/fa/ - Fashion

>>17716698
First for dishonest watchmaking!

Hublot is based because they make every watch YouTuber seethe.
This faggot Adrian Barker made a whole video seething about "muh in house movement". That very same dishonest BONGKIKE spent 10k on an IWC with an ETA movement.
Hublot should sue him and force him to delete his channel.

>>17716698
>loo case

>>17716708
>Why are they so oversized?
>Why don't they have the correct vintage, military-inspired, aesthetic?
>Why can't I put a fucking NATO on it?
>Why the FUCK is it so popular?

I just want a Rollie, Rollie, Rollie with a dab of ranch
I already got some designer to hold up my pants
I just want some ice on my wrist so I look better when I dance
Have you lookin' at it, put you in a trance

just saw a two-tone Santos at a store. really makes an impression IRL

>>17716730
Looks great the day you buy it, but whatever they're made out of is so soft it can literally get scuffed if you expose it to a stiff breeze. And they look pretty shitty when all scuffed up.

>>17716708
I don't know why Panerai gets a pass, but Hublot doesn't

What makes this watch $10,500
Is there a cheaper way to larp as a fascist frogman bombing British ships in Alexandria

>>17716736
The more shit they add to these watches, the worse they look. The basic Radiomir and Luminor are nice designs, but they just look like total shit with even minimal complications.

>>17716736
>What makes this watch $10,500
The amount of suckers in existence. End of the day you could strap a petrified dog turd to a bracelet and as long as you get some celebrity buy in and marketing done, there's guaranteed to be some dumbasses throwing their wallets at you. Applies to a wide swath of the watch industry.
>inb4 cope REEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>17716735
Because Hublot has no heritage and their marketing is disgusting (nouveau riche, soccer player, sexcore, Richard Mille cope...). They also use cheap ETA movements for 10k+ watches.
I wouldn't wear one but I don't mind them... Brands like Cartier, IWC or Panerai aren't really better.

>>17716735
Panerai does not get a pass as much as no one thinks about Panerai anymore. It was a very brief trend that died out as quickly as it started.

Before they became irrelevant, though, the watch community (as documented by Perezcope) pretty much entirely dismantled their fictional history and shady practices.
The original Paneristi group devoured itself many years ago after a botched rollout of a special edition watch the company made for them. (Newer, richer members got watches while poorer members got left out in the rain, even if they'd been long-time, positive contributors to the group.)

That said, now that the watch is back to being anonymous, all that's left is the simple, brute charm of a simple block of steel with a simple pocket watch movement and a simple two-hand layout that has nuclear lume.

>>17716736
I like this one but they're asking 12k for it lmao

The only driver watch you need

>>17716735
>I don't know why Panerai gets a pass, but Hublot doesn't

Panerai at least pretends to have history, even if it's fictional. Also, like >>17716744 said, who thinks about Panerai anymore?

Hublot causes seething because they literally do not give a single fuck about heritage and history. They make big, crazy-looking watches and sell them for completely unreasonable prices.

>>17716736
>Is there a cheaper way to larp as a fascist frogman bombing British ships in Alexandria
100$ is all you really need to larp as the frogman of a totalitarian state

>>17716730
Yeah the impression that you're a fag

>>17716736
Just buy a rep. The finishing and quality is closer than any other rep of any other watch. Panerai even took reps in for servicing.

>>17716744
If you could sell a basic Luminor for $2k, I think they'd be more popular. Don't they just use ETA movements.

Oh well, at the prices they expect, superfake Chinaman goes brrr

>>17716747

>>17716765
>Panerai even took reps in for servicing.
KWAB

>>17716765
>Panerai even took reps in for servicing.
Lmaooo I want this to be true. Source?

>>17716765
Their social media accounts famously posted pick of fakes

>>17716768
>If you could sell a basic Luminor for $2k, I think they'd be more popular. Don't they just use ETA movements.

That's exactly what they used to do. The cases were made by one company, the dials by another. The movements were off-the-shelf Unitas pocket watch movements, given some pretty basic finishing. Just like any other microshitter, except then one holding company bought them, then another, then Richemont.
They only sold for a couple grand too, like 2-2.5k. They were special because they were made in limited quantities, so even if you were rich, it was still not that easy to get one. Plus, rich or poor, everyone had basically the same watch.

Once they realized that the people who collected them were generally very rich, they cranked up their prices as high as they could.

They don't use ETA movements anymore (I mean, as far as I know. There could still be some shenanigans going on.)

>>17716772
the hublot classic gold is nice watch would get one but not before a rolex

>/wt/ is pro-Hublot now
Based. I knew this day would come.

>>17716791
https://atelierdegriff.com/2021/01/28/the-mind-boggling-panerai-papers-chronicled-by-perezcope-and-wristbusters/

>>17716772
This pic is the entire watch "community" in a nutshell.

>>17716797
>the hublot classic gold is nice watch would get one but not before a rolex
Agreed, But then, Hublot is not for people who want a one-watch collection.

Most of the people I know who wear an Hublot only wear them on the weekends and usually wear something a little more conservative during the week.

>>17716785
Search WUS, few reported cases there

>>17716791
Wtf I love superfakes now

>>17716797
Fuck rolex and fuck hublot

>>17716798
Ooblow rockers in the thread tonight

>>17716749
>100$ is all you really need to larp as the frogman of a totalitarian state
Don’t forget your $3 knockoff pit vipers from another totalitarian state.

>>17716757
What do you have then? Show us with a photo & note with today's date & 'Sup /fa/' on it.
Either your... 'taste' is super-homo AIDS tier or you're a worse than poorfag. that can't afford a basic Casio.
Go ahead. The only one stopping you from proving us wrong or be exposed as a shitposting homo - thus your opinion is fag-tier - is you.

>>17716772
>>17716747
>>17716744
>>17716735
>>17716708
If I had an idle 100k I would 100% buy this ridiculous fucking thing.
I would wear the LOUDEST hawaiian flowery shirts. Basically a young Producer Michael. I'd get a yellow suit like the Mask.
It speaks to something buried deep within me, deeper than the latent homosexuality and other intrusive thoughts.
It brings me back to the early 90's when I was very young and lego had that blacktron shit with the fluroneon space shit.

>>17716848
I never had this shit. But I remember it, all these years later.

>>17716848
People give Youblow endless shit, and then cream themselves over aesthetically similar Richard Milles.

>>17716848
I'd even settle for the regular big bang.
It's so outrageously in your face, but not in that rainbow faggy gem way.
Like all the toys in the 90's with their transparent cases.
>$100k
lmao

>>17716862
>Like all the toys in the 90's with their transparent cases.
That's what it actually look like, like shitty plastic.

>>17716862
transparent plastic watches could be fun. in the under 100$ price bracket though

>>17716866
>>17716872
That's part of the appeal.
By the very act of wearing it you're someone who can throw 6figs on something that looks like an cheap piece of 90's electronics for kids, that glows obscenely in sunlight and uv light, blinding all and you don't care.
Hublot is a flex brand, and such ridiculous models are just for flexing and causing seethe in poors and "connoisseurs" alike.

>>17716861
>over aesthetically similar Richard Milles.
Who, by the way, also aren't completely in-house in the movement arena either. They're using Baume and Mercier movements and fiddling with them.

>>17716866
>>17716872
See
>>17716772

Hublot doesn't fucking care about the opinion of """purists""".

>>17716878
I think you're overrating the average Hublot wearer. most of them are just some nuveau riche guys who know nothing about watches and genuinely think this is what "high whorology" is supposed to look like

>mfw I almost bought a Hublot as my first big boy watch 15 years ago

>>17716881
>>17716878
>NOOOOOO WHY DIDN'T YOU BUY A HECKIN ZEITWERK OR A PATEK 5172???!!?!! REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>17716886
>Hublot buyers are just looking to flex and don't know anything about watches, unlike me. If I could afford a four-figure watch, I'd definitely buy something better than a Hublot, I can guaran-damn-tee you that.

>>17716886
If enough of them think it is, it is.
It's like an expensive version of invicta.
It's heinous trash but the sheer brute force of their ignorance gives it power.

I like Patek, Vacheron and Rolex.

>>17716900
name 3 vacheron models in the next 1min that isn't in the overseas line

>>17716881
>Hublot doesn't fucking care about the opinion of """purists""".

>It looks like shit.
>S-shut up purist

>>17716886
Nothing wrong with whoreology, bro.

>>17716901
I have this theory that people love Vacheron because
>cool logo
>cool name
>old money vibe
The watches themselves are either ugly (Patrimony, Overseethe) or boring (Fiftysix, Traditionnelle). The only ones that I like are from the Historiques collection, but just like JLC they lack a cohesive design language.

>>17716913
>Your watch looks like shit
>Hi, table for two, the reservation is under G. Chad.
>Did you hear me? I said your watch looks like shit.
>Here, take this to the coat check please and send the barman over to my table when you get the chance.
>Are you even paying attention?! I said I don't like your watch.
>Hmm?

>>17716922
>but just like JLC they lack a cohesive design language.

That will happen when you have several hundred years' worth of designs in your portfolio. That goes double when you spent most of that time doing entirely custom jobs for your clients.

>>17716798
The Hublot classic fusion is unironically great.

>>17716937

>>17716923
>I-i-i can't hear you
>I'm just making defencive posts

Try this
>Oh anon is that a kids watch? That's really funny does it have candy inside?
>N-no that's a hublot
>Hublot?
>That's an Italian brand that poses as swiss
>O-oh
>But it was really expensive
>Oh so the candy inside must be really good?

>>17716922
Patek has some stinkers as well desu. and AP is just a massive meme in general
were it not for muh heritage and established name, no one would care about the big three and everyone would buy actually good looking watches by Lange or even fucking Breguet

>>17716922
Vacheron is Patek cope

>>17716943
I don't understand why Hublot makes you so angry. It's like you've incorporated all those youtube videos into your personality.

>>17716832
Brother!

>>17716922
I honestly prefer Vacheron's designs over Patek's current range of horrible shit.
I wanted to get a sense of what people were buying so searched on WUS and found the VC reddit. All they talk about is wanting the overseas. So fucking boring holy shit.
All I want is pic related, then I'm done.

The problem with VC is that throughout their modern history they haven't produced that singular, standout banger model. Not every brand does mind. They make great watches, but nothing hype that's captured the desire of the masses.
Early on, that was actually intentional but now it's just hard to go against Patek who've been laying the groundwork for decades:

Apparently around the time of the depression, when the Sterns bought Patek and were looking for a way to bail out the company and thus came up with the Calatrava model which was a smash hit, Vacheron was still doing it "old school". Cumbersome. No assembly lines. Truly Genevan oldschool watchmaking.

The Calatrava was designed to be inexpensive for PP to produce, and easy to mass produce. It was the watch for the people, ironically enough.
They could churn out 10000 units a year of just that one range and the demand was met.
In the same year the Calatrava was released Vacheron was still only producing 1000 watches a year total, if that. Basically every watch they made was a piece unique, a custom model for a single order from a discerning client. But by the 30's royalty, and those wealthy enough to pay for this service, were increasingly harder to find.
They were severely behind in terms of mass production. Times had changed. Patek rolled with it, VC didn't and so suffered to stay relevant. They've been on the back foot for nearly 100 years now but there's still there.
I like the perseverance.

>>17716949
A lifetime spent on social media has conditioned zoomers to see everything as a fight. If your posts don't make people feel viscerally angry, then they get no engagement. If they get no engagement, you might as well not exist.

>>17716949
Angry? I'm laughing at it, for making a solid sapphire kids watch that looks like it's plastic and has candy inside.

that and their designs look secondary is fuck. The crew heads on the front were done by Nautilus before, except Nautilus was clever about the design and made them countersunk studs with alligned slots and Hublot has actual literal screws.

>>17716946
Pic alone mogs all of Patek's lineup.

>>17716954
If we're being honest, when /wt/ says "Cohesive design language" they're talking about two brands: Rolex and G-Shock.

Both of those brands were highly industrialized from the start. Rolex can turn one case design, two dial patterns, and two movements into like eight different models. Their marketing campaign makes them instantly recognizable so one Rolex can stand for all Rolexes.

>>17716952
>>17716832
>Fag shades worn by homo Baked Alaska
Sums you up then.

>>17716959
Oh, oh, I get it. It's not the watch that makes you angry. It's the fact that other people can and do spend money on watches that you can't afford.

Lol, for a second there, I was unable to recognize bog-standard /wt/ poorfag seething.

>>17716746
Disgusting

>>17716922
lol patrimony really is a daniel wellington, vacheron is shit would rather get >>17716937

>>17716973
Many brands have a "cohesive design language".
>Cartier
>ALS
>FP Journe
>Grand Seiko
>Nomos
>Bell & Ross
>Laurent Ferrier
>Omega
>H. Moser

is this watch retarded or no

Hublot > Rolex

>>17716989
>ALS
Because they only have that one simple case with screwed-in lugs which they use for everything. It's very boring, but that's also very German so I guess it's fitting enough.

>>17716992
>see-through G-Shock
It's okay if you're into that sort of thing, but I wouldn't want my WV-59 to be like that.

>>17716989
Here omega and Grand Seiko don't but the rest is correct.

>>17716992
It's the baby bro version of pic related, so it's awesome.

>>17716989
Cartier I will grant you, but the others are all relatively new brands, all of whom have been able to recognize the marketing value of making all your watches look similar.
ALS, Bell & Ross, and Nomos are from the early 1990s, Journe is from 1999, Moser's from 2002. Laurent Ferrier isn't even 15 years old.

The old luxury companies did everything on a more custom basis. They didn't have models you bought off the shelf. You showed up, told them you wanted a chronograph and what you wanted it to look like.

Even Grand Seiko, with their US market relaunch, has been very careful to make them all look similarly ugly.

Look at the companies that "have no cohesive design language" and you'll find they're generally very, very old.
>Omega design language
that's like calling a grand mal seizure a kind of dancing.

>>17716999
Also the font, the sword hands, the railway track minute scale...

>>17716981
>It's the fact that other people can and do spend money on watches that you can't afford.
Somehow the chiming swiss boomer brands and the crazy zeitwork don't offend me.

But hublot is the watch equivalent of pretending to be retarded.

>Oh you don't care anon? Now i see that makes it a clever 100.000$ practical joke, I'm sorry I just couldn't tell and assumed you had really poor taste and didn't know anything about the watches.

>>17716999
Very retarded post. Congrats.

>>17716992
Any watch that you can't read time on is retarded.

>>17717006
So the wealthy have your permission to buy the watches you personally approve of?

>>17717000
>000
Frankly, I'm luckier to get trips than to find a Casio WV-300 anywhere:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t79GeZkTJLY

>>17717013
Why are you simping and feel the need to act defensive of the wealthy?

You think they might throw you a coin?

>>17717002
>Omega
Arrow hands, twisted lugs, THICC
>Grand Seiko
Dauphine hands, textured dials, faceted indices

I'm not a fan of these brands but they have features that make them recognizable.

>>17717008
germans are the most boring people in the world though

>>17717014
This is what Casio actually need to revive in a steel case with polished bezels, at least a mineral glass, modern crisp high contrast MIP display and sell it for 300$.

casio need to get their shit together and make a premium digital watch that isn't a g-shock.

>>17717015
>desperately flailing, trying to redirect

It's a simple enough question. Why are you unable to answer it? Why do you feel you have any say in how a person, rich or otherwise, spends their money?
Who made you the arbiter of aesthetics?

>>17717015
>Why are you simping and feel the need to act defensive of the wealthy?
>You think they might throw you a coin?

>>17717015
Imagine going thru life thinking any opinion different from your retarded perspective is "simping".

https://www.g-central.com/rich-and-powerful-men-who-wear-casio-watches/

>23 unique posters
wtf I love Hublot now.

>>17717027
The only way he could be more based is if he wore an EVA g-shock.

>>17717019
Maybe that's why they make the best watch movements.

>>17717004
>>Omega design language
>that's like calling a grand mal seizure a kind of dancing.
kek

>>17717021
I don't need any reason to laugh at the wealthy people doing stupid shit. Like making a shitty submarine out of a pipe and dying in it after insulting the old white engineers and their safety concerns, or making disgusting watches.

Now why are you so offended? Are you wealthy? Do you have a Hublot?

>>17717004
You're right, but what's stopping VC or JLC to change some of their designs in order to have a visual identity of their own? Like, who's gonna cry if they change the hands and indices of the Patrimony? Pic related is nice, but what makes it inherently JLC? It could be a Vacheron.
Developing an identity through "visual signatures" is important imo. Everyone can recognize a Rolex thanks to the mercedes hands, or a Cartier thanks to the Roman numerals.

https://www.g-central.com/rich-and-powerful-men-who-wear-casio-watches/

>>17717038
You don't sound like you're laughing. You sound like you're very angry.

>>17717038
>I don't need any reason to laugh at the wealthy people
LMAO Not even your own mother would believe you're sincere right now.

>>17717044
>You sound like you're very angry.
Hublot is silly, but YOU are annoying.

Where have all the railbros gone?

>>17717040
>You're right, but what's stopping VC or JLC to change some of their designs in order to have a visual identity of their own?
I don't know that nothing's stopping them. I'm not sure they actually want to.
I mean, they hire plenty of designers. They know what "design language" means.

Maybe they want each watch to be nice on its own merit rather than being just a variant of an existing model?

>>17717055
Man what an excellent fucking watch.

Is it old? Because it looks like it came from a better time.

>All this insecurity
I am very secure with my Casio WV-59.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjr2aeHrbTQ

>>17717063
I've had it for 3 years, bought new, and worn it just about every day. Beat it up pretty good at work and /out/and have had to send it in once for service.

>>17717065
The only reason i didn't buy it is that i need a non-metal watch that doesn't trigger the airport frame for work.

But it's good.

>>17716992
I was going to buy but the legibility is not great. I'll still get it if I find it on sale.

>>17717014
I was just wearing my wv300 yesterday. Sadly it's negative display and has a pretty scratched mineral glass

>>17716965
>Small seconds not also angled
> Crown position
Retarded

>>17717069
>69

I used to think small seconds was weird but it's kinda growing on me. Is small seconds based or cringe?

>>17717078
L-lewd!

Help me out, wasn't there a Ball watch with a reall funny "penis"master title? Or was it just the "ballmaster"?

What's the deal with the Miyota 8285 full day date automatic movements and how is it possible only one watch on the entire internet uses it? When you google for the movement the only watch that comes up is Cadisen daydate homages. There's no way Miyota only makes this movement to sell to this literally who company for this one watch, r-right?

>>17717075
>has a pretty scratched mineral glass
Use this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Az_gNeHGzFU

I got the version for acrylic to remove the scratches from that on my WV-59 I'd ordered from eBay. Several minutes later with that stuff & a cloth, and they were completely gone.

>>17717094
>I got the version for acrylic

I tried toothpaste on my Royale and it worked.
Toothpaste is hard enough to polish the acrylic.

>>17717084
>L-lewd!
Just Google 'Erotic Watches'

>>17716922
I prefer their design to Patek's.

>>17717110
sure you do, COPE

>>17717098
>hard enough
Would it be hard enough to polish an erotic watch? Especially an automatic on your wrist while you're polishing something else that's hard...!

>>17717020
>This is what Casio actually need to revive in a steel case with polished bezels, at least a mineral glass, modern crisp high contrast MIP display and sell it for 300$.
This so much! All metal and clean up the design a bit and they're set. It's 2023 ffs.

>>17717069
What doesn't trigger it? Either the watch has a battery or metal gears which are both metal.

>>17716965
dishonest watchmaking

>>17716698
hublot is BASED
i dont care if these youtube shills and their respective flocks of braindead redditors pretend it is cringe when hublot copies royal oak, but when tudor and omega copy rolex it is "great value"

>>17717092
Is there a reason you are interested in this specific movement?

>>17717055
I wish they made a railmaster with a date

>>17717082
>I used to think small seconds was weird but it's kinda growing on me. Is small seconds based or cringe?
It's fine. It's harder to pull off than center seconds because the subdial needs to be positioned and proportioned correctly to the rest of the dial.

>>17717014
Another rare Casio. An ME-120:

>>17717134
I was interested in the idea of getting an affordable daydate style watch so I was shopping around a little bit for them and they all have their problems but I happened to notice that this partidular cadisen watch seems to be literally the only watch on earth using this movement. That just strikes me as really strange.

I probably wouldn't buy a watch with this movement just because based on the design of the dial and the watch it appears to basically require the watch to be 40mm case diameter. But I'm trying to figure out how it makes economic sense for Miyota to make and stock these movements for literally one small brand to make one watch. But it's probably pretty good for the brand since despite the size of the watch it seems to be the best daydate homage out there. The 36mm options mostly use a chinese movement that apparently gets stuck when you push the crown in after setting the time and you have to shake it up or bang it against something to get the second hand moving again. I guess success is almost guaranteed when that's the level of competition you deal with.

>>17717166
I'm pretty sure there's like one or two citizen that have a rolex style top day of the week.

But for some reason day of the week seems to be rare these days, as far as i'm concerned it's a lot more useful than a chronometer.
Seiko seems to be making most of the day date watches, most other brands are doing dust date.

>>17717173
Citizen is fine but I'm only interested in automatic watches now personally. That's actually the biggest part of the issue, there are quartz watches out there that do daydate style fairly well but I don't go for that and most of the daydate style affordable watch movements end up in some really fucking ugly looking watches.

>>17717186
Citizen OWN Miyota and make some mechanical watches, naturally with the Miyota movement.

>>17717147
You don't know the pain of owning a rare casio with a proprietary strap system for which all the straps have rotteb away.

Forgot pic of rare casio

>>17717055
Been hunting one for a while

>>17717119
this watch scares me on so many levels

-someone came up with this idea, this someone actually has a job at a big company where people listen to them
-a group of people working for this company approved of this idea and decided to make 30 of these $750k watches
-there are 30 people who can afford this watch and think it's worth buying

>>17717205
You're pathetic

>>17716965
To be honest, every single watch Patek makes is ugly as shit.

Vacherons is a bit better, but not by much.

>>17717194
Not in the style I want.

>>17717197
>>17717199
Where I got the bracelet for my (then) plastic-strapped Casio WV-59 via eBay:

https://www.ebay.co.uk/str/ersatzuhrenarmband

You may have more luck with a strap for that. I haven't had luck in finding these rare Casios:

>>17717197
>>17717199
Where I got the bracelet for my (then) plastic-strapped Casio WV-59 via eBay:

https://www.ebay.co.uk/str/ersatzuhrenarmband

You may have more luck with a strap for that. I haven't had luck in finding these rare Casios:

>>17717119
>the same people that soijak over this call Hublots tacky

>>17717204
you can just go to the AD and buy one with a discount
its not a Rolex

>>17717006
>>17717013
I know this is essentially r/2watches4u but could you two retards shit the fuck up

>>17717224
They've been discontinued for a long time.

>>17717166
>I was interested in the idea of getting an affordable daydate style watch
Get a Weekdater.

>>17717199
Could you get a custom molded/made rubber strap?

>>17717040
>Developing an identity through "visual signatures" is important imo.
No, it's not

>>17717227
>want to get a weekdater
>none of them have wabisabi patina

>>17716946
Patek is Roger Smith cope

>>17717232
Find one that is NOS then. There are variants with linen dials as well. Picrel goes for 720$ on Ebay.

>>17717233
Smith is Daniels cope.

>>17717234
>720$
Sorry, 810$.

>>17717234
The vertical brushed dial is really nice. More watches should have it these days to be honest. Linen too.

anyone else think this thing looks way better than its 300$ pricepoint?

I spent the past month on holiday in Italy, and while sightseeing I was on the lookout for what people were wearing on their wrist. I spent significant time in Rome, Florence, Siena, Venice and Bellagio (Lake Como), with little side trips to Orvieto, Cinque Terre, Pienza, Montepulciano, Bologna, Verona, and the Milan airport. Here a few of my observations:

Moonswatches were everywhere... Before going on this trip I had never seen one in person. Maybe it's just the difference of availability in Europe vs. the US - but this was by far the most common watch I saw - obviously other than Apple Watches.
I wasn't surprised to see a lot of Submariners, but I was surprised that I only saw 1 of the current generation models (41mm with ceramic bezel). Most of what I saw were 16610s or 14060s - but these were on the wrist of everyone from hotel clerks to waiters, as well as other tourists.
Another watch that was fairly common was the blue Bond Seamaster 300m from the 90s. I saw a couple current generation Seamasters (maybe 1 black and 1 blue dial), but a bunch of the older ones.
In 4 weeks I think I saw 1 or 2 Batman GMT Masters, and maybe 1 Pepsi. I thought I'd see more of these.
I did see a few APs in Florence, but I didn't get good looks at them, it was fashion week while I was there so I was looking at other things.
The 2 nicest watches I saw were on the wrist of other patrons at restaurants - a white gold Daytona, and a rose gold Skydweller.

>>17717247
It does, the textured dial really helps.

Does anybody actually believe watches this big look good? Are overweight americans and saudis really ruling this market?

>>17717234
>>17717240
I've been looking at these 6206/6218 on Ebay for a while, I just get cautious about 50 year old date mechanisms. But those japs are pretty good about showing any fuckups

>>17717257
>Are overweight americans and saudis really ruling this market
obviously. luxury watches are aimed at fat, middle-aged men like Mortadello or Archie

>>17717257
>Does anybody actually believe watches this big look good?
Sure. (Nice >murrica bait, BTW.) You just need to change two things.
- Put it on a leather strap. JLC bracelets are terrible.
- Put it on a wrist of appropriate size. The guy in your pic is sub-Mosso.

Larger watches are appropriate to larger wrists. Smaller watches are for smaller wrists. I don't know why that take is so controversial?

>>17717248
So it was all sports watches? No leather banded dress?

>>17717267
I wish mortadello would mindbreak my girlfriend and get her addicted to his fat cock

>>17717247
I just assumed it was gold at the first glance

>>17717275
Nothing except the APs. This is normal in the summer heat.

>>17717257
Actually it was Russians and Chinese and other asians. Now that they've dropped out of the race one by one sizes are reverting to better proportionality.

>>17717260
Mine works just fine. You can always buy another banged up example for cheap and use it for spare parts if you're that worried.

>>17717272
>Larger watches are appropriate to larger wrists. Smaller watches are for smaller wrists.
Then you would think they would sell both small and large watches but they don't. They have that one 36mm ultra thin and that's it, pretty much all their watches are 40mm and look plain bad on small wrists.
Also do you believe pointing out that americans are overweight is bait?

>>17717272
>Larger watches are appropriate to larger wrists. Smaller watches are for smaller wrists. I don't know why that take is so controversial?
It's really not controversial, in the real world pretty much everyone agree on that.
The thing is, the amount of retards who can't pick the right watch for their wrist is astonishing, and frankly this is annoying because we're talking about expensive watches.
What goes through the head of these people seriously? Do they look at their wrist and think "yeah this is fine", or do they realize it's too big and say "B-B-BUT I LIKE IT" and buy it anyway?

>>17717302
Stubbornness I guess. I have 6-6.25 inch wrists and a 44mm lug to lug is beyond what i'm comfortable wearing, so I don't even bother imagining myself wearing a Rolex/Speedmaster/any nice watch.

have YOU bought your Spaghetti Scameti iCon Launch Edition yet?
prices have been halved, and any possible middlemen have been pulverized

I really like the look of this Tag... Is it cope though?

>>17717307
I just saw the vids, Ben is a cool guy.

>>17717302
I have a 8" wrist and I prefer smaller (less than 40mm) watches.

>>17717308
Seamaster cope which is Submariner cope already.

>>17717020
>casio
>make a premium digital watch that isn't in their premium digital line
G-Shock is their premium line along with Oceanus. Then they have midrange lines like Protrek and Edifice, with the regular Casios at the very bottom. They tried making premium digital watches on their basic line with the A1000 and people complained about the price. It's a very small niche that wants premium versions of basic Casios.

>>17717205
It’s a tongue in cheek throwback to old erotic watches with a novel complication. As far as RMs go, I think it’s great. Obviously it’s unhinged but that’s on brand.

>>17717318
That watch is ALMOST what i want.
But a premium digital has to have a premium MIP screen and at bracelet that doesn't look embarassing.

It's problem is that it's not premium enough.

>>17717318
>n their basic line with the A1000 and people complained about the price.
These ones are looking to cost around $180 and I'm a bit ashamed to say I'm willing to pay it.

Rolex Explorer 114270 today.

rolliebros stick together

>>17717336
Lmao I hope that one anon ended up getting the silver leaf dial

>>17717307
I never expected he'd take the joke this far

>>17717307
Ironically this is much worse in both design and quality than the watches he's trying to mock.

Name five (5) watches that aren't Rolex cope.
Pro-tip: you can't.

>>17717335
Why haven't they given the explorers female endlinks yet?

>>17717298
>Then you would think they would sell both small and large watches but they don't.
I agree with you in that regard. Plenty of guys with smaller wrists (myself included) would like to see companies make more traditional complications in the 38mm-and-below class. They're out there. Blancpain makes a couple that I know of.
But the sad fact is that the average man's wrist size is 7.25". When it's only economically feasible to make a watch in a single size, it's only good business to make that size appropriate to the largest group of customers. (That doesn't mean make it as small as possible either, because now it will look too small on the above average sized customer)

>auto
>open back
Someone convince me not to

>>17717344
Anything Cartier

>>17717345
Idk, I think it looks alright. Kinda like how the lugs extend past the end link. I need to wear this on a nato or paratrooper band, I have a bunch of 20mm options coming from CNS.

>>17717302
The thing about it is smaller watches can work on almost anybody but larger watches work on almost nobody. A 36mm works whether you're a man or woman, whether your wrist is 6 inches or 8 inches, whether you're formal or casual, etc... And it'll be that way up to 38mm, sometimes up to 40mm if the watch is well designed. But if you start trying to go bigger than that you're going to get wrist overhang on smaller wrists and even on bigger wrists the watches often don't conform to your wrist comfortably and they don't fit well under shirt sleeves and they can hang up on everything when you're trying to reach into a small space. I have bigger wrists but I still much prefer a watch that's on the small side.

>>17717267
lmao archie sorta looks like ugly basturd

>>17717344
Breguet Classique
Lange One
Carier Santos
Grand Soiko funny Snowflake
Casio FW-91W

>>17717349
If it costs 150$ go for it.
Because that's what a watch like that is worth.

>>17717344
Any luxury watch that has no Rolex equivalent is not a cope.
Rolex, for example, doesn't make a watch like the Breguet Tourbillon or the Piaget Altiplano Ultimate.

I know one anon was considering Kuoe so this is for him.
Bought the Royal Smith last year while looking for watches with short lug to lug. I opted for the sapphire replacement. Keeps good time, very nice finishing on case/dial/indices. Im pretty sure back when I got this it was one of the few models actually assembled in-house, but it seems all their watches are now so the field watch one should be just as good.

>>17717318
>>17717330
Why don't they update the module in these? No timer? A single daily alarm? It's 2023 ffs

>>17717349
>"swiss" superluminova
lmao at this feeble attempt to try to inject some "swissness" into this shitter.
firstly it's fucking lume powder, second it's made by seiko lol

>>17717358
>The thing about it is smaller watches can work on almost anybody but larger watches work on almost nobody.
That's simply not true.
Larger watches work on larger wrists.
A watch that's designed to be proportionate to a 7" wrist is going to look oversized on a 6" wrist and tiny on an 8" wrist.
Sure, you may personally prefer smaller watches and that's great. You're not breaking any laws.

I think >>17717304 had it right. Guys just get stubborn. They fall in love with a watch online, try it on and it's too big or too small.
>I can make it work! I can pull it off!

>>17717365

I'm considering getting the Old Smith.

On a different note, I've finally found a chronograph I like. How do we feel about the Cartier Pasha bros?

>>17717379
Hideous unless you have black skin

>>17717379
It's decent.
Specs-wise, it's good. Pretty thin for an automatic chrono, 12mm. Good water resistance too, 100m.
The only downside is a weak 47hr power reserve.

I wish they had not included the 4:30 date window and figured out something else to to with the pushers than the blue cabochons. (It looks excessive.)

>>17717372
But it is true though. I know from experience. I have a 46mm watch that LOOKS like it works on me based on size and proportion, but as the person wearing it I know the back of the case is flat and doesn't wrap around my wrist comfortably, also for that geometrical reason I have to wear the bracelet looser than I like because if I take out one more link it sits wrong and is way too tight like it's trying to pull the watch through my wrist instead of around it, and long sleeve shirts have to stretch over it so I have to roll them up or wear short sleeves.

On the other hand my go to work watch is 38mm and my go to after-work watch is 36mm, they look and feel great, nobody questions it and I never have to think twice about what I'm wearing or what I'm going to be doing.

>>17717247
I prefer the silver edition

Whats a good cope Cartier dress watch for around $500? Basically just want a rectangle gold case with roman numerals on the dial. Bonus points for being mechanical

>>17717372
Tbh I feel this way about my 40mm GS basedflake. Ordered it sight unseen from an AD in another state, got it, leeeetle bit big for my chopstick wrists, but the titanium makes it wear very light. And I’ve worn it around the world, it was my wedding watch, my first really nice watch, my only spring drive, so I can never get rid of it. But man I wish it was a 36 or 38.

>>17717385
You shouldn't make the fallacy of thinking that your personal taste and experience constitutes the whole of objective reality. That would be very autistic.

>>17717394
How the fuck are you going to measure objectively if a watch is a good size?

>>17717393
On the plus side, the number of people (even watch people) who don't give a shit waaaay outnumbers the people who care about watch sizes.

I've owned a 47mm Panerai 372 and a 26mm Cartier Santos-Dumont. The only person who ever felt weird about their sizes was me. When you switch from a huge watch to a tiny watch, or vice versa, it feels alien for about two days. Then you get used to it.

That said, though, the one rule that I set for myself is no lug-wrist overhang, never ever.

>>17717392

I think Seiko makes one almost exactly the same as in your pic, but it's a quartz movement.

>>17717396
Ask >>17717385. He has apparently determined what watch size looks best on what wrist size based purely on his own experience.
It's incredible, actually.

>>17717400
I think this is the problem most of the "wear as big a watch as possible without overlapping your wrist" people are having. I used to wear 42mm or better watches, then when I got my first 38mm watch I spent the first week or so worried it looked way too small on me. Now after wearing 35mm and 36mm watches I almost wonder if 38mm is too big. There's just no good reason that a bigger watch is necessarily better, even if you "pull it off."

>>17717412
>I think this is the problem most of the "wear as big a watch as possible without overlapping your wrist" people are having.
Which part is the problem?

>Grow up wearing G-shocks (and not the base models that lack sensors)
>Get conditioned to WRIST PRESENCE
>Wear dinner plate watches as an adult

>>17717404
I'm not even convinced you read that post, because it doesn't say anything like that at all.

>>17717343
I love how wonky that S is placed

>>17717415
If the first set of links on your bracelet are hanging vertically down from your watch rather than wrapping around your wrist your watch doesn't fit.

>>17717415
The problem is the logic of "I CAN wear a bigger watch, therefore I should because small watches won't look right." It's just not the case.

>>17716848
PISSSS

>>17717424
>The problem is the logic of "I CAN wear a bigger watch, therefore I should because small watches won't look right." It's just not the case.

If a person can wear a bigger watch (of course, so long as the lugs aren't overhanging the guys wrist) then he is entitled to wear whatever he wants.
How it actually looks on him is dependent on so many factors other than just size. Size is probably one of the least important factors.

Holy shit, you wrist size absolutists are too much. You're screeching about 37mm vs 36mm.
It's all well and good to enjoy a nice autistic meltdown, but it's starting to get boring.
Whichever one of you said that anyone can wear whatever they want, stop provoking the spergies. They'll get tired as soon as their meds kick in.

>>17717433
>(of course, so long as the lugs aren't overhanging the guys wrist)

It's lugs and LINKS.

>>17717440
Right, thanks. I forgot about that. (None of my watches are on bracelets.)

>>17717365
nice patek bro

>>17717433
But look isn't even the only consideration though. It matters how it feels, too. It just doesn't make sense to wear a watch that's bigger than necessary, even if it LOOKS fine.

>>17717404
The original claim I was responding to was that you need to pick a watch based on your wrist size and if you have a big wrist you need a bigger watch.

I was saying that's NOT true.

You literally have it backwards.

Can someone recommend me a slim watch that is its own thing? I wanted to get the Nomos Tetra but by budget maxes out at six hundred.

Something that will make purist fags seethe and normies think I own a sophisticated watch.

No gold, no shiny bullshit. Just somewhat unorthodox form and reasonable price.

>>17717455
>bigger than necessary,
what does this even mean?

>>17717463
Swatch Skin Irony. It's like a hundred bucks.

>>17717466
Say you have a 3 hand watch that's 35mm in diameter. Then you try on the same 3 hand watch model but it's a 45mm diameter version. Which one do you think will feel more comfortable? Which one do think will feel more practical? Do you think either of those considerations actually have anything to do with how big your wrist is? The 45mm watch is probably much easier to read(from fucking space) but if the 35mm watch is also perfectly legible why bother wearing the bigger watch? They literally convey the same information but one is smaller and lighter. Even if they both look fine it doesn't make much practical sense to wear and carry the bigger item.

>>17717487
...but we're talking about jewelry, here. We're not talking about sporting equipment, like the ideal tension on your tennis strings or length of your skis, where changes actually matter.

These are just trinkets.

>>17717366
There are a billion other Casios with timers, these watches exist solely for their design. 95% of people who buy them probably never use anything other than the time if they even set it.

>>17717487
>Which one do think will feel more practical?
If the 35mm one is a gold dress watch with no water resistance and the 45mm one is a dive watch and I'm in the middle of the ocean, the 45mm one will feel a hell of a lot more practical.

>>17717237
Daniels is Breguet cope

>>17717496
If it was a different fucking style of watch it would defeat the point of the experiment, wouldn't it retard? You have to compare like to like or it's meaningless.

>>17717510
But there is no like for like. Your little """""experiment""""" is so far beyond the bounds of reality that it's meaningless.

>>17717477
swatch is too well known, but good try

>>17717513

Sure, but it definitely does make purists seethe and normies will like it if it looks neat.

>>17717493
Okay.

You can wear a regular ball cap fitted to your head, or you can wear a ball cap that stands 10 inches higher than the top of your head like a 10 gallon hat. Which one are you wearing?
>THEY BOTH FIT, WHAT DOES IT MATTER!?

>>17717516
more like "normies" who buy a yachtmaster and think they conquered watches

>>17717518
depends on whichever is fashionable at the time. next stupid question.

>>17717392
save up a bit more and get a tank must, they're not that expensive

>>17717518
What a woke piece of shit in that pic. I have never seen anything so stupid in my entire life. Who the shit is that literal nobody? He looks homeless, lmao.

>>17717358
36mm is waaaaaay too small if you have even a
7.25" wrist
39mm is the smallest an average dude should go

>>17717463
junghans makes something slim

>>17717514
There's definitely like to like. You can get fliegers in 36mm, in 40mm, or in the more historically accurate 43mm and 46mm oversized cases for wearing over a flight suit. Which one are you wearing? They're otherwise the same watch.

>>17717521
36mm watches literally never fell out of style.

>>17717530
Whichever one I personally feel looks best my wrist.

Because, as we're all taking great pains to explain to you, it's entirely subjective and based on personal preference.

>>17717494
Yeah but none of them is slim and slick like the ones with the crappy module. The all look like slighly less rugged g-shock.
I know retards don't care about functions, it's all because of the retards

>>17717532
His question was about hats, though.

And also, 30mm men's watches definitely fell out of style. 36mm used to be considered oversized.

>>17717526
Are you honestly going to argue this watch is too small?

>>17717537
Wow, TWO inane deflections in the same response, way to go.

>>17717533
You're NOT arguing it's subjective though. You're arguing that there is a correct watch size to wear depending on your wrist size.

>>17717540
It's OK, I accept your concession.

>>17717542
>You're NOT arguing it's subjective though

>>17717533
>Whichever one I personally feel looks best my wrist.

"personally feel" is about as subjective as it gets, isn't it?

>>17717330
That design looks terrible. Reminds me of a microwave

>>17717463
maybe tissot prx or citizen stiletto

>>17717545
Earlier when I argued for how a watch feels or how utilitarian it is rather than how it looks I was roundly told several times that no, looks is what matters, you can't be caught wearing a watch too small for you, this is jewelry.

>>17717538
Nice ladies watch

>>17717365
Nice shilling bro.

>>17717556
Say it to my face IRL manlet. I bet you absolutely 100% would never do it.

>>17717514
>Hey, I'm testing one variable and changing nothing else because the subject we are testing is based only on this variable
>BUT WHAT IF EVERYTHING ELSE WAS DIFFERENT TOO?

>>17717534
The LF20W is as thin as an F91W and has more features than you'll ever use but you will find something to complain about because you're not interested in watches you're just a whiny little bitch with nothing better to do but to waste space.

>>17717552
Well that's not me. Sorry. You've been arguing with multiple anons.

>>17717392
This Tissot
https://www.jomashop.com/tissot-heritage-hand-wind-white-dial-unisex-watch-t128-505-36-012-00.html

KINO

>tfw you realize every watch is a Seiko cope not a Rolex cope

>>17717585
It's a plastic watch, I wouldn't call it slick. Also the display doesn't need to be that big, there's redundant information.
>you're not interested in watches you're just a whiny little bitch
I am commenting exclusively on features and looks of watches. Just say you disagree with me, saying I'm the one not interested in watches in this shitshow of a thread is retarded

>>17717538
Yeah, I have a 7.25" wrist and 40mm is the correct proportion. A 36mm would look small on me. The dude in your pic has a smaller wrist. It's not rocket science.

>>17717626
NNNOOOOOO! NO MAN EVER NEEDS A WATCH BIGGER THAN MINE, REGARDLESS OF WRIST SIZE!!

Looking to buy my first watch, any reason this could be a fake/counterfeit?

>>17717649
Older Breitlings are extremely easy to counterfeit due to their use of off-the-shelf movements.

If you're buying it from a guy, have him take pictures of the serial number and demonstrate it matches the warranty card, at the very least. If he's even the slightest bit dodgy, walk away.

>>17717538
Every aspect of the dimensions of this watch on this guy is idyllic. Twigwrists take note.

>>17717626
That's an 8 inch wrist wearing a 36mm watch.

>>17717605
If it was 36mm or even 38mm I'd buy one of these immediately. 40mm is too big for just a 3 hand and date watch with no rotating bezel or anything.

>>17717613
wasnt this watch more expensive than rolex at the time?

>>17717538
This looks perfect and anyone thinking otherwise is utterly tasteless

>>17717695
God help you if you have a smaller wrist than the 8" in that pic. On some of the wristlets here, it would look like a satellite dish.

>>17717682
exactly, 36mm solar would be ideal for me

>>17716708
Is he a kike? Damn i liked his videos

>>17717655
Wouldn't that make any ETA movement watch easy to replicate?

I bought a used Hamilton Field and it has that nato strap with leather on it how do I clean it? Can I submerge it in water?

>>17717257
Yeah, it looks awful here. It's just a marker of bad or undeveloped taste, to wear watches too big for one's wrist.

>>17717257
luckily it seems like we are slowly going back to small watches again

2 weeks since I got a clomage, man, it's a great watch (-2 secs a day) but I feel dirty, worse than wearing a fake, like trying to be something I'm not.

Hey guys I need help finding this watch I would like to purchase. here is the info I have on it, if anyone knows anything that would be great :)

>>17717767
The reason you can't find any info on it is because it's a mumbai special, avoid it.

>>17717767
Found it on ebay under the title
Vintage Seiko5 Automatic 38MM Steel Silver Day-Date Japan Made Men's Wrist Watch.

Its out of stock, if anyone knows any Japan Seiko sellers that be cool

>>17717768
I dont understand, why? And why would I want to avoid that

>>17717777
VOSTOK AMPHIBIA

>>17717771
It's a franken watch cobbled together from whatever bullshit is laying around. Not high quality to put it lightly. Just don't buy shit from india.

>>>17717777
>VOSTOK AMPHIBIA

>>17717769
>>17717767
https://www.ebay.com/itm/155451648380
doesn't look like its outta stock

>>17717776
I really like the look of
>>17717767
do you have any recommendations for something similar I could purchase

>>17717776
Fucking idiot, you messed up the get by one

>>17717779
Thanks anon totally buying one

>>17717783
>from India
Anon if you wanted to throw away $47 I'll gladly take it from you.

>>17717786
send a better 47 dollar watch

>>17717792
Literally anything would be better.

>>17717792
a 10 dollar casio

Why does citizen get so much hate? They're obviously not collectable enthusiast watches but they don't claim to be, and the price to quality ratio is hard to beat

>>17717799
I thought citizen was fairly well respected for what they are, which is higher quality watches for Seiko prices

>>17717799
citizen are based for being pure, unbridled japanese autism. casio are still riding on their success in the 80's and seiko are the finest producers of mass produced, consumer grade COPE

>>17717767
you can get this case and hands from china
kinda looks like it has skx ring
moovt is nh36
dial and bezel is printed

>>17717812
>soiko
>COPE
lol cope

>>17717626
Same volume different shape.
Your wrist must be flatter.

>>17717799
I like em
My first watch was a citizen (didn't know much, still don't desu)

It's cute, golds a bit tacky but I enjoyed it, a tad bricky tho

>>17717812
>>17717833
Orient have pretty out there designs, they have the balls to have their own personality while being at the bottom of the market.

Seiko tho?
They are getting really fucking conservative and boring, just let go of the fat oyster case, it sucks, it always sucked and you can't be Rolex, not for 200$.

Seiko should be learning from Tissot instead.

>>17717858
orient know what they're about and that's creating luxury watches for thirdies. for that they are based

>>17717858
What seiko needs to learn is that the old nip middle managers that insisted on shit like the gay ass X prospex logo ruins a dial.
Or 50 different fonts on a grand seiko is retarded etc.
On that front they've improved.
Or half-assing a release because
>conservative nip boomer management
no fuck you fucking nips.
Look at the King Seiko release, look how it's hampered by retarded decisions. And all those fucking divers, QC issues aside, why did it take them so long to leverage the whole vintage throwback model deal that's been taking the watchworld by storm for years now?
>no we'll release a "modern interpretation" of a beloved classic that nobody wants
NO FAGGOTS JUST RE-RELEASE YOUR SHIT FROM THE 70'S
DUMB CUUUUUUUUUNNNNTTSSSSSSS

>>17717799
>Why does citizen get so much hate?

Citizen has the same branding for the 10$ bargain bin watches, 20$ calculators, 100$solar, 200$ automatics, 500$ radio controlled solar watches and 5000$ high end.
Some of their watches are cool, but most of them are fucking GYNORMOUS, they are making 40, 44, 45mm watches, and sell in the Japanese market. Who is that for? Godzilla? Sumo wrestlers? The Japanese aren't very big people who the fuck wears a 44mm watch?

>>17717870
Asians are small in general so idk why they have watches so big desu

Maybe its a flashy/status thing

>>17717868
>NO FAGGOTS JUST RE-RELEASE YOUR SHIT FROM THE 70'S
inb4 SEIKO HERITAGE CLASSIC CUSTOM written in 48pt font on the dial
>>17717871
the gentle nipponese race are forward thinking people and large watch dials are the modern style

>>17717872
>and large watch dials are the modern style

From 20 years ago.

>>17717871
>>17717870
It is. Why do you think the entire industry's only just coming out of the dinnerplate era? It wasn't because of westerners that's for sure.
The hot market to shill to was asia and all that new money in china.
They took to the likes of panerai and they took to it HARD. Everyone followed suit sooner or later. To be a chink it to be one who is indistinguishable from billions. Have to stand out. Have to scramble to the top of the hive. Have to wear a gigantic gaudy totem on my wrist to flex on all those that I've stepped on to get to a higher level in the bugworld.
Now that the china market is dead the rest of asia isn't enough to sustain and thus sizes have retracted a little again.

>>17717877
>It is. Why do you think the entire industry's only just coming out of the dinnerplate era? It wasn't because of westerners that's for sure.
Sorry, I meant to imply that the dinnerplate era was not due to western tastes but rather to the tastes of puny bugmen compensating for their low stature in life, physically and figuratively.

>>17717872
>inb4 SEIKO HERITAGE CLASSIC CUSTOM written in 48pt font on the dial
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>17717881
>>17717877
Nicely put m8

NEW
>>17717899
>>17717899
>>17717899
>>17717899
>>17717899

>>17717343
That's the point.

>>17717371
Well technically Super-LumiNova is Swiss made, it just wasn't invented by them.

>>17717343
The point is for the watch to be as shitty as possible while being honest about it and charging less for it. He was probably persuaded to make a watch and put it on sale by his viewers. He won't sell more than a 100 of them and will probably lose money making them.

>>17717767
Don't, it's a frankenwatch, this was never made by Seiko.

>>17717868
I agree, they messed up with the King Seiko. The case and bracelet are nice, but they should have put a better movement in it and do better with the details (off the shelf Presage hands i'm looking at you).

>>17717227
>cockroaches coming up from under the day

>>17717744
>Buys $700 watch
>Does zero research on it
whew man, but if this is the same SKU you got then it has some water resistance

https://www.hamiltonwatch.com/en-us/h69529933-khaki-field-mechanical.html