't own a hamilton.

>>16002300
iwc is the biggest joke in watchmaking

at least panerai tries to do innovative stuff now

iwc is DOGSHIT finishing at ludicrous prices

>>16002120
I'm 4.5 of these

>>16002311
No one cares, it's still *the* flieger brand.

Iight blue

>>16002092

Is it good? I want an everyday good chronograph, automatic. Hard to find one that isn't too flashy, or cluttered or fuckhuge or fuck expensive.

>>16002320
Or dark blue

>>16002120
you forgot the
>Seiko
>GS
>Grand Seiko
guy who annoys the fuck outta me

>>16002320
>>16002327
Dark.

>>16002318
no
the nazis had 5 brands, iwc is only one of them, laco and stowa are amongst the 5

it shouldnt even matter because fliegers are historically sterile you brand whore

>>16002326

My number one choice so far.

>>16002105
NOOOOOOOOO YOU CAN'T EXPOSE HOROLOGY IN A HECKIN HOROLOGY THREADERINO

>>16002120
>>16002328
and that guy who calls my GS a dog of a GS everytime I post a picture of it. Kek

>>16002215
Keyed

>>16002330
No one knows that, if you ask people on the street, they will say IWC and that's it.

>>16002362
>, if you ask people on the street

i can imagine a sweaty neckbeard huffing and puffing to random strangers on the street about MUH FLIEGERS while they look upon him like hes mentally ill

normies wont even know what the hell is a flieger or why you'd want a nazi watch in the 1st place

>>16002300
The error is not in the quality, it's in the money spent for the aesthetic design line. A Flieger is exceptionally simple as a watch; the only thing it requires is a manual-wind movement that could be within COSC spec or tighter; that would make a perfect Flieger. The question therefore comes up: why pay the extra thousands for an IWC that has IWC written all over it or has a date function when you can get an unsigned Laco or Stowa for a fraction with the ability to perform equally (if you choose one with the right movement)? That's what I mean by 'mistake'. The other part of the 'mistake' is the relation to my point earlier: that I haven't owned a Flieger and I don't know how much wear I'd get out of it or how much I'd like it, so rather than make a mistake and buy a very expensive one, it would make sense to buy a cheap one for the aesthetic look and see how it wears. That's the reason why for a while back I was circling around the Tisell Flieger...you know, just to try it out.

In terms of quality, I don't have a problem with IWC....but outside of their Perpetual Calendar, nothing really appeals to me.

>>16002362
I probably should clarify that I tend to buy watches for me and not others. If I bought a Flieger, it would be unsigned because that's how they were in the war. I'd get a real one, but they're 55mm which makes them essentially unwearable for daily wear, so the 45mm from Laco is the next best thing. But still...the argument is regarding the 'try it out at a lower cost first rather than spend large amounts on something you don't know'. That's the point I'm trying to make.

I do wonder though...do any of you actually care what people think of the watches you wear? I mean, does it really matter to you in this day and age when the vast majority of young people don't own or wear wristwatches?

Any watch companies that still make pocket watches?

>>16002438
Seiko, Tissot, I'm sure there is others.

>>16002438
Lots, but it depends on the price-point as well as what you want it to do in terms of accuracy. The best value by far is to go vintage; railroad specs required pocket watches to have a variance of no more than +/- 10 seconds per WEEK, so if you get a railroad grade watch by Hamilton, Waltham, Elgin, or Ball, you'll be fine. Depending on the manufacturer, you'll learn about what calibre you should look for.

The only issue you really need to think about is having a trusted watchmaker onhand. Sometimes vintage watches need help, and you won't be able to send them in to companies to have them serviced.

If you go modern, all the major brands make pocket watches (at ridiculous prices), but I think there are ones you can get with Miyota movements in them from smaller brands like Rotary.

>fwiw: mine is a Waltham Vanguard with crown at 3 configuration roughly from 1911. The case is a Deuber, and because of a service from my watchmaker, it holds +/- 0.7 per day. I use it when I have to wear the three-piece suit.

Which one, Anons? I'd be wearing it erryday.

>>16002454
Easy choice: black face. It's guaranteed to go with everything.

>>16002454
white
and get the 110D its a better size at 36 without crown

>>16002120
forest king

>>16002417
>>16002457
Any wristwatches with this kind of dial?

If you could only wear one watch for a year, and had the choice between a new speedmaster vs a new datejust, what would you choose?

>>16002463
MUDMAN

>>16002463
speedmaster

but they are both boring watch-normie options

>>16002464
this

Someone redpill me on replicas. I really wanna get an RM.

>>16002462
Not sure....I'm sure some WWI homage watches from microbrands might do this. All you really need is a watch with a small-seconds subdial at 6.
The 24 hour markers are a variant on this dial, popular with the 'Canadian' market, hence the colloquial naming of a 'Canadian Dial'. The more you know....

>>16002463
I hate the new Speedy....so the New Datejust would be better. Unless you're talking about the Speedmaster cal. 321 'Ed White'....I'd wear that in a heartbeat.

>more of the pocket watch for Anon

>>16002479
>every time you look at the watch on your wrist, you'll die a little more inside.

>>16002462
Consider the Vario trench watch

>>16002480
Whats your opinion on the new speedy? Not the 321, I know that one is a killer.

>>16002479
>rep of visually cluttered and complicated cartoonish watches

it'll look like super dogshit

>>16002485
where are springbar?

>>16002105
I'm a fool for buying things I like with money I own and won't need for surviving? Tell me more.

>>16002492
these have real wire lugs just like on WW1 watches, there is no springbar

you can only use pass-through straps or the one with the button that they supply with the watch

>>16002133
No, that faggot is clearly the explorer guy, the one with skinny fist/huge hand.

>>16002120
The vostok seller, also.

>>16002490
The new Speedy has significant problems aesthetically. In short:
1) The case is not compatible with the previous Speedy bracelets without significant alterations. I'm sure Omega did this to make more money, but it's still bullshit.
2) The aesthetic layout of the dial is fucked because the markers for sub-seconds are less dense (3 per second rather than 5). While this makes the second-hand for the chronograph accurate in terms of where it sits when you stop the chronograph, it 'opens up' the outside of the dial, making the dial look wide-eyed to the point of perhaps having lost a chromosome. They should have done 6 divisions of the second instead of 3.
3) They changed the chronograph second hand to have the lume arrow nearer the tip. This once again opens up the middle of the dial...making it look even more autistic.
4) The lugs are slightly shorter...making the case look fatter. I have no idea what they were thinking here.

The reason the 1960's Speedmaster has been only altered slightly aesthetically since 1967 is because it is a perfect design aesthetically with everything in balance. As soon as you fuck with the balance, things look inferior.

I have my gripes about the 321 reissue as well (why did they make doo-doo brown lume plots and a sapphire crystal?), but it's no where near as bad as the new 3861. At this point, I will still end up wanting to buy an original Cal. 321 from 1968-69 because it's better than the alternatives. A sad situation.

What do you think about it?

>>16002505
>can't survive rain
why even bother?

>>16002508
Vintage ones should be cared for, but modern Speedies are still 50m water resistant, which means that if you have had the gaskets checked, then you can take it swimming but not scuba diving. Since I haven't had mine serviced since getting it, I'm not going to get it near water, but then again I buy all my watches second-hand so who the fuck knows what it has seen.

The Mark 40 though can go in water if need be, because it was serviced last August. It's also 50m resistant. Bear in mind that water resistance is from gaskets, so the issue is whether or not gaskets are compromised.

>>16002492
Isn't any, gotta use single pass or bund straps just like they did back then

>>16002523
But I never go in the trenches. Everyone seems to call me a camping fag. Does vario make a watch for camping?

What do you guys think about the Eberhard Champion V, the one with the big date?

>>16002505
I agree with most of your points, and overall think the watch looks more rounded than it needs to be. The spaced out sub seconds make it look more toy like. I do like how they brought some depth Into the dial, but wish the pan subdials were more defined like in the new ed white. If only the new speedy was more crisp and defined like the new ed white. Or the speedy in your pic for that matter. Lume color choice aside, the ed white is a stunning watch top to bottom.

Also there are concerns of the case finishing on the new speedy. I think omega are overcharging for what the watch is, quality wise, but higher prices are the trend and thats something omega wouldnt pass up.

>>16002526
Just looked it up. Eberhard makes quality watches, but this one seems to be too big, for me at least.

>>16002120
You forgot the
>Every cheap chronograph movement is dogshit that will explode instantly
Poster, and the guy who owns like 20 identical citizens.

>>16002535
I agree with you. The pricing though is where I have a few thoughts you might disagree with. Omega has been trying to compete price-wise with Rolex for the past decade or so; I think they're tired of being seen as the 'more affordable' alternative to Rolex that is better than Tudor. With the Coaxial being put into everything, they had the chance to 'justify' the price increase, but they couldn't do so with the older Speedmaster. Instead, they increased the price by increasing the accoutrements that come with the watch (big box, loupe, 3 straps, etc.). Let's be clear; the 1861 Hesalite Speedmaster is 1960s technology. It's really not worth more than 2500$ in today's money, and that's new. It has a running spec of -1/+11 per day, which is atrocious given what modern watches today are expected to perform.

With the 3861, they raised the price a little, but not enough to be greedy. One could argue they're being greedy with all the special editions, but I think the biggest factor one has to consider is that the Ed White is essentially the price of a new Stainless Steel Daytona. Are they worth the same? Given that each Cal. 321 is regulated and adjusted by hand by a single watchmaker, I'd say the price is for the exclusivity of that workmanship. But since the Cal. 321 loses by every metric to the movement Rolex uses in the new Datona....well, the price isn't justified at all either in this point.

Honestly...we live in a world where Omega is trying to be the Rolex of watches; it's a tough hill to climb, but if pricing translates to 'quality' in the average buyer, then this is the first way to accomplish that. Unfortunately, I think we're living in very odd times where the next generation of disposable wealth will not be buying watches as much as computer technology, and the older people like myself who enjoy watches will do what is more fiscally convenient; purchase on the grey market or pre-owned.

>>16002508
I took this just now since you mentioned rain; my intention is to use the Seamaster chrono as my diver now that the 2531.80 is gone. Anyway, the 2599.80 is the one I always wanted to begin with. Thankfully it arrived safe and sound last week. There is no need for any other watches for me, but I'm well aware that they're not upper level tier. They're the watches that I like for their own reasons, so I'm happy now. Anyway, thought I'd share that with you guys since I've been lazy about taking pics of the new addition.

>>16002505
>>2) The aesthetic layout of the dial is fucked because the markers for sub-seconds are less dense (3 per second rather than 5).
Do you literally have no opinions of your own and have to steal mine lmfao.

>>16002555
>Let's be clear; the 1861 Hesalite Speedmaster is 1960s technology. It's really not worth more than 2500$ in today's money, and that's new.
Nice, are you selling it then? Oh right.

>>16002457
What should I know about purchasing a distinctly gray dial vs a black dial?

>>16002580
My opinions are based on my observations of fact mixed with my experiences as a human bean. If you came to the same conclusion as I did based on your observations of handling the watch in hand, then I'm glad that at least I'm not alone.

If I said, 'the Rolex Maxicase actually ruins the aesthetic appeal of the SeaDweller for XYZ reasons', would it be an opinion of my own or would I have stolen it from someone else? Who knows....but if it's true, then no one owns the observation except the idiots who made the watch look terrible.

>>16002586
No, I picked it up for a few hundred over that. No one is selling an 1861 now for under 3500. You don't seem to understand the secondary market, so I'll mansplain it to you. Watches on the secondary market are only worth what people will pay for them. Since the Moonwatch is desirable in this configuration because it is the same movement that has been on countless space flights, and because it has the modern bracelet, and because it is the most traded (i.e. bought and sold by the same owner) watch on the market today, the price is governed by who is willing to take the largest hit combined with currency exchange rates being what they are.

When you buy pre-owned, you factor in condition, box and papers, etc., and the price rises or falls depending on that. Would I sell any of my watches for what I actually think they're worth? Of course not. But I'm not in the habit of buying and selling watches. I buy for keeps, and I look for the lowest price.

>why do you insist on AOCing?

>>16002587
Grey is an unfortunate compromise. Think of it this way; unless the grey is textured, then it's seen as a white that is dirty or a black that has aged. You can't win with grey unless you go slate, which has texture.

>>16002605
and if it does have a (say, grainy) texture?

>>16002609
Then it's at least better than without. Are you thinking of that Grey Vario from >>16002485?
It's actually better if you just attach a pic of what you're thinking of; colours are not the end-all of it...if it were, everyone would buy a Silberstein.

>>16001248
>people constantly looking for the microbrand that they think will make a decent watch for $1000 (hint: this never happens).
I agree with you here: mechanical watches are inherently obsolete, and we buy them because they're "nifty" little self-contained machines created by human craftsmanship.
This means that if you're really honest with yourself, mechanical watches kinda only make sense when they're finished by hand; i.e. high horology.

>Everyone wants to be as satisfied as they would be with a Patek without paying Patek money.
>That’s also why GS is so rabidly jerked off, because the perception is that they are underpriced.

People buy GS because they're unironically better finished on the outside than (your example) Patek.

>>16002605
>>No, I picked it up for a few hundred over that. No one is selling an 1861 now for under 3500.
No shit. Just fuck off retard. Your walls of text are completely fucking pointless.

>>16002616
>>people constantly looking for the microbrand that they think will make a decent watch for $1000 (hint: this never happens).
What is Monta.

Why do microbrands never care about accuracy (the primary function of a watch)?

Pic related would be a massive favorite of mine if it had some kind of accuracy standard. But instead it's -10/+30 seconds per day. Fucking yuck.

>>16002637
just get it regulated if you care that much

>>16002637
That's just the spec miyota gives for their 90xx movements. For what it's worth mine is never more than a few seconds off per day.

>>16002642
Yeah, but it's not going to be very consistent because of unregulated positional variances etc.

>>16002641
How well do these miyotas regulate?

>>16002120
Forgot Craig Shipp

>What time is it?
>Uhh..

>>16002179
>>so whats the catch with this meme watch?
IT'S TOO THICK

>>16002179
It has chinese on it

>>16002179
Watch name?

>>16002731
>actually puts sage in all fields
kek

>>16002120
Need to add the booba poster and the poster that always recomends a vostok, even if someone is looking for a dress watch

>>16002741
Do you have dyslexia?

>>16002708
Tank solo design is soo fucking trash, even worst with that piano dial.

>>16002127
Thank you, guy.

>>16002145
when my gshock is worth much more than your shitty timex kek

>>16002731
seagull 1963
they come in lots of variants, size and crystal used, display caseback and non. The more proper one is 38mm and acrylic

the movement itself is used in dozens of watches and brands

>>16002744
>vostok dont have dress watches

>>16002768
that looks really good

>>16002105
Based Vostok

What exactly is the legal loophole that allows for "homage" watches?

I wanna get a half decent watch box. probably for around 6-8 or so. any recommendations? not looking to spend big dollars but if it's nice I'll consider it.

>>16002830
rolex doesnt own this design

Levis cant sue other clothing manufacturers for selling blue jeans too

>>16002830
>>What exactly is the legal loophole

the chinese goverment doesn't care.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMsRMcqQ6Is

>>16002832
Get a Wolf watch box.

>>16002851
steinhart makes a sub homage and they arent chinese owned

lots of brands do homages, even well known ones like seiko and nomos
and many luxury swiss brands have a watch that copies the APRO for example

rolex will not sue becuase
A) they literally cant
B) it will set a precedent that nobody wants, not even rolex
C) the early rolex sub in itself is a homage of a blacpain watch

>>16002830
the bigger question is, why does the homage cost maybe 5% of the original despite being almost indistinguishable?

>>16002854
>those prices
yikes
you can commission a handmade box with real wood and glass off etsy for half as much

>>16002860
>maybe 5%
a pagani is $75
a sub is $15000 give or take
its 0.5%

>>16002871
how does rolex justify this?

>>16002876
History and quality. Plus brand recognition. The ability to pay for the product is a feature of the product itself. For better or worse

>>16002876
msrp is $12000
but the waitlist is impossible for new buyers so the grey market is like $25000

luxury goods + hype + people with too much money
how is it justified that the nautilus is now like $100,000? a fucking steel 3 hander

>>16002876
I think you mean how do Rolex customers justify it. It's self delusion mostly.

>what if we made the bezel unusable

>>16002876
>Marketing
>Brand Prestige
>Buying all the suppliers
>Better movement
>Special Snowflake Steel
>Brand Prestige
>QC
>Dealer Cut
>Brand Prestige

>>16002858
Also, the vast number of Homages helps the Submariner to stay as iconic as they are, everybody recognizes it.

>>16002876
>lol poorfag cope, you have to be a mountain jew paypig to understand

>>16002962
yes, this
this is like IP and fan art
even though its technically illegal, most IP owners will not care if you sell fan art, to a certain extent.

>>16002715
We have to go thicker.

>>16002231
This is such a narrow minded view of watches. I own watches worth $3-4k plus that doesn't mean I stopped wearing or enjoying my Vostoks or Casio digital watches. For me, there watches I like enough to want to own at almost every price point and I don't see why I would stop enjoying the less expensive ones I like just because I also have more expensive ones I like.

>>16002320
>>16002327
Light.

>>16002519
Friend, please never take a 50m water resistant chronograph swimming. That's just asking for trouble. I wouldn't even consider taking anything without a screw down crown into a pool, and for a chronograph that would mean screw down pushers.

>somebody just bought an alpinist for $5600

>>16002555
>But since the Cal. 321 loses by every metric to the movement Rolex uses in the new Datona....well, the price isn't justified at all either in this point.
It's apples and oranges. The Daytona movement is a modern, functional, mechanical tool chronograph design while the new 321 is being made, finished, adjusted and assembled to near haute horlogerie levels in a small dedicated workshop. It's more like a modern semi-hand built recreation of a vintage car than it is competitor for a new sports car.

>>16003008
Seiko brand image is on the rise, soon this shit'll be MSRP

>>16002876
904L steel

>>16002555
It’s all speculative and subjective but I wouldn’t be surprised if the new 321 doesn’t lose much value second hand. People have been clamoring for them for years and Omega is making so few that I think they’ll be very desirable for a long time.

I’m in a similar boat in that I got an 1861 on the cheap a few years ago (~$3k grey market) and don’t feel the need to move to either of the new models.

>>16002956
>>16003015
the high quality chink fakes are all made out of 904L as well right?

>>16002642
>>16002646
The 9015 is capable of pretty good accuracy, but it's a bit annoying to regulate because it doesn't have a micro-adjuster so you have to move the whole regulator arm which can be difficult to do in small, precise increments.

With some patience it should be possible to get any 9015 to +/- 5 spd in use.

>>16003027
How do you know if a watchmaker can actually do this?

>>16002860
Because the homage isn't "almost indistinguishable" and the costs of manufacturing quality and QC rise exponentially with the desired level of quality and QC.

>>16003015
marketing wank

zelos made a nh35 shitter out of tantalum (yes) and its not even $2k
rado makes watches out of tungsten carbide and they only cost $1500 +-

the only somewhat expensive element in 904L steel is Molybdenum, and it is only 1/6 the cost of tantalum
omega used 904L steel before as well

>>16003030
You can buy $500 fakes that nobody outside of a service center would spot. Brands like Panerai their own dealers can't differentiate fakes from real ones.

>>16003028
Any watchmaker should be capable of it. I meant it was annoying to do yourself compared to movements with a micro-regulator that makes it easy to regulate the watch yourself.

Doubt anyone will be able to shed light on the issue but does anyone know why GWM5610 plastic bezels have completely disappeared on AliExpress? DW5600 bezels are still plentiful but 5610 compatible ones are all sold out with every seller.

>>16002996
>I own watches worth $3-4k plus that doesn't mean I stopped wearing or enjoying my Vostoks or Casio digital watches.
So basically you still don't own a real watch?

>>16002996
stop replying to the brazillian monkey

>>16003036
Do watchmakers offer premium regulation packages?
Like 6 positions with an accuracy guarantee?

>>16003035
You can buy a $500 fake Panerai that no one would spot because real Panerai's are so easy to make and finished to such a mediocre standard that they are extremely easy to copy.

This isn't the case with Rolex, where the replicas struggle to copy the exterior finishing and quality and have no chance of copying the movement quality. Any Rolex rep can be identified instantly by removing the caseback and looking at the movement.

>>16003041
What's your most expensive watch?

>>16003039
what's a real watch?

>>16003045
Kek, they're are very nice rolex rep movements. It isn't 2005 anymore anon.

>>16003051
There is no replica Rolex movement with a free sprung balance, so rep movements are easy to identify on sight.

Someone took the "stop buying shitters" argument from last thread and is blowing it out of proportion now.

>>16003043
No. Regulation cannot change the spread between the rates that a watch runs at in different positions, or at different temperatures, or at different levels of mainspring wind. All regulation can do is move the center point of the spread between those rates such that they are centered on 0 to minimize how much time is gained or lost vs. a reference time.

If you ask a watchmaker to regulate your watch most will just put it on a timegrapher, see the rate it is running at in all the positions and then adjust the regulator to center the spread on 0 more or less.

A more involved way to do it involves wearing the watch for several days because the rate that a watch will run at when worn won't be identical to the rate it will run at left statically in a crown down or crown right position, so the best way to regulate a watch for real world use is to observe the rate it runs when worn vs resting dial up and try to center the regulation so those two rates offset each other as much as possible. Some watchmakers still do stuff like this, but they charge for the time.

>>16003063
So a watchmaker can't actually adjust, only regulate?

All right, so I got this Seiko watch here which looks good, but it's from somewhere around 98 or something.

marking says 7N43-9070

it doesn't run so it needs a new battery and the bracelet is too small, they said a single link was like 25 euros so I told em to fuck off but they don't make them anymore it seems.

If I spend 70 euros might as well buy a new one I figured. Seems they have the exact same watch in a solar version as well? SNE525P1 I don't really know what to buy.

>>16003064
A skilled watchmaker can adjust, but that is a much more involved and labour intensive process than regulation and most watchmakers only to adjustment to a relatively basic level when they are re-assembling movements they have serviced. Serious adjustment of regulated balance mechanical movements is extremely labour and skill intensive to the point of generally being cost prohibitive for an independent watchmaker to do for a customer.

How good is friction fit+fliplock compared to a proper pushbutton clasp?

>>16003075
On a watch with a regulated balance (i.e. not free sprung), isn't adjusting just a matter of moving the pegs?

Also, what do you think about the old nugget "a regulated balance is less shock resistant than a free-sprung balance because the regulator can shift under shock"?

>>16003070
>If I spend 70 euros might as well
>bracelet is too small,
you could buy seiko, but seiko is not value friendly at low entry prices

consider a casio/orient, or homage brands
pic related, full thing + a mechanical nh35 inside is only $70usd

>>16003078
I've never had a problem with a friction fit clasp. Push-buttons feel more premium, of course, but I have not ever had a friction fit clasp pop open on me. This is including friction fit clasps that were used nearly every single day for literally 60 years

this watch looks ___________

>>16003086
gay

>>16003081
Moving the pegs, i.e. moving the regulator arm, is how you regulate a regulated balance movement. Adjustment goes much deeper than that into how and where the hairspring collet is attached to the balance, manipulating the shape of the hairspring (making it more or sometimes deliberate less concentric), checking the location and rigidity of the banking pins, checking and adjusting the dynamic poise of the balance.

Because of the need for a combination of investigation, for manipulations done buy eye and feel, and the constant risk of chasing one's tail unproductively, adjustment is a very labour and skill intensive process.

>Also, what do you think about the old nugget "a regulated balance is less shock resistant than a free-sprung balance because the regulator can shift under shock"?

On lower end regulated balance movements without micro-regulators, this is true. Most higher end regulated balance movements will resist having the regulator arm move due to shock due to the micro-regulator putting resistance on the arm moving, and many higher end regulated balance movements also cage the hairspring between the pins so it cannot jump out of the regulator under shocks. The downside to that is it increases the chances of damaging the hairspring under severe shock though.

Free sprung balances are more shock resistant because they don't have regulator arms to disturb nor is there a risk of smashing the hairspring into the regulator under a shock with enough force to damage it.

>>16003063
>>16003100
All this work just to get mogged by a quartz shitter. Yikes

>>16003083
How is it not value friendly? You can pick up a titanium quartz on for like 200 euros. Looks good and keeps time pretty well I believe? i'd rather die than buy something as gaudy as fuckin pagani mate

>>16003111
>>How is it not value friendly? You can pick up a titanium quartz on for like 200 euros.
Where?

>>16003111
>quartz
no.

>>16003118
quartz is the best choice for most people

>>16002895
It's really not hard to turn the bezel, idk why people say this. I use to think it as well before I owned it. It's just guys that never owned a seamasters that say this.

>>16003120
This. The heavy scalloping actually makes it easy to turn.

>>16002535
>case finishing on the new speedy
People are complaining about the edges being very sharp.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smAyw81WeTE

>>16003111
and lorus sells titanium quartz at 35 euro
>b-but lorus is also owned by s-
not the same company

citizen gives you the same thing + ecodrive at same price

>>16003119
quartz is not desirable
this is clearly reflected in the prices
the most accurate quartz watch in the world only sells at $10k usd
but a mechanical shitter from RM can fetch millions of usd

>>16003127
>quartz is not desirable
so what, retard? it's the best choice for most people
most people don't actually give a shit about muh mechanical soul and just want the watch to tell time and look good. quartz is better because it's more performance for less money

>>16003116
see pic

>>16003130
>b-best
then you dont need a $200 quartz seiko, when you can just buy a $20 casio worldtime or $60 gshock. The latter is virtually indestructible and thus its even better than the seiko.

>>16003141
so you're just shitposting, ok

>>16003142
your argument is COST, PERFORMANCE AND VALUE

a gshock has better COST, PERFORMANCE AND VALUE versus your seiko. So why dont you buy a gshock? why not just buy a $10 f91w? why not just buy that lorus titanium at 35 euro??

>b-but i like seiko--
so too, do people like mechanical over quartz.

>>16003100
How does this setup look?

>>16003130
Autism.

>>16003125
>Omega has soft as shit external finishing for 30 years
>Now swings so hard the other way people start whining the case edges are too crisp
lmoa

>>16003152
Garbage. My F91W is a better watch. More robust, more accurate, more functionality, and it’s $10.

>>16003159
I already have a high-end quartz.

>>16003140
Looks like a women's watch?

>>16003163
Which one?

>>16003164
it doesnt
but the datejust looks like a womens watch and people still buy it

>>16003170
It really does. And I agree about the DJ if you're talking about the fluted bezel one.

>>16003169

>>16003174
No clue what that shit is supposed to be, either post the watch or fuck off.

>>16003177
It's a robust, pretty high-end quartz movement with things like rate trimmers and a seconds hand adjuster so it always hits the hash marks.

>>16003152
I want an overseas so fucking bad reeeeeeee

>>16003140
It is kind of shit when the watch says sapphire and titanium on the dial

>>16003173
37mm is too big for a women's
the lugs are angular and it doesnt even have dauphine hands
if you're talking about the fluted bezel one.
yes of course

>>16003177
>No clue what that shit is supposed to be
why are you even here? i dont even like quartz and I know what it is

>>16003152
That's a regulated balance set up, but I cannot tell from this angle (or any other I found) whether the regulator pins are caged. It's very nicely finished, as the Geneva seal would indicate. In haute horlogerie watchmaking they can afford to have a watchmaker spend the time at the factory adjusting the movement to be very precise in a way that a mass production watchmaker (generally) cannot. The only two well known mass production watchmakers left that put serious effort into producing large number of highly adjusted (i.e. not just trying to get barely within COSC specs) regulated balance watches are Grand Seiko and Zenith.

is Fortis a good brand or a shitter brand?

>>16003189
Ok? Now post the watch or are you too embarrassed?

>>16003191
well what else should it say?
>>16003170
whats a date just? the small window for the day?
>>16003194
I have small wrists so I like the sizing of that model. I don't want any gaudy notched shit or anything like that.

>>16002092
"Suggest a watch for me."
>Your budget
The cheaper the better
>Watch type
Digital shitter I can wear while exercising
>Movement
Quartz, don't care if it's solar or battery powered or whatever
>Desired features
Chrono would be useful
>Preferred strap option
No preference
>Wrist size or desired watch size
AS SMALL AS POSSIBLE

>>16003209
First it used to be a great tool watch brand that cost 2-3 times more than it should have, then it became a great tool watch brand that cost 5 times more than it should have, and in the current generation it became a retarded ugly tool watch brand that costs 10 times more than it should.

>>16003120
I was at an omega AD and had trouble doing it first I guess it’s one of those things you learn

>>16003225
>well what else should it say?
Nothing? Stating retarded specs like that is retarded. HURR DURR IT HAS HANDS HURR DURR IT HAS NUMBERS

>>16003220
There are probably only two watches that movement is used in lol.
It was designed specifically for them.

>>16003199
>not just trying to get barely within COSC specs
> -3/+5

>>16003234
stop responding to monkey bait

>>16003199
No "micro adjust"?

Are there any advantages that regulated balances have over free-sprung ones? Other than being easier to regulate.

>>16003234
https://watchcharts.com/watch/17975/seiko-tuna-300m-diver-sbbn007
https://watchcharts.com/watch/17975/seiko-tuna-300m-diver-sbbn007
https://watchcharts.com/watch/17975/seiko-tuna-300m-diver-sbbn007

LMFAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

>>16003086
Deliciously 70's.

>>16003225
just measured it, it's like 6.9 inches around, my wrist

>>16003086
Great. Fun, funky 1970s design.

>>16002483
The Jew or golem at work

hi this is mark from long island watch dot com
https://youtu.be/BVZOa-nX-8g

>>16003257
Is your wrist round or flat? Whats the size of your wrist span in mm?

>>16003267
This retard is really complaining about the roman numerals holy fuck these people are being paid for being this fucking clueless it's fucking pathetic.

>>16003267
battle of the shitter throne?

>>16002463
I love the oyster case profile on the datejust 36 and it's a perfectly sized and proportioned watch, and I have a slim wrist. But if I could only wear one for a whole year, the speedmaster would be an obvious choice. I like timing things with chronos.

>>16003266
Replicas are shit you monkey

>>16003302
How does Swiss cock taste? Chocolatey?

Imagine paying money for a non-Rolex watch that doesn't even allow you the privilege of being able to pay more money for another Rolex watch

>>16003321
Repfags are so deluded they think buying a Chinese fake makes them superior. Fucking kek, post collection

>>16003338
>pay 2% for 95% of the effect
not him but its a superior choice
literally no one will be able to tell without a loupe and taking the caseback off

>>16003341
Yes.... but he'll know himself. And will never forget

>>16003338
>fake
Sorry I only buy homages, I don't need a logo

>>16002179
Ordered the black sugess version, cants wait for it to arrive. Im scared it might be a bit small though at 38

>>16003369
38 is fine
chronographs were that size or even smaller
besides these seagulls often have slightly long lugs which is a vintage thing

>>16003227
Casio F-91W

>>16002627
It's not your fault. I know it's difficult...but it's not your fault.

>>16002895
If you own the watch, you'd understand why your statement is incorrect.

>>16003004
I have before, and it's not a problem. There's no trouble to be had if the gaskets have been checked for water resistance prior to the trip. What you have to understand is that you're not protecting the inside of the watch with metal-to-metal seals, you're doing it by compressing and expanding rubber using metal. The purpose of any screw down crown is to prevent the crown from moving; the lack of motion is what prevents water from bypassing the gasket. This is why you had water resistant watches in the 60s and 70s that didn't have screw down crowns but still functioned just fine, my father's Seamaster included in this.

The tricky part is knowing that if a pusher is pushed underwater or if the crown is pulled out and pushed back in repeatedly, you may get water ingress. Assuming that the gaskets are fine, then this is the only danger. The only exception to this rule are chronographs that are designed to have the pushers be usable under water (my 'new' Seamaster Chrono was the first design to do this in mass production in Omega). So again, taking a 50m WR into the water isn't stupid; you have to know the condition of your watch and what you should and shouldn't do.

>>16003011
I'll disagree with you here; the movement isn't finished to a higher degree than the 1863; it's only hand adjusted and regulated; it's not near haute horologie at all.

>>16003120
For me I had to figure out where the 'purchase' was; the easiest way was to grip from 1.5-2:00 and 7.5-8:00 on the side of the case. The other thing (that people who've never gone diving seem to think is impossible) is that turning the bezel with rubber gloves is actually very easy, especially when wet. There's lots of surface to grip on to.

I like how the shitposter gets called out in the last thread, and then the shitposter who replies to everyone and has been away for several months is suddenly back. It's almost like they're all the same guy.

good looking skeleton watches dont e---

>>16003341
If your only concern is bang per buck without any regards to movement quality or finishing, watches might not be for you.

>>16003397

>>16003019
That's why I had
>special snowflake steel
listed

>>16003401
>>16003397
-under $2000
-respected swiss brand

tell me why i shouldnt buy this right now

>>16003397
>>16003401
These look like something you would buy on AliExpress for $30

>>16003399
dont most reps at least have ETA or miyotas 9xxx now? its not cream of the crop but those arent bad movements at all

>>16003369
38 will seem small at first if you're used to larger watches. But if you wear it a bit you'll get used to it and it will look perfect or even a bit large if you have a bony wrist

Just buy a rep and by the end of the 10 years of use you should get out of the rep, you should be able to afford the real thing.

>>16003405
I'd say if it's your first mechanical, then wait for a while until you see them on the secondary used market; the price will be cheaper. Watches like these that have designs that are not timeless tend to lead to a situation where either you continue to love the watch (but it's dated) in the years to come or you move out of the taste you have now into something different and stop wearing the watch. The further you go from timeless designs, the more extreme this situation becomes.

For a skeleton watch, the purpose is to exhibit the beauty and/or complexity of the movement that powers the display. In this Tissot, the finishing of the components is competent but not anything more than mediocre to the eye. That doesn't help the 'beauty' of the movement. As for the complexity; it appears to be a time-only with small seconds at 9...and that's it. So why exhibit a movement if it's time-only?

This watch will look better in the dark.

>>16003405
>>16003401
>>16003397

side view

>>16003397
>>16003401
>>16003405
>Tissot
>Tossit

>>16003412
some of them even copy the original movements

>>16003405
>tell me why i shouldnt buy this right now
did you take a look at your own picture?

>>16003405
If you really like it then you should get it, don’t listen to the haters, be your own man.

>>16003423
>For a skeleton watch, the purpose is to exhibit the beauty and/or complexity of the movement that powers the display. In this Tissot, the finishing of the components is competent but not anything more than mediocre to the eye. That doesn't help the 'beauty' of the movement. As for the complexity; it appears to be a time-only with small seconds at 9...and that's it. So why exhibit a movement if it's time-only?
what do you mean

it says here right oin their site
https://www.tissotwatches.com/en-in/t0704051641100.html
>Tissot is revealing the innermost secrets of its deep-rooted expertise in precision watchmaking with this men’s watch, the Tissot T-Complication Squelette. In this watch, modernity meets meticulous craftsmanship via a wheel-inspired design and a hand-wound, mechanical skeleton movement visible through the dial. Luxurious finishes and design details seamlessly link tradition with contemporary styling for wearers who love to bear witness to the visible connections between yesterday, today and tomorrow.

>I'd say if it's your first mechanical,
yes its my firdst mechancial
i want to buy a proper, good swiss watch thats why i was looking at tissot
no japoanese no chinese, i want a watch i can show people, and skeleton feels like good idea to show mechanical

>>16003460
It's pointless to buy "Swiss" watches that aren't at least Rolex tier or higher.

>>16003397
That looks like an undecorated movement.

New Bark and Jack! Best youtuber out there!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AizAC-qBg28

>>16003460
Unfortunately, the description doesn't match the execution. Even the movement from my pocket watch has more 'finishing' than the movement in the Tissot; this means shaping and polishing curves, engraving flat surfaces, etc. The Tissot by comparison is somewhat...bare? I can't find a better word for it. Maybe have a look at a YouTube vid that has macro shots (Watchfinder & Co do a great job at this) of skeleton movements...then you'll get a better idea of what I'm talking about. Some Anons here will gripe about Watchfinder, but they still produce excellent visual videos.

>I want a watch i can show people
I understand this feeling; just be aware that after a friend says, 'that looks cool', the event is over and people won't show more interest than that. Mechanical watches in this world only matter to people who find them interesting, and that's a small % of the population (and getting smaller by the year). To the people who enjoy watches seriously, the Tissot you've presented is an example of what happens when a brand is selling something assuming the purchaser has no knowledge of the goods in question. If you're spending 1000$, there are lots of options that may interest you more and look better. Consider Seiko, Rotary, Citizen, Stowa, Laco, and others for new, but also look vintage (you can get Vintage Omegas from Chono24 for under 1000 that will definitely be better quality than this, though you need due diligence and you may have to service them before wearing them). The field is large and you're not limited.

>>16002098
Dude just get a $300 Citizen 0191 Diver or a Submariner knockoff like the $200 San Martin Water Ghost / $80 Pagani Design diver, and call it a day.

Tissot really can't get the details right.
What's with that ugly thick bezel? Ruins the watch. All so they can say it's 40mm.

>he doesnt own a jewish brand watch
why so antisemitic?

>>16003550
looks fine to me

>>16003557
ok Teddy

>>16003550
It's intentional to make sure you go more upmarket. They will never make a perfect tissot

>>16003550
completely disagree, it would look ugly if it was smaller

>>16003560
Certina came out with this which is perfectly proportioned. Pretty sure it has a higher grade of the shittermatic 80 too.
>>16003569
Go look at some other dressy/classic watches with no rotating/tachy bezel. None of them have a bezel this garishly thick

>>16003554
This is the type of movement finishing I love, akin to Lang&Heyne etc.
This actually also seems like a pretty nice brand.
I don't even mind that the name came from an unknown dude who started a watch school two hundred years ago. Beats reviving a known brand for name recognition.

>>16003388
>I'll disagree with you here; the movement isn't finished to a higher degree than the 1863; it's only hand adjusted and regulated; it's not near haute horologie at all.

Based on close up footage of both movements, it looks to my eyes that the finishing on the 321 is a clear step above the 1863 and is comparable to entry level JLC chronographs (which don't get full HH finishing either). One stand out example is the obvious banding in the machine applied anglage on the 1863 which appears to me to have definitely been polished and refined further on the new 321 and doesn't show nearly the same level obvious banding the 1863 does.

The easiest to spot example of this difference is the anglage on the clutch bridge.

>>16003444
>Dat regulator arm on the fake
lmoa

>>16003554
>>16003577
And at least the hands are finishing, unlike fucking Lange.

>>16003585
I'll have a look again; I was basing it on my own handling of it as well as what info we can get online direct from Omega. Thanks for the heads-up.

>>16003525
>HURR DURR I AM RICH I SHIT ON YOU PLEB TASTE

>>16003575
>>Certina came out with this which is perfectly proportioned.
TIL that Rolex proportions are "perfectly proportioned" LMFAO the closer to Rolex you are the more "perfect" you are why not just carve your forehead into a Sub dial retards

>>16003444
Which is fake?

>>16003525
thwnk you, i will have a look
new to mechanicals

>>16003609
I'm gonna guess the one on the left because there is a scratch on the rotor and some screw damage.

>>16003598
I whipped up a quick side by side for you. If you look at the 1863's clutch bridge in the top left compared to the 321's clutch bridge in the bottom right, the difference in anglage quality is pretty noticeable.

>>16003606
You're a fucking retard, nobody brought up Rolex you mong.

>>16003554
>>16003577
>>16003595
Holy shit Moritz Grossmann is like Lange on steroids.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwF45E4ev6M

And to top it all off, they're still entirely independent afaik.

Why doesn't anyone ever talk about them?

>>16003604
Not rich, but it's okay. The Mark40, Speedy, and Seamaster were acquired by me on the secondary market for the less than the price of a new Speedy, so it's about good luck and tonnes of research when you shop. Also, I live rather minimally in other ways. If one saves carefully, there are lots of options out there.

What I'm warning the Anon about is that he may be thinking of buying something that will not make him happy because the inherent flaws of the purchase will become more apparent with time. In other words, I'm cautioning against a potential costly mistake.

>>16003614
There are tonnes of options, and other Anons here know more than I do about the price-point under 1000$. Another option you have is simply saving up more. Once you get into 2000$ territory, then the used or pre-owned watches really open up to you. Take your time, look for something that really makes you passionate, and then before you do anything else, find a way to try one on your wrist. You may be surprised at how different something is on a screen to how it feels on your wrist and looks to your eyes in person.

>>16003629
I see what you mean, but if you look at the other parts that we can see in the blowup, they're comparable in finish to the ones in the 1863. Given that the original 321 was finished to 'normal' standards, my understanding of what Omega did was to do the same up-graded finishing as they employ with the 1863 i.e. 1861 vs. 1863 should have the same up-conversion in finishing as the 321 to the new cal. 321.

For instance, (forgive the terminology) the bridge that holds the chrono seconds wheel appears to be finished to the same anglage as in the 1863. The chrono seconds wheel brake ono the 321 seems to be finished to a lesser degree than the 1863, and finally the return hammer also seems unfinished in the edges.

Your thoughts?
>sorry, no pic that is relevant, so beauty instead.

>Here at Worn & Wound, we’re pretty big fans of the Timex Q. When it first hit the watch scene in the summer of 2019, it was a genuine watch-nerd sensation. It sold out frequently, and traded for over retail on the secondary market. At the time, the jokes about the Q and Rolex steel sports models being equally tough to get practically wrote themselves. Things have calmed down a bit since then. While the Q has lost none of its charm, the hype has died down as the watch has become a staple in the Timex lineup, with seemingly endless variants popping up on a regular basis. We’ve seen the Q in new colors, as a collaborative project with Todd Snyder, with Snoopy on the dial, and it even spawned an automatic look-alike. That’s a lot of juice for a simple quartz watch, and today we have word of the next series of Qs about to make their debut.
https://wornandwound.com/the-timex-q-returns-in-three-new-colors/

why cant normies stop buying garbage shitters?
these arent even good or passable watches by cheap watch standards

>>16003677
>The case measures 38mm across and is water resistant to 50 meters, and the crystal is period correct acrylic. The bracelet is of the woven steel variety and is chintzy in exactly the right way – strangely satisfying and lightweight, making for an easy wearing experience. Most importantly, and obviously, the Q retains a simple quartz movement with a day-date display at 3:00, and a battery hatch on the caseback. Note to other brands: we like the hatch, give us more hatches on quartz watches!

read the fucking slimy shilling lingo on this
when poor quality, folded links, non existent wr, a plastic lens and a $1 movement becomes a selling point

they are selling this watch for $179 btw

>>16003677
Internet hype is a big deal. Sub 200 dollars is an impulse buy that you never notice on your invoice if you don't live in a third world country.

>>16003232
Agreed. I almost bought the titanium sapphire seiko because it seemed like a smart choice but my gaze always went immediately to that humanist sans serif (I wanted a white dial so it really stood out.) I decided on the steel s5. Pic unrelated but related because you must pay for the minimalism

>>16003349
Same. I'm a poorfag but even if I had gobs of cash laying around I couldn't justify throwing 5 or 10k at a piece of jewelry when watches with the same functionality and aesthetics exist for under $500. I'd rather put that money into stonks or crypto.

>>16003700
Pic related

>>16003694
the value is so bad on these things
you can buy actually great watches at $179
you can buy kino vintages at $179
its beating a dead horse but i actually feel disgusted

>>16003667
The anglage on the 1863 will have similar banding everywhere because it's 100% machine applied with no subsequent polishing. From what I've seen of close-ups of the 321 in general, it looks like all the anglage is getting cleaned up to some degree after the machine finishing stage.

Even the plate finishes look better executed and crisper on the 321 to my eyes. Here's a good comparison of the finishing on the new 3861 and the 321 both taken from the same video:

>>16003677
>it was a genuine watch-nerd sensation
It unironically has one of the worst, cheapest quartz movements ever made. From the $3 hooker of watch brands. With shit build quality and finishing. For 10x what the watch is worth. There is no self-respecting "watch nerd" that would like this watch. I'm sorry. This is fucking insulting.

>>16002463
Fluted bezel datejust. It's the ultimate one and done watch imo, works well in any setting. I also just don't like typical chronos.

>>16003715
Thanks for your pic; in fact, it looks like they even finish the spokes of the wheels in addition to the rest on the 321, which they don't do on the 1863. You're quite right...the finishing improvements are definitely there!

>>16003711
>you can buy actually great watches at $179
Like what?

>>16003660
> Moritz Grossmann is like Lange on steroids
Well it was started by an ex-Lange watchmaker amongst others.

>>16003718
it looks so boomer though
like not even good boomer
its as boomer as the omega lobster or 90s tag heuer link
i feel like people begrudgingly only give it a pass because its rolex
>>16003739
Gshock
O kamasu
Seagull 1963
a vostok neptune on all 3 legs
or a whole crate of HMTs

>>16003739
seiko flightmaster

>>16003677
>>timex-q-returns
>>returns

they're still selling the old ones you stupid fuck.

>>16003748
>a vostok neptune on all 3 legs
?

>>16003748
>i feel like people begrudgingly only give it a pass because its rolex
People give everything a pass because it's Rolex. Rolex watches actually look stupid. 100% of them, since they switched over to the maxi case.

>>16003748
>it looks so boomer though
like not even good boomer
Nah it looks fantastic
If you don't want it to look dated just dont get the two tone model.

>>16003764
a vostok on your
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Third%20Leg

>>16003775
The cyclops is stupid and then when you take off the cyclops you realize the date window is shit. It's all extremely pathetic because it's called the Datejust so you would expect the date window to be well done.

>>16003792
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the cyclops. I really like your observation that the date window looks bad without the cyclops. It's almost like the date window was designed with the cyclops in mind and when you start fucking around with the watch it looks worse. It's a rolex, not some SKX you mod with shitty aftermarket parts.

Wow if you scrape the cyclops off the front of the watch it looks worse, real certified genius over here. Thinks he has some insight from some idiot ruining a perfectly good watch.

>>16003795
>There is absolutely nothing wrong with the cyclops
It's completely unnecessary and creates a giant ugly bulge on the sapphire. They could figure out a way to do the cyclops on the inside of the dial. Or put it over the surface of the dial. Or make a bigger date window. Instead there's a small, shitty date window with a bubble glued to it. It's trash and the only people who look good are copers like you or boomers who need to look at the date multiple times because they have early onset Alzheimers and cataracts so it needs to be super big.

>>16003739
an actual handwinding dress watch with AU20 gold plate from the extinct soviet union
a small piece of history and a neat time piece
and still have left over for a decent meal
instead of literally worthless 20-IQ hypebeast junk

>>16003822
Tru man but ur prob gonna have to get it serviced so its gonna be more

>>16002179


What's the catch? Chink is the catch.

>>16003550
You know what I love that. The thiccc bezel gives it some character.

When will people in this thread acknowledge the reality that there is no watch worth buying below $5000?

>>16003792
The 124200 was made for people like you. All the 2020 OP upgrades, no twin batons. Gotta live wirh the size though.

>>16003795
I don't like the distortions that are created by the cyclops (which compromise approx. 5 minutes of the dial) nor the fact that it could, in theory, be slid/popped off. You would think that at this stage Rolex would be able to innovate a sapphire crystal that has the cyclops "built in" instead of stuck on.

>>16003900
That’s actually quite generous, I’d say there’s no watch worth buying below $20k and even then you’re mostly getting shitters until around $30k.

>>16003900
Probably about the same time people like you acknowledge that you're delusional. I bet you buy designer clothes like some sort of sissy faggot too. /wt/ was better on /g/.

>>16003806
Maybe. But it’s a distinctive trademark and I’d they removed it probably more people would complain of its absence no matter how much better the replacement may be.

>>16002092
Post watch goals.

Mine:
>Beginning of career
Omega Seamaster Diver 300M (acquired)
>Mid-career
Rolex Day-Date
>Late career/retirement
Patek 5172 (or whatever equivalent exists at that time)

>>16003910
>Not fluted bezel
So close, and yet...

>>16004163
>Beginning of career:
Seiko
>YOU ARE HERE ----> Mid-career
Seiko
>Late career/retirement
Seiko

>>16004029
Now I gotta tell ya anon, it has got to hurt. Your Tissot? Give it to the man that washes your car. It's got to hurt. Phuck me dead, a Casio? Cam on big boi, work with me not against me. It's got to hurt. It's all about the snobbery I say. With wistwatches, it's all about the snobbery. I'll give you a little piece of advice there anon. Every man needs a ROOOWLECKS. That's right, every man needs a steel sports Rolex. See what I'm wearing? I'm wearing my Patek 5227J. BEAUTIFUL. A Grande Classique, from Patek Phillipe.
I gotta tell you, it's all about the snobbery.

>>16004180
Why aren't you wearing a Rolex?

Archie is the only watch personality that doesn't lie to his audience and try to make them feel better about buying shitters.

thoughts on tissot?

>>16004180
Arch only ever wears the sub now. Sad!

>>16003271
very flat, you mean like the top? comes out at 6cm give or take

>>16004029
This poorfag is seething. Hahahaha your Casio isn’t a real watch, it isn’t even fit to be a paper weight.

>>16004324
why be mean?

>>16003748
>Gshock
>O kamasu
>Seagull 1963
>a vostok neptune on all 3 legs
>or a whole crate of HMTs
All garbage except the G-Shock, which I would wear if I was a plumber handling shit all day.

NEW THREAD WHEN?

>>16004343
The point is that they are all better than the Timex Q, you dumb, bitter idiot

>>16004398
Someone said those are great watches. They’re not. They’re shit.
>great watch
>$179
Fucking LMAO

https://www.watchuseek.com/threads/poor-finish-and-details-on-u50.5283607/

L O L

>>16004410
ouch

>>16004408
G-Shock and Vostok are fantastic. Orient is boring, Seagull is boring, HMTs suck. But that's just, like, my opinion, dude. But it's factual that you're wrong kek. It's like saying pizza isn't good because it's cheap. Is it fancy? Of course not. Is it good? Hell yes.

>>16004434
>Vostok is fantastic
Can you explain your rationale please? Because by every metric I can see, they are pretty much dead last in quality. Except for being Russian.

>>16003700
>>16003706

Well said

>>16004441
>200 meters of water resistence
>ten year service intervals
>history and pedigree like no other
>military graded shock resistence
>easy to fix and mantain, no need to send it back
>probably the best seals in the market (some dude pop his vosto on a chamber presure, failure only ocurred at 80ATM, granted, anecdotal evidence)
>went to space
>less than 100 dollars

>>16004434
Pizza is a terrible example, a well made brick oven pizza with properly fermented dough and lightly applied high quality toppings is so different from Dominoes or other mass market "pizza" that they might as well be considered different foods entirely.

Should I just get an ancient Breitling like this, /wt/?

>>16004465
>breitling
no

>>16004462
>Never cooked a pizza

>>16004462
>a well made brick oven pizza with properly fermented dough and lightly applied high quality toppings
It's still cheap, casual shit, anon, not a classy meal at all. (Unless you are not European, where we know Italian cuisine is a huge meme)

>>16004434
Vostok is a lot of things, but fantastic is probably the last word I would use.
>-20/+60s per day

>>16004474
The worst thing is the lack of a quickset date.
Holy shit it takes so long to change the date...

>>16004441
They're also dead last in price for an in-house movement with shock resistance and extreme water resistance, and have genuinely interesting horological history. Plus, you can have them customized to your hearts content for basically nothing from the manufacturer, so you can definitely find a combination of parts you find appealing. My "Fieldphibia" 420783 beats the shit out of any Hammy in terms of ruggedness and looks any day.
>>16004455
All of this

>>16004477
>Plus, you can have them customized to your hearts content for basically nothing from the manufacturer
You can? What like I just email them and they'll build me a custom watch?

>>16004476
Go back to 9 till the date jumps then back to noon until it advances. Repeat until correct date.

>>16004481
I know, but it is still very time consuming.

>>16004479
You can pick any piece in stock and any Amphibia and check a box. They'll charge you a small fee and send you the watch with the modified part.

>>16004476
Flip from 9 to 12 and it'll change the date, just do that as many times as you need. Won't hurt the movement.
>>16004479
Yup. Go to Meranom, you can literally pick out a case, movement, dial, bezel, hands, bracelet, etc and they'll build you a custom watch for an extra 5 bucks. Or pick out a prebuilt watch and have them put on select custom parts, like just a new dial.

>>16004485
I wish Meranom wasn't always out of stock of the good shit.

>>16004473
>unless you're European...
Why you pathetic fucking people thing Europe has elevated tastes is beyond me. Europeans ae the most egotistic and pathetic people on the globe. No one outside of your sad little countries respects you or your opinions. Any Europeans worth a damn sailed away and founded new nations.

>>16004472
I don't bither cooking pizza at home anymore because my new oven won't get up to 750°f like my old and slightly broken one would. There is no point is cooking a pizza in a 500°f oven because it comes out shitty and dry.

>>16004486
I know, that's the most annoying part. But it basically can't be helped with their vast selection. Can always order bits and bobs as they're in stock and then have your local watchmaker assemble it, or do it yourself.

>>16004492
I cook mine at 450° and it comes out fine, but I like the taste of frozen pizza. Can post my recipe if anyone is interested.

>>16004497
>I cook mine at 450° and it comes out fine
>Can post my recipe if anyone is interested.
Don't bother, whatever you are making is garbage

>>16004506
I think someone is hangry

>>16004513
Pirate a copy of flour water salt yeast

You wouldn't download a ravioli

I cut off my nipples and use them as pepperoni

>>16002673
Is he still riding around on is Segway taking upskirts of middle school girls?

>>16004465
>breakling

>>16004254
It's on a bracelet. It's just gonna feel more exciting to wear by nature

Who's baking?

>>16004724
he who spake it must make it

>pizza schizos shitting up the thread
Take your meds.

>>16004732
nEW:
>>16004737
>>16004737
>>16004737
>>16004737
>>16004737

>>16002860
>>16002871
>>16002876
This is the reason I personally feel there is no reason to ever pay more than $500 for a watch. But to answer the question of how Rolex justifies it, the whole point of some brands is that the price itself is why you buy it. It's a statement of success. If you own a Rolex, that means you are doing pretty fucking well financially, so ironically the price IS the selling point.

>>16003111
>i'd rather die than buy something as gaudy as fuckin pagani mate
Are you confusing Pagani with Invicta? Because Pagani just makes copycats of popular watches? Most of their stuff looks great for the price. You could say they;re cheap I guess but gaudy?

>>16004831
Isn't this from the same dude that makes those god awful hypercars?

>>16003302
>you're supposed to accept my framing! You're not supposed to like things that are less expensive!

>>16004944
I have no idea, I'm not sure what you're talking about

>>16004443
I want to avoid blowing too much on watches but pics like this activate the coonsumer lust in me