/fa/ - Fashion

>He doesn't have a Rolex
poor
>he lives in a rural area
poor
>votes for conservatives in any country
poor
>european
POOR

What does he wear

>>17408030
Let's start this thread off right with some actual watches being posted.

So /LuxWT/ is dead right?

>>17408044
>actual watches
>posts roflex

>>17408039
i remember when he came on so much girls in my HS were simping for him and talking about him

>>17408039
he clearly isn't wearing any watches in that image

>>17408030
This is a JLC caliber 975

>>17408049
yeah. Kept getting raided by poors and tourists. Plus, it was just a cope thread because used Explorer I anon got fanny-flustered.

Someone answer me, should I just get an orient kamasu, a seiko (turtle probably), or a steinhardt gmt? Gmt preferred, Sapphire preferred, needs to be a diver

>>17408063
It's a shame, I enjoyed the segregation. /wt/ was a lot better before richfags got bored of flexing at each other

>>17408065
I'm not sure. The last /wt/ was a shit-show. It hasn't fallen off page 10 yet, so it technically still is.

It's probably best to accept that the best /wt/ can ever be is awful.

>>17408068
Yeah it was a shit show because of richfags flexing at poorfags again, that's why it was better when the two groups were seperated. Oh well, can't change human nature, conflict at all that.

>/LuxWT/ created to get away from poors
>poors come to /LuxWT/ just to shit up the thread
I guess we know where the problem lies now.

>>17408038
Most rich people actually vote conservative despite what retarded Deumpfkins will tell you.

>>17408073
Remind me what thread you're in currently

>>17408072
>>17408073
These two are related.

The wealthy of /wt/ got tired of the poors accusing them of flexing, so they went and created their own thread, which the poors immediately shit up.
Thus, the wealthy went back to /wt/ and got back to flexing, and the poors got hysterical.

>>17408077
So is this the poors thread we are in?

>>17408077
Okay whatever anon everyone has their own recollection of events, post watches

>2 watch-related posts so far

Guys, you're not off to a good start.

Is the poor who resents Elon Musk in this thread? If he or she is, knock it off and talk about watches. You had your fun last thread.

>>17408077
>Accusing them of flexing
>Got back to flexing
How revealing.

>>17408084
The poors didn't know what flexing was. So the rich showed them a tiny taste of what flexing really was and one kid in particular had a seizure.

>>17408090
>>17408081

>>17408090
Ironically, that kid who started the whole thing by shitting on some other anon who was graduating from college and wanted to buy a new watch.

>Poors said this
>Poors did that
>Poors
>Poors
>Poors
Come on now, it's facetious at this point to claim it's not richfags shitting up this thread and placing them in a containment thread wasn't the best option

>>17408097
Sounds like this kid had an impact on everyone

>>17408083
I'm fucking trying.

Picrel. I got this Santos earlier in August. Honestly, I'm kind of shocked how quickly I got bored with it.

>>17408100
>placing them in a containment thread wasn't the best option
They left on their own volition. Poors followed them and tried to stir up shit by telling the posters there that they didn't rate. Don't lie.

Next purchase, doing a whole quartz crisis theme collection by buying modern interpretations of late-70s, early-80s watches. First one was a PRX and now this I think is a good modernisation of the first G-Shock in 1983. Dunno where to go from there though.

>>17408113
>Poors did this
>Poors did that
Holy shit just shut the fuck up already you sound like a literal child right now.

>>17408106
>Picrel. I got this Santos earlier in August. Honestly, I'm kind of shocked how quickly I got bored with it.
Same. Flipped mine pretty quickly. Also that bezel is a fucking scratch magnet.

>>17408121
talk...about...watches...please. i'm begging.

>>17408106
Never understood the Santos, fake screws and numerals, what the fug is that? Just no cohesion to the design IMO

>>17408126
I've already made a watch post you tosser, I also desperately want people to just shut the fuck up about wealth or a lack thereof.

>>17408127
The screws are real. They actually hold the bezel down. The Roman numerals are Cartier tradition from the original Santos from a century ago.

Cartier likes to play around with shapes and forms, so sometimes those shapes become briefly fashionable. The old Santos was one of the hottest watches of the 1980s and then was non existent until it was updated a few years ago.

>>17408129
for god's sake...watches. just watches. no one but you is talking about wealth. it's christmas.

>>17408131
I did not know the screws were real, are they real on the Royal Oak?

Still I get its tradition but I really think that mixture of Roman numerals with a retrofuturistic or even industrial case is a strange mix of classic and modern.. or retro now I guess.

>>17408131
>The old Santos was one of the hottest watches of the 1980s and then was non existent until it was updated a few years ago.
This.
That's the good and bad thing about Cartier. Not every design is going to be timeless, especially not when they're trying to push the envelope. Even the Tank ebbs and flows in popularity.

>>17408133
>It's just you
Oh fuck off you whiny twat.

>>17408134
>I did not know the screws were real, are they real on the Royal Oak?
the screws in the back of the Royal Oak are real. The ones on the front are bolts that the screws thread into to compress the case and ensure watertightness. The slots in the hex bolts were just cut in as an aesthetic choice.

>>17408137
Actually, I'm starting to get sick of your little act too. So go fuck yourself with a cactus, you cocksucking troll.

>>17408133
Then give me money or a watch.

>>17408140
Anon just stop now.

>>17408134
I've seen some Santoses photoshopped with batons or Arabics and they don't look right.
But yeah, it's weird to see a so-called sports watch with Roman numerals.

>>17408116
Any thoughts on this?

>>17408138
>The ones on the front are bolts that the screws thread into to compress the case and ensure watertightness.
a whole 50 meters of it!

Richard Mille with a suit?

>>17408144
>But yeah, it's weird to see a so-called sports watch with Roman numerals.
why choose when you can have both lol

>>17408146
Not every watertight watch is a dive watch. Back in the 1970s, any kind of water resistance at all in a non-dive watch was noteworthy. The original Omega Seamaster was called that because it was a waterproof dress watch.

50m is more than enough for 99% of the people. The rest is for spec sheet autists.

>>17408147
Sure. The old rules don't matter anymore outside of Gentlemen's Gazette.

>>17408151
I wonder if we will ever hear from that anon who was dared to wear his 30m Marathon field watch in the shower after claiming 30m WR meant it was able to dive 30m underwater.

>>17408116
There is an actual traditional square with a MIPs display coming out soon. I don't like MIPs so I would actually for for a GWB5600 or GMWB5000 if I were you. It's the best modern square module.

>>17408044
Nice pair, anon.

Managed to magnetize a Seiko movement, any good way to fix it? Doubt getting it past the curie temperature would be a great idea

>>17408116
>Dunno where to go from there though.
Rolex Oysterquartz. Rolex's last attempt to navigate the quartz crisis by stridently insisting quartz was a luxury movement.

last thread was really bad

>>17408171
All threads are bad. The fun part is discovering new ways to be bad.

Are you all as autistic as me when it comes to the size of watches? I always want them to be as small as possible while also not looking like a women's watch. A sports watch with bezel I want it to be between 40 and 37, the speedy pro would technically qualify because it has a 39mm bezel and just has a beefy case to protect the lugs. A basic sports watch or dressy watch I want it to be beween 36 and 33mm.

>>17408116

Hamilton Pulsar would fit in, classic watch with a modern re-edition. Think these Swiss watch companies should have another go at high end quartz like FP Journe did a while back.

>>17408038
>poors
>voting conservative
lol, lmao even

>>17408212
no one collecting quartz shitters can afford a journe.

>>17408247
Yeah sorry Cletus and jimmy Bob aren't wealthy neither is Kevin on Facebook who sends you Kekistan memes in 2022

Best chronograph with a moonphase at 12? I've been looking and only a few sneedmasters pull it off in a symmetrical design.

I just like it, ok?

>>17408340
Ironically, that's a meme made by Repulicans to make them seem more down to Earth. Most rich people don't vote for more taxes for themselves despite what you think.

ID on this watch?
https://nitter.snopyta.org/JMSDF_21aw/status/1605835537738215430?s=20&t=oT0UW0_uxxignRDZrCCqvg
theres another far away shot of it in the post too

>>17408369
Just checked and whites making under 40k vote Republican by a giant margin (70 percent). Sorry bro but educated people don't vote for conservatards.

>>17408369
The MAJORITY of white rural trash vote Conservative. A MINORITY of wealthy people vote republican.

dude why is this watch over a hundred grand? its used even.

My collection, a GMT is next on the line, hopefully for my birthday next year.

>>17408391
scam

>>17408030
Is there any functional advantage in an analog watch over a digital watch?

>>17408400
>functional advantage
you're in the wrong thread

>>17408400
If you consider unreliable time keeping and requiring periodic service to be advantages, yes.
But really, think of them more like beautiful classic cars- inferior in every metric imaginable but more aesthetically and intellectually pleasing to the mechanically inclined mind.

Nice thread retards.

>>17408393
>no rolex

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZOT6IHF38s

Wtf is this brand?

>>17408445
Maker of giant chonkers.

>>17408393
>3 Omegays
>2 shitty divers
>2 semi-dress watches with roman numerals and date window
>1 Sneedmaster (not the iconic one)
Typical midwit "watch enthusiast" collection.

>>17408126
Ditto

>solar, runs 20year if not more
>multifunction
>self radio correcting
>super resilient
>200bar
>100bucks

would have been the pinnacle of watchmaking if it weren't for the tiny pushers

>>17408409
Only 1% of mechanical watch owners know mechanics.
Only 1% of digital watch owners know electronics.
Get real.

>>17408471
Fugly

rate my bb58 on uncle seiko jubilee bracelet.

>>17408498
pic nr 2. Idk why it’s rotated. I’m a phoneposting fag.

>>17408106
We told you this would happen.

>>17408302
What a pointless post

>>17408395
what is the scam exactly? take any actual watch and set a ridiculous price in the hopes that some dumbo buys it?

>>17408106
>>17408501
what's the psychological mechanism here? I'm guessing a combination of 1) the watch is interesting to look at, artistic 2) dopamine rush from the purchase 3) it's not really wearable because it looks outlandish in most settings

>>17408198
I found out that it can be beneficial to step outside of your comfort zone sometimes and wear a bigger or smaller watch, or one of a different style than you normally would. After a while you get used to it and you will be more open to different options in the future.

>>17408391
It's quite a complicated watch.
>Panerai Luminor Tourbillon Equation Of Time (PAM36500) manual wind watch, features a 50mm titanium case surrounding a blue dial on a brand new blue alligator strap with a titanium deployant buckle. Functions include hours, minutes, small seconds, date, power reserve indicator, tourbillon and equation of time.
And i can see the time of sunrise and sunset as well.

>>17408198
Same here. I went to my local jeweler who is also an AD of some enthusiast brands. I've tried the Hamilton Khaki Aviation Day-Date, first time I've put a 42mm watch on my barely sub 7 inch wrist and it fits perfectly. You shouldn't look for small watches and hope for the best. Try them on if you have the chance and you'll see that your wrist is actually more versatile than you think. I also have broad, flat wrists, maybe that helps too, but a rounded one won't be able to wear larger watches without the lugs hanging over the wrist.

Copped a Tudor BB39 s&g. The new in-house calibre was what sealed the deal.

Have a great christmas everybody

>>17408448
Which can be used as improvished knuckle dusters

>>17408030

>>17408525
why do you need 3 g-shocks?

>>17408520
looks great!

>>17408526
i don't. i got the got the steel one first, found out it was a bit heavy so bought two ti ones instead. the citizen is 10 years old.

Post fliegers. I love this khaki aviation to death, I have to get it one of these days.

>>17408504
>what's the psychological mechanism here? I'm guessing a combination of 1) the watch is interesting to look at, artistic 2) dopamine rush from the purchase 3) it's not really wearable because it looks outlandish in most settings
Nothing so complicated.

I liked it...then I stopped liking it.

Lads, I want to get a nice but not too expensive watch to move away from my Casios, is the Tissot PRX a good choice?

>>17408631
good choice if you want to tell everyone around you that you wish you could afford an actual nice integrated sports watch but you can’t

>>17408605
Yeah, I go with option 2

Poorfag here. Apparently my wife just discovered that automatic watches exists and she's fascinated with the concept. What's the cheapest ladies' automatic watch you would recommend?

>>17408631
Get a Hamilton Khaki Field instead.

>>17408645
The cheapest? Seiko 5 line and the movement is actually bretty gud for that price.

>>17408637
>actual nice integrated sports watch
such as?

>>17408643
>Every purchase must be carefully considered!
>Let me show you my garbage sack full of Casios.
That's (you), by the way.

>>17408631
>is the Tissot PRX a good choice?
Mid-size quartz version? Yes. It's also very faithful to the design of a watch Tissot made in the early 70s.

Large-size/Automatic version? No, it's dogshit. There's easier ways to tell people that you want but can't afford a Royal Oak/Nautilus/Overseas.

>>17408648
obviously the royal oak, nautilus and overseas

>>17408650
>Mid-size quartz version?
You mean the 35mm? I definitely like the silver one.

>>17408650
this is what I don't understand: as someone who doesn't know much about watches, how would it make sense that I actually want some other watch that I never heard of before, if I am asking about some cheap quartz watch

>>17408651
that makes no sense
people looking fro a 400 dollar watch dont care about ones that cost 30k

do you not buy anything unless its the most expensive version of the thing you want?

>>17408647
Thanks, a quick search even showed a couple of vintage ones that I'm sure she'll like. But should I be wary of buying from an indian seller?

>>17408653
doesn't matter, you're still buying a cheap shitter version of an actual nice watch. could be $400, could be $4000, no one gives a shit.

>>17408652
35mm, yes. I couldn't think of the sizes off the top of my head.

The silver is nice, as is the ice blue one. Even the "gold" one has a healthy amount of 70s sleaze.

>>17408655
>But should I be wary of buying from an indian seller?
is this a rhetorical question?

>>17408656
what point are you even trying to make? do you see someone ask for recommendations for a RAV4 and tell them to buy an Audi Q7 instead?

>>17408661
tell me how i know you know nothing about watches without telling me you know nothing about watches.

>>17408659
I've heard some stuff here, but I lack context. It should be obvious by now that I know jack shit about this stuff.

>>17408657
I'll take a look at them, thanks.

>>17408645
Just show her the seiko 5 line. They have a fuck load of color combos, good water resistance and it won’t break the bank when she forgets about this in six months. If you really want to knock her socks off show her the GMT. It’s usually baby’s first complication since it’s fun to track a second time zone. Set it to some destination vacation time zone you’re planning, then use it while you’re there.

>>17408649
Not that anon you were arguing with lmao.

>>17408663
Never buy from india or private sellers that don't take payment trough the chrono24 escrow account. Make sure it has box and papers if possible.

>>17408663
>It should be obvious by now that I know jack shit about this stuff.
OK, no problem.

Indians are a group of people from the Indian subcontinent. They can be easily recognized by their short stature, poverty and tendency to shit in the middle of the street.
They import other countries' garbage and then pick through it to sell whatever they can.

A watch purchased from India will probably be a piece of shit that was cobbled together from six other broken watches and then sold back to gullible Westerners as "vintage".

Question. G shock 5000u jf worth importing and paying euro fees etc? I can get steel 5000b at home and its like just 50 bucks more expensive

Remember when these threads were on /g/ and they weren't full of 2 people sperging for months about the same petty disagreement that neither of them even remembers?

>>17408681
Ebay is out of the question, then.

>>17408684
Got it, thanks.

>>17408654
Don't worry about it anon, it's just losers projecting their cope on to you. The PRX is a fine watch in either 40mm or 35mm in quartz, it's just overpriced as an auto.

>>17408650
It looks nothing like any of those watches, it looks like a Rolex Oysterquartz or something Omega would produce in the 80s but those are both out of production and therefore free game for homages. If you want to buy a watch that looks like a Royal Oak or a Nautilus there's loads of Chinese shitters that directly copy their designs. So just keep quiet next time champ, you clearly know nothing about watches other than projecting your jealousy onto others.

>>17408690
>Remember when these threads were on /g/
You clearly don't because they were just as bad there.

>>17408692

>>17408696
Newfag eh? They were great until bitcoin shot up in price and made half of /g/ rich overnight.

>>17408702
Just learn something other than brand names and how much they cost, then you might be able to have a proper discussion about watches

>>17408708
>then you might be able to have a proper discussion about watches
Couldn't possibly have one with you though, since you fly into autistic rage if someone mentioned something more expensive than a Casio, lmfao poorfag.

>>17408713
Just pointing out you're wrong. Deal with it however you like.

>>17408704
>Newfag eh? They were great until bitcoin shot up in price and made half of /g/ rich overnight.
No need for this old head larp. As soon as you say the watch threads on /g/ were good, you're fucking lying.

They're the same fucking thread. All the move to /fa/ added was even more emphasis on being too poor for a Rolex.

My AD offered me this today. He said in recognition of the fact that I've bought $100k worth of watches already I could have it for only $60k as long as I was willing to have my daughter fellate him twice a week for the next six months. Should I go for it? I can't really afford it right now but I don't want to piss him off by showing ingratitude. Plus it's guaranteed to go up in value since it's a rolex

>>17408708
>then you might be able to have a proper discussion about watches
You first. faggot.
Suggest a watch topic to discuss.

We were having a nice time talking about the PRX before you had your little shitfit.

>>17408715
You're wrong though, it was fun when people were posting their modded seikos and eBay scavenged swiss watches. The evidence of this history is the poorfag guide that somehow managed to survive to threads today

>>17408718
Yeah you weren't though were you?
>PRX? Just admit you actually want a $50,000 watch that looks nothing like it

> Your budget
Up to 5k
> Watch type, e.g. dress, diver, pilot
Dress
> Movement, e.g. automatic, hand wound, quartz
Hand wound
> Desired features, e.g. water resistance, day/date, 2nd time zone
No date, power reserve preferred
> Preferred strap option, e.g. leather, nylon, bracelet
Leather with deployant clasp
> Wrist size or desired watch size
38-40mm

>>17408724
nta but if you don't want these threads to be 90% angry shitposts, consider trying to resist flying off the handle every time someone challenges your social class. Nearly all this stuff is aspirational for 99% of the customers whether it's a college student buying a PRX or a 40 year old salaryman buying a ROLEX ROLEX ROLEX, we're all insecure about it and most of the time these shitposts are just people working out their insecurities in a fun and harmless way

>>17408724
nice strawman, troony

>>17408168
demagnetizer

>>17408729
>Don't get upset when someone has more spending power than you
You're bailing against the tide, my friend.

Seriously considering picrel, but I already have a Casio AE1200 as meme watch

>>17408729
All I've done is pointed out the PRX looks nothing like a Nautilus or a Royal Oak, so the projection that it's a cope for one of those is just wrong. In response assblasted anons are now projecting their anger on to me, making numerous posts impressing on me how angry they imagine me to be and how it's ruining the thread, which is really funny.

>>17408729
It's probably just holiday stress, is my guess. Lots of people get very tetchy this time of year.

>>17408526
If he lives through the first two nuclear explosions

>>17408736
>Google: tissot prx looks like royal oak
>About 129,000 results (0.48 seconds)

Saying it looks nothing alike is either a bad faith argument or a delusional cope, because the only reason Tissot brought back the PRX is because integrated bracelet steel sports watches are very popular right now. Plenty of other brands have done the same. Tissot figured (correctly) that they could capture the low end of that market segment with one.

Tissot even gave it a budget stamped version of the Royal Oak's tapisserie dial.

Before you respond, I'm not accusing you of being mad. I'm not here to hurt your feelings. I am expressing facts about watch trends in the industry.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_CiBr43dH0

IT'S UP

PRX skin diver when?

>>17408400
some may find it easier to tell time at a glance from analog hands, and you can use them as a compass when you can see the position of the sun.
hands and indices of an analog watch, provided they're shaped and polished right, may reflect light sources in such a way that they'll be readable even in very low light when the lume isn't charged. this reflection stuff isn't possible with a digital display, but since basically all digital watches (unless you use an old mechanical jump hour watch like pic related, but who does) are electric they'll usually include a display light function, making this more of a moot point. though even some analog quartz watches include a display light, such as Timex's Indiglo feature.

>>17408746
By this logic though buying any diving watch that isn't a Submariner is a cope for not being able to afford a Submariner. Not denying there aren't trends and fads, but saying "you bought this $300 watch with an integrated bracelet, therefore you MUST actually want one of the most expensive and well known watches with an integrated bracelet but otherwise looks nothing like it" isn't bad faith or delusional but just isn't anything at all, it's a random claim with no substance to it and no worthwhile discussion to have about it.

>>17408753
NGL, that would be pretty fucking cool.

>>17408746
>I disagree, integrated bracelets are fashionable they share the same roots
>>17408758
>I disagree, it's a slippery slope in fact they don't look similar and besides all dive watches aren't a submariner
See I fixed it for you screeching estrogen sissies, now you try

>>17408758
>By this logic though buying any diving watch that isn't a Submariner is a cope for not being able to afford a Submariner.

To be fair, there's only a vanishingly small number of dive watches that aren't Sub cope.

>>17408471
>That watch
>Not also having access to tidal/lunar information.
shidiggity

I dont think that most people even know what the Royal Oak is
most would only recognize a rolex, maybe some cartiers

>>17408775
It is the most widely homaged watch, so I'd say getting any kind of diving watch that isn't directly ripping off the design of the Submariner does give plausible deniability that it's a cope, since you're spoiled for choice in terms of watches offering an inexpensive Submariner lookalike without the Rolex badge.

For watches like the Nautilus and Royal Oak, there's a lot less directly ripping off the design but such clones do exist on AliExpress. While those clones exist, buying something like the PRX just isn't the cope, if one must cope they can buy the Chinese clone.

>>17408786
Sure. Most people don't buy watches or care about them. The kind of people whom the PRX is marketed toward are not one-and-done buyers. They are more likely to be enthusiasts who have collections. Buyers like that, on the other hand, know exactly what the Royal Oak is.

>>17408791
If you have to talk about having plausible cope deniability, that is itself a coping strategy.

>>17408786
Why does effay think normies have never heard of extremely common luxury brands that literally have giant 100foot billboards all over the central business districts in any major city? You people need to touch grass

>>17408809
>Why does effay think normies have never heard of extremely common luxury brands that literally have giant 100foot billboards all over the central business districts in any major city? You people need to touch grass

Watches are our super-sekret club.

>>17408812
I mean it could be true if you're talking about raul pages or de bethune but you can't be like "oh yeah this watch and many other watches were influenced by X" while at the same time trying to argue that "most people won't even know what X is", pick one or the other

it can always be worse, you could one of those who cope with reps

>>17408798
They'll also know of AliExpress and the clones it has of literally any luxury watch imaginable. So if you REALLY want something that's a Royal Oak without the quality or price tag.

>>17408717
tell him your daughter will only do it if he is blindfolded, then do it yourself

Just buy Hamilton and call it a day guys.

>>17408828
That's true. Some people buy reps or unbranded clones. Others are uncomfortable and still want something from a "real" brand so they get something like a PRX, in the case of a Royal Oak/Genta-style integrated bracelet steel sports watch, or a Steinhart, in the case of a Submariner.

>>17408839
What if you just prefer the look of the PRX? I think it being more minimalistic in design has aged better than the overly fussy Royal Oak.

>>17408851
that’s what the nautilus is for :) oh wait you can’t afford that either LOL

Post watches that give vintage, army vibes.

And also fliegers, these threads lack fliegers.

>>17408857
Also pretty fussy tbqh.

>>17408861
so this is the new poorfag buzzword huh

>>17408851
>What if you just prefer the look of the PRX?
That's why the 35mm quartz is the one to get. That waffle dial on the large one is 100% RO cope. Also, the large one is a clown-sized watch. If you prefer it you're either fat or have no taste anyway, making your preferences irrelevant.

>>17408864
My 40mm doesn't have the waffle dial and I presume it would only look like a clown watch on a wristlet because it looks fine on my wrist, I don't feel the need to get the woman's size.

>>17408655
NEVER buy a Seiko from India!

>>17408872
Nice Royal Oh...

>>17408876
No it's a PRX retard, I thought you knew shit about watches?

Can you guys stop being pussyholes and actually discuss watches for once? This shit used to be great, we had posers, we had Hamiltonanon, we had Rolex Explorer shill. I'd rather have that than this shitshow where you fuckers can't accept the fact that watches are subjective and people have different tastes so buy your fucking watch, show it to us here, watch us either shit on it or actually like it. The most important thing is if YOU like it. If you like it, wear the shit out of it. Fuck you guys and Merry Christmas!

>>17408872
Thanks, burger. Now I know how the 40mm will look on my wrist if I gain 200kg and become mixed-race.

What a cop-ACK

>>17408887
Hamilton anon drank himself to death
Omegadrunk left to go to WUS
Explorershill is on luxwt
JLC anon left
Fat Mortadello left
Buy 2 of each Casio anon and Vintage chrono anon are probably waiting out this shitstorm

>>17408365
This.

>>17408890
I'm not American, I'm not fat and I'm not mixed race. Cope?

>>17408887
I love my little beaters and will never apologize for it.
Merry Christmas.

>>17408887
Yes. Merry Christmas anons!

>>17408859
The Tank which is modeled after a Renault tank as it so happens.

>>17408525
>>17408528
>found out it was a bit heavy so bought two ti ones instead
I skipped the steel ones for this exact reason. I also feel that at the price it should have a sapphire crystal. They're a bit overpriced but I have been happy with the titanium ones.

>>17408923
It doesn't look much like it, but ok.

>>17408923
>>17408988
Common misconception. The design was created independently. Cartier designed a watch intended to integrate the case and the lugs into a single element. The result is the Tank's brancards.
Later, when naming it, did someone remark the brancards kind of made it look like a Tank from above, so they called it that.

>>17408498
if you're happy i'm happy/10

>>17408784
>replaced by the GBX100 which added a new screen but dropped solar and multiband 6 atomic clock syncing
I much prefer the original

>>17408637
>>17408662
Stay in your containment thread if you don't have any actual input cunt

>>17409008
It has a vibration alarm. You can't have multiband with it.

I've got a Seagull 1963 that won't wind. When I try to wind it up, I don't hear any clicking, and as soon as I release the knob, it immediately unwinds itself. Any ideas what I could do? It's barely been worn.

And yeah, I know it's a cheap watch, I like the face though.

Merry Christmas /wt/! Just got the call from my AD for a Rolex GMT Batgirl. I was on the waitlist for a Pepsi but they did call me in for a Batgirl. How does it look should I pick this up or keep waiting for the Pepsi?

Should I?

>>17409057
Maybe you can get a new movement off the chinkweb and try to swap it yourself.

>>17409066
Yes, I personally love the meme worthiness of MR-G being luxury versions of a beater watch, it's dumb in exactly the right way.

>>17409057
>as soon as I release the knob, it immediately unwinds itself.
Bro do you have any idea how much energy you're raping your watch with every time you do that?

Imagine taking a sealed pint bottle of beer and dropping it onto your watch's innards from 70cm height. Ok now imagine you did that but instead of just the bottle's base it's driving all the energy through a 1mm point of contact through the entire gear train of the watch

Now imagine doing that over and over thinking you're diagnosing what's wrong, your watch is royally fucked lmao

This is the first watch I was able to complete servicing. It's a shitter by all accounts but it's MY shitter and it's now working because of me.

For me, it's Vincero

>>17409057
Click spring either broke or fell out of alignment. Should be a fairly simple fix, likely doesn't require much work. You can probably fix it with low quality chink tools. You'll need a caseback opener, some cheap screwdrivers and some tweezers. If you figure out what general shape the click spring is, you can either try to order another one (good luck with these chink movements) or your can get an assortment of click springs and find a generally suitable substitute and trim/bend it to fit.
Unless it's the mainspring coming off its arbor, in which case you have a lot of disassembly ahead of you but I don't think that's the problem since you say you don't hear clicking when you wind the watch, which means the ratchet wheel isn't engaging with the click.

>>17409057
https://youtu.be/ApNEp9kjHv4

>>17409066
Definitely. It's such a great flex.
>I bought a 90 dollar watch and threw the other 4,910 out the window. YOLO!

Guys who buy something like a Rolex, they can always tell themselves that they can sell it back for what they pay for, so they're still signaling that they're careful with money.
The MRG 5000 owner? He's got money to burn and a book of matches.

>>17409115
>>17409123
9:57 you can see the click and how it engages with the ratchet wheel. This is your likely where the issue lies. Though he doesn't show removal of the click from the bridge that it sits on. You don't need to mess around with all the chronograph stuff to get at this; it looks like there's just one lever covering the click that can be removed and put back pretty easily.
You could try to fuck with it or just get a new movement; they are pretty cheap.

>>17409066
>>17409074
This.
I remember reading an article about how Paul Newman threw a 5.0 V8 into a Volvo wagon.
It's stupid.
But an excellent kind of stupid.

Does this look like an authentic Copernicus or a franken? The seller claims it's NOS with original papers and box.

>>17409066
Honest question. What makes this different from the regular 5000 series which is already a bit pricey?
Where are the other almost 5k?

>>17409066
As long as you understand what you're getting I say go for it. Most people know the module is functionally identical to the one found in $100 models and visually identical to the one found in the $500 steel models. Outside the module there is really nothing that comes close it at any price. It has a complex multi-piece design and uses titanium alloys not found in any other watch. All that just so they can hand polish every part of the watch. I was tempted but I really don't care about polish and finish that much. The regular titanium ones are good enough for me right now.

>>17409243
MR-G lines have slightly different case construction, sapphire crystal, and lots of hand finishing. The finishing work adds a lot of man-hours to the final cost. (Done in the same facility that does some of Grand Seiko's case finishing, actually).

The rest is all prestige pricing, though.

>>17409266
>Done in the same facility that does some of Grand Seiko's case finishing, actually
That's NOT a good selling arguement

Fucking stupid sexy Zulu, I finally pulled the trigger. Atleast I found a new one for under 2500 europesos.

>>17409243
>>17409266
And titanium.
And weird polished pieces that look cool, but provide no benefit.
It's a great bullshit watchdmkd2.

>>17409287
Is this upside down for aussies?

Seethe, you dirt bottom of society

>>17409301
Containment thread, now

>>17408106
Honestly anon I'm going to be straight and say it like it is. Santos is an okay watch but I think I'd get a two-tone if I had to really. That Monaco to the right is much more interesting to me doe.

>>17408147
Most people these days don't care about dress watches anymore. For the most part, you can get away with wearing anything as far as everyone is concerned unless it has an eye-catching colorway that wouldn't blend with the suit. Then you have an eyesore on your wrist.

>>17409289
>titanium
It's not regular titanium. It has Cobarion and DAT55G which only Casio uses in watches.
>provide no benefit
The benefit is that it allows for a complex design where every facet is hand polished. Most watches are simpler designs to allow polishing.

>>17409298
ǝʇɐɯ ɥɐǝY

>>17408365
Nothing wrong with it, good taste!

>>17408160
That's a nice Casio anont

>>17409315
>Cobarion and DAT55G

>>17409315
The polishing, itself, offers no benefit.
I'm not saying it doesn't look cool.
I want one.

>>17409306
Your mom is a containment thread

>>17409328
This puff's for (You).

>>17409301
>image from reddit
not even your watch

>>17409329
The benefit of polishing is aesthetics. It's like saying design serves no purpose. The purpose is to be pleasing to the eye.

>>17409301
Based. Fuck these stupid poltard poors

>>17409336
You know what . .
rescinded.

effay or not

>>17409301
in all seriousness though this is probably my grail watch

Anyone else keep their hangtags on their watch? I wear my rolex with mine on

>>17409355
holy autism batman

Just copped this on sale for $100
How'd I do?

How do we feel about smooth bezel Datejust?

>>17409367
Con't from >>17409367

I think my Sub fits better but the G-Shock is much lighter and more comfortable.

>>17409372
Smooth bezel + Oyster = good
Smooth bezel + Jubilee = bad
Fluted bezel + Oyster = bad
Fluted bezel + Jubilee = good

>>17409372
what the fuck are those shoes

>>17409372
fluted is king, smooth feels like a weird rolex explorer knock off

>>17409372
Smooth looks like a condom

What do we think of good quality replicas? I found some nice Hamilton replicas for $40 and my coworkers been wearing one for a while with no complaints.... Looks the same as the $1200 original imo

I don't get why watches are so expensive when they don't even have precious metals, just brand name inflation I guess?

>>17409374
Brother you need to get on a diet and hit the gym before your arteries blow up

>>17409407
No one inspects watched, it looks slick and keeps the time. If it breaks in a year or two replacing it is no big deal.

Spending more on a watch than you do on your laptop/pc or phone is retarded anyway

since it was already mentioned, which 35mm prx would you go with
the dark blue is the only one im not keen on

>>17409417
I'd get either the light blue or the green personally.

>>17409417
Do you have a Jared's Jewelry chain near you? I'd recommend trying the PRX in person before buying it. I would have gotten one but the bracelet felt really thin.

>>17409417
ooh that gold one would look nice with my 14k gold accessories. I usually combo it with a casio a700 but that gold prx would look decent imho

New watch arrived just in time for Christmas.

>>17409423
>casio a700
b-b-based
have that same one in gold, its really great and for some reason alot of people think its expensive kek

>>17409417
Blue, green and gold would be my picks, the light blue is too meh and others (Seiko Cocktail time) do it better and the silver one is just whatever.

I want to get my dad a watch for christmas/his birthday in january, he's pretty into watches and has a fair few. The most recent watch he was quite interested in was the Moonswatch, which I convinced him not to buy since I thought it felt cheap. Is there something similar in the same price range that I could get him, or better?

What's the deal with Kuoe watches? Are they real? Is it some weird fakery? I keep getting adverts for them online.

>>17409417
Seconding light blue or green

>>17409427
it gets the most compliments out of all my watches that being a baltic, a hamilton hand wind, and a zodiac chronograph rally.

>>17409425
Quite a unit, nice. Now go find some mud and measure how high said mud is and how long does it get to get there. Post pics when you get back.

>>17409343
And patrician taste, no less.

>>17409407
>>17409415

>>17409380
why would you get the smooth+oyster datejust instead of the oyster perpetual? a cleaner dial is preferable.
bezel is bad about smooth bezel+jubilee? I thought it looks a little more sophisticated than the plain oyster bracelet, without the insane amount of reflection from the bezel. Maybe with the fluted dial?

>>17409454
>why would you get the smooth+oyster datejust instead of the oyster perpetual?
Some people like date complications.

>>17409417
Green is based right now.

Is Tissot the reddit of watches?

>>17409471
not sure, i thought it was nomos or omega

>>17409451
Not an argument. If you mean to say replicas are obvious to everyone like a downsyndrom is that's totally wrong and false.
How many people can tell reals from replicas with the naked eye while you wear it?
Fact is they pass the sight test easily all that matters is of they work well enough

>>17409417
I don't get the appeal of wearing a metal bar on your wrist. It's uncomfortable and unsightly also screams insecurity/attention seeking

I don't get the appeal of posting in a thread about content you don't like. It's a waste of time and it also screams insecurity/attention seeking.

>>17409471
please elaborate

>Critique is hate speech because uhh....just compliment what I like damn it!!
It's not, grow up

>>17409476
High quality replicas are like 200-600$
Might as well just buy an original different brand at that price point instead of luxury replicas

>>17409476
Replicas are for downs with excess of melanin. Simple as that.

No matter if anyone else can tell, you KNOW, which means you're ok with owning couterfeits as a second class citizen.

Got this as a Christmas present, I don't know shit about watches, I have just worn digital casios, what type of clothes do you wear with this? Aside from the matching shoes and belt.

>>17408631
Good
Also Seiko SNK*** and Orient Bambino

>>17409496
>what type of clothes do you wear with this
A wetsuit

>>17409495
>Muh Brand name loyality
Don't give a hoot as long as the thing looks decent and functions. Just like I don't care about pirating music, movies, buying generic pharma rather than brand name or emulating video games

>>17409496
Just lift weights and wear normal adult clothes, pants, jeans simple shirt or dress shirt not effeminate complex /fa/shit cope for skinny uglies

>tfw the Vostok site's domain that had the watch I wanted expired

>>17409495
What about homages

what are the characteristics of a “reddit” watch

>>17409507
You like it. I don't like it.

>>17409507
You like it.
I don't like you.
Thus, 'it' is reddit.

>>17409500
>Second class human mentality
Sucks to be you

>>17409063
>I should as 4chan if should I buy a 10k watch that I didn't want
the absolute state of AD buyers

merry christmas

>>17409506
White downs. See the meme again

>>17409343
>>17409440
God dammit, I want a Journe so fucking hard.
https://youtu.be/w3fcnQPXgRE

>>17409417
green if you ever seen one in person

>>17409063
It's a fucking diver. Are you a diver?

>>17409516
https://youtu.be/E1fmjnKGZkY
https://youtu.be/E1fmjnKGZkY
https://youtu.be/E1fmjnKGZkY

>>17409519
It's actually a pilot's watch, but I don't think he's one of those either, so it's moot.

>>17409522
>actually a pilot's watch
No one cares if has 24 or 60 on the bezel. It's in a diver case.

>>17409015
there there, no need for crying

whats more of a cope watch, the prx or the tudor royal

>>17409530
no need for them to fight, they can both be cope watches together.

>he bought a western watch
First mistake. Now you're placed somewhere on the brand hierarchy list. With a soviet watch, you're not part of the brand game to begin with. You buy a soviet watch for the story, because it has soul. Hell, you can't even pronounce the brand name because it's written in Cyrillic. It doesn't matter.

>>17409533
incomprehensibly stupid

>>17409533
Good point, that's why I've been trying to find an obscure brand that's not on any of the lists, preferably from 20+ years ago, so I can just say my dad left it to me and people can't really immediately look it up.

>>17408044
i can buy a few rolexes but i think they are pretty ugly, why would i just buy it for the little logo on the watchface no one will ever read

>>17408116
get an oysterquartz. i love mine

>>17409535
t. spent 5k to be placed higher on a reddit tier list

>>17409546
rather moronic

fuck you guys, I like Tudor

>>17409541
>i can buy a few rolexes but i think they are pretty ugly
translation: I can in no way, shape, or form afford a Rolex.


L M F A O

>>17409551
its not that expensive where i live(first world + job) but i just think they are ugly, i dont think expensive = beautiful im not an arab.

>>17409551
>Expensive is le good because it expensive
The power of advertising on pleb brains

>>17409555
>>17409560
blahblahblahpoorscopingblahblahdon'tcare

Why would anyone buy a brand new $7k spedmastard omegay instead of an oyster perpetual and a bulova larp pilot for $500 less?

>>17409561
>>17409560 not me >>17409555
you got memed into ugly shit im sorry arabs have poor taste.

>>17409551
>>17409541
how do you guys define "afford"? like if I wanted to I can 'afford" a philippe dufour simplicity but that would be the end of my financial stability

please explain to me in specific numeric terms how you would define a threshold for being able to "afford" a rolex, I'm quite curious

>>17409561
I grew up rich and my family is rich, it's a big headache. Being gripped by luxury, consumerism and maintaining appearances is a tiring soul sucking vanity.

>>17409565
>like if I wanted to I can 'afford" a philippe dufour simplicity but that would be the end of my financial stability
then you cannot afford it.

"Afford" means that you can buy it and immediately throw it in the river without it impacting your finances short- or long-term one whit.

>>17409565
just afford, as in easily buy it with no financial trouble. simple and as you should use the term "afford" if it gives you financial trouble you cant afford it.

>>17409569
obviously, hence the quotes around "afford". I noticed how you carefully avoided answering my question, why is that?

>>17409565
>>17409566
The larpers have shown up. Nice.

>>17409565
Well what should a grown man spend on frivolous toys? be careful bcuz luxury goods like jewelry and watches are kind of effeminate toys.
1% if your yearly income after tax seems ok.anything more is homo

>>17409570
let me repeat the question since you guys lack reading comprehension skills;

>please explain to me in specific numeric terms how you would define a threshold for being able to "afford" a rolex, I'm quite curious

If it helps what I am asking for here is cash flow. What should your annual income be, in dollars, assume the person lives in your city/country (specify city/country)

>>17409572
>I noticed how you carefully avoided answering my question, why is that?
You don't notice a fucking thing, you cocksucking tranny. I answered your question and exposed you as a larper at the same time.

>>17409575
$600 a year on clothes, shoes and watches. Anything more hand in your man card and get on transition meds

>>17409576
>I need a specific number
That's your autism talking. You went over this with your doctor, remember? Don't get fixated.

>>17409575
that puts the threshold at about $900k/year

I don't disagree with that btw, I think 1% is a reasonable figure, just kind of amused at how many people in these threads claim to be pulling in nearly a million a year

>>17409582
>just kind of amused at how many people in these threads claim to be pulling in nearly a million a year
Equally as amusing is the number of people who thing a million dollar income is some incredible threshold.

>>17409579
>Wasting $600 a year on clothes
Lol
Clothes don't expire or fall apart after one year. good pair of shoes, jeans, jacket will last a couple years or more.

>>17409576
>what should your annual income be, in dollars
lmao
it depends what you are buying and are able to afford. lets put it very simple so a toddler can understand, if you cant buy product x at least 4 times, without being in financial trouble, you cant afford it. you might be able to buy it sure, but you might not be able to afford it. You cant put a number on what is defined as financial trouble dummy

>>17409583
it's pretty unlikely. picrel is for HOUSEHOLD btw, that includes dual income households

>>17409586
what a surprise, evading the question once again

why are you afraid to answer, anon?

>>17409591
see >>17409580

Meds time, anon. You're getting agitated.

>>17409587
Ok? Sorry you have a shit family lmfao?

>>17409593
it's a simple question. what's the number?

>>17409591
You are extremely dumb but i get now why you fell for the rolex meme and have no reading comprehension. fine lets say 50 million a year. a lot of money to some, not so much to other people either, retard.

>>17409587
True, but those bottom dwellers don't post here. They're too busy...trying to score fentanyl or menthol cigarettes.

Among people who should be able to enjoy luxury watches, a million dollar income is not particularly impressive.

>>17409594
what are you so afraid of? no one knows your name. you can say anything you want. $100k? 50k? $5,000,000? just make something up.

>>17409595
>what's the number?
3.2

>inb4 I don't know what that means.
Yes, we know.

>>17409599
>>17409599
>>17409599

>>17409596
>everyone I'm talking to is the same person
and I'm the one who should take my meds?

>>17409602
Yes, because you're clearly having a breakdown.

>>17409602
>not being able to differentiate people by their (somewhat poor admittedly) grammar
100 IQ retard, doesnt change that i find as i originally stated, rolexes as ugly watches

>>17408044
legitimately based.

>>17408534
Its pretty kino and I'm not normally a Hamilton fan. I wonder if the drunk anon that always posted his is still alive

>>17408775
That's why the monster will always be based

>>17409382
That's because all the explorer is, and has ever been, is an OP with numbers and different hands.

>>17409287
Nice pick

>>17409500
If you don’t care, why the fuck are you here in the first place? Go buy your replicas and shut up, you already embarrassed yourself enough.

>>17408030
What's /fa/'s thought on this strap on a yellow gold Gondolo?

>>17409503
wut?