/fa/ - Fashion

should I get a PRX? why/why not?

First for THE BEST CHART
>Cope if you must and you will

How do you all display your watches at home?
Do you keep them in their OG boxes tucked away in the closet? Do you have a valet on your nighstand? A roll in your top drawer? wanna see what you all have setup.

My contribution.
>>17110785
Non, it's onion as hell. It's also not comfortable.
>>17110788
I have nothing yet but I'm considering a pretty normal display case.

>>17110787
Nordstrom is Consumer core with the exception of Longines and Gucci.

> Your budget
4000
> Watch type, e.g. dress, diver, pilot
dress/diver
> Movement, e.g. automatic, hand wound, quartz
automatic
> Desired features, e.g. water resistance, day/date, 2nd time zone
50m and above
> Preferred strap option, e.g. leather, nylon, bracelet
steel/leather
> Wrist size or desired watch size
6" wristlet

>>17110788
>he uses non-metal straps
You should rather be asking us how to hide this embarrassment of a collection

>>17110788
Right now I just have mine in active circulation sitting by either my desktop or my bed when not being worn. Practical, but not particularly appealing.

>>17110799
That's a stock image.
But also noted because most of my stuff is off metal anyways.

>>17110788

>>17110788
That exact case is best case.

>i post in watch discussion threads

>accurate

>>17110818
Nice try/10

>>17110818
all that time and effort and for what

>>17110795
aquaracer

>>17110818
still butthurt he can only afford a big boy watch

>>17110793
can someone photoshop this with the dial 25% smaller and the bezel 75% larger?

also, can you add 3 more hands on the dial?

>>17110830

Do I fit in yet, guys?

GUYS?!

>>17110842
>2h deens

>>17110807
women are attracted to power.

>>17110786
>>17110786
>>17110786
>>17110786
>>17110786
is he right?

bros im gonna be a patekchad

>>17110879
Nice Seiko

>>17110879
all those scratches for 4.5k?

>>17110879
what's wrong with it? other than looking like a shitty tank knock off

>>17110894
>what's wrong with it?

Nothing I just want you guys' opinion

>>17110902
I’ve never seen a Patek that cheap, that’s why I asked what’s wrong with it.

>>17110778
As far as I know, JLC were among the "dirty dozen" supplying watches the Brits, not Wehrmacht.

>>17110818
All true really, except the Rolex of course.

>>17110778
Check this week's loot. Bought these Cartier Tanks to sell, now I kind of want to keep the gold one. Should I? Really fuckin small but they are a ~timeless dress watch~

>>17110938
What’s that pine wood? What made you chose that?

sell me the one on the right

>>17110788
I have a cheap case from Amazon and will upgrade to a much better one by Wolf when I run out of space.

>>17110943
Rubber wood

>>17110945
just make one bro

loads cheaper and gives more depth to your already shallow personality ;-)

>>17110943
it's bamboo. it's a bamboo desk. idk man askin about the watches

>>17110950
tardus

>>17110950
I don’t believe that’s bamboo at all. Why should I trust you with those shitters?

>>17110938
Whom are you, captain jack sbaroow :D

>>17110955
It's rubber wood he doesn't know what he's talking about

>>17110938
>0 cents worth of metal
What’s your question again?

>>17110955
bought them to flip, like i said. got them fixed, then i made the mistake of trying one on.

and it's bamboo, fuckheads.

I have a cheap watch that I'm in love with, this one's kinda sweet though.

>>17110962
should I keep the gold tank? also that giant bangle is solid gold

>>17110795
de ville

bamboo is round lol

>>17110964
You should keep the metal dildo.
To diddle your gay ass.
If you know what I mean lmao

>>17110788
Nothing too crazy, I believe it was $16 at a Marshall's, it stays on my nightstand.

>>17110825
>tagheuer

>>17110972
Sex box

>>17110778
nazis still don't go to Valhalla

Helicopter gang where you at!?

>>17110795
Hamilton Intra-Matic Chronograph H

>>17110978
whats wrong with tudor

>>17111032
Nothing really, but people here say its cope for Rolex.

>>17111032
They based

>>17111048
Nice polerouter homage.

Should i get this Rolex?

>>17111050
It really is kek. Still love it tho

>be me
>love the plastic casio aesthetic
>be built like a fucking ogre and have 8.5 inch wrists


:(

PS I'm not a fat hog forreal

>>17110788
I use a cheap watch box with a valet I bought from amazon and keep it in a cabinet with my fragrance collection.
It's nothing special but it suits my needs.

>>17111081
gshock?

>>17111093
Yeah I have a few. I just wish I could wear an F91W and other similar watches without looking like a man wearing a child's watch. I actually can't even get the band closed on the largest hole without constricting my wrist.

>>17111092
fresh af

>>17111111
But those digits tho

datejust or daydate wtchads?

>>17111048
Universal Geneve Polerouter does it better.

>>17110818
What about vintage japanese quartz?

>>17110793
Truly love this landmaster, nice piece. Just wish it was 40mm like the 90s version

Also what are you faggots wearing today?

>>17110907
Bro, if you don’t know the pricing range & the specific model I’d stay the fuck away
Easiest way to get burned

>>17110938
keep the small gold cartier, also bought one with the intent of flipping but I just couldn’t let it go once I wore it

>>17110807
What's in the box?

>>17111037
It was originally designed as a cope for Rolex, it's not just people here saying that, it's the actual brand history and sole reason for it's founding

>>17111092
>santal royale
fukin nice

>>17111199
Oceanus T200
Didn't even buy it with the intention of it becoming my primary watch but it's such a simple and comfy everyday wearer. Casio are unreasonably good in every price bracket they compete in.

>>17111199

>>17111210
not really cope but Rolex was a great tool watch with not many other brands on their tool watch level but they were expensive because of their movements and shit, so Wilsdorf had the great idea to combine the sturdiness of the Rolex case and bracelets with a cheaper 3rd party movement. It wasn't really cope, if you think about it, it's what Rolex should've been without the hyperfocus on brand

I bought pic related cheap off ebay
Works well , surprisingly insides all look Original

But the strap is horrible to wear.

Any suggestions on sn alternative?

Was thinking brown leather

>>17111227
I put mine on a black strap to go with the dial. You're much more flexible in terms of options though.

>>17111227
it looks like someone gave an Indian child from the slums without internet access a job to design an expensive looking watch and he had 10 minutes

>>17111232
There is literally nothing designed in the 70s that actually looks good. This design evokes a blackjack table though. Check out the modern re-design, much better.

>>17111217
Is that a Luch? My mother had a tiny one that she got for her birthday way back then and she pulled the crown off of it on the first day when she tried to wind it.

>>17111218
>Wilsdorf had the great idea to combine the sturdiness of the Rolex case and bracelets with a cheaper 3rd party movement
So literally Rolex cope.
In the rolexverse Tudor is the prince and Rolex is the king. It's always been marketed this way and it's still the case today.
I'm not saying it's a bad thing by the way. I'd rather buy a Tudor than an Omega for example.

>>17111242
Yeah it's a Luch. Plan on selling them professionally soon.

>>17111111
checked

>>17111100
checked

>>17111244
It's not cope though, people just wanted the Rolex exterior quality without the luxury of an in-house movement and extra finishing

Nowadays it might be cope though i agree, although Tudor designs become quite distinct and nice recently

>>17111254
I'd take a Tudor over most counterpart Rolexes at the moment honestly. I just think their designs are more interesting. My only real beef is Tudor's love of that ugly club hour hand.

>>17111254
>people just wanted the Rolex exterior quality without the luxury of an in-house movement and extra finishing
How is that not cope?
>I want a car that looks 99% like a Ferrari but with a Toyota engine and cheaper
Yeah, that's because you want a Ferrari but can't afford one.

qrd on Lorenz watches?
I found an Explorer 1 homage with an automatic movement for a good price but I'm dubious about the quality

ROLEKUSSUUUUUUU

>>17110842
DINOZONE
soul...

>>17111262
Sure, but a Ferrari and a Toyota don't function literally identically at their intended job other than the price and both pale in comparison to the performance of cars orders of magnitude cheaper than either of them anyway.
If you actually care about the guts of a watch, a multiband Casio is objectively superior.

I wanted a Vacheron Constantine. I compromised, I got a JLC.

>>17111290
I think you get my point but okay

>>17111092
>all that cologne

insecure much?

For me it's Laurent Ferrier, the most beautiful dress watches in the world.

>>17111194
LMFAO the prices on a fucking random Swiss shitter from 50 years ago.

>>17111300
More like Danient Wellier.

>>17111256
Ahem it's a snowflaek
Or a cobra head.

>>17111307
it's fat and ugly and enough reason by itself to buy rolex instead

>>17111111
nice digits

>Casio
>HD
>200 meter water resistance

>>17110778

https://www.chrono24.com/enicar/enicar-vintage-sherpa-guide-mark-iii-beads-of-rice-bracelet--id20881993.htm

LMFAO

>>17110778
You are all slaves to vanity.
You will go far in this world.

>>17111298
Sure, I'm just suggesting that you're probably placing an undue focus on the mechanical function of the watch when to begin with, this entire field of interest is predicated on not particularly caring about how well it does its job as a watch.
Not saying you can't take interest in the movement, but it's hardly 'cope' to focus on the parts of the watch you actually give a shit about.

>>17111227
looks like a roulette table.

>>17111330
So to make it not be a cope you merely have to convince yourself that you don't even care about the movement?

Again, how is that not a cope? It's pretty much exactly the Fox & the Grapes scenario.

>tachometer

>>17110795
>Gear 3rd

>>17110793
>called the "Landmaster"
>compass on the bezel
>no actual compass functionality beyond DIY sun shenanigans you can do with any watch

bit of a letdown

>>17111380
You forgot the 10,000 hands on the dial

>>17111380
It's got a second timezone, which is nice, but the Japs seemingly have this idea that a sports watch bezel has to do SOMEthing, even if it's just an aid for people who can't divide by 12 or 3.

>>17111364
Again, if you care about the movement then you should be buying a $200 Casio Lineage and calling it a day. That'll tell better time than the most expensive mechanical out there. To appeal to 'muh internals' like it's at all relevant when buying a luxury watch is itself a cope.

>>17111393
A Casio isn't a mechanical watch.

what is the right way to measure wrist width? i dont mean wrist size

>>17111394
Exactly my point. To look at a mechanical is to concede that you aren't looking for the best watch at time-telling.

>>17111395

What do you use as a watch stand at night when you take your watch off? Looking for suggestions

>>17111394
That's why they're superior

wht do you guys think of the seiko king turtle SRPE03K1?

>>17111405
Throw at the wall because you're in a passive aggressive rage

>>17111395
I just placed in wrist on paper and marked both sides with a pen then measured the distance.

>>17110778
Why does this thread still exist
Didn’t I tell you children that we women aren’t impressed by your useles too-complicated waste of money toys?

>>17111414
ynbaw

>>17111414
Shut up Indre.

All you need right here.

>>17111397
No, that's not your point. You've been backed into a corner and you're flailing.

There's still a difference between shit mechanical and superior mechanical. Don't be obtuse and pretend like there isn't.
Hans Wilsdorf SPECIFICALLY created Tudor to give working-class people just a little taste of Rolex quality, not the whole thing. The place where cost and quality was cut was in the movement. Why? Because movements are expensive and uneducated working class people don't understand movements anyway. That's why Tudors say "ROTOR SELF-WINDING" instead of Rolex's "PERPETUAL": working class people are confused and infuriated by big words.

>>17111429
Most Rolex owners think there's a battery inside lmfao.

>>17111429
>There's still a difference between shit mechanical and superior mechanical. Don't be obtuse and pretend like there isn't.
To borrow your terrible car analogy from earlier, it's like arguing over if a Ferrari or Lambo is superior as a car and suddenly talking about which is better for going camping on the weekend. One might have an edge over the other but that clearly wasn't a priority of either purchase in the first place, because if it was you wouldn't be looking at either. To try to rely on it over other metrics actually relevant to your purchase is a cope.
If you like a Rolex, get a Rolex. If you like a Tudor, get a Tudor. Don't try to pretend an angle of technical superiority in timekeeping matters when to be interested in either is to disregard technical merit in the first place.

>>17111434
Rolex could not have predicted or prevented the collapse of civilization, but at least allow them to profit from it, as we all do.

>>17111436
>which sports car is the better SUV?
>what happens if you use a watch for something other than telling time? Movement isn't so important now, hmm?
You're still flailing.

>>17111429
Not the guy you're responding to but you're retarded my guy, Rolex back then wasn't about golden yachtmasters and shit, it was about making watches that you could take diving or doing manual labor with. Wilsdorf saw that people who needed Rolex quality didn't need the extra shit that Rolex was offering so he basically created unfinished Rolexes with a 3rd party movement to make the tool more affordable. Back then, every watch was basically a tool watch, not a fashion statement. You think Tudor was kind of like a moonswatch idea which is a false comparison entirely.

>>17111425
You literally don't need any of those ever

>>17110778
the average watch enthusiast, unathletic ftm cosplaying as a man.

>>17111397
>>17111406
Quartz watches are superior at telling the time and yet they suck at literally everything that make watches interesting and worth discussing.
>aesthetics and design
>keeping their value
>legacy
>collecting
>brand perception
There's a reason people will spend hundreds of thousands in vintage mechanical watches or keep fighting over and over about Rolex, Omega, Patek, Vacheron, JLC... The amount of work put into these objects give them some kind of identity.
The truth is, you don't need extreme accuracy in your daily life but you need some emotional attachment to valuable objects. And for that, mechanical watches are way way superior to any quartz shitter.

>>17111436
>If you like a Rolex, get a Rolex. If you like a Tudor, get a Tudor.
If you like a Rolex but can't afford one, get a Tudor.

>>17111440
>Back then, every watch was basically a tool watch, not a fashion statement.
Wow. This is actually the stupidest thing I've read all day but it's still early and I expect you can out-do yourself.

>>17111446
Like three of those are just different ways of saying 'collecting'.
But I don't even disagree. All I'm saying is that I can't remember the last time I saw someone talk about the accuracy of a Patek or JLC, except to point out that nobody talks about it.
I like mechanical watches. I think they're neat. I just don't delude myself into thinking the accuracy of their movements is particularly relevant beyond basic function.

>>17111456
>a tool watch
Which watch can an orthodox person wear outside their eruv on sabbat?
Asking for an acquaintance.

6 digit captchas now?
shameful

>>17111440
>Wilsdorf saw that people who needed Rolex quality
WRONG.
Wilsdorf saw people who WANTED Rolex quality but couldn't afford it. Just like today. The whole mechanical watch market may have moved upwards to where even Tudor is considered a luxury watch but the fundamental relationship has always stayed the same

>I want a Rolex
>I cannot afford a Rolex
>Tudor is owned by Rolex
>I can afford a Tudor
>...Tudor is basically Rolex
>...I basically own a Rolex
If that's not coping, then I don't know what is anymore.

>>17111464
Rolex is Vacheron cope.

>>17111460
>All I'm saying is that I can't remember the last time I saw someone talk about the accuracy of a Patek or JLC, except to point out that nobody talks about it.
Because that's not the point. They're accurate enough for a daily use.

>>17111468
Yes, exactly. I'm agreeing with you anon.

>>17111466
...and your point being?

>>17111464
You're completely wrong, Tudor is not owned by Rolex, it's owned by the Hans Wilsdorf Foundation the same way Rolex is. It's a sister company.

>>17111490
>ummmm actuually

>>17111490
Now THIS is coping

>>17111481
ignore the shopkeeper bumping his adverts

>>17110978
I love when copers edit out the brands they own.

how bad would a 45mm look on my 6.3"

I've tried one of these new 36mm Explorer.
God damn this is the perfect watch. I want one so bad bros.

>people still seething about Rolex
>>17111520
Depends more on the lug to lug than the diameter of the case. If the lugs are tiny like a Seiko turtle you can probably get away with it.

>>17111466
99% of normies who own a Rolex have never heard of Vacheron

Rolex isn't just a watch, it's chadness on the wrist. You can't fake being chad, even if you work out and get a 10/10 body, even if you facemax and learn charisma, Chad didn't need to put in the work, he doesn't watch pick up videos, he just leaves the party with your girl because she wants it and he wants it

Choice:
>Sub 14060M - 2 liner
used obviously
vs
>Explorer 1 124270
new, not from AD.
What do you choose and why?

How is Rolex cope for Vacheron lmao?
>one is a tool watch company, other one is a dress watch company
>Vacheron isn't even the best brand of the holy trinity (in fact it may be the worst)
>only watchnerds know about Vacheron, the whole planet knows Rolex

>>17111541
I'd choose the Explorer 1. The movement and finishing on the newer models are way superior. I'm currently considering a vintage and the only good ones IMO are the ones that used tritium.

Have you noticed how watches look completely different in real life compared to 3D renders and even pictures of the actual watches (even wrist shots)?
I've recently tried a bunch of luxury watches and I was surprised of how they looked. The thing that struck me the most is the dimensions. Every pictures make the watches appear gigantic but most of them are rather contained actually.

For me, it's the Omegay Semenmaster Planet Ohshitwhatareyoudoing Cope-axial

>>17111532
A sad fate, to cope without even knowing it.

is the scuba quartz worth it? i like the 37mm.

>>17111669
Nice Rol...uhhh...

>>17111633
Easily the best looking Omega and best Bond watch. Fantastic proportions.

>>17111633
That hand takes literally 1/4 of the picture.

>>17111446
Well for super high end watches mechanical is the way to go that’s to cool mechanical innovations & hand finishing but all of the sub 3k watches would be better of at slotting in a quartz. Instead they give go with unfinished, inaccurate, chinese automatic movement that cost 300 Euros every few years to maintain & aren’t fit for the daily life as they might be ruined by shock & magnetic fields.

>>17111523
You want the most boringer rolex there is? Says a lot about your personality.

>>17111682
>Bond watch
kek
Omega fans are something else

>>17111658
Why are you so obsessed with cope? It's getting a bit annoying now, find yourself some new material or better still, stop posting all together.

>>17111692
I like simple watches

WRIST CHECK

>>17111685
...and...?

Better shot of the band.

>>17111633
>Planet Ohshitwhatareyoudoing
kek nice

>>17111669

>>17111693
Well, love it or hate it, it was worn by Bond in a Bond film, just like Rolex, Breitling, TAG Heuer, Gruen, and Seiko.
Screeching about it just makes you look like an autist.

>>17111632
Yeah. 3D renders are useless and wrist shots are extremely misleading. That's one reason why a lot of the criticisms in these threads are utterly pointless. You really don't know what a watch is actually like until you handle it in person.

What's a cheap vintage watch that wasn't so cheap back in the day? Seems like anything even the hunks of rusted shit costs 10 times more than it used to just because.

uhh this is at least 99% safe right?

>>17111734
Yeah, I've never had a problem with c24 but, as always, if you have any reason to feel uncomfortable, you should trust your instincts.

>>17111701
Someone add it to the collection please.

>>17111632
Smartphone cameras that most of the photos of watches are actually taken with have a wide-angle lens that will slightly exaggerate the size of the watch.

>>17111738
>collection
Do I even want to know?

>>17111751
That's why I use them for d**k pics

>>17111754
If you're the guy on the photo then probably not.

>>17111466
not at all you fucking retard
vacheron is classy and understated, rolex is sporty and flashy
aside from the Nautilus and Royal Oak, Rolex is the king in the sport watch segment, something like a Daytona or Pepsi GMT Master isnt a cope for any other brand. But some of the cheaper Rolex models are clearly a cope for more expensive ones

>>17111754

>>17111777
CHECKED

>>17111777
Looking at stuff like this makes me realize that I'm actually quite genetically balanced in proportion with my wrists and body hair. Holy shit.

>>17111734
Is the watch higher than your credit limit? Why don’t you want points? If it’s higher than your credit limit you probably can’t afford it comfortably too

>>17111788
Yeah i was the same, i looked at my wrist and realized i actually look rather decent.

>>17111788
Most peoples wrists look fine. These are just outliers.

>>17111777
>>17111788
>>17111801
>>17111803
So is Mr. Wrinklestein gonna make the list or no?

>>17111818
I think the one i posted is not up to date, i had to search for it in archives because i'm too lazy to scroll through my download folders. The last row is already full if i'm not mistaken.

>>17111232
you say that like it's a bad thing

>>17111823
What is a good /fa/ archive with a good search? Desuarchive doesn't archive /fa/.

>>17111831
I don't know, i've asked before. There probably is none.

>>17111395
splayed fingers, wrap a tailors measure round your wrist

don't have a tailor's tape, use a piece of string and compare it to a ruler

Sup, my friends?
How is this lovely monday treating you?

>>17111831
>>17111833
archived.moe doesn't have a search function but it's the best we've got

>>17111849
Am I supposed to manually look though all of the posts? What's the point without a search?

>>17111414
>we women
You're a disgrace to your gender, stop slandering other women by associating yourself with them

>>17111841
Pretty well, how about you?

>>17111851
>the day anon realizes that 4chan and its affiliates are operated by people who hate their user base and don't care about making their sites useable or enjoyable in any way
First time?

>>17111751
this effect is completely lost at the distance at which the watch is from the lens

>>17111867
The archives have nothing to do with 4chan. Most of them have search disabled because the person running it can't or wont maintain the archive and or it's costing them a ton of money in hosting fees and nobody donates. Feel free to toss one of the archives a few grand and ask them to get searches working again

>>17111867
Archives go against the original purpose of this type of website.
If you want archives, you can literally use any other forum.

>>17111841
Couldn't be better.

Low 80's, low humidity, bright and sunny.
Wife and I did a 50-miler with our cycling club and later we're going to a cookout with our little local veterans' circle.

Pictured, the Mudman that kept me on-time in Iraq. This is one of the days I always wear it. This is the one watch I'm never getting rid of.

>>17111868
Is it? Most people (including me sometimes) shoot their watch photos from very close proximity.

>>17111876
No, it isn't true. All you have to do is take a picture of a watch on your wrist to see that it looks much bigger than it actually is.

>>17111869
>The archives have nothing to do with 4chan
I never said they did. I said the people operating them are just like 4chan's admins and hate 4chan users. They don't care enough to make positive changes.
4chan has not had a significant upgrade since webms were introduced and you still can't use sound with them on most boards. How long ago was that?

>>17111885
Remove yourself to forum that has them then, nerd.

>>17111701
What the fuck man that’s disgusting. Am I the only one he’s slightly disgusted when you see someone with really old skin and everyone’s acting normal around them? Why does it give me a weird feeling like a spider jumped on me

>>17111885
Man you love to complain about things you don't know the history of or the reasoning behind don't you

>>17111867
Hate their user base? What?

>>17111715
Yeah. And Omega is the only one of those companies to pay to appear in James Bond movies. I find that pretty pathetic.

>>17111938
Why are you so obsessed with Omega? You screech about them every thread.

>>17111777
>>17111701
Done.

>>17111949
Their marketing is terrible and tasteless, and it saddens me to see people keep buying them.

>>17111971
Omega makes good watches. Getting riled up over product placement is pathetic.

>>17111777
>>17111959
most of these photoshopped tho

>>17111938
As a matter of fact, Seiko did as well.

>>17111974
It's a form of coping. If he can't actually afford a Rolex, he can at least act like (how he thinks) Rolex owners do.
Of course, what he doesn't realize is that most Rolex owners also like Omega and many own examples of both.

Loving or hating a company that makes luxury frivolities is pretty pointless, if we're being honest with ourselves.

>>17111974
It's not just product placement, it's their marketing strategy as a whole. This include the watches they release, the way they're running after Rolex, their accessories, their pricepoint, the celebrities they're associating with, etc.
Sure some watches are nice, but everything around them is ugly and stupid to me. It's just like Nomos, I have no doubt they make awesome watches but their marketing is so blatantly leftist that I wouldn't want to be associated with them.

>>17111998
I do own a Rolex actually, and I've owned an Omega Aqua Terra.

>>17112000
You're right. A dignified company like Rolex would never slap their logo on something as tawdry as...wait, nevermind. Yup, they're both just marketing companies, except one of them has done a better job conditioning you to desperately need their product.

For a second there I almost caught the brain-worms that you're clearly infected with.

>>17112000
I can't imagine having this level of crippling autism. I find their marketing a little frivolous and distasteful but have never thought about it for more than 30 seconds.

>>17112000
>their marketing is so blatantly leftist
meds

>>17112000
You need to have accessories, though. How else can you tell other people about your superior taste in time-pieces if they don't have a clear look at your wrist?

For me it's the Chanel J12 with the in-house caliber 12.1 yes

>>17112000
>Ah shit, I think I'm in the rough. Help me look for it?
>Sure, what do you play.
>TaylorMade *adjusts sunglasses* Rolex.

>>17112015
I was utterly shocked when I learned that Chanel actually makes legitimately good watches. They're the rare exception to the fashion house = shit watch rule along with Hermes and maybe some LV and Ralph Lauren offerings.

>>17111777
America, why?

>>17111976
Nope.

>>17112024
Cope.

$60 from aliexpress
Automatic, sapphire glass. Over 3 months of use, no problems so far. +5 seconds/day

>>17112023
In 1971, President Nixon appointed Earl Butz to be Secretary of Agriculture. It's his fault.

>>17112008
>Yup, they're both just marketing companies, except one of them has done a better job conditioning you to desperately need their product.
But I never said it was anything else than that. I do indeed prefer Rolex' image and marketing. They're also a better investment than Omega and to me it's a thing to take into consideration when you're spending 7k€ on a watch.
Again, Omega makes some nice watches. I just don't want them on my wrist because pic related (among other things) is the exact opposite of my personal idea of what is luxury.

>>17112028
Absolutely right old boy. This is true luxury.

Me and my husband on the way to the Seiko AD

Ok chow!

>>17112035
w2c

>>17112028
These are overpriced Swatch watches

>>17112035
This watch is at least 30 years old.
It's also worth a lot more than any Omega from the same period. So maybe ask yourself why?
>>17112038
No these are Omega. Look, there's "Omega" and "Speedmaster" written on it.

>>17112035
LMAO I can imagine the stuffy modern Rolex execs looking at this and just putting their heads in their hands. Why the fuck would you associate yourself with Domino's

>>17112037
My dear chap, one doesn't simply "cop" a Rolex. It's earnt, through a lifetime of accumulating status, taste, and about £4,000.00.

Or, in the case of that particular example, induce heart attacks in at least a thousand of your fellow Americans.

>>17112041
That's funny. I figured that because all the MoonSwatch hype died down, everyone stopped thinking about them.
Not anon, though. Bravely sitting in his mom's basement, malding over a wristwatch.
He's not the hero we want. He's not even the hero we need.

>>17112025
Soap.

>>17112036
That diver that TGV has just looks so boring, i would never buy a watch like that.

>>17112035
Can we get the company who made this watch back please? I'm not paying $25k for a GMT.

I need a Rolex

>>17112045
>That's funny. I figured that because all the MoonSwatch hype died down, everyone stopped thinking about them.
The demand for those is still high, you can't buy those in Swatch stores. And considering the success of this marketing trick, Omega and the Swatch Group will keep doing it. Who knows, maybe an Swatch Seamaster James Bond edition next year.

>>17112043
>My dear chap, one doesn't simply "cop" a Rolex. It's earnt, through a lifetime of accumulating status, taste, and about £4,000.00.
Lmao.
What the Rolex strivers don't realize is that once you get something that's truly top end, like a PP/AP/VC/ALS or independents, you realize that Rolex and Omega are basically the same: beaters; and their owners are like kids who are really proud of their tuned-up Honda Civics.

>>17112060
I still don't understand the wellspring of all this hate. I don't like Omega watches either, so I don't buy them and I don't think about them either.
Did Tommy Omega fuck your father and slap your mother or something?

>>17111111

>>17112052
this general is gaslighting me into buying one and I don't like it

>>17112061
>What the Rolex strivers don't realize is that once you get something that's truly top end, like a PP/AP/VC/ALS or independents, you realize that Rolex and Omega are basically the same: beaters; and their owners are like kids who are really proud of their tuned-up Honda Civics.
Pretty much every watch maker and collector praise Rolex.
Modern Omega? Not so much.

>>17112076
He is like me

i love The EXPLORER so much...

>>17112082
fat?

>>17112084
me too anon

>>17112076
>Pretty much every watch maker and collector praise Rolex.
Ignoring collectors entirely (because, frankly, they are pointless.)

What do watchmakers praise about Rolex? Simplicity and robustness. I.e. They are great beaters. No one's saying they're on par with top level watch-makers. Not by a country mile.
And Philippe Dufour, by the way, is a huge fan of Nomos, so maybe come up with a better example than someone who undercuts your hateboner.

>>17112091
handsome

>>17112074
it seems that you don't like watches after all, get out of this thread

>>17112094
Perfection

>>17112084
Same here.

>>17112095
>What do watchmakers praise about Rolex? Simplicity and robustness. I.e. They are great beaters. No one's saying they're on par with top level watch-makers.
I agree, but they'll 100% of the time pick Rolex over Omega.
>And Philippe Dufour, by the way, is a huge fan of Nomos, so maybe come up with a better example than someone who undercuts your hateboner.
Dufour only cares about watchmaking, he doesnt give 2 shit about marketing and brand recognition. As I said, I have no doubt Nomos are amazing watches. Just don't like their marketing.

>oh look! it's another rolex I've seen a million times before.

>>17112116
Nnnoooo! You're not allowed to be bored with Rolex!! You're just too poor to afford one!!!! SEEEETHE!!! SEEEEEEETHE!!

>>17111445
Actually ftm?

>>17112116
Can't afford a Rolex?

>>17111874
Sounds comfy, have fun - what other watches does a vet have apart from the obligatory gshock

>entry-level Rolex

>>17112127
These >>17112099 are my others. I bought the Sub after I graduated from college and the Explorer was my dad's. He gave it to me after he retired since he doesn't wear a watch at all anymore.

I'm here because I'm looking for a dress/dressier watch and have lately become really interested in JLC's complications.

>>17112099
that font kinda sucks and new one is too small but otherwise it's ok
i check date on my watch way too much to ever wear it though

>>17112094
(‿))

I’m ODing on small watches bro’s I tried on the new 35mm tissot and thought it was too big. I need to go S M A L L E R

>>17112028
I don´t care about Omega but you sound like a huge faggot

>>17112164
Embrace it. 28ish mm and it's wonderful.

>>17112177
Does it say SEMEN?

>>17112008
You can't buy that bottle of perfume or any other trinkets. You either get them at a watch show or when you buy a watch. That's the beauty and genius of it, nobody can have it but your circle jerk of owners and anyone that collects this stuff is either coping or retarded rich.These niggers are good at business and it makes the whole world so mad it's palpable.

>>17112180
No, I did cum in it for lubrication to get it running again.

First watch

i was looking for an occasional beater (something better than my usual a168, but still a beater watch) and found picrel, but the faggots don't ship to Italy so i'd have to go through intermediaries and i doubt it's worth it for such a watch
>> Your budget
200€
>> Watch type, e.g. dress, diver, pilot
sports watch maybe a similar to picrel, definitely not a dress watch
>> Movement, e.g. automatic, hand wound, quartz
mechanical
>> Desired features, e.g. water resistance, day/date, 2nd time zone
decent water resistance, sapphire crystal optional
>> Wrist size or desired watch size
diameter below 40mm, lug to lug below 47mm

>>17112193
Wear it in health, Chad.

I don’t like watches, i like Rolex

>>17111701
why did you put your watch on a cooked chicken leg?

>>17112116
brand recognition, bro

>>17112193
fucking ben 10 over here lmao

>>17112094
Fake, chazingtime has started to make better fakes but still not there yet. You will probably fool half the people in here though.

>>17112248
How do you know? Looks pretty bang-on to me but it's not the best picture for comparison.

>>17112248
JDF has corrected the too-short minute hand problem. It's pretty much dead-on now. Personally I think the points of the hands aren't sharp enough but no one else seems to be complaining about that, so maybe it's all just in my head.

>>17111204
Used to be Cohibas. Now it’s just you know those plastic strings to attach cables.

>>17111701
I’ll never get old. I’m rage quitting this life at 60.

>>17112278
60 is too old. I'm planning on 40-45

>>17112310
The suwa logo beside the daydate window is a nice touch.

>>17112314
What does that mean?

>>17112314
When Seiko had some soul
>>17112318
Nigger
https://www.timesticking.com/daini-and-suwa-the-arms-race-of-seiko/

>>17111216
Post pics, I'm considering buying one but worry I'll get bored of it quick due to quartz

>>17111216
>Casio are unreasonably good in every price bracket they compete in.

Bros we cant stop winning!

NEW THREAD WHEN?

>>17112339
When we hit the bump limit, faggot.

I got something you can bump right here

Any small watch (36-38mm) with white dial, black numerals and blued hands under 1000eur?

>>17112354
https://www.stowa.de/Marine+36+klassik+arabisch-weiss.htm

>>17112330
I've either had far too much or nowhere near enough coffee this morning, excuse the photo quality. Can't tell you if you'd find it 'boring' or not but it's dislodged my Seiko 5 Sports as my usual daily. It's hard to get it to show properly in photos but the sapphire has a blue tint to it, makes the light play really nicely off the chamfered edge. Wears slim and light, even though it's heavier than the S100 model because of the switch from titanium to steel. The finishing on the indices is really nice too, there's I think a very subtle fluting to the top surface. It gives the reflection a little texture beyond simply being a mirrored surface.
Weakest point is probably the lume. While the pale blue is very pleasant, but the aforementioned S5 Sports beats it out handedly in terms of performance and visibility.

>>17112354
>>17112362 is the only answer.

watch ID?

>>17110818
Not a bad start. Some of them arent very funny or accurate though. t. Seagull 1963 fangirl

>>17112377
>this is what 6" wrists anons looks like

lololol

>>17112177
Small watch gang

>>17112377
Man, that was quick.

>>17112396
For what purpose?

>>17112396
Cool watch. I know it's an obvious Reverso rip off but it's crazy how soulless modern Hamiltons are in comparison.

>>17112396
Quite a curious piece of watchmaking history you have there.

>>17112177
Based

>>17112344
WHAT ABOUT NOW NEW THREAD NAO

New
>>17112490
>>17112490
>>17112490
New
>>17112490
>>17112490
>>17112490

>>17110778
>have a watch collection that includes a few nice budget watches
>for instance citizen ca 7040-85e and orient bambino, g shock dw5600bb is also nice, I know Invicta Pro Diver gets some hate but desu I don't care, I like mine
>only get compliments about my casio a168wa I got from my ex for last birthday
I'm really lucky I buy most of them because of their different movements so I can take them apart and put them back together again to calm myself down if I have anxiety attacks at home because people really don't give a shit about your watch