/wt/ - Watch Thread

[Anonymous No.17618707]

Leather straps on Dive Watches Edition

Poorfag guide: https://imgur.com/a/NFMXDuK
> Watch essentials 102: https://pastebin.com/Rc77hhXV
> Purchasing used watches: https://pastebin.com/f44aJKy2
> Purchasing straps: https://pastebin.com/SwRysprE

Should I buy this MVMT / DW / "minimalist" fashion watch?
> https://imgur.com/a/6CNO8

Should I buy this Armani / Michael Kors / mall watch?
> https://imgur.com/a/Sw1FsAn

"Suggest a watch for me."
> Your budget
> Watch type, e.g. dress, diver, pilot
> Movement, e.g. automatic, hand wound, quartz
> Desired features, e.g. water resistance, day/date, 2nd time zone
> Preferred strap option, e.g. leather, nylon, bracelet
> Wrist size or desired watch size

previous thread >>17615914

[Anonymous No.17618710]

not only is the other thread not at bump limit but its also only at page 2
kys

[Anonymous No.17618725]

Now that the dust has settled, what is the accepted consensus about the Tudor Black Bay GMT?

[Anonymous No.17618728]

>>17618725
It's fine for a $250 microbrand.

[Anonymous No.17618740]

>>17618725
San martin did it better.

[Anonymous No.17618749]

>>17618740
Isn't san martin just an office gmt?

[Anonymous No.17618762]

[Anonymous No.17618767]

>>17618725
Love mine, being based off a diver gets that sweet 200m waterproofing, making it my travel watch with no need to bring another one.

[Anonymous No.17618798]

>>17618762
Pretty neat, what's the ref?

[Anonymous No.17618807]

>imagine needing more
as a former watch autist that previously owned 7 shitter seikos and 2 tudors, I find people who dump hundreds to thousands of dollars into a stupid watch utterly repulsive. ask yourself this: why do you want a $1000+ chunk of metal on your wrist? a chunk of metal that more than likely keeps worse time than a chunk of metal worth $15-$20 dollars? are you really that insecure and retarded that you need to "impress" people with your stupid watch? really? you're realty going to spend hundreds to thousands of dollars on something that just keeps the fucking time? are you fucking retarded? I challenge each and every one of you to sit quietly in your room for at least 30 minutes and think critically about why you really want an expensive watch. think about why you got yourself into this situation in the first place. think about the forces that led you down this path and think about why owning an expensive watch is something revered by wider society in the first place. I wish you luck on your journey to self discovery, truly. as for me, adieu /fa/ggots.

[Anonymous No.17618808]

>>17618807
Poor loser.

[Anonymous No.17618814]

>>17618808
you will learn some day, hopefully.

[Anonymous No.17618816]

>>17618798
2443

[Anonymous No.17618821]

>>17618707
been thinking of buying the casio a158, I really like it but I have been checking other alternatives that are similar to it none that really satisfy me though any recommendations to watches I should check out before I cop the a158,
>>17618807
that is a casio a700 right? it is pretty near I also considered it the band looks kind of weird and I heard mixed things about it but it looks cool

[Anonymous No.17618824]

>>17618821
>that is a casio a700 right?
yes. bought it on amazon for $20 a little more than a year ago. band has been fine for me and I have a lot of hair on my arms. apparently the clasp can give out over time but for $20 you can just go and get a new watch if that happens.

[Anonymous No.17618825]

>>17618814
Give me money I'll learn today :)

[Anonymous No.17618826]

>>17618825
learning doesn't cost any money. your only expense is your time.

[Anonymous No.17618828]

>>17618824
I can't really find any a700 in silver where i live, so im probably just going to end up buying a a158, im tempted yo buy a la670 even though its a womans watch because I prefer watches with small faces.

[Anonymous No.17618831]

>>17618821
I'm so disappointed with the module inside those watches. The light button also has secondary functions depending on the mode you're in, so if it's dark and you don't remember in which mode you left the watch, you might mess things up by pressing it. For example, I inadvertedly turned on an alarm trying to check the time at night, which went off hours later and woke me up early. Another very retarded thing is that the "set time" mode is just like any other mode, that is, it does not require holding a button to enter it. So you're at constant risk of fucking up the time.
Now, if like many people you'll just use it for the time, you're gonna be fine. But it sucks as a functional digital watch. G-shocks are 10 times better, but alas more than twice as thick

[Anonymous No.17618836]

>>17618831
yeah i really like it for the slick look desu, I will probably have it as my alarm clock in the morning cause i dislike waking up to my phone but if its a hassle i wont

[Anonymous No.17618837]

>>17618821
I have the a158 and I really like it, but if I were to buy it again I would probably choose the a168 for two reasons:
a) backlight. At this point is basically a meme, but the backlight of the a158/f91w is a fucking joke. Of course you can read the numbers in a dark ambient, but it shouldn't be this bad.
b) size. I have thin wrists but even the a158 still looks small, almost feminine. The a168 is slightly bigger and I would'nt mind it at this point.

[Anonymous No.17618840]

>>17618837
yeah i head the mems about the casio vintage digitals lol, the illuminator from what i hear solves that problem but it really doesn't bother me.
I actually specifically chose the 158 over the 168 because of the smaller size im a real hater over chunky watches and a fanboy for small faces to the point where i have considered buying some womans watches

[Anonymous No.17618845]

>>17618826
Then fuck off poorfag :)

[Anonymous No.17618851]

>>17618836
It's fine if you wake up at the same time every day of the week and don't plan on using the chronograph function.
By the way, the closest alternative I was able to find is the GM S5600, at 11 mm

[Anonymous No.17618853]

[Anonymous No.17618856]

>>17618851
Try the A500, all the features (including world time) but only 9.6mm thick. I have an F91W and an a500, the latter is significantly better in every way, especially the backlight.

[Anonymous No.17618857]

>>17618851
maybe the shitty alarm system will fix my sleep schedule. Ima cop the a158 rn, im pretty convinced with it, I haven't explored other digital vintage options from other brands like timex and seiko but they seem to be worse generally when it comes to what im looking for. the 5600 is too chunky for my taste im super annoying about my watches being thin

[Anonymous No.17618865]

>>17618853
unbelievably based watch

[Anonymous No.17618867]

Why is it that none of you have bought yourself a SWISS high-end watch already?

And Rolex is cope of the Holy Trinity, btw.

[Anonymous No.17618870]

>>17618867
expensive watches that look like 20 dollar shitters are based

[Anonymous No.17618877]

>>17618865
Why?

[Anonymous No.17618882]

>>17618845
>fuck off poorfag :)
might not seem like much to some of you boomers here but I'm 25 so give me a break

[Anonymous No.17618884]

>>17618882
I'm 28 and have $10k in the bank. Fuck I feel like a loser. What do you do for a living?

[Anonymous No.17618885]

>>17618882
Ok so why don't you want to give me money then?

[Anonymous No.17618889]

>>17618884
I've been working in IT for 6 years
>>17618885
I'd only give you money if you're a starving african child with AIDS

[Anonymous No.17618890]

>>17618882
Then buy a good watch, loser.

[Anonymous No.17618893]

>>17618890
waste of money. I've owned two tudors and a number of seikos, including a grand seiko. I'm now an enlightened $20 shitter appreciator

[Anonymous No.17618895]

>>17618889
>I'd only give you money if you're a starving african child with AIDS
Why should I listen to advice from a cheapskate gay nigger pedo?

[Anonymous No.17618897]

>>17618895
>ooga booga doo ooga booga doe

[Anonymous No.17618905]

>>17618893
>Tudor and Seiko
Those are not good watches, loser.
You have never owned a good watch.

[Anonymous No.17618909]

>>17618905
ackshually, I do own a good watch and it's a $20 casio shitter

[Anonymous No.17618916]

>>17618867
>And Rolex is cope of the Holy Trinity, btw.
lol no.
People who buy Rolex couldn't care less about muh high horology. Ask people what their grail is, most of them will tell you Submariner, GMT Master or Daytona.
Only boomers and disgusting watchnerds care about the Holy Trinity.
Here are some actual Holy Trinity cope:
>JLC
>IWC Portofino and Ingenieur lines
>Girard Perregaux
>Blancpain
>Chopard
>Piaget
>Glashutte Original

[Anonymous No.17618918]

>>17618807
Honestly based

[Anonymous No.17618921]

>>17618909
Personally, I don't like the cheap Casios that much. Don't get me wrong, I wore an AE1200 for a decade, but I prefer the utility of a diver, the instant timing function, a nice bracelet that doesn't pull out half your hair or have a shitty Casio clasp, and the freedom to have a watch that's exactly what I want.

I couldn't find a digital watch that did everything I needed. Closest I could find was the old timex datalink USB, which let you design your own watch faces, but it was pretty inaccurate, the battery only lasted a couple of years, and it was way too big for my wrist.

Now I use a self-built Seiko that cost me about 200 bucks. If anything breaks, I can replace it for about 30 bucks. After regulation, I get about +/-2SPD, which is about as good as cheap quartz, but not as good as my previous Seiko diver, a 30 dollar vintage quartz which was about 10SPY.

[Anonymous No.17618955]

>>17618867
>And Rolex is cope of the Holy Trinity, btw
This

[Anonymous No.17619002]

This is my current grail, what does that say about me?

[Anonymous No.17619005]

>>17618749
isn't tudor fat as shit?

[Anonymous No.17619019]

>>17618725
>>17618767
Can't afford a GMT Master II?

[Anonymous No.17619025]

>>17619002
You should aim higher.

[Anonymous No.17619026]

>>17619002
That you have good taste

[Anonymous No.17619032]

Good day everybody!

[Anonymous No.17619037]

Wearing a PP says "I used to wear Rolex but now have ED."

[Anonymous No.17619042]

>>17619002
That it's true that a fool and his money are easily parted

[Anonymous No.17619045]

>>17616696
What Casio model?

[Anonymous No.17619052]

>>17619045
MTP-1302D-7A2

[Anonymous No.17619053]

>>17619052
Thanks

[Anonymous No.17619056]

>>17618707

[Anonymous No.17619059]

It's been 16 days and my f-91w is +10 seconds ahead

[Anonymous No.17619060]

>>17619059
Should've bought a Rolex.

[Anonymous No.17619089]

>>17618807
Because I like nice things, anon. How does your living room look?

[Anonymous No.17619096]

>>17619056
Why firefox on a Surface?

[Anonymous No.17619118]

>>17618807
I agree with some of what you posted, but some people like to admire the beauty of their watches and it doesn't have to be expensive or cheap. Look at pic related? It's not expensive or new, but I like it and I find it amazing how long this watch has lasted.

[Anonymous No.17619122]

>>17619096
cause fuck chromium

[Anonymous No.17619132]

>>17619032
How viable is owning one of these maintenance wise? I've seen some for sale in my local watch market. As I understand it, vintage seiko is iffy in regards to servicing since parts aren't readily available. Or maybe that was just vintage king/grand seiko?

[Anonymous No.17619138]

>cool watch
>mineral crystal that scratches immediately

Why do watch makers ruin watches like this?

[Anonymous No.17619140]

>>17619059
KEK What's shittier than a quartz that is so inaccurate?

[Anonymous No.17619142]

>>17619138
Some cope about "but we wanted to make a vintage watch and vintage watches didn't have sapphire."

One of the vintage inspired microbrands even includes free polywatch with most of their watches because they use acrylic crystals. I think it's Lorier? And in their marketing talk they try to sell it as a good thing.

[Anonymous No.17619143]

>>17619032
weekdaters are so goddamn beautiful

[Anonymous No.17619145]

>>17619142
Acrylic is actual kino, though

[Anonymous No.17619161]

>>17619138
Mineral crystal (which, let's not kid ourselves, is just hardened glass, kind of like Pyrex) is cheaper.
A watch like that is going to be babied, since it's dressy, so scratches are unlikely for everyone except the silliest, clumsiest 1% of wearers.

The people who bitch about mineral crystal are the same people who screech and squeal about a dress watch not having 500m water resistance.

[Anonymous No.17619163]

>>17619161
>is cheaper.
This is a consideration in a watch that costs under 100 dollars. It shouldn't be a consideration in the 500+ market, given sapphire costs around 5 bucks at most if you're making a large order. Otherwise why machine cases out of steel? That's "expensive" too, just injection mold some plastic.

[Anonymous No.17619166]

>>17619163
>It shouldn't be a consideration in the 500+ market.
Says who?
If you don't like the specs, you don't buy the watch. Having a whinge online isn't going to get the company to reconsider.

Simply put, most people don't care. Sticky online watch "purists" want 32mm dress watches like in the early 50s and when a company puts one out, no one buys it, definitely not the normies, and not the sticky people either.

[Anonymous No.17619169]

>>17619166
>If you don't like the specs, you don't buy the watch.
We won't, and the company will die. So long, Baltic, you cheap cunts.

[Anonymous No.17619217]

Just bought this LIP.
Thoughts?

[Anonymous No.17619218]

>>17619217
Was it expensive? I've always wanted a nice skeletonized watch but almost all of them worth a shit are expensive as hell.

[Anonymous No.17619219]

>>17619217
The LIP logo looks very similar to the HP logo.

That is all.

[Anonymous No.17619220]

>>17618725
> THICKNESS 15mm
Tudor is a mess

[Anonymous No.17619223]

>>17618807
I need less

[Anonymous No.17619226]

Just called my Rolex sales guy for the first time and had a super spergy call with him. Been trying to get that green op36 for about a year now

[Anonymous No.17619241]

>>17619218
Bought at an auction for €280.
It was probably a limited series. The only skeleton Himalaya they sell right now is pic attached, for €429.

[Anonymous No.17619256]

>>17619217
It's far too thick for my taste, actually.

[Anonymous No.17619258]

>>17619226
Is there any legitimate reason an OP should cost more than $4k and require more than a few weeks to deliver on demand?

[Anonymous No.17619270]

>>17619258
Why specifically $4k?

[Anonymous No.17619273]

>>17619258
According to the Rolex website an OP is a little over $6k retail. For only $1k-1.5k more you can get a Datejust with the date complication, way better options for dials, 2 options for bezels and 2 options for bracelets. They're both way more expensive than they have any right to be, but OP just seems like objectively bad value in context.

[Anonymous No.17619289]

>>17619273
>bro for just 2k more you can have this shitty grandpa bracelet, this ugly cyclops and also careful not to adjust your more expensive watch between midnight and 4am!!

[Anonymous No.17619309]

>>17619289
Same. I prefer the OP over the DJ.

[Anonymous No.17619313]

>>17619289
Why would you adjust the date in the middle of the night anyway?

[Anonymous No.17619315]

>>17619289
Datejust can have the same bracelet.

[Anonymous No.17619326]

>>17618740
San Martin mogs Tooter in literally every model, it's kind of embarrassing

[Anonymous No.17619328]

>>17619143
They're nice, there's something about the proportions and the empty space and how clean and simple it all is. Same with your OQ, it just works.

[Anonymous No.17619332]

>>17619256
oof

[Anonymous No.17619344]

I hate date functions because they force you to readjust your watch 5 times a year.
This fucking triggers me because I like the idea of letting my watch run, and just regulate it by changing its position when I'm not wearing it.

Perpetual calendar or no-date are the only two based options.

[Anonymous No.17619349]

>>17618707
Classic.

[Anonymous No.17619365]

I posted this watch back in 2018. Since then, I've had it serviced and replaced the case with stainless steel variant of the gold plated one.

[Anonymous No.17619368]

Diver for manlet wrists?

[Anonymous No.17619384]

>>17619368
Look at vintage Seiko quartz stuff, lots of 37mm divers, sub 10mm thickness. Inexpensive, full metal movements.

[Anonymous No.17619385]

>>17619344
It's really not that big of a deal to pop the crown and turn it every other month.

[Anonymous No.17619412]

>>17619385
Why are poor people so eager to perform labor?

[Anonymous No.17619418]

/k/ is having a watch thread
>>58139139

[Anonymous No.17619423]

>>17619344
I don’t mind it as long as it has a quick set date, but I have enough watches where it’s really obnoxious to set it each time I wear it.
>just get a winder bro!
My only watch with a date that doesn’t have a quick set date is manual wind (that was a mistake)

[Anonymous No.17619425]

>>17619368
Tudor Mini-Sub 73090, 32mm

[Anonymous No.17619426]

>>17619368
The new Certina DS 38 is ISO certified

[Anonymous No.17619427]

>>17619418
>>>/k/58139139

[Anonymous No.17619433]

>>17619059
technically still within specs, 15+/- seconds per month

[Anonymous No.17619439]

>>17619425
Why did you post a girl's watch?

[Anonymous No.17619441]

I'm still chasing the high of Dadwatch bathroom selfies. Where are you dadwatch? Can you bless us with more bathroom mirror selfies wearing that rubber ass fit of yours?

[Anonymous No.17619442]

>>17619427
Thank you, I am a retard

[Anonymous No.17619448]

>>17619427
Casio galore.

[Anonymous No.17619449]

>clean fancy sapphire crystal
>looks great
>look away for half a second
>it has dust and shit on it again
Should've just bought a mineral crystal. Sapphire is a scam, it picks up every bit of dust.

[Anonymous No.17619452]

>he wears $6000 "timepieces"

[Anonymous No.17619453]

>>17619452
This mogs the DINOZONE

[Anonymous No.17619460]

>>17618725
There isn't much to talk about, it's rediculous.

[Anonymous No.17619465]

>>17619460
Is there any justifiably reason for it to be so thick?

[Anonymous No.17619469]

>>17619460
>rediculous
It's only half red on the bezel. I wouldn't say it goes that far

[Anonymous No.17619471]

>>17619465
>Is there any justifiably reason for it to be so thick?

So you still want to buy a Rolex, that's literally it.

Every single Tudor has some kind of glaring-unavoidable imperfection.

Too thick (gmt/pro/chrono), wrong bracelet/clasp (bb58/new bb36), wrong movement (old bb36), wrong diameter (ranger).

[Anonymous No.17619473]

>>17619465
Buy a GMT Master II if you want a thinner GMT. That is the reason.

[Anonymous No.17619475]

>>17619460
It's even more comical when you compare it to GMT Master II.
Look at the ratio case/bezel.

[Anonymous No.17619482]

>>17619460
>There isn't much to talk about, it's rediculous.
It's literally mentioned in the first few minutes/paragraphs of any review of it

It's either
>the thickness isn't as bad as people say
or
>the thickness ruins an otherwise fine watch

[Anonymous No.17619483]

>>17619471
Glaring intentional defect to make the product worse so they don't cannibalize their own sales

[Anonymous No.17619485]

>>17618825
found the woman

[Anonymous No.17619486]

>>17619471
>Every single Tudor has some kind of glaring-unavoidable imperfection.
It doesn't say Rolex on the dial. That is the only problem.

Let's not pretend that if Rolex made a Sub that looked exactly like a Black Bay and had equal specs that people wouldn't still call the Tudor a cope.

[Anonymous No.17619488]

>>17619473
I can get a squale gmt that's thinner and far cheaper.

[Anonymous No.17619490]

>>17619482
I always laugh when reviews try to pretend that watches 'handle their thickness well' or some shite - it's a load of bollocks, the best was when they dropped the bb pro.

[Anonymous No.17619491]

I found this on ebay. Should receive it in a few days. I think I'm going to have the crystal replaced since it's so scratched up.

[Anonymous No.17619493]

>>17619483
>Glaring intentional defect to make the product worse so they don't cannibalize their own sales
Zero people cross-shop Rolex and Tudor. (Obviously, apart from the people who are lying about doing so.) You either buy a Tudor because you can not afford a Rolex OR you buy a Tudor while you're waiting from the call from your AD that the Rolex you actually want comes in. Then you immediately sell that nasty piece of shit Tudor and start posting about how "Tooter is for poors".

[Anonymous No.17619494]

>>17619486
Cope is tolerable if the watch is actually desirable.

[Anonymous No.17619496]

>>17619494
>Cope is tolerable if the watch is actually desirable.
What is a cope watch that is desirable, though? There aren't any.
The stench of cope can never be rinsed off or covered up. That stench makes the watch undesirable.

[Anonymous No.17619501]

>>17619494
If, for example, the Tudor Ranger was shrunk down to 36mm and given the nice T-Fit clasp, that would make it an objectively better watch than it currently is.
But what could you do do counter "Couldn't afford an Explorer, eh?"

You could try sputtering something about how the Rolex is jewelry and the Tudor is a tool watch or something, but everyone would see immediately through your attempt at self-deception.

[Anonymous No.17619510]

>>17619496
There are plenty of affordable watches that are as good or better than Tudor, though. For God's sake, some of San Martin's blatant Tudor ripoffs are more wearable than the originals, their takes on the GMTs are at least 12-13mm. Like, without a shred of irony, a lot of people believe they mog Tudor's Explorer 2 equivalent for under $300. Steinhart and Devosa also make excellent and similar divers for 1/3rd of the price of Tudor with better dimensions. It's just goofy for Tudor to make such an obviously inferior watch seemingly on purpose, why even waste the time and materials?

[Anonymous No.17619512]

>>17619496
Yeah, it's rare, but some exist - vintage tudor subs are by-definition cope, but pretty cool and have skyrocketted in value recently.

Same goes for oysterquartz and the PRX hype happening now for integrated watches.

[Anonymous No.17619514]

Should I buy one watch and get the metal bracelet and a leather strap so I can change the style, or buy two different watches? What would my money be better spent on?
Thinking of getting a Sinn 556I btw

[Anonymous No.17619515]

>>17618767
Ooo watch friend!

[Anonymous No.17619520]

>>17619510
But none of those are actually desirable.
Tooter makes shitty watches. San Shartin also makes shitty watches. Hundreds of companies churn out millions of undesirable, shitty watches.

Paying less for cope doesn't change anything. Cope is cope.

[Anonymous No.17619521]

>>17619514
I like having all manner of straps to swap out but generally I prefer bracelets and on the watches with bracelets I really like I hate making the swap only because it's such a goddamn pain in the ass getting the bracelets on and off. If you have a watch you always want to wear straps on it's great to just leave the spring bars on and swap out different nato straps all the time, but you're not going to want to be swapping between bracelet and straps on a regular basis.

[Anonymous No.17619522]

>>17619488
And doesn't function the same with a unidirectional bezel and office gmt movement

[Anonymous No.17619523]

>>17619512
Oysterquartz is a cope for something? I did not realize this.

[Anonymous No.17619526]

>>17619523
Yeah it was genta cope.

[Anonymous No.17619528]

>>17619520
But do you agree it's retarded to put out a product for $5000 when Chinese sweatshops are pumping out superior watches for $300? They're really not even selling cope Rolexes, they're selling overpriced shitters. By trying to avoid hurting sales for their flagships they're just pumping out uncompetitive retarded products.

[Anonymous No.17619534]

>>17619528
Oh, no question in that regard.

[Anonymous No.17619535]

>>17619002
you're some trendwhore
you think green is going to look good in a year? 3?

[Anonymous No.17619538]

>>17619514
Just get the bracelet. Straps are cope, they're never as good as a bracelet, and I don't understand why anyone wears them.

[Anonymous No.17619539]

>>17619526
Huh. Didn't realize. That must be a new thing.

When it first came out, the Oysterquartz was absurdly expensive and considered the luxury option. And Genta did not invent the integrated bracelet. Those had been around for a while before the Royal Oak.

[Anonymous No.17619540]

>>17618824
>>17618821
>>17618807

a700 is great. Be careful when you move the clasp to adjust the size, I accidentally bent mine a little and it takes a little extra work to get it to snap together

[Anonymous No.17619541]

>>17619522
They have 2 directional bezels now. Office GMT is different but both ways accomplish the same goals.

[Anonymous No.17619543]

>>17619535
Is something going to happen to the visible light spectrum in the next 3 years that I should be aware of?

[Anonymous No.17619545]

oh look it's another thread where people pretend rolex are the only watches worth buying even though they're horribly overpriced, boring as shit and make you look like an insecure american boomer

[Anonymous No.17619547]

>>17619545
There's no doubt they're far overpriced, but trying to pretend they aren't pure class is just cope. Almost every line is iconic and timeless.

[Anonymous No.17619549]

>>17619539
>And Genta did not invent the integrated bracelet. Those had been around for a while before the Royal Oak.

Yeah but they were popularized by AP.

Prior to that the idea of a luxury sports watches didn't really exist, it was either tool watches or dress watches - AP created a new sub-category of watches and a lot of brands followed.

[Anonymous No.17619552]

>>17619547
>pure class
Nico Leonard get off my board

[Anonymous No.17619554]

>>17619549
>sports watch
>tool watch
Whats the difference?

[Anonymous No.17619558]

>>17619547
>Rolex
>Pure class
Ask me how I know you're an Amerinigger

[Anonymous No.17619559]

>>17619554
Most of the watch classifications are really arbitrary honestly. Sports watch has basically come to mean "a watch that's tough enough to work or play sports in but still looks nice enough to dress up with." But I don't see how the Royal Oak was the first to do that, Rolex was basically doing that with the Explorer and similar OP lines for 20 years by the time RO came out.
>No you don't get it this has a BRACELET that you are REQUIRED to wear it on!
Cope

[Anonymous No.17619562]

Switched my ceramic bezel out for an aluminium one. It's just too shiny. I prefer the contrast of a matte bezel.

[Anonymous No.17619569]

>>17619558
In your country class is probably Mido lmao

[Anonymous No.17619571]

>>17619558
This should be funny - how?

[Anonymous No.17619573]

>>17619217
Why do some people wear their watch on the right hand when they're designed to be worn on the left?

[Anonymous No.17619579]

>>17619573
What part of the design forces you to wear it on one side or the other? The crown? You shouldn't pull it out when you are wearing it so it doesn't matter. Buttons are equally operable on either side

[Anonymous No.17619581]

>>17619579
>You shouldn't pull it out when you are wearing it
Are there really people out there who believe this?

[Anonymous No.17619582]

>>17619581
It's a safe bet so you don't cross thread the crown or damage the stem

[Anonymous No.17619583]

>>17619569
Rolexes are for kebab store owners. Respectable white men wear Cartier, JLC, PP, AP or VC.

[Anonymous No.17619584]

>>17619583
>pp
>ap
Acceptable
>cartier
>jlc
>vc
Cope

[Anonymous No.17619589]

>>17619581
I don't think it's strictly "true" but it's such a pain in the ass to work the crown while wearing the watch that I just take it off anyway. It's a lot easier with it off. And there's really not that much reason to play with your crown while you're wearing an automatic watch anyway because it's going to wind itself while you wear it and you're probably not going to lose or gain time at a rate that would make waiting until you take the watch off or put it on for the day unreasonable.

[Anonymous No.17619590]

>>17619521
>>17619538
Thank you frens

[Anonymous No.17619591]

>>17619583
I honestly don't know a single person that wears any of those brands except rolex.

[Anonymous No.17619595]

>>17619591
This just confirms that you are a classless pleb.

[Anonymous No.17619597]

>>17619583
>name 5 brands
>3 of them are owned by Richemont
Mods really should do something about advertising on this board.

[Anonymous No.17619599]

>>17619597
>That anyone's post is advertising but the constant Rolex posting isn't
And don't even get me started on the Islander schizo

[Anonymous No.17619602]

>>17619599
At least Islander makes nice affordable watches.

[Anonymous No.17619604]

>>17619543
>he doesn't know

[Anonymous No.17619605]

>>17619452
Extremely based. Where can I buy this?

[Anonymous No.17619607]

>>17619583
I know this billionaire heiress who got screwed over and didn't inherit a particular NFL team . Wore a gold AP Royal Oak with diamonds on the face. Thoughts?

[Anonymous No.17619610]

>>17619559
The explorer was absolutely a tool watch until the 14270 came out.

[Anonymous No.17619614]

>>17619610
What meaningful difference is there between that model and previous models in the context of being a sports watch?

[Anonymous No.17619616]

>>17619583
>Rolexes are for kebab store owners
Ahahaha finally someone says it. My dad used to own a Rolex Explorer but sold it after he saw a nigger on TV wear it.

[Anonymous No.17619617]

>>17619607
She's really lame in bed. You'd think a scorned rich girl would be a little scrappier.

[Anonymous No.17619619]

>>17619616
Imagine how shallow you have to be to stop enjoying something because you saw a black person also enjoy it once.

[Anonymous No.17619632]

>>17619526
It's prettier than the other more known Genta designs though.

[Anonymous No.17619643]

>>17619616
>see a nigger do X
>immediately assume X = nigger
Congrats, your dad is a faggot loser.
This is why the right is losing the culture war btw. You fucking trannies keep on giving up ground and yet for some reasons you think this is "based".
>oh no, a nigger just took a shit in my garden... well now I must give him the keys to my house

[Anonymous No.17619645]

>>17619643
Don't you have timcastirl backlogs to catch up on?

[Anonymous No.17619653]

>>17619645
Cope. You just realized your gay boomer dad is a massive faggot coward and you'll never be able to respect him anymore.

[Anonymous No.17619656]

Is it okay to like Tag Heuer now?

[Anonymous No.17619658]

>>17619653
His dad bought a rolex to begin with, so he's a massive faggot by default.

There's nothing wrong with having convictions, they're the mark of a man. Of course, you've got to be pretty dumb to care about who buys the same kind of products as you.

[Anonymous No.17619661]

>>17619658
>buy something because he enjoyed it
>see someone he doesn't like wearing the same thing
>immediately give up on enjoying that thing
His faggot dad is the exact opposite of a man.

[Anonymous No.17619663]

I got huge wrists but I want a 34mm date rolex. Will I be laughed at or could I pull it off?

[Anonymous No.17619666]

>>17619663
>I got huge wrists
fat or sexhaver?

[Anonymous No.17619667]

>>17619663
I’m a big fatty and wear a 36mm

[Anonymous No.17619668]

>>17619666
not fat, 6’1”. Have huge genetic 7.8 inch wrists

[Anonymous No.17619675]

>>17619668
look at gigachad right here

[Anonymous No.17619681]

>>17619661
>>>buy something because he enjoyed it
Nobody buys a Rolex because they "enjoy" it. People buy Rolexes because they're pathetic faggots who really care about what everyone else thinks of them, so they care more about the name on their watch than anything else.

His dad is at least more of a man than you are, but that's not saying much.

[Anonymous No.17619683]

>>17619663
You will look like a woman. 34mm is already a woman's size. Against your tree trunk wrists, it'll look even more girly. You can probably get away with 36mm, but 34mm is rough.

[Anonymous No.17619686]

>>17619681
We get it anon, you're poor.
Hope you enjoy your Seiko though.

[Anonymous No.17619690]

For me, it's these two.

[Anonymous No.17619693]

>>17619690
Fashion shitters

[Anonymous No.17619703]

>>17619663
Do it. Schawrzenegger wore a 36 and his wrists arent huge.

[Anonymous No.17619704]

>>17619681
I'm poor as shit and I'll never own a Rolex, but I find it incredible that anyone could believe that people don't enjoy Rolex watches.

[Anonymous No.17619714]

>>17619547
>pure class

[Anonymous No.17619725]

>>17619313
The more likely scenario is that you don't wear the watch for a while, it stops in that time slot, then when you want to wear it, you set the time and date and get fucked.

[Anonymous No.17619727]

is this watch too big for my tiny wrist?

[Anonymous No.17619735]

>>17619656
It was always ok

[Anonymous No.17619737]

>>17619491
Quite nice.

[Anonymous No.17619740]

>>17619643
He just (correctly) concluded that this was not a brand for Whites anymore. I don't see anything wrong with that. If something is popular among lower caste people it loses its prestige.

[Anonymous No.17619746]

>go to Watchuseek to see what's up
>people are starting to get 40mm Explorer
>as expected it's too big for most of them and look terrible
it's all so tiresome

[Anonymous No.17619747]

>>17619746
Looks like a fat guy and still too big on him.

[Anonymous No.17619748]

>>17619727
Its pushing it but there is no overhang so you are fine, to get a better idea of how it looks stand in front of a mirror and put your hand across your chest and take a picture in the mirror, it will look more normal

[Anonymous No.17619751]

>>17619746
Can't wait for tudor to make a 42mm ranger next

[Anonymous No.17619755]

>>17619019
hate the gmt master II. Ceramic rolex looks like shit and the bezel action is awful.

[Anonymous No.17619760]

>>17619748
i appreciate the feedback

[Anonymous No.17619769]

>>17618845
>gibs me money
>fuck off poorfag!
Nigger moment

[Anonymous No.17619787]

>>17619751
dont forget theyll also make the ranger 14.5mm thick for a 3 hander watch

[Anonymous No.17619793]

>>17619746
>buy a 40mm watch because 36mm are for wristlets
>end up looking like a kid wearing his dad's watch
Many such cases.

[Anonymous No.17619808]

>>17619746
Dude looks fat
>>17619747
Daily reminder if you're fat no one cares what watch you wear

[Anonymous No.17619827]

>>17619460
>>17619465
>>17619471
>>17619475
>>17619220
Alright. Long time Tudor Black Bay GMT owner here. I want to comment on the thickness complaints stuff.

1. The thickness is not actually 15mm. People are rounding up from 14.5mm which is the same thickness as my hesalite speedmaster.
2. I personally do not feel it is too thick(7 inch wrist) and almost never think about the thickness.
3. Most of what people are complaining about is that the mid-case doesn't taper.
4. No one other than watch weirdos thinks about thickness with this obsessive self conscious terror

[Anonymous No.17619833]

>>17619827
15mm thick sport watches are totally fine and the people having meltdowns about them are basing their opinion entirely on fisheye cellphone camera pics from instagram and not actually wearing or even trying on a 15mm watch.

[Anonymous No.17619844]

>>17619827
15mm with a bezel that thin is just atrocious. It's a fucking brick, not a watch.

12mm is the absolute thickest a watch should ever be.

[Anonymous No.17619882]

>>17619056
>dive watch
>leather strap
LE yikes

[Anonymous No.17619884]

>>17619032
>>17619143
spd?

[Anonymous No.17619887]

>>17618767
what are you watching

[Anonymous No.17619896]

Do you think a jeweler or watch repairman will be able to do anything about the scratches on the case?

[Anonymous No.17619897]

>>17619833
Thinner is always better, unless you're specifically going for CHONK.

[Anonymous No.17619900]

>>17619896
It can be buffed out, but it'll look terrible and all the sharp case lines will be gone. Unless the watchmaker happens to own a laser welder and a sallaz machine to completely redo the finish (which would be more than that watch is worth).

[Anonymous No.17619910]

>>17619900
Unless I absolutely fall in love with it, I probably won't bother. I do think a new crystal is in order, though. Thanks for the info.

[Anonymous No.17619916]

>>17619896
You would lose the crispness of the edges. Not worth it IMO, just get it serviced, cleaned, replace the crystal and put it on a new strap and the watch will get a new life.

[Anonymous No.17619931]

>>17619896
Nice lume. What year is the watch?

[Anonymous No.17619957]

should i?

[Anonymous No.17619959]

>>17619957
If you like it, if it fits your wrist, and you can afford it, yeah. Go for it.

[Anonymous No.17619960]

>>17619313
Do the math stupid. 25% of the time your watch stops you’ll have to be careful when setting it. AND on top of that, if you are ever awake and need to adjust it in those hours you can’t

[Anonymous No.17619962]

>>17619960
Sorry, 33% of the time, even worse

[Anonymous No.17619970]

>>17619591
You're poor and you social circle is also poor

[Anonymous No.17619977]

>>17619931
The ebay page says it was made in the 60s but doesn't list an exact year.

[Anonymous No.17619984]

>>17619957
that's a clean looking watch. if you can afford it and you'll enjoy wearing it, i say get it

[Anonymous No.17619995]

>>17619977
Looks like it could be 50s or very early 60s.

[Anonymous No.17620008]

>>17619960
>move time forward
>set date to the day before
>move time to the correct time
Wow, that was tough...

[Anonymous No.17620022]

>>17620008
And what if you forget which way turning the crown does what? You could accidentally go backwards and fuck it up

[Anonymous No.17620026]

>>17619583
I wear and post reps of all those and no one has ever even questioned them kek
even ceos and vps have tried them on and complimented them, asking me who my AD is

[Anonymous No.17620037]

>>17620022
Nobody fault but yours if you're that stupid.

[Anonymous No.17620047]

>>17620022
You won't fuck it up going backwards. Non quickset date movements are literally designed that way, you can go back in time and forward to set the date as needed

[Anonymous No.17620049]

>>17620026
Sure you are talking to ceos and vps dadwatch

[Anonymous No.17620067]

Been a month since my jtime order with no qc. Owari da... It is in fact over....

[Anonymous No.17620077]

>>17618867
Looks satanic

[Anonymous No.17620088]

>>17620026
How do you get them to try it on?
I tried to do this with a venture capitalist and he said he wasn't interested. So I didn't find out whether or not my rep was convincing.

btw "VCs will be there" is the tech industry equivalent to ladies night.

[Anonymous No.17620109]

>>17619515
kek

[Anonymous No.17620123]

>>17620088
I don't offer, just when it comes up in the conversation they'll ask about it and I'll take it off to show them if they're really interested
just don't try it if they don't actually care or you'll look autistic

[Anonymous No.17620132]

Which one should I get, 35mm or 40mm? I have a 19cm wrist.

[Anonymous No.17620161]

>>17620132
go to the AP AD and buy a real watch poorfag.

[Anonymous No.17620167]

>>17620161
>He can't afford rawlecks
HAHAHA POORFAG KYS
Also the PRX is much closer to the oysterquartz, all other integrated bracelet watches are more attractive than an AP shitter

[Anonymous No.17620170]

>>17620167
Rolex is for middle age car sellers.

[Anonymous No.17620175]

thoughts on GOOD tourbillons?

[Anonymous No.17620179]

>>17618707
>Leather straps on Dive Watches Edition
does not post a dive watch8nh0

[Anonymous No.17620182]

>>17620179
Don't tell them lol, most watch "enthusiasts" think rotating bezel=dive watch. Tbh most people are too retarded to read a gmt anyways, they just like muh pepsi bezel

[Anonymous No.17620183]

>>17620182
>watch "enthusiasts"
lol'd

[Anonymous No.17620211]

>>17619827
For me the maximum thickness allowed is 13 mm. I would never spend so much money on a watch with such a serious design flaw.

[Anonymous No.17620287]

>>17618725
Band is shit, it wears too big and the movement had some issues.

[Anonymous No.17620289]

>>17620132
TBQH a used PRX Powermatic 80 for the same price on Chrono24 or ebay.

[Anonymous No.17620290]

>>17620132
40mm

[Anonymous No.17620291]

>under 1k
>COSC certified
What is the downside of this watch? It seems like it ticks all of the boxes while punching way above its weight class.

[Anonymous No.17620292]

>>17620291
Let's see:
>shit case design
>hideous Omega styling on the indices
>the ugliest logo in the business
You couldn't pay me 1k to wear that thing.

[Anonymous No.17620296]

>>17620292
>>the ugliest logo in the business
This is the only thing true about your post.
The rest just mean you're a retard.

[Anonymous No.17620297]

>>17620291
It's really good. But I really want to buy their C1 Moonglow instead. It looks fucking gorgeous.

[Anonymous No.17620298]

>>17618740
>>17619005
>>17619326
reminder to report san shitter viral marketing

[Anonymous No.17620299]

>>17620292
>Ugliest logo
That would be Squale

[Anonymous No.17620300]

>>17620297
I also love that method of showcasing the date.

[Anonymous No.17620301]

>>17620297
There's 2 moons lmfao??

[Anonymous No.17620302]

>>17620296
>nooo the AP costs a lot that means the case design is good!
Develop taste.

[Anonymous No.17620306]

>>17620067
I emailed Sead about a couple of pieces on Monday and had no response. These "TD" chinks don't give a shit. Currently trying to figure out how to use 1688 and buy from the sellers on there for 30%+ cheaper.

[Anonymous No.17620314]

>>17620301
Most moonphase discs have two moons numbnuts.

[Anonymous No.17620317]

>>17620314
ok but one is not visible lmfao? wtfff i sthis a flat earther version lOL

[Anonymous No.17620319]

>>17620314
Why is the bottom plate transparent? It looks dumb as fuck TBQH.

[Anonymous No.17620321]

>>17620319
>>17620317
It's called the 'correct' moon phase variant you uncultured fucks.

[Anonymous No.17620324]

>>17620321
Tell us about the antarctic nazi base lmfao lol.

[Anonymous No.17620340]

Parmigiani just became infinitely more based.

[Anonymous No.17620342]

>>17620340
>Parmesan, the choice of inbred billionaire padeos
Yes very based.

[Anonymous No.17620345]

>>17620342
>The cope of a poor peasant
Even more based now.

[Anonymous No.17620350]

>>17618707
Is anyone going to save the Imgur guides? They're going to be gone after May 15.

[Anonymous No.17620352]

>>17620350
You do it

[Anonymous No.17620357]

Honestly watchmakers that make watches greater than 14mm in thickness in current year deserve prison.

[Anonymous No.17620361]

>>17620340
Parmigiani always been based, my friend.

[Anonymous No.17620362]

>>17620298
reminder to cope and seethe, lmao, get shit on by the mountain jews some more

[Anonymous No.17620365]

>>17620291
For me personally it looks too much like that Czapek. Other than that it's pretty nice.

[Anonymous No.17620366]

>>17620291
Nice PRX homage you got there buddy.

>is called the twelve
>actually has thirteen indices

[Anonymous No.17620369]

>>17620366
12 and a half. I guess they're rounding down.

[Anonymous No.17620370]

>>17619884
Depends on the wind and how i wear it, i'd say roughly +/- 30spd. I set it once a week and it's never more than 2 minutes off.

[Anonymous No.17620376]

Which watch should I buy?
I'm thinking an Omega since they're LGBT friendly (I'm trans btw)

[Anonymous No.17620377]

>>17619132
I had it serviced twice (first time the service was a bit lacking and the problem i had returned), at two different watchmakers, and they had no problems sourcing some screws. If it comes to needing specific parts you can always just buy another one with a knackered case for cheap to use for spare parts. I haven't heard of any complains about the movements in general, mine has been going non-stop for almost two years now.

[Anonymous No.17620380]

>>17620376
Unalive watches, i heard they're 41% off.

[Anonymous No.17620382]

>>17620376
>such an obvious weak bait
Eat shit and die retard

[Anonymous No.17620383]

>>17620376
Oris.

[Anonymous No.17620385]

>>17620382
Wow the summerfags are showing early this year.

[Anonymous No.17620389]

>>17620382
I posted this outfit on Reddit a few days ago

[Anonymous No.17620391]

>>17620376
Omega is definitely the right choice for you, girl.
Get this Omega nato too while you're at it.

[Anonymous No.17620392]

>>17619690
affordable luxury is such a retarded term

[Anonymous No.17620393]

>>17620389
You have to go back.

[Anonymous No.17620396]

>tissot chemin des tourelles
>a nice looking tissot watch for once
>let's check the size
>42mm
>wait that's comically large for a dress watch that can't be right
>check pic rel on chrono24
oh no no NO

[Anonymous No.17620400]

>>17620291
>punching above its weight class
is what redditors say to make themselves feel good when they buy a budget watch
I've legitimately seen people say that about aliexpress watches
Other than that I do want one but I'll wait for the 36mm in glacier blue

[Anonymous No.17620409]

>>17620376
Nomos

[Anonymous No.17620412]

>>17620345
post your castle or shut the fuck up

[Anonymous No.17620418]

>>17620412
Does anyone collect castles like we do watches?

[Anonymous No.17620420]

>>17620418
>What is your favorite castle complication?

[Anonymous No.17620422]

>>17620376
With such delicate wrists you should get an Omega Planet Ocean Ultra Deep.

[Anonymous No.17620424]

>>17620412
No, peasant

>>17620420
>favorite castle complication?
The drawbridge with the crocodile pit

[Anonymous No.17620439]

>I have strong opinions about watches

[Anonymous No.17620441]

>>17619632
That's the point I'm making, that desirable cope watches exist.

[Anonymous No.17620471]

>>17620441
Name 10.

[Anonymous No.17620472]

>>17620361
fuck off fat faggot retard

[Anonymous No.17620473]

>>17620422
lmao the strap makes it look so much thicker.

[Anonymous No.17620485]

What are your thoughts on KNOT watches from Japan?

[Anonymous No.17620499]

>>17620365
thats what i thought too, too close to an antarctique

[Anonymous No.17620501]

>>17620485
Good boys get the knot.

[Anonymous No.17620513]

>>17620485
Seems like just another generic microbrand using off the shelf Seiko movements.

[Anonymous No.17620516]

>>17620132
If you can't tell one of those is obviously too large, nobody can help you.

[Anonymous No.17620518]

>>17620292
>shit case design
I bet you can't explain why it's objectively "shit".

[Anonymous No.17620522]

>>17620376
You will never be a woman.

[Anonymous No.17620534]

New Rolex thread
>>17620533
>>17620533
>>17620533
>>17620533
>>17620533

[Anonymous No.17620849]

>>17618807
no you don't need more than a F91W.
I like watches because it is the only piece of jewelry that I don't find cringe on a man. They look nice, and are mechanically amazing.
The way I see it is if I'm going to wear something, or carry something day in and day out, I want to enjoy what I'm carrying. Not trying to impress anyone, I just want to enjoy it myself. A Casio gets the job done, but I like looking at my Bulova Hack more than a Casio and since I wear a watch everyday I'll choose the Bulova because I enjoy it. Same with my knife, multitool, wallet, I picked things that worked well and that I enjoy. The only thing that is pure utilitarian that I carry is a Glock 19 or Ruger LCP because those are purely for tools to defend myself, not there for me to enjoy as I use them.
While I do think paying thousands of $ for a watch is kind of stupid, I don't think it's stupid to spend $100-400 on something you will use daily and enjoy while doing it. Right now the only watch I have over $100 is my Bulova but I would like to get a nice dress watch, chronograph, diver, etc, but I don't plan on paying more than $400 for any of them, if that. I just want something that I enjoy and works.

[Anonymous No.17620852]

>>17618867
8:42?

[Anonymous No.17620994]

>>17620291
>Ugly indices don't match the dial or the general styling of the watch
>Ugly crownguards that break the cohesion of the case
>Off the self date window
It's decent, but the small mistakes pile up in my opinion

[Anonymous No.17621157]

>>17620370
>roughly +/- 30spd
Damn, dunno if I could live with that but mechanical watches are still cool af

[Anonymous No.17621196]

>>17618853
That dial is doing things to me. Too bad there's no way to get it for less than double its initial price.

[Anonymous No.17621201]

>>17619452
HOLY SHIT
WHAT THE FUUUCK