/fa/ - Fashion

>>17235003
Brutalism?

First for casio.
I need me this titanium diver

>>17235003

>>17235011

>>17235013

>>17235015

Cope if you must and you will.

>>17235016
>>17235015
>>17235013
>>17235011
KEK, what a shitter.
Also
>refer to the chart

I'm literally copping the iwatch. Get fucked idiots.

I need it

>>17235025
You sneed it

I will force myself upon your mother while wearing this watch as a cock ring

>>17235034
Does the bezel even spin?

>>17235036
Yes it does, there's cut outs for it in the titanium guard

Why are white dial vintage casios so hard to find

>>17235044
Why doesn't casio make watches like this anymore?

>>17235024
Cope and refer to the chart

>>17235046
I don't know. We just get the same fucking duro and digital shitters. They have some nice watches come out here and there, edifice currently makes some nice stuff once in a while

>>17235046
The entire MD series of watches had some good stuff in it. Personally I have an md 736, marlin branded so a real diver's 200m. Love the 90s watch aesthetic of it.

>>17235003
Yuck. Love me ole reliable

got it for a bit over 3k usd new from chrono24

screws to resize the bracelet are tiny

>>17235104
fukkin nice

All I own is a casio Royale and a Caravelle Logan I got as a gift ages ago.

Gimme some recs for a nice 42mm watch, the more affordable the better. I'm open minded.

>>17235128
Qimei diver aliexpress

chink bros....

>>17235106
Based

>>17235106
Based anon, enjoy,.

Got the verbal confirmation that my foot is in the door today.
JK i'm actually on "le llist"

>>17235147
>transvicta
seriously it was funny the first two thousand times

>>17235034
Looks like something a spykid would wear

>>17235158
boohoo frenchtard idc

>>17235160
You should.

>>17235161
why? i'm not even that anon and I'm getting a Rolex in a few months.

Which steakhouse do you guys recommend taking the salesperson from the AD? and what was your budget rolexbros? I was thinking $500 for dinner should be good enough to get my name on the list

>>17235167
O'Charleys.

>>17235167
I've bought spiced chai lattais for the whole AD and the sales people for the slither of a chance at a heckin KERMIT!

>>17235142
been on the fence for the blue dial for a month

>>17235167
>didnt fly them to kobe
enjoy your 10 years wait

>>17235044
Those hands are actually really nice.

>>17235046
Casio had a golden age of innovation where they basically had enough demand and enough manufacturing capacity to do shit like this. Now they are down to one factory in japan and I don't know how many in china and thailand. If I had to guess 1 a piece. They had to streamline production once demand went down and focus on the guaranteed sellers. They also had to move upmarket with a focus on G-Shock and Oceanus. G-Shock has been a cash cow. They have to play it safe now and keep the money coming in. Innovation now is slow and expensive. That's my guess at least.

>>17235176
Sounds about right. People believe less and less in the necessity of a watch. Back in the 80s and 90s you really needed one, now people just rely on phones. In my close social group maybe 4 out of 13 people wear watches including myself.

>>17235193
True. Most people don't wear watches today and that has been true for years if not decades.

Casio in its prime was a technology company more than a watch company. They had cutting edge tech. Now they are just trying to make a niche in fashion watches. Not that I think ill of them, all I have is G-Shocks. It's like two different companies: the innovative technology Casio of the past and the trendy fashion Casio of today. It's just different because markets and demographics have changed.

>>17235021
I'm a humble poorfag. What other options are there besides consumer?

>>17235240
What makes a watch based isn't the price anon. You have to find it for yourself.

>>17235106
My condolences, anon. LOL

>average Casio enjoyer

>>17235285
cracka looks like asmongold

>>17235009
Isn't there a citizen that looks almost exactly like that?

>>17235289
Yes, as any other Casio enjoyer

>>17235021
I kinda want the milgauss to relive some old bagelsport memes but the airking looks better overall.
I'll wait for more reviews, can't ever take these chinks at face value.

>>17235308
Meant to reply to
>>17235174

>>17235305
I would like to see it. I just personally love the industrial look of it, kinda like a seiko monster, this I would call the casio shield because of the bezel guard.

>swiss high-end watches

I like thin watches. The thinner the better I say. What are some really thin watches? Recommend me some please. Can be quartz, automatic, whatever. As long as it's under 10mm.

>>17235333
nice trips

>>17235351
JLC Master Ultra Thin

>>17235351
i have this vintage piaget. the movement is something around 2mm

>>17235361
That's for women.

i've never seen anyone actually like the rolex cellini

>>17235136
imagine giving the chinese your money for a watch. wtf is wrong with you? you would wear a chinese watch? do you have no dignity?

>>17235013
>>17235015
>>17235016
>49mm case
Wristlets absolutely btfo.

>>17235374
>49mm case
Kek Seriously??
What a fucking joke.

>>17235372
Well then, I guess I have no dignity.

Buy Rolex.

I want to get my son in elementary school a watch. I don’t want some smart watch, just a basic watch. What get?

>>17235379
mucho
texto
>>17235381
invicta 48 mm thanos watch

>>17235381
GX56

>>17235372

>>17235381
Gshock, like it wa when I was a kid. Or get him something useful like a calculator watch

I'm taking a loan.

>>17235384
It's just someone sucking off rolex on reddit

>>17235379
based
i am now convinced not to buy something as cheap as the rolex

>>17235369
and?

>>17235381
please not a gshock, don't throw your kid under the bus so soon
get him some shit like swatch or skagen that's mostly unisex, not big, ANALOG for him to learn to read the fucking watch unlike the retards of these times
rather let him choose a new 50$ watch every year for himself afterwards

Cosmograph Daytona

>>17235104
>>17235106
Nice, i'm happy for you, the blue is nice if a bit boring. For 3k i would've picked this one but you do you.

>>17235240
Vintage Seiko.

>>17235308
>bagelsport

>>17235393
What are the two pushers for? Looks nice btw

>bought a watch from c24
>no tools to add the additional links
is it fine to go to an AD to insert my additional links if i didnt buy from them? IWC if it matters.

>>17235513
It's fine, you might have to pay them a bit, but they usually do it for free.

>>17235353
eyeballing one of the more vintage versions
https://youtu.be/KNUNSQnHWS0

>>17235422
>and?

>>17235351
Citizen makes the thinnest quartz watches.
Check out the eco drive one collection
https://www.sakurawatches.com/watches/citizen-watches/filter/19-collection,eco-drive-one
1mm thick watches
https://citizen.jp/one/index.html

>>17235681

>>17235351
Citizen Stiletto.

Based?

>>17235688
Too fat

>>17235754
Perpetual calendars are passé.

>>17235760
>4mm
>too fat
You what?

>>17235762
but i finally earned enough to buy one.....

>>17235754
what ref?

>>17235769
FC-775N4NH6B

>>17235764
>4mm
Damn she thicc

>>17235754
Crased

>>17235381
Tudor Ranger

How much does it typically cost to replace the glass on a watch with sapphire?

>>17235817
The cost of the crystal plus a few bucks for the work.

>>17235817
>>17235825
It depends heavily on the brand and type of crystal used. If the shape is unique you're going to have to buy a spare from the manufacturer, if the shape is simple/standard then the watchmaker can cut it himself. I've only ever replaced a mineral crystal, those are relatively cheap and can be cut to spec by the watchmaker himself, cost me 30€ both times.

My $15 Indian watch mogs every watch ITT

>>17235832
>pilot's watch
Literally mo different from a $3500 IWC Fliegeruhr

>>17235754
>Based?
Yes

>>17235381
Just let him pick out a timex or seiko 5.

Perfect size!

>>17235381
F91w or this:
>>17235858
Both are cheap, reliable and easily replaceable

>>17235862
LOL
LMAO, even

>>17235381
I'd advise something analog, so your rugrat learns to properly read the time since young.

Based?

>>17235929
Fake news

>>17235929
This would unironically be the smartest thing panerai has done in decades

are dress watches the most pretentious watches? They are an excuse for lazy design and poor WR. If you are a man, you shouldnt be wearing tiny thin flimsy watches anywhere

the oyster perpetual in 41 mm looks weird as hell 36 mm reigns supreme

>>17235963
lol do diving watch trannies actually

>>17235963
It's only ever Americans that call something slightly fancy 'pretentious'.
It's like a 'you can't be better than me' mentality, which produces a society that pressures people into acting like peasants.

>>17235929
Rolex should do thsi.

>>17235929
Franchise themed watches ikz.

>>17235963
>If you are a man, you shouldnt be wearing tiny thin flimsy watches anywhere

>>17235929
Not as based as this.

>>17236019
Unironically their CEO should have been fired on the spot when this came out. He is leaving at the end of this year though so maybe the family will get someone in who actually has a clue.

>>17235929
Oh shit, Seiko is actually doing one.
Pretty cool, would get.

>be hunting midsize seamaster for my babby wrists
>find good deal on coaxial ceramic model with box and papers from Japan
>somewhat worn but scuffs are minimal, guy says it keeps time within standards
>decide to go for it since I hear japanese sellers are reputable, what could go wrong
>gets here today, runs like total ass
Should I just send it in for a service? Is it possible it's been sitting for a while and needs to be broken back in? I really should have asked the seller more before going for it and have no idea how to proceed. Can I whine to Chrono24?

My Rolex AD is actually based and wears a gshock. The memes aren't real

>>17236046
I hope you did your research anon, lots of the early co-axial movements had issues. Just bite the bullet and send it to Omega for a service

>>17236046
Define "runs like ass"
Looks nice tho

>>17236032
Seiko makes colabs with anyone. They have no real identity.

>>17236032
>I have never had sex and never will
any other watches with this feel?

>>17236071
Grand Seiko
>inb4 why cut the tranny

>>17236071
Grand Seiko, Citizen, Casio

>>17236032
kinda want to get this as a gift for my gf ngl

>>17236054
The one I got should have a 2500D, which I thought was the least worst of that gen. Perhaps I misunderstood "least worst" as "basically as good as the 8500"
>>17236058
My shitty timegrapher app either says it's losing a minute a day or gives total snow. Maybe it's because it's coaxial?

>>17236071
Vintage Rolex/Omegas/Seikos

>>17236071
>I have never had sex and never will
This is a good thing.
Monks from East to West practice it.
Sex is a animal function, not fit for Gods.

>>17236082
Yeah the 2500D is fine they worked out the kinks by that point. I would just shoot the seller an email and ask him the last time he got it serviced. Regardless you're probably going to have to send it in for service, I seriously doubt Chrono24 will help you here (and it's not worth the hassle of dealing with them over this). Typically you can expect privately sold watches to be due for service.

>>17236082
>The one I got should have a 2500D, which I thought was the least worst of that gen.
Iirc the 2500d fixes most of the issues with the original designs

THE QUEEN IS DEAD

>>17236103
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XmNNb63TVo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XmNNb63TVo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XmNNb63TVo

>>17236103
These JUST sold out LMAO

I want one so bad

>>17236129
Nice date window.

Apple Watch Ultra is great news the boomers hype beasts will no longer be as interested in watches

>>17236133
rolex waitlists got 4 months shorter already

>>17236135
Got my explorer in 3 months. Visited the AD once a month

>>17236136
Not that anon but I got an estimated 3 month wait time with only 2 purchase (both gifts and below $500) for the green oyster. I remember last year people were saying up to 2 years.

>>17236135
>'misses wants the new Apple watch, looks like me Rolex is put on hold ahahah'
Sad.
Many such cases.

>>17236138
Are you the guy people are making fun of for buying wedding bands to get verbal confirmation? I thought that was a larp. I turned down a blue OP34 and a silver datejust 36 before they called me with the explorer. I’m pretty sure they sold me the store model which is a little upsetting though. Who knows how many tasteless Asians tried on my watch before me

>>17236144
No I didn't buy wedding bands. I bought a Seiko and a GSHOC. They told me I could get the black Oyster in a week or so but I don't really like it.

>>17236148
I was also on the waitlist for the green op36 but I guess you could say I “settled” for the explorer. Still, I love the Mercedes’ handset and the upgraded bracelet. I’m still on cloud 9 that it’s actually mine

>>17236148
I wish my rolex ADs also sold seikos

>>17236152
My Rolex AD sells a bunch of random stuff, Zodiacs, Seikos (no grand). The Zodiacs are actually pretty cool in person.
>>17236150
I wouldn't even take an Explorer myself. I already have a field watch.

>>17236157
I won’t lie, I still may buy the green op36 in a year or two if it’s not discontinued. Call me a homo, but my eyes are green and I just thought it would be cool to match my eyes

>>17236171
sounds based. they had a light blue perpetual show model and it actually made me like it less, so we'll see if I still like the green in person.

>>17236186
I feel you. I loved the Tiffany blue op render but in person it’s just like so pale and sterile looking. I remember someone commented that it reminded them of the walls of a hospital which really definitely clicked with me when I saw it.

>>17236186
Oh Wow your AD Doesn’t have a green OP try on model? I’ve tried on the 41 at mine.

>>17236193
That looks great and darker than I thought.

>>17236194
Here’s another angle

Watches are lame.

>>17236209
boohoo cracker

I can't deal with how small it is, bros. I think I'm gonna give it to my uncle.

>>17236209
I used to think the same years ago, until I got bit by the bug.
I hope that you'll never become a degenerate like me or the other ones in this thread.

>>17236019
Blacked: the watch manufacturer

>>17236224
Learn from this experience anon. Casio makes toys for children. You need to buy Swiss.

>>17236224
I get what you're saying on paper, but never have I seen a digital casio on someone and thought "Yeah, it's too small".

>>17236012
With cakes instead of lolis

>>17236224
It's not small, it's average.

>>17236229
Por que no los dos?

>>17236103
It's fake news. It's not possible.

>>17236229
Could be my mind screwing with me cause I daily a g-shock. Even the bracelet is super thin.
Pic related, what do you think?

>>17235381
Seiko 5 get it regulated as long as he wears it all the time it will keep good time

Uhhhhhhh submariner bros? Did we get too cocky?

>>17236241
You seem to have thick wrists, but it honestly looks good to me. It's not supposed to look big so you can pull it off.
I always got the same impression when I switched from a smaller case to a bigger one too when I got into watches. Maybe give it a full week.

>>17236258
>soap may damage the watch
STEMlords who designed this never went diving. You always wash off your scuba suit with soapy water.

>>17236258
mogged by Blancpain

>>17236264
Soap damages dumbwatches too.

>>17236262
I am around 6'3 and slightly overweight. Working on it though. I feel like the image makes it look slightly larger as well. I'll give it a week, maybe try to get another bracelet and if I still don't feel it I think I'll part with it.

>>17236293
Ban assault soap nao!

>>17236293
Only if it gets in. Screw down your crown.

>>17236299
Yeah, the most important is how you feel.
Good luck for losing weight. It sucks but it's rewarding.

Is this too dressy to be worn every day?

/wt/ i need advice from you beautiful retards.
I can get a gshock 5000u-1jf for the cheapest prices ive ever seen about $200 + shipping, maybe even less. Ive wanted one for a few years now and almost paid that much for a used one last fall.
On the other hand im about to come into some spending money and i might be able to swing a citizen chronomaster or a quartz grand seiko if im lucky, but i would have to wait a few months and i dunno if the yen will keep cooperating.
So do i grab the best g-shock
Or sock that cash away and hope i can swing a quartz GS later.
For context im mentally retarded, and yes i want quartz

>>17236324
quartz gs

>>17236322
No, chaper ring and size puts it firmly in sport watxh world.

>>17236327
It's small, 37mm diameter, 42mm Lug to Lug.

>>17236337
wtf that looks like 42 mm on that wrist

>>17236337
Oh i thought it was 40mm, still wouldn't say its too dressy, seems like a normal daily wear kind of watch

>7 percent sales tax
fuck me

>>17236347
Be glad you don't live in milkbagland where it's 13%.

>>17236368
yikes

>>17236368
sussy

Reminder that if you can’t dive with your tourbillon, it’s fucking shit.

>>17236402
vote

>>17236241
That's the optimal fit for a watch

>>17236411
noi it isantiousnrt

>>17236411
trump

>>17236129
I can see you're a man of taste, son.

>>17236193
>>17236202
What's the better green dial watch? Obviously is not Rolex, as it is so dark it can pass as black. Neither is GS, too close to lime color, nor the olive green Nautilus.

>>17236258
>>17236264
>soap may damage the watch
Apple remains a joke marketed to massive faggots and posers.

Just want a G shock GW-5000U-1JF that I can buy in the UK lads..

>>17236465
?

>>17236465
Is this better? I can't really think of any green dial that I really like. The Sinn 3006 has a nice green that fits the hunting theme.

>>17236480
No, that's almost brown.
I'm thinking more like emerald green?

>>17236481
Closer, but that's a stone... and not fully green.

>>17236484

>>17236481
>not posting the classic

>>17236488
That's blue.

>>17236491
Closer... but not there, yet.

>>17236492
It's green

>>17236465
Moser wins as usual.

>>17236465

>>17236496
Honorable mention

>>17236465
GS has many greens to choose from.

>>17236465
??

>>17236258
I hate all things Apple but this is pretty cool ngl

>>17236496
>>17236500
>>17236503
These three are the nicest.

>>17236503
Awful

>>17236501
But not the right shade of green, apparently.

>>17236500
i'm cooming
>>17236512
3 shades of vomit

If I show my San Martin watch to my local repair shop, will they deny fixing it because it's a clone?

>>17235494
Seiko has awesome textured dials. The more I see them the more I really want one.

>>17236193
How do you even color match a green watch. I feel like it's such a pain to try.

>>17236520
That OP is unironically perfect. The waffle Tissot PRX comes close.

>>17236516
>clone
No. They don't care. The only things jeweler stores care about is full on reps that have the same logo as a real one.

>>17236516
Yeah. In fact if he's a virtuous and moral man, he'll destroy it with a hammer.

>>17236536
ok esl

why doesn't tudor make a 36mm explorer like this?

>>17236564
Because it looks like dogshit

>>17236564
They do, it just doesn't have the 3-6-9.

fuck it just ordered the g shock from japan

>>17236569
the charm is in the 369

>>17236564
Because then it would compete directly with the Explorer, Rolex can't have that.

>>17236572
Where did you order it from? How much?

I know someone who works at rolex corporate.

He told me that most of the excitement at the company is in Tudor. Internally everyone wants to work on Tudor because Rolex is boring and basically drives itself with no effort. The design staff especially want to work at Tudor because everything is so constrained at Rolex by fears from higher ups that changing something significant in terms of design would lead to Rolex's immense popularity fading.

>>17236605
I work at Rolex HQ and can confirm this is the case. Constantly exceeding sales targets while doing no work, extravagant compensation plans, and the ability to release dogshit that will instantly sell out for years is boring. I'm trying to move to the Tudor division where I will get to convince the general public that they are not coping by buying a Tudor (they obviously are).

>>17236241
It looks perfect. Don't be dumb.

>>17236324
It's not the best G-Shock but if you like the module go for it. The yen will continue to "cooperate".

>>17236605
Brand will never do well because insecure autists always preface the brand with
>you know it's made by Rolex, right?

>>17236638
okay, but it is rolex though.

>>17236638
Tudor is doing well right now. It's just that they will never be allowed to surpass or even get close to mainline Rolex. Right now the only Tudors worth buying are divers and a sort of scuffed chronograph with a good movement. They need to take a hard left turn and make some complicated or even dress pieces so that they aren't always in the shadow of Rolex.

New Pelagos looks great. Would I buy it over a Rolex? Fuck no.

>>17236644
>They need to take a hard left turn and make some complicated or even dress pieces so that they aren't always in the shadow of Rolex.
lmao, the dumbest fucking thing I have ever heard

>>17236660
why? muh heritage? the heritage of being a cheap Rolex knock-off? When you were invented as a cope brand, and are in fact owned by the brand you are knocking off, you need to do something different so that you are allowed to succeed by your corporate overlords. Pretty simple.

>>17236644
My problem is that their marketing team markets like they are Tag Heuer watches #borntodare despite younger people not giving a fuck about them.

>>17236665
>When you were invented as a cope brand, and are in fact owned by the brand you are knocking off, you need to do something different so that you are allowed to succeed
lol, dude. They aren't different companies. There's no Tudor HQ or Tudor CEO it's all just Rolex and it always has been and rolex already has Cellini for their dress watches and they don't sell that well. Rolex is going to do what rolex does best which is make sports watches at every price point from $3,000 to $15,000 wether they are branded rolex or tudor.

>>17236673
>rolex
>$3k price range
>every again
lol

>>17236673
One of the most retarded posts I've had the misfortune of reading. There is a Tudor brand. They are owned by Rolex. There is a head of Tudor. There is a Tudor watchmaking division. They partnered with Breitling and Chanel to form Kenissi which provides movements to all three brands. If the Cellini is shit, that means Rolex wouldn't mind if Tudor takes a shot. That's the whole point. If you're too stupid to understand the discussion, maybe it is better to stay out of it.

>>17236695
the cellini is shit to be fair

>>17236695
Okay man whatever you say. There's head of Lexus too but it's still all Toyota.

>buy the cheapest rolex
>can wear it, beat it up and still sell it for a profit
>buy tudor
>instantly loses 1/3 value

>>17236702
Yes, and Lexus is owned by Toyota. Just like I said Tudor is owned by Rolex in my initial post. Have you ever suffered or are you currently suffering from a traumatic brain injury?

>>17236708
>treat watches as investments
>have no meaningful savings or actual investments
>recession
>try to sell my investment watches as I now need the money
>find that my "investments" values have collapsed in very short time
>lose most of my "net worth" because I never learned about the concept of liquidity

>>17236724
>recession happening in TWO MORE WEEKS
eurotards and britbong recessions aren't real recessions

>>17236724
Are the poors ever gonna learn that a recession isn't gonna happen? Did brother Cleetus tell you about it on Facebook?

>>17236714
What do you think you are showing me here? Yes, they are different product lines. They have different branding but are made by the same company. I understand there are physical differences between the product lines just like there are between Toyota and Lexus. Toyotas are not "worse" because lexus exists. They are products (made by the same company) aimed at different market segments.

>>17236740
Why are you trying to have earnest discussions with chronic shitposters?

>>17236740
Tudor and Rolex ARE NOT THE SAME COMPANY. They are SISTER COMPANIES. Meaning they are both owned and operated by the Hans Wilsdorf foundation. They share a campus and certain staff like HR, IT, and so on. They have separate design teams. Separate production. Separate marketing. Tudor is NOT just a "line" of Rolex. I don't understand why you're so obsessed over this autistic detail in the first place because it has nothing to do with my original point.

Let's ask Hans Wilsdorf:
>"For some years now I have been considering the idea of making a watch that our agents could sell at a more modest price than our Rolex watches, and yet one that could attain the standards of dependability for which Rolex is famous, I decided to form a separate company, with the object of making and marketing this new watch. It is called the Tudor Watch Company."

>>17236747
Mainly I'm bored.

>>17236748
my dad was hans wildorf and he just told me
>tudor pelagos is a cope watch for the aquaracer, make sure people don't purchase it

this is actually pretty bitchin

>>17236760
Yup, citizen is secretly one of the most interesting watchmakers.

>rolex sells in my area with short wait lists
>nearest omega boutique is at an airport 5 states away
Lol.

>>17236763
model?

>>17236770
Citizen eco drive one AQ5012-14A
https://citizen.jp/shop/one/g/gAQ5012-14A/

>>17236748
>Tudor and Rolex ARE NOT THE SAME COMPANY. They are SISTER COMPANIES
This is meaningless marketing garbage. There is not a Tudor HQ or Tudor building. They are not in any meaningful sense separate companies. They don't do separate R&D. They are not competing. Tudor is a brand owned, operated and produced by Rolex as a complement to the Rolex core line to soak up marketshare in a price category rolex can't compete in anymore with damaging the perceived exclusivity of their brand. You are delusional if you deny this.

>They have separate design teams. Separate production. Separate marketing.
No, man. They just don't. maybe (and I stress maybe) the marketing team is different but the design teams and watchmakers definitely aren't. People who work on Rolex and Tudor watches are trained in SAWTA unlike all other watch companies which are trained in WOSTEP. Watchmakers at the company routinely work on both brands. They may be primarily a tudor or rolex tech but can and do fill in when needed. This is attested to multiple places.

>Tudor is NOT just a "line" of Rolex. I don't understand why you're so obsessed over this autistic detail in the first place because it has nothing to do with my original point.
lmao, you are the one obsessed with proving they are separate companies. Your original point was that you think (stupidly) that tudor should make dress watches and compete with Patek or JLC when the entire point of the product line is to be a Rolex for $3000. That idea is, as I said "the dumbest fucking thing I have ever heard"

>>17236777
>They are not in any meaningful sense separate companies
Except they are, in that Tudor is a legally registered separate company. Didn't read the rest of your idiotic response, as it was clear from your first post you don't know what you're talking about.
>hurr they're the same because....I SAID THEY ARE!

>>17236777
the point was that for Tudor to advance beyond cope tier, they need to do something different from daddy Rolex. if you invest hundreds of millions of dollars into starting a movement manufacturer, why would you not look into creating complicated movements that would elevate your frankly bad image horologically speaking? tudor appeals to a niche of a niche: people who want a rolex but can't afford it but want something better than a chinese homage

>>17236779
>Except they are, in that Tudor is a legally registered separate company
Well, my god you're right, if they filed a new LLC, they can't possibly be the same company. Impossible to think of any time in history when one group of people operated two companies at once.

>>17236785
Last time I checked, legal distinction was meaningful in the realm of corporate organization. I now see that I was incorrect. Thank you for your completely retarded post.

>>17236783
>the point was that for Tudor to advance beyond cope tier, they need to do something different from daddy Rolex.
My point is that Tudor doesn't want to "advance beyond" what it is right now because Tudor is just Rolex and Rolex wants the brand name Tudor to allow it to sell watches at $3000 without harming the perceived exclusivity of their brand.

>>17236786
Let me put this another way in hopes you will understand.

You have Ralph Lauren the parent
Then you have:
Ralph Lauren PL
RRL
Polo Ralph Lauren
Ralph Lauren Fragrance
Ralph Lauren Watches
Chaps
etc. etc.

All these brands and variations are targeting different markets. Some of these are even structured as separate companies like Polo and the Fragrances division but everyone knows at the end of the day that they are all just in actuality Ralph Lauren. Polo is not trying to be RL mainline just as Chaps is not trying to be Polo. They all work together to deliver profit to the Ralph Lauren company at different market segments.

Rolex is Ralph Lauren
Tudor is Polo Ralph Lauren
(Only rolex is better at brand differentiation than Ralph Lauren so that morons like you will think "oh wow these are different companies")

>>17236792
the new pelagos is $4400 and an OP is $5600. the difference is not nearly as clear as it was two decades ago, you can buy plenty of tudors that are more expensive than rolex
>>17236804
rolex doesn't own tudor, the hans wilsdorf foundation does. it's a holding company that wants rolex to succeed but there is a distinction because the people on the board at the hans wilsdorf foundation are not just rolex executives. so in your example rolex is not ralph lauren, hans wilsdorf is ralph lauren. rolex is purple label, tudor is RRL

>>17236808
>rolex doesn't own tudor, the hans wilsdorf foundation does
lol, lmao even

>>17236810
courtesy of Tudor's own website, but if you want to argue with hans wilsdorf's ghost that's up to you.

which eco drive do i get

Is it worth it buying a brand new sub?

>>17236830
They're all gay shit, buy a Rolex.

>>17236817
Frankly unbelievable that you think there is a meaningful distinction between the Hans Wilsdorf Foundation and Rolex. This one is even dumber than thinking Tudor is a different company.

The Hans Wilsdorf foundation is Rolex, Rolex is the Hans Wilsdorf foundation. Take whichever you prefer. The Hans Wilsdorf foundation is just Rolex's tax shelter.

>>17236839
wrong again, they're legally distinct entities

>>17236830
Aqualand depth meter jp2000

>>17236839
I wish I could be so confident when I'm so horribly wrong.

>>17236465
For me, it's Citizen.

>>17236841
>>17236844
people that literally must have been born yesterday. I feel like i'm telling kids santa claus doesn't exist right now.

>>17236841
lmao, how do you think a tax shelter works?

>>17236857
>no meaningful distinction
>legally separate is not a meaningful distinction
Sorry sport, but the more you double down the more stupid you make yourself look.

>>17236831
yeah and sell it

>>17236831
No, 14060M is the best sub.

>>17236861
>no meaningful distinction
>legally separate is not a meaningful distinction
Gotta be one of the most naive people to ever exist. Legal distinctions are not meaningful anywhere but in the court of law.

Legally, the art that most rich people own is not actually owned by them. It is extremely common practice to for the rich to hold their art collections as part of a non-profit foundation owned, founded, and directed by the rich person (and a board of their friends) so that:
1. They don't have to pay taxes on the art
2. They won't have to pay taxes on the sale of any of the art
3. They can write off the donation of the art they own to a foundation they own as a charitable donation that lowers the amount of taxes they pay on their earnings.

This happens with so so many things and it takes maybe a few weeks and like $50 to make a "legally separate" corporation for any and all purposes. It takes a little longer (a couple of months) to make a 501c3 non-profit in the US but is just about as trivial. In Switzerland it seems like the rules are even more lax than in the united states because apparently "There is no requirement to disclose financial or charitable donations under law [in Switzerland], and [Rolex] pays no corporate taxes as a result of being owned by the Hans Wilsdorf Foundation."

>>17236888
>Legal distinctions are not meaningful anywhere but in the court of law
Yeah, and that's where it counts. Didn't read the rest of your post.

>>17236888
trips of truth

>>17236889
You see, I don't own anything but the holding company that owns the most profitable watch company in the world and its sister company. Obviously, since these companies are legally distinct, I have nothing to do with the companies owned by the company I own.

>>17236465
Maybe is the greenest green that ever greened in these green pastures.

>>17236896
You're arguing against a strawman. You said there was no meaningful distinction. Corporations are legal entities recognized by the state. That means there is a meaningful difference if they are legally separate. If there was no meaningful difference, people would not open these sorts of foundations. I'm getting tired of educating you on basic corporate organization here.

>>17236227
you are a porn addict.

Tudor is Rolex is The Hans Wilsdorf foundation. They coordinate literally everything and do not operate independently.

If you don't like it you can suck a dick, my dude.

>>17236904
Classic cuck. Next time do a little research before you post in the thread and embarrass yourself further.

new
>>17236910
>>17236910
>>17236910
>>17236910

>>17236839
>>17236904
You're dumb. I have never seen someone get BTFO in /wt/ as hard as you. Next tell me how Cartier and Lange are the same company.

>>17236911
>get shit on for an entire thread
>makes new thread early to hide his shame

>>17236867
My cousin has one of those, it's pretty nice

>>17236637
What's the best G-Shock?

>>17236852
based

>>17235011
Looks thick.

>>17236322
Yes

>>17237012
Gwg2000.

>>17237114
Impressive. Too bad it's not square.

>>17236411
Based small watch enjoyer

>>17236852
This could be my 1 watch collection

>>17236324
>5000u-1jf
>>17236479
I recently ordered another Casio with the same module. I don't regret it at all.