# Can you be truly well-attired if your watch is battery operated?



## phr33dom (May 4, 2009)

A dead giveaway that your watch has a quartz movement is that the seconds hand jumps once a second. This can be seen by others around you in one quick glance. Even though your quartz watch may be styled appropriately and 'in good taste' with the rest of your fine clothing and shoes would it somehow prevent you from being classifed as well-dressed? If so, would this also apply to an electronic dress watch that has no seconds hand but reveals itself as such upon closer inspection by word 'QUARTZ' written on the face?


----------



## cdavant (Aug 28, 2005)

Gosh, if you don't wear a watch, either when wearing a suit or appropriately when in a dinner jacket, does that mean you are almost naked? Is a watch a required part of dress?

Probably as big a faux pas as a brown wallet with black shoes...


----------



## DocD (Jun 2, 2007)

phr33dom said:


> A dead giveaway that your watch has a quartz movement is that the seconds hand jumps once a second. This can be seen by others around you in one quick glance. Even though your quartz watch may be styled appropriately and 'in good taste' with the rest of your fine clothing and shoes would it somehow prevent you from being classifed as well-dressed? If so, would this also apply to an electronic dress watch that has no seconds hand but reveals itself as such upon closer inspection by word 'QUARTZ' written on the face?


Although I'm a watch collector, and certainly appreciate the engineering and intricacies of an automatic/mechanical movement, I never even thought to assess or judge whether someone was wearing a quartz vs. mechanical watch with his attire. I personally believe there is enough "snob" appeal when it comes to "do's" and "don'ts" of dressing and would hate to now think that people were actually checking to see if your second hand was ticking vs. sweeping, or if your watch actually had the word "quartz" written on it to determine whether you were fashion "correct".

As a general rule, mechanical timepieces are more costlly, and not everyone has prioritized their budgets to spend the money on a mechanical watch or simply can't justify the cost. If the watch on someone's wrist is in good taste, in my opinion the mechansim that makes it function is not MY concern, since I didn't purchase the watch, and therefore shouldn't distract from whether the person is considered "well attired".


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

phr33dom said:


> A dead giveaway that your watch has a quartz movement is that the seconds hand jumps once a second. This can be seen by others around you in one quick glance. Even though your quartz watch may be styled appropriately and 'in good taste' with the rest of your fine clothing and shoes would it somehow prevent you from being classifed as well-dressed? If so, would this also apply to an electronic dress watch that has no seconds hand but reveals itself as such upon closer inspection by word 'QUARTZ' written on the face?


Automatic watches have become a bit of a novelty among the "public." The VAST majority of watches are electronic in nature (i'd hazard 99% of all watches made at this point). They're more accurate, economical, can be just as stylish, and generally more powerful (more features).

That said, my standard dress watch is a solar powered (battery) Citizen Eco-Drive. It's a nice simple, and I like to think elegant watch that I am very comfortable wearing with a suit or with business casual ( I generally wear my running watch with anything more casual). It was very inexpensive compared to many automatics (say $6000 for a Rolex), though there are some great Seikos for as little as $100.

Depending on the cost of clothing... just using the Rolex as an example, your watch can end up being much more expensive than everything else on your clothing combined (granted it will last longer as well).


----------



## flinch (Sep 8, 2008)

Oh thank you thank you, now I know why people have been shunning me at parties and I havent had a date in 2 years!!


----------



## wpking (Jul 13, 2010)

I've seen many stylish watches that could be worn with a suit. The key is to have something relatively thin and not too sporty.


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

JW, where did this train of thought come from?

The answer is a mechanical watch is absolutely unnecessary. No one even notices your watch anyway. Besides, 99% of the time, its covered by your dress shirt. A watch is more of a personal statement to yourself than a statement to the world.

But if you want to trick the masses, buy a Bulova Precisionist. Sweeping second hand, quartz operated.


----------



## smmrfld (May 22, 2007)

phr33dom said:


> A dead giveaway that your watch has a quartz movement is that the seconds hand jumps once a second. This can be seen by others around you in one quick glance. Even though your quartz watch may be styled appropriately and 'in good taste' with the rest of your fine clothing and shoes would it somehow prevent you from being classifed as well-dressed? If so, would this also apply to an electronic dress watch that has no seconds hand but reveals itself as such upon closer inspection by word 'QUARTZ' written on the face?


This is a joke, right? Reminds me of the wack job a while back who found some sort of need to match his wallet to his belt and shoes.


----------



## neskerdoo (Jun 23, 2009)

I just want to know Gordon Gekko's take on this.


----------



## godan (Feb 10, 2010)

Apatheticviews;117560 Depending on the cost of clothing... just using the Rolex as an example said:


> An interesting insight that had not occurred to me in precisely this form - but it happens to me frequently - probably usually. A "modest, everyday Rolex" is still a few thousand dollars. These days, around town, I am usually in mountain boots, khakis, an ocbd or turtleneck, sweater and parka. Thus my value on the hoof, less the Rolex, is probably less than $800. If the watch is added in, I'm worth recycling for parts.


----------



## harvey_birdman (Mar 10, 2008)

A dead giveaway that you're an OLD person is that you wear a watch at all. I'm in my thirties and wear a watch but it is the rare individual under thirty who wears a wristwatch, the overwhelming majority carry cell phones and check it for time. 

Try not to be so judgmental, grandpa.


----------



## Kenneth Hill (Aug 31, 2008)

My answer to the question would be "yes".


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

harvey_birdman said:


> A dead giveaway that you're an OLD person is that you wear a watch at all. I'm in my thirties and wear a watch but it is the rare individual under thirty who wears a wristwatch, the overwhelming majority carry cell phones and check it for time.
> 
> Try not to be so judgmental, grandpa.


Actually, when I got out the Marines, I stopped wearing a watch at all for a long time. I either had a clock on my computer (home or work), or in my car. I didn't need a watch. I refused to carry a cell phone during that same period being under the impression that if someone wanted to get in touch with me I was at work (phone on my desk), at home (available to talk), or out (not available to talk).

One day while traveling from the airport to my car via the airport provided bus line, I asked another passenger the time, and was viewed like an absolute caveman for not having a cellphone nor watch.

At the time, I was 31 I think...

So I'm going to have to agree with HB on this one. It's not many people sub-30 I know that wear watches, unless they are in a profession that requires it (military mostly).


----------



## statboy (Sep 1, 2010)

Never thought about it....but I'm always looking for more reasons to be a snob about attire, I think I shall start!


----------



## alphadelta (Oct 2, 2007)

A mechanical watch is better than no watch and no watch is better than a quartz watch.


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

Wearing any kind of watch is a sign you might be in the trade and therefore might lack the time to be social, or are working for someone, and therefore watching the clock.

Wearing an obnoxiously expensive watch shows that you don't know how to spend your money wisely and/or are a showoff.

Wearing a cheap watch shows that you don't care to show off, but for whatever reason, still need to know the time.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Bog said:


> Wearing an obnoxiously expensive watch shows that you don't know how to spend your money wisely and/or are a showoff.


Umm... the same can be said about clothes in general.

A watch is a tool however, with an intended purpose. That said, it something that can literally last a lifetime. Possibly 5-10 times that of our other clothes.

How much is "obnoxiously expensive" however? $5000? I know people who waste three times that on their morning coffee over the course of single year. $15000. Using my coffee example, the watch still comes out ahead, if you manage to keep it for just 3 years. Heck, i know people who don't manage to keep cars that long (at the same price).

Now... I disagree with the phrasing of your statement.. but maybe not the intent. Buying items with the intent of showing off (to cause covetous thoughts) may indeed mean the owner doesn't know how to spend their money.. however they may also be buying for their intended audience (themselves possibly). However, what else are you supposed to do with money? It's sole purpose is to be spent.


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

If I saw a person inspecting my watch close enough to be able to read 'Quartz' on its face, or that if the second-hand is sweeping or stepping. I would come to the conclusion, that person has some kind of obsessive-compulsive disorder. My attire would be the least of my worries, especially if I was doing business with that person.



Bog said:


> Wearing an obnoxiously expensive watch shows that you don't know how to spend your money wisely and/or are a showoff.


Exactly the same could be said about wearing an obnoxiously expensive pair of shoes, garments, jewellery or eyewear, couldn't it?


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

MikeDT said:


> Exactly the same could be said about wearing an obnoxiously expensive pair of shoes, garments, jewellery or eyewear, couldn't it?


Could. Which is why people nowadays wear wool in the city.


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

Whenever I see someone wearing a quartz watch, I shun them. If they are in my home, I have the butler ask them to leave. If they work for me, I fire them. I simply cannot abide with having quartz watch-wearing hoi polloi near me.


----------



## wgb (Mar 2, 2007)

This whole thread is a joke, right? Even if one isn't "in the trade", whatever that means, social appointments require that one attend *on time*, which would be difficult without a watch (the exception being evening dress, where wearing a watch would be rude). I can remember when men wore pocket watches, but those of us of a certain age have probably worn a watch just about every day of our lives from adolescence onward. The cell phone seems to have become the modern-day pocket watch for Gen X, etc. As long as they're punctual, they can use a sundial for all I care.

As far as a continuous versus stepping second hand being a give away of a supposedly inferior quartz watch, any number of watches (both mechanical and quartz) have no second hand at all, although in the case of my 30 year old Concord, the thiness of the watch indicates it's quartz since building a mechanical watch of that thiness would be quite a feat. My "off duty" watch is a original, now nearly "vintage", Citizen Aqualand since it is my back-up gauge set (depth and bottom time) for my SCUBA gauges. Quartz, yes, but there's no mechanical equivalent, and for those who recognize it for what it is, they know exactly why I wear it.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Pentheos said:


> Whenever I see someone wearing a quartz watch, I shun them. If they are in my home, I have the butler ask them to leave. If they work for me, I fire them. I simply cannot abide with having quartz watch-wearing hoi polloi near me.


I feel the same way about people who use ketchup.


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

Keep in mind that the technically inferior watches are the mechanical ones.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Of course. I love automatic watches, and wear an old Zenith (older than I am) every day - but I would never think them a prerequisite for being well dressed. Remember that the thinnest dress watches (until the recent vogue for super-sized watches, thinness was a highly desirable characteristic) are quartz.


----------



## JAGMAJ (Feb 10, 2005)

I hope that this post was intended as something of a joke. While many on this forum have expressed a strong preference for mechanical watches, in appreciation of their workmanship, to imply (or even question) whether one can be considered well-dressed while wearing a quartz watch strikes me as being overly pretentious. A dressy quartz watch is not so fundamentally different from a fashion standpoint as to make one poorly dressed per se. A quartz watch is, however, rarely very expensive. Accordingly, I view this question to be like asking whether one can truly be considered to be well-dressed if one isn't wearing a bespoke suit.


----------



## catside (Oct 7, 2010)

One can buy Chinese automatics for a dollar. They are as accurate as any. No automatic is as accurate as a quartz. I doubt anybody would care if your watch is quartz or automatic. I like watches but can not tell a Rolex is real or fake in someone's wrist. I do notice their watches, though since I have an interest in watches, that is all.


----------



## Grayson (Feb 29, 2008)

phr33dom said:


> ...Even though your quartz watch may be styled appropriately and 'in good taste' with the rest of your fine clothing and shoes would it somehow prevent you from being classifed as well-dressed? If so, would this also apply to an electronic dress watch that has no seconds hand but reveals itself as such upon closer inspection by word 'QUARTZ' written on the face?


That is all...


----------



## neskerdoo (Jun 23, 2009)

Apatheticviews said:


> How much is "obnoxiously expensive" however? $5000? I know people who waste three times that on their morning coffee over the course of single year. $15000. Using my coffee example, the watch still comes out ahead, if you manage to keep it for just 3 years. Heck, i know people who don't manage to keep cars that long (at the same price).


you know people who spend 40 dollars per morning on coffee? And while the 4 dollar coffees to which I assume you refer may be overpriced, it is purchased for different reasons than watches, no?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

DocD said:


> Although I'm a watch collector, and certainly appreciate the engineering and intricacies of an automatic/mechanical movement, I never even thought to assess or judge whether someone was wearing a quartz vs. mechanical watch with his attire. I personally believe there is enough "snob" appeal when it comes to "do's" and "don'ts" of dressing and would hate to now think that people were actually checking to see if your second hand was ticking vs. sweeping, or if your watch actually had the word "quartz" written on it to determine whether you were fashion "correct".
> 
> As a general rule, mechanical timepieces are more costlly, and not everyone has prioritized their budgets to spend the money on a mechanical watch or simply can't justify the cost. If the watch on someone's wrist is in good taste, in my opinion the mechansim that makes it function is not MY concern, since I didn't purchase the watch, and therefore shouldn't distract from whether the person is considered "well attired".


I agree with everything DocD said here.
And for the record Phr33dom, and as a watch collector I can tell you that some old manual watches give a slight jump every half second rather than a continuous sweep.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

One can wear a quartz watch and be well dressed. Some of the finest watch makers in the world sell quartz watches. Example , Cartier , Braitling , Audemars Piguet , Patek Philippe,
International Watch Company, Piaget and a number of other fine watch companies.

Many of these quartz watches are very expensive , certainly a Patek Philippe, and a Piaget 
are two the finest watches made, far superior to a Rolex an much more costly.
The name quartz will not appear on these fine watches in most cases.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Apatheticviews said:


> The VAST majority of watches are electronic in nature (i'd hazard 99% of all watches made at this point). They're more accurate


First of all let me say that my watch boldly says "QUARTZ" in nice sized letters, just to the left of Mickey; and I think of watches as nothing more than a functional item designed to tell me the time, and that's it. That's why I have one watch and it get's worn with everything I own.

Having said that, it's not necessarily true that a Quartz watch is more accurate than a mechanical watch. A Quartz watch is more consistent than a mechanical watch, but that doesn't always equate to more accurate.

For example, if a Quartz watch gains one second today, it will gain one second tomorrow, another second the next day, and so on. A mechanical watch tend to be more uneven in that it might gain one second today, lose two seconds tomorrow, and gain one second the next day. The result is that if both are left alone, after a period of time the mechanical watch might well be closer to the actual time than the Quartz watch. In my example, after three days the mechanical watch would be dead on while the Quartz watch would be three seconds fast.

Cruiser


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Cruiser said:


> First of all let me say that my watch boldly says "QUARTZ" in nice sized letters, just to the left of Mickey; and I think of watches as nothing more than a functional item designed to tell me the time, and that's it. That's why I have one watch and it get's worn with everything I own.
> 
> Having said that, it's not necessarily true that a Quartz watch is more accurate than a mechanical watch. A Quartz watch is more consistent than a mechanical watch, but that doesn't always equate to more accurate.
> 
> ...


COSC standards allows for about a 10 second per day deviation. If I remember correctly it's up to 3 seconds fast, 7 seconds slow. This is the standard by which many mechanical watchmakers have set the bar (some have set it higher). I'll grant that 1 second standard deviation (consistently) could end up less than a +3/-7 (net 4) deviation over time, however on average the digitals are going to win. Manual intervention (winding, or perpetual movement functions) are going to just stack these minor issues.

Granted, over a year, we're talking a couple minutes, and we generally fix them during daylight savings or some other event, but it doesn't change that quartz are inherently more accurate.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

neskerdoo said:


> you know people who spend 40 dollars per morning on coffee? And while the 4 dollar coffees to which I assume you refer may be overpriced, it is purchased for different reasons than watches, no?


Whipped cream is extra! (bad math in head... at $4 a piece, we're still taking $1000 a year with 250 work days)

People purchase overpriced coffee because they like that style of coffee. People purchase "overpriced" watches because they like that style of watch. Reasons seem fundamentally the same.


----------



## jjskywlker (Dec 9, 2009)

Typical quartz watches will gain less than 1 second a month. Only the most expensive (and regulated) COSC automatic watches can get within +/- 1 second a day, though I've heard of Patek Phillipe's that can get under 1 minute to 30 seconds a year. Frankly though, precision/accuracy isn't be that big of a deal because of the extra 2 seconds involved with changing the time when it's the end of the month or daylight savings, pretty much every other month or so.

On subject, I think watches are interesting because only people who really know about watches will say that a nice/classical watch (be it quartz or automatic) is necessary to be well dressed. I've seen people wear Ironman's, calculator watches, etc. with suits, and it's appalling to me, but other people probably won't think twice or be able to tell the difference between an Invicta and a Rolex. I am wouldn't say that I look down on people wearing cheapie watches, but the bottom line is that it DOES cheapen the outfit and overall appearance to people who know about watches.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

Cruiser said:


> First of all let me say that my watch boldly says "QUARTZ" in nice sized letters, just to the left of Mickey; and I think of watches as nothing more than a functional item designed to tell me the time, and that's it. That's why I have one watch and it get's worn with everything I own.
> 
> Having said that, it's not necessarily true that a Quartz watch is more accurate than a mechanical watch. A Quartz watch is more consistent than a mechanical watch, but that doesn't always equate to more accurate.
> 
> ...


A quartz watch is very different from a mechanical watch. One is an electronic instrument the other is a mechanical instrument. The quartz should be more accurate because it has fewer moving parts no mainspring , tooth wheels , balance wheels , etc. The quartz watch has only a regulator and a power source , battery. A mechanical watch such as a Patek 
Philippe may consist of over 1,000 parts !

As for as accuracy it depends on the watch , a very fine well made watch will keep excellent time , if price is the issue than a cheaper quartz will generally keep better time than an inexpense mechanical watch. A fine mechanical watch may take from nine months to two years to assemble. But than are we buying a time piece or an investment ?
The mechanical watch would be far better investment.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Apatheticviews said:


> Granted, over a year, we're talking a couple minutes, and we generally fix them during daylight savings or some other event, but it doesn't change that quartz are inherently more accurate.


Keep in mind that I didn't say that mechanical watches are more accurate than quartz watches. I said that they aren't always more accurate. It would boil down to the two watches being compared; however, I agree with you that most quartz watches are more accurate than most mechanical watches.

Cruiser


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

Cruiser said:


> Keep in mind that I didn't say that mechanical watches are more accurate than quartz watches. I said that they aren't always more accurate. It would boil down to the two watches being compared; however, I agree with you that most quartz watches are more accurate than most mechanical watches.
> 
> Cruiser


What two watches would you compare ? what price range ? a quartz Patek 
Philippe compared to a quartz Cartier ? How about a quartz Piaget compared to a Audemars
Piguet mechanical watch ? the issue as in most cases is price ! Certainly a Quartz Piaget
would be as accurate or more accurate than a Mechanical Rolex . But than the mechanical Rolex would generally be more accurate than a quartz Longine, follow the money line,
Not the inner works.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

On formal occasions I break out my lovely Baume et Mercier slim gold watch, which was a wedding present from my in-laws. It's more or less this model: https://www.amazon.com/Baume-Mercier-MOA8070-Classima-Yellow-Gold/dp/B001K3IWQU/ref=sr_1_40?s=watches&ie=UTF8&qid=1293381401&sr=1-40.

Oh, and it's quartz. Can anyone really argue that I'm not appropriately attired because I'm wearing it?


----------



## catside (Oct 7, 2010)

^Nice watch and worth about a years' cost of coffee . Following the same logic, if I stop drinking cofee now, is should be able to buy a real Patek before I die of old age!
Having said that, my BOL brought me a fake Patek from China which he said bought for two dollars. The Chinese automatic is as accurate as any watch I have, a second a day if that is.
BTW my wedding presents were a his/hers gold Favre Leuba quartz. Very similar to the one ^. We almost never wear them. I should reconsider.


----------



## rcoreytaylor (Dec 22, 2009)

Hi Guys (1st post for me here...)

I'm a watch guy. I have many watches ranging in price from the ridiculous to the ultra cheap. Many are automatics and I also have some quartz. They are all different styles - divers, pilot, dress, tool, etc. - and I like each one for it's own inherent attributes. Quartz are more accurate than automatic (it's just a fact) but automatics have a certain "soul" that you don't typically find in a battery driven watch. Wearing a watch presents a certain level of style and functionality; if you're an adult male you should wear a watch - simple as that. 

I'm a clothes guy as well so I make sure to wear a watch each day that compliments the clothes I'm wearing or the activities I'll be doing that day. I do not wear my dive watches with formal wear, I do not wear my formal watches when I'm diving (yes, I actually dive), etc, etc. Ultimately it matters only to me which one I'm wearing, therefore I don't give a rat's ass what "the other guy" thinks about my watch. That said, I do enjoy receiving unsolicited compliments from people about my watches, especially if the other person is a "watch guy" and knows what he's talking about. 

Ok - more to the point of the OP's question: there are some very expensive high-end quartz watches from reputable manufacturers as there are some very inexpensive automatics available from marginal manufacturers; one simply cannot pass judgement based on quartz vs. automatic. HOWEVER if you wear a Nike or G-Shock or Ironman or any similar quartz watch with anything other than a t-shirt and shorts/jeans you are a prime target for joke fodder!

One last thing - I've been told many times that the first thing a woman notices about a man's wardrobe is his shoes, followed directly by his watch. Everything else comes in third place.

Cheers!


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Precisely my thoughts, rcoreytaylor!


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

rcoreytaylor said:


> I've been told many times that the first thing a woman notices about a man's wardrobe is his shoes, followed directly by his watch.


You could be right. I would never have thought this; however, I started wearing my Seiko Mickey Mouse watch when I was in my mid-30's and over the past 25 or so years nothing that I have worn has even come close to garnering the smiles and positive comments that I have received from women than that simple watch. They all seem to notice it. This has been true in the case of both young and older women and across all demographics. This positive reaction from women has only increased as I have gotten older.

I realize that most here laugh at me for wearing a Mickey Mouse watch, but the thing has been more of a chick magnet than anything I've ever encountered; so I'll just accept the laughs from the guys while I get the favorable comments from the girls. Heck, this is the only reason I even bother to wear a watch these days. :icon_smile:

Oh yeah, it's a quartz.

Cruiser


----------



## PatentLawyerNYC (Sep 21, 2007)

What if I'm wearing an F.P. Journe with a deadbeat seconds complication? (i.e., an automatic movement that mimics the jumping second)


----------



## JerseyJohn (Oct 26, 2007)

harvey_birdman said:


> A dead giveaway that you're an OLD person is that you wear a watch at all. I'm in my thirties and wear a watch but it is the rare individual under thirty who wears a wristwatch, the overwhelming majority carry cell phones and check it for time.


And if you're a _really _old person, you carry a pocket watch and check it for time. Sounds like we've come full circle.


----------



## DoghouseReilly (Jul 25, 2010)

catside said:


> One can buy Chinese automatics for a dollar.


Where you exaggerating or can you really get a Chinese automatic for a dollar? If so, I would be interested in knowing where. Also, I am under thirty, wear a watch, and have always worn a watch. Come to think of it, my parents bought me my first one in the second grade. It was a Mickey Mouse watch too. No offense, Cruiser.  I have never thought of a watch as being a specialty device, worn by someone in a trade, but as a tool used by anyone who needs to be anywhere on time. I think that would include most people. You could use your cellphone for this, but I find it much more convenient to look at my wrist. My phone can also compose word documents, but I don't use it for that, either.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

DoghouseReilly said:


> Come to think of it, my parents bought me my first one in the second grade. It was a Mickey Mouse watch too. No offense, Cruiser.


None taken. My guess is that it wasn't the same watch. This is my 25+ year old Seiko Quartz Mickey. I think it cost about $175 back then. It still keeps perfect time. :icon_smile:










Cruiser


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

Such a surprisingly sensitive issue! To me, it's not an matter of being "truly well attired" at all, though the kind of watch you choose to wear says something about you, your preferences.


----------



## YoungClayB (Nov 16, 2009)

To answer the original question: ABSOLUTELY!!! and being punctual is a bonus!


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

but +/- 3 or 5 seconds is ok :icon_smile_big:


----------



## 4dgt90 (Dec 2, 2009)

harvey_birdman said:


> A dead giveaway that you're an OLD person is that you wear a watch at all. I'm in my thirties and wear a watch but it is the rare individual under thirty who wears a wristwatch, the overwhelming majority carry cell phones and check it for time.
> 
> Try not to be so judgmental, grandpa.


i beg to differ... i'm 23 and i've been wearing a wristwatch daily for a few years now... so do my brothers, most of the 20 somethings in my office, and nearly half of my friends...

that said, i think quartz watches are fine if they are dressy as opposed to sporty, e.g. slim, simple, leather band, etc.

also, someone correct me if i am wrong but is it not inappropriate to wear a watch with formal wear e.g. tux?


----------



## StephenRG (Apr 7, 2005)

It's simple. You don't have to wear a watch to be properly dressed. If you do wear one, it should look appropriate for the rest of your attire. The key point is "look" - the guts of the watch are utterly irrelevant. An ugly expensive automatic (no shortage of watches in this category) will be more out of place than, say, a basic Skagen.


----------



## Bandit44 (Oct 1, 2010)

Does not have to be mechanical, but I think a well-made watch adds a nice touch to a man's wardrobe.


----------



## catside (Oct 7, 2010)

DoghouseReilly said:


> Where you exaggerating or can you really get a Chinese automatic for a dollar? If so, I would be interested in knowing where. ...


 China!
But check eBay and you will be able to get one for five.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

StephenRG said:


> It's simple. You don't have to wear a watch to be properly dressed. If you do wear one, it should look appropriate for the rest of your attire. The key point is "look" - the guts of the watch are utterly irrelevant. An ugly expensive automatic (no shortage of watches in this category) will be more out of place than, say, a basic Skagen.


I agree , some people do notice the watch one wears. Why wear an Oxxford suit with a cheap mechanical or quartz watch ? 
Would one wear an Oxxford suit and drive a Honda ? A Mickey Mouse watch with a PLRL
suit ? 
Wearing a cheap watch with an expensive suit is no different than driving an expensive European car and wearing a cheap suit ! Be consistent ! 
I don't wear quartz watches because I have an appreciation for mechanical things.
If I were to wear a quartz watch it would be a Cartier quartz with an Oxxford suit. When I 
do wear an Oxxford suit I generally wear either a Patek Philippe watch or a Girard Perreguax watch.
When wearing a Rolex mechanical watch I dressed casually. I have seen men dressed in what appeared to be an excellent suit and wearing a cheap looking sports watch ! 
No wonder many times women must help men in the proper way to dress !


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Perhaps the most direct answer to the OP's question is; of course you can, with the only possible exception being on those occassions one plans on encountering an insufferable bore! I am sorry but,this thread seems based on a fatally flawed premise.


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

silverporsche said:


> I agree , some people do notice the watch one wears. Why wear an Oxxford suit with a cheap mechanical or quartz watch ?
> Would one wear an Oxxford suit and drive a Honda ? A Mickey Mouse watch with a PLRL
> suit ?


Yes and yes.

One could be be wearing the best suit in the world and be riding a Flying Pigeon bicycle.








...yes I think one would look great wearing an Oxxford suit while riding this.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

silverporsche said:


> Would one wear an Oxxford suit and drive a Honda ? A Mickey Mouse watch with a PLRL
> suit ?
> Wearing a cheap watch with an expensive suit is no different than driving an expensive European car and wearing a cheap suit ! Be consistent !


Ridiculousness. You're begining to sound like a walking version of the Robb Report. Only the finest (i.e., most expensive) in all things? So much for prioritizing!

P.S. I know a few old money types who have vast wine cellars, belong to extremely exclusive clubs, etc., but very deliberately drive rather ordinary and aged cars, because they believe a costly car to be the height of _nouveau riche _conspicuous consumption.


----------



## Wisco (Dec 3, 2009)

I've been reading this thread with great amusement. It seems to have "stuck in the craw" of several members, but that simply highlights the real answer to original posted question:

Wear what you like

Personal style is just that, personal. There are certainly rules, but one man's rule breaking is another man's sprezzatura. Would I wear an OCBD with unbuttoned collar buttons and tie? Would I wear a narrow lapel Mad Men suit? Speaking of watches, would I wear my watch outside my cuff ala Agnelli, a style icon to many? On all three counts no way, but for some this works for them. 

All of us partake in AAAC because we enjoying clothing and care about what we wear. Outside of that common ethos, we all take a different approach. Ce 'est la vie I say... especially when it comes to movement/mechanics of a watch.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

CuffDaddy said:


> Ridiculousness. You're begining to sound like a walking version of the Robb Report. Only the finest (i.e., most expensive) in all things? So much for prioritizing!
> 
> P.S. I know a few old money types who have vast wine cellars, belong to extremely exclusive clubs, etc., but very deliberately drive rather ordinary and aged cars, because they believe a costly car to be the height of _nouveau riche _conspicuous consumption.


I think one would call a few old money types eccentrics , though rare they do exist. An aged car may be Bentley , or Rolls. 
My post had to do with consistence in dress not the prices of the items. Why would one go to the trouble of carefully selecting a fine expensive suit than top it off with a cheap 
watch ? The same as driving a Honda to an exclusive club.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

I'm not talking about old Rollses, but about old Toyotas, Volvos, and other vehicles.

By your logic, every single aspect of one's life must be furnished with the priciest available accoutrements. Does that mean that, even though I'm not a programmer, I need a $10,000 computer? That's simply ridiculous. Provided the watch is traditional in style and dimensions, only the most gauche and tacky person would pass judgment on a man for wearing a "cheap" watch. Unlike nice clothes, whose quality can be objectively observable to third parties, a watch's internally workings are a source of benefit solely to the wearer/owner. (I say this as a man who wears an old swiss automatic that the Tourneau techs try to buy from me every time I have it serviced, so it's not sour grapes; I have the grapes, and they're tasty, but I don't scorn the fox who doesn't have a bunch.)

This whole conversation puts me in mind of the opening lines from this commercial:


----------



## David_E (Apr 18, 2010)

phr33dom said:


> A dead giveaway that your watch has a quartz movement is that the seconds hand jumps once a second. This can be seen by others around you in one quick glance. Even though your quartz watch may be styled appropriately and 'in good taste' with the rest of your fine clothing and shoes would it somehow prevent you from being classifed as well-dressed? If so, would this also apply to an electronic dress watch that has no seconds hand but reveals itself as such upon closer inspection by word 'QUARTZ' written on the face?


Yes. If one is checking out the movement of other men's watches... you need to get your face farther way from their wrist.

The most important factor of being well dressed is being a gentleman - a gentleman does not worry about such minor trivia or worry about such things - by definition what ever they wear defines being well dressed.


----------



## upr_crust (Aug 23, 2006)

I have read this thread with more than a certain amount of bemusement, and find myself in the camp of those who do not care about the inner workings of a gentleman's watch, so long as the weight and design of the watch coordinate with the gentleman's attire at that moment. Parsing whether a watch's movement is mechanical or quartz as a measure of a gentleman's attire strikes me as a very artificial form of snobbery (artificiality being measured, in my case, by what does or does not matter to me, personally - others may differ, and have, in this thread).

Otherwise, my gut reaction to hearing that a gentleman does not wear a watch with a quartz movement is that someone's tiara is on too tight, and is constricting blood flow to the brain  .


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

CuffDaddy said:


> I'm not talking about old Rollses, but about old Toyotas, Volvos, and other vehicles.
> 
> By your logic, every single aspect of one's life must be furnished with the priciest available accoutrements. Does that mean that, even though I'm not a programmer, I need a $10,000 computer? That's simply ridiculous. Provided the watch is traditional in style and dimensions, only the most gauche and tacky person would pass judgment on a man for wearing a "cheap" watch. Unlike nice clothes, whose quality can be objectively observable to third parties, a watch's internally workings are a source of benefit solely to the wearer/owner. (I say this as a man who wears an old swiss automatic that the Tourneau techs try to buy from me every time I have it serviced, so it's not sour grapes; I have the grapes, and they're tasty, but I don't scorn the fox who doesn't have a bunch.)
> 
> This whole conversation puts me in mind of the opening lines from this commercial:


My point was be consistent in dress. Why an expensive suit and a cheap watch ? 
Why not a cheap suit and a cheap watch. People notice watches. Internal workings is not an issue as there are very expensive quartz watches and very expensive mechanical watches.

Rolex is the most copied watch in the world , why ? if people don't notice watches.
Cartier is another popular knock off watch. 
How many people can identify a Kiton suit ? but will have no problem identifying a Rolex watch.

People may not pass judgment on a man wearing a cheap watch , but most people will notice and pass judgment on a man wearing a Rolex or Cartier watch.
Most people wear cheap watches ! as well as cheap suits. Men's Warehouse is not number one in sales selling expensive men's clothing.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Although new to posting, I have been scouring this forum for quite a while, and it is eminently observable that CuffDaddy always seems to add an opinion brimming with logic, elegance, and balance, without any hint of pretentiousness or condescension.

Regarding the topic, wouldn't "consistency" be defined as one's watch and attire being symmetrical in style/purpose, rather than meaning that a quality suit necessitates the wearing of a Patek, Vacheron, Audemars, etc.? Otherwise, very few people in the world could claim to be well dressed!


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Tiger said:


> Although new to posting, I have been scouring this forum for quite a while, and it is eminently observable that CuffDaddy always seems to add an opinion brimming with logic, elegance, and balance, without any hint of pretentiousness or condescension.


OK, fess up; how much did CuffDaddy pay you? :icon_smile_big:

Cruiser


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Not that you're fishing for compliments, Cruiser, but I've always admired your down-to-earth common sense, honesty, and ability to discern the difference between life's real issues and some of the superficial ones in which we often become engrossed.

I hope Salty, Trip, et al. don't see this - I'm running out of nice things to say!


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

All these watch threads make me want to go out and actually buy one. Leather or metal strap? I cannot decide.


----------



## triklops55 (May 14, 2010)

If I needed to wear a dinner jacket, I would probably wear my Movado Museum. That' battery operated. I paid $250 for it 14 years ago. Still, next to my automatic Omegas and Rolexes, its the most slim and elegant.

What if the watch you choose to wear is a $25 Timex that happens to have sentimental value? Is that wrong?

I've noticed that the richest, most powerful men I've met (millionaire businessmen, politicians) tend to wear the most inexpensive watches. Would you trust your money with, or give your vote to someone wearing a $100k Patek? No watch costing $100k is very subtle, you know.


----------



## blairrob (Oct 30, 2010)

upr_crust said:


> Otherwise, my gut reaction to hearing that a gentleman does not wear a watch with a quartz movement is that someone's tiara is on too tight, and is constricting blood flow to the brain  .


 I agree completely with your post.

For the record, like Triklops I typically wear a quartz watch when dressed my best (if wearing one), but love to wear my automatics as well when I can. I wear what I think is appropriate for my attire and the movement does not factor into that. It's as silly to judge a person by the watch they wear as it is by the fused pieces of their suit.

Blair


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

blairrob said:


> While I agree completely with most of your post the final comment makes me suspect someone is wearing a fedora 3 sizes too small, and with the inevitable frontal lobe damage only too apparent. :crazy:
> 
> One who chooses to wear a mechanical watch, whether it be because they appreciate the engineering within, it's history, it's looks, or for some other more nefarious or shallow reason is no worse for that than anyone on here is for choosing some of the things we forumites appreciate which others may not.


I didn't read his post as saying that there is anything wrong with wearing a mechanical watch. I think he was simply saying that he sees nothing wrong with wearing a quartz watch if that's what one wants to wear. Did I miss something?

Cruiser


----------



## jean-paul sartorial (Jul 28, 2010)

silverporsche said:


> Rolex is the most copied watch in the world , why ? if people don't notice watches.
> Cartier is another popular knock off watch.
> How many people can identify a Kiton suit ? but will have no problem identifying a Rolex watch.


But isn't the reason for this precisely because people _don't_ notice watches?

Rolex watches are knocked off because you can put a big diver-y face on a watch and slap the word ROLEX on it in for $5 and it will "fool" people. They aren't noticing the watch, they're just seeing the brand. If manufacturers were in the habit of writing "KITON" in letters across the outside of suits, I have no difficulty believing there would be an abundance of Kiton fakes, just as there are for designer t-shirts. When they make the knockoff Gucci's and Louis Vuittons, they don't emulate the plain black models, they do the ones with the LV's or G's showing.

The only time I (or 99% of the population) notices you are wearing a Rolex is if you go out of your way to show it to me. You either say "Hey, check out my Rolex" or you purposely make your watch extremely visible and then shove your wrist in my face. Otherwise, I would never know what watch you are wearing. If you tell me it's a Rolex, and a quick glance shows the word "Rolex," (or shoot it could probably say "BoIex" and I wouldn't notice), I'll believe you. Because frankly, I really don't care.


----------



## Mathguy (May 16, 2006)

Dear OP,

If you have to look for something so trivial as the jump of the second hand on a man's watch to make you feel superior then you must have a very sad life. I will continue to wear a quartz watch just to make people like you feel better.


----------



## neskerdoo (Jun 23, 2009)

silverporsche said:


> I think one would call a few old money types eccentrics , though rare they do exist. An aged car may be Bentley , or Rolls.
> My post had to do with consistence in dress not the prices of the items. Why would one go to the trouble of carefully selecting a fine expensive suit than top it off with a cheap
> watch ? The same as driving a Honda to an exclusive club.


Your post has everything to do with price of the item because you are basing your measure of "consistence [sic] in dress" upon nothing but price. You follow your claim by comparing cheap watches and cars to expensive suits. Your name is silverporsche. I cannot comprehend your arguments other than to view them through the lens of snobbery.


----------



## DocD (Jun 2, 2007)

neskerdoo said:


> Your post has everything to do with price of the item because you are basing your measure of "consistence [sic] in dress" upon nothing but price. You follow your claim by comparing cheap watches and cars to expensive suits. Your name is silverporsche. I cannot comprehend your arguments other than to view them through the lens of snobbery.


Ditto


----------



## blairrob (Oct 30, 2010)

Cruiser said:


> I didn't read his post as saying that there is anything wrong with wearing a mechanical watch. I think he was simply saying that he sees nothing wrong with wearing a quartz watch if that's what one wants to wear. Did I miss something?
> 
> Cruiser





[B said:


> upr_crust[/B]]
> Otherwise, my gut reaction to hearing that a gentleman does not wear a watch with a quartz movement is that someone's tiara is on too tight, and is constricting blood flow to the brain :smile:


I read that as saying one is brain damaged if their watch is not quartz. I now see that in fact you are correct. I should have known such a comment was beneath him. My apologies.

Bill


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

Tiger said:


> Although new to posting, I have been scouring this forum for quite a while, and it is eminently observable that CuffDaddy always seems to add an opinion brimming with logic, elegance, and balance, without any hint of pretentiousness or condescension.
> 
> Regarding the topic, wouldn't "consistency" be defined as one's watch and attire being symmetrical in style/purpose, rather than meaning that a quality suit necessitates the wearing of a Patek, Vacheron, Audemars, etc.? Otherwise, very few people in the world could claim to be well dressed!


There are very few men who wear Kiton , Oxxford or Brioni suits as well as very few men who wear John Lobb , Edward Green shoes and Borrelli shirts.
One wears what one wishes to wear. "Consistency means different things to different people. Some will put inexpensive tires on an expensive car. Spend thousands on a TV and
very little for speakers.

The issues is that one can wear a well made suit with a quartz watch , but why not match the suit with a well made watch , mechanical or quartz ! 
One would spend $5000 for a suit $1500 for a pair of shoes , $500 for a shirt and than pay
$250.00 for a watch. To me that is inconsistency. No different than spending $3000,00
for a TV and $500 for speakers. Something is out of balance in my opinion.

At one time in Germany when one purchased a high performance car , the car came with high performance tires. Not so in America ! Why ? Maybe that explains the counterpoints here.


----------



## blue suede shoes (Mar 22, 2010)

Originally Posted by *Pentheos* https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?p=1175704#post1175704 
Whenever I see someone wearing a quartz watch, I shun them. If they are in my home, I have the butler ask them to leave. If they work for me, I fire them. I simply cannot abide with having quartz watch-wearing hoi polloi near me.



Apatheticviews said:


> I feel the same way about people who use ketchup.


I feel the same way about people who don't use ketchup.


----------



## blue suede shoes (Mar 22, 2010)

silverporsche said:


> There are very few men who wear Kiton , Oxxford or Brioni suits as well as very few men who wear John Lobb , Edward Green shoes and Borrelli shirts.
> One wears what one wishes to wear. "Consistency means different things to different people. Some will put inexpensive tires on an expensive car. Spend thousands on a TV and
> very little for speakers.
> 
> ...


High performance cars don't come with high performance tires? It has been my experience that they do.


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

blue suede shoes said:


> High performance cars don't come with high performance tires? It has been my experience that they do.


Even my RX8 comes with Potenzas from the factory. However, those aren't racing tires. So I'll give the guy that. But you can't exactly drive very far on racing tires so...


----------



## catside (Oct 7, 2010)

blue suede shoes said:


> High performance cars don't come with high performance tires? It has been my experience that they do.


Depends on the high performance car, no? Most cars in US will come with all weather tires with the appropriate speed rating. Very practical unless you are rallying in your commute all the time. Difference between the tires matter in terms of function . Difference between a Casio digital, and Patek automatic matters in terms of look. Casio digital will be more accurate. In the end they show the same time.

A watch is in the end a style choice. Sometimes contrasts may work, like Cruiser's Mickey. It is a choice, though; He does know the fancy names in the watch world it seems. I have recently acquired a vintage Timex automatic. A very crude instrument, interesting to me because it was Made in the USA. My fantasy was it might be the last one. I do like it. I would wear it with a fancy 10K suit if I had any. If I had the 10K to waste though I would spend it on a watch, or several instead, and wear them with jeans. Because I like it that way.


----------



## upr_crust (Aug 23, 2006)

*Thank you, Cruiser, and blairrob . . .*

Thank you, Cruiser, for the clarification - you interpreted my meaning entirely correctly, that the measure of a gentleman is not by the sole yardstick of his watch's mechanical movement (though I've nothing against mechanical watches), and thank you, blairrob, for your editorial correction, though I didn't see your comments until after you had amended them.

My comment was simply meant as an attempt to puncture what I see as immense pretention (that a proper watch can have only a mechanical movement, not a quartz movement) with some humor. As it is, my most valuable watch ( a 14k gold Tiffany with leather strap, my late husband's) is quartz, and my newest watch (a present from a friend) is a modestly priced mechanical half-hunter pocket watch, on my person (if not in my photos) whenever I'm wearing a three-piece suit with a watch chain. I like them both, for the aesthetic qualities as well as reminders of from whom they came.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

silverporsche, I dub thee *Fancy Feast*.


----------



## Mr. Mac (Mar 14, 2008)

silverporsche said:


> I agree , some people do notice the watch one wears. Why wear an Oxxford suit with a cheap mechanical or quartz watch ?
> Would one wear an Oxxford suit and drive a Honda ? A Mickey Mouse watch with a PLRL
> suit ?
> Wearing a cheap watch with an expensive suit is no different than driving an expensive European car and wearing a cheap suit ! Be consistent !
> ...


I'm pretty sure I can wear my Seiko watches while driving my Escort back and forth to work, but now I feel terribly self-conscious about wearing them while driving the CTS-V. Maybe my wife can help.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

blue suede shoes said:


> High performance cars don't come with high performance tires? It has been my experience that they do.


Porsche 911's , BMW 7 series , Mercedes S series all comes with high performance tires.
At one time BMW 540 series and Mercedes E500 series came equipped with high performance tires.
American cars may or may not come with high performance tires with high performance
cars. The Japanese high performance cars I am not aware of such as the Accra NSX and 
the Nissan ZX series Whether they come with high performance tires are not.
The BMW 850 series came equipped with high performance tires as does the 6 series.


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

silverporsche said:


> At one time in Germany when one purchased a high performance car , the car came with high performance tires. Not so in America ! Why ? Maybe that explains the counterpoints here.


I would sincerely hope that high performance cars in the US do come with the appropriate high performance tyres. Would be rather stupid and incredibly dangerous if they didn't.


----------



## blairrob (Oct 30, 2010)

upr_crust said:


> Thank you, Cruiser, for the clarification - you interpreted my meaning entirely correctly, that the measure of a gentleman is not by the sole yardstick of his watch's mechanical movement (though I've nothing against mechanical watches), and thank you, blairrob, for your editorial correction, though I didn't see your comments until after you had amended them.


 You are too gracious with your thanks; unable to accept full responsibility for my errors _(ask any of my ex's)_ I did sign the retraction as 'Bill'. :icon_smile_wink:

Blair


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

Leighton said:


> Even my RX8 comes with Potenzas from the factory. However, those aren't racing tires. So I'll give the guy that. But you can't exactly drive very far on racing tires so...


An RX8 may not come with high performance tires , my example was European cars not Japanese or American cars. I am not aware of what Tires GM places on it's Corvettes or high performance Cadillac's.


----------



## Mr. Mac (Mar 14, 2008)

silverporsche said:


> The same as driving a Honda to an exclusive club.


I'm not a member at any exclusive clubs, but I play golf at them and have never turned heads (or raised eyebrows) there or at my favorite restaurants/hotels when I pull up in one of my non-luxury cars. Maybe it's because the valet knows how well we regulars tip.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

Mr. Mac said:


> I'm pretty sure I can wear my Seiko watches while driving my Escort back and forth to work, but now I feel terribly self-conscious about wearing them while driving the CTS-V. Maybe my wife can help.


Maybe you might get another luxury car Cadillac's are not really a reliable high performance car. General Motors has had a habit of putting run of the mill tires on high performance cars.
But than again you should wear what you feel comfortable in. I saw a host on TV with a suit on and athletic shoes ! one talk show host wears his double breasted suit with it open 
most of the time and how many times have you seen men on TV wearing jeans with a sport jacket ? Mt point still is if one is wearing an expensive suit and shoes why not wear an expensive watch either quartz or mechanical.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

silverporsche said:


> The Japanese high performance cars I am not aware of such as the Accra NSX and
> the Nissan ZX series Whether they come with high performance tires are not.


Current generation Nissan Z's come with Bridgestone Potenzas OEM, Fancy Feast. Because those make the car work better. Putting on my watch has never improved the fit of my suit nor improved the relationship between my shirt and tie.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

silverporsche said:


> Mt point still is if one is wearing an expensive suit and shoes why not wear an expensive watch either quartz or mechanical.


Wouldn't you also need an expensive house, an expensive dog, an expensive wife? Where does it end? Maybe an expensive divorce where you lose the expensive house, dog, car, maybe the suit and watch too (depends on how vindictive she is).

At least mine let me keep my expensive Harley-Davidson. She didn't know how to ride the thing anyway, but more likely she just didn't know how much I paid for it. Sometimes it's good when they don't know how expensive something is. :icon_smile_big:

Cruiser


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

I'm getting an inexpensive Timex just to rankle silverporsche.  In all seriousness though, I'm glad most of the members here are pretty sane when it comes to this subject.



triklops55 said:


> If I needed to wear a dinner jacket, I would probably wear my Movado Museum. That' battery operated. I paid $250 for it 14 years ago. Still, next to my automatic Omegas and Rolexes, its the most slim and elegant.


 There are those who say you should not wear a watch with a dinner jacket.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

I'm just starting to get into watches. I think this is a fascinating thread.

For the record, I now have four watches, with a fifth ebay purchase on the way. The dress is a vintage Girard Perregaux Gyromatic with lizard band. I have two quartz, both Swiss Army, one a Cavalry model purchased with the intent of wearing with different ribbon bands (https://www.watches-swiss.com/Swiss-Army-24529-Cavalry-mens-Swiss-watch-p1367.html), the other a I'm-not-sure model with metal band picked up from Salvation Army for five bucks--it's the beater. The one en route from ebay is a vintage mechanical wind-up that cost me $12.50 including shipping--sitting here, I can't recall the brand, but it has a silver dial and lacks even a date function. The one I'm wearing now is a Seiko automatic purchased from The Other Forum that arrived just today and acquired because I didn't have a watch with a dark dial. It's this model:

https://www.watches88.com/pd-seiko-military-100m-automatic-snzg15k1.cfm

This last one is, by far, the fanciest watch I have, and it is none too intricate compared with chronographs with multiple dials and gizmos. All my watches, pretty much, are the essence of simple, and I like to think that reflects both the way I dress and think. Rightly or wrongly, likely the latter, I draw certain conclusions about someone who wears something with lots of gizmos, or a watch with no numbers/markings at all, or a watch that isn't round (the old TV style), or a watch with an orange dial, or a watch with Roman numerals. It's that kind of stuff, I think, that sends out signals. You're wearing an Omega Seamaster from the 1960s? I'm impressed, much moreso that if you're wearing one of these:

https://forums.timezone.com/index.php?t=msg&goto=5437269&rid=97456#msg_5437269

or anything with a logo from a clothier--Brooks Brothers, Orvis, etc.--on it. The cost of the watch, to me, has little or nothing to do with it.

Yeah, I think automatics are cooler than quartz (as I watch the second hand on my new Seiko go round and round), but then again, I don't have to worry about setting the time/date if I haven't worn it for a few days. Quartz, very generally speaking, is also more affordable, or so it seems.

My bases covered (or so I think) in terms of colors and bands, I plan on taking a breather, watch wise. When I resume, I'll likely go for an automatic. Not the Omega Seamaster--I don't have that kind of spare cash--but perhaps a Bulova Sea King or a Grand Seiko.

All this is FWIW for someone who really doesn't know much about watches, but knows what he likes and tries to dress well.


----------



## phr33dom (May 4, 2009)

I think that there has been some misunderstanding about my original posting question. I do not deny that you can be 'well-attired' when wearing an 'appropriate' quartz watch. However, my question was set at a more exacting level...refer to the subject title... it was whether you can be *truly* 'well attired' when wearing a quartz watch.

It has been mentioned that there are very expensive quartz watches available on the market. Even so, on a careful analysis, it may be the case that some may regard even these as somehow detracting from the overall bearing of the wearer. Some may even go further and consider that wearing such a watch sends doubts about the tastes of the wearer i.e. why he was foolish to spent so much money on a watch that is electronic when he could have spent it on a high quality mechanical. Perhaps similar in reasoning to the man wearing expensive dress shoes that have synthetic soles. Yes, he may appear to be 'well attired', however, not at the higher levels.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Your logic doesn't hold up. Synthetic soles are absolutely appropriate in inclement weather. Someone who wears leather-soled shoes in the rain isn't being stylish, he is being foolish. As for quartz vs. mechanical, someone with a classy, understated quartz watch with a suit in a business setting is much better attired, in estimation, than someone who wears a mechanical dive watch under the same circumstances.

And so I suppose it boils down to a classy, understated mechanical watch versus a classy, understated quartz watch. Maybe someone who wears the latter prefers the convenience and likely enhanced accuracy of an electronic watch. That could speak to their practicality. There is nothing wrong with being practical. OTOH, someone who wears a classy, understated mechanical watch might be a total idiot who knows nothing about watches except for what they read on the Internet, which would speak to their foolishness. It just goes to show: You never can tell.



phr33dom said:


> I think that there has been some misunderstanding about my original posting question. I do not deny that you can be 'well-attired' when wearing an 'appropriate' quartz watch. However, my question was set at a more exacting level...refer to the subject title... it was whether you can be *truly* 'well attired' when wearing a quartz watch.
> 
> It has been mentioned that there are very expensive quartz watches available on the market. Even so, on a careful analysis, it may be the case that some may regard even these as somehow detracting from the overall bearing of the wearer. Some may even go further and consider that wearing such a watch sends doubts about the tastes of the wearer i.e. why he was foolish to spent so much money on a watch that is electronic when he could have spent it on a high quality mechanical. Perhaps similar in reasoning to the man wearing expensive dress shoes that have synthetic soles. Yes, he may appear to be 'well attired', however, not at the higher levels.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

phr33dom said:


> However, my question was set at a more exacting level...refer to the subject title... it was whether you can be *truly* 'well attired' when wearing a quartz watch.


So you mean "extremely" rather than "genuinely" when you say "truly." OK, that changes nothing.



> It has been mentioned that there are very expensive quartz watches available on the market. Even so, on a careful analysis, it may be the case that some may regard even these as somehow detracting from the overall bearing of the wearer.


Only upon the "careful analysis" of a putz.



> Some may even go further and consider that wearing such a watch sends doubts about the tastes of the wearer i.e. why he was foolish to spent so much money on a watch that is electronic when he could have spent it on a high quality mechanical. Perhaps similar in reasoning to the man wearing expensive dress shoes that have synthetic soles. Yes, he may appear to be 'well attired', however, not at the higher levels.


Terrible analogy. Just awful. Synthetic soles are visible from across the room. Only a gauche, insecure status-seeker would perform the kind of "careful analysis" you suggest in the first place. As another poster noted, the reason Rolex's are so frequently knocked-off is that, under any normal social interaction with someone who doesn't already know you well enough to have a fully formed opinion of you already, a fake and a genuine are indistinguishable.

Also, you seem to be positing some rule that says that automatic watches are more "proper." THERE IS NO SUCH RULE. Again, I say this with an automatic on my wrist. I like my watch, but a similarly understated, leather-banded quartz would not make me less well dressed.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

MikeDT said:


> I would sincerely hope that high performance cars in the US do come with the appropriate high performance tyres. Would be rather stupid and incredibly dangerous if they didn't.


High performance cars generally come with Street tires in the US (for initial safety inspection reasons). But you also have to remember that there is a huge difference between ours and the imported models. My old boss went through this when he purchased his super Cobra (2006-7 timeframe), and then had to order the performance tires after. I was the warehouse manager at the time, and getting 4 tires was an oddity, so I asked him what was going on. The tires on the Cobra were good, but not of the same caliber you would expect for a car of that level.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

MikeDT said:


> I would sincerely hope that high performance cars in the US do come with the appropriate high performance tyres. Would be rather stupid and incredibly dangerous if they didn't.


High performance cars generally come with Street tires in the US (for initial safety inspection reasons). But you also have to remember that there is a huge difference between ours and the imported models. My old boss went through this when he purchased his super Cobra (2006-7 timeframe), and then had to order the performance tires after. I was the warehouse manager at the time, and getting 4 tires was an oddity, so I asked him what was going on. The tires on the Cobra were good, but not of the same caliber you would expect for a car of that level.


----------



## phr33dom (May 4, 2009)

CuffDaddy said:


> Terrible analogy. Just awful. Synthetic soles are visible from across the room. Only a gauche, insecure status-seeker would perform the kind of "careful analysis" you suggest in the first place.
> 
> Also, you seem to be positing some rule that says that automatic watches are more "proper." THERE IS NO SUCH RULE.


The briefest fleeting glance is all that is normally required to distinguish an electronic movement from mechanical. But I would agree that this distinction cannot be made from across a room but can be made at a distance of normal social interaction.

If you pay close attention to details of your own attire you will inevitably also be observant about the details of the attire of others.

I am not suggesting that the wearers of quartz watches are inferior people but rather that they may not have yet reached the highest levels of distinction in these matters of taste.

Yes, I consider a mechanical movement comprising an elaborate hand-crafted system of gears and springs to be of a greater pedigree and more 'proper' than that of an electronic printed circuit board powered by a battery.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

CuffDaddy said:


> Current generation Nissan Z's come with Bridgestone Potenzas OEM, Fancy Feast. Because those make the car work better. Putting on my watch has never improved the fit of my suit nor improved the relationship between my shirt and tie.


My point is consistency , why wear go to all the trouble to match colors , quality of 
shoes , shirts and suit and than wear a watch of poor or average quality ?
The Europeans has known that for years that tires play a major role in car performance.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

Apatheticviews said:


> High performance cars generally come with Street tires in the US (for initial safety inspection reasons). But you also have to remember that there is a huge difference between ours and the imported models. My old boss went through this when he purchased his super Cobra (2006-7 timeframe), and then had to order the performance tires after. I was the warehouse manager at the time, and getting 4 tires was an oddity, so I asked him what was going on. The tires on the Cobra were good, but not of the same caliber you would expect for a car of that level.


Europeans generally are more car oriented than Americans. The earlier Cobra's sold by Ford
used a European body and American engine. Today generally high performance European cars use tires that are wider in the rear than the front tires , to increase handling . That would include European sport cars as well as high performance GT's.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

phr33dom said:


> I think that there has been some misunderstanding about my original posting question. I do not deny that you can be 'well-attired' when wearing an 'appropriate' quartz watch. However, my question was set at a more exacting level...refer to the subject title... it was whether you can be *truly* 'well attired' when wearing a quartz watch.
> 
> It has been mentioned that there are very expensive quartz watches available on the market. Even so, on a careful analysis, it may be the case that some may regard even these as somehow detracting from the overall bearing of the wearer. Some may even go further and consider that wearing such a watch sends doubts about the tastes of the wearer i.e. why he was foolish to spent so much money on a watch that is electronic when he could have spent it on a high quality mechanical. Perhaps similar in reasoning to the man wearing expensive dress shoes that have synthetic soles. Yes, he may appear to be 'well attired', however, not at the higher levels.


Generally expensive mechanical watches of the same company is more expensive than the Quartz equivalent. Example Cartier , it would be very difficult to see the difference between a mechanical or Quartz Cartier unless one was very close to the wearer and had excellent eye sight.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

Cruiser said:


> Wouldn't you also need an expensive house, an expensive dog, an expensive wife? Where does it end? Maybe an expensive divorce where you lose the expensive house, dog, car, maybe the suit and watch too (depends on how vindictive she is).
> 
> At least mine let me keep my expensive Harley-Davidson. She didn't know how to ride the thing anyway, but more likely she just didn't know how much I paid for it. Sometimes it's good when they don't know how expensive something is. :icon_smile_big:
> 
> Cruiser


Like or not we are a consumer generated society , we in America are judged by our wealth !
We consume more than any nation in the world. We love our things !

You are correct where does it end ? but than as the President and the Congress suggest
buy , buy and than buy more it helps the economy.
When you lose all of those things , than maybe you might resort to the method used by one of the characters in the second "Wallstreet " throw one self in front of a moving train.

A Harley Davidson , second class why not a BMW bike , image as a famous tennis player
said is everything ( smile )


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

silverporsche said:


> A Harley Davidson , second class why not a BMW bike


Granted, a similar sized BMW would have been less expensive than the Harley-Davidson; however, I paid the additional amount for the H-D in order to get the style bike that I wanted.

Not only that but when you get down to it, comparing the H-D to the BMW is sort of like comparing a mechanical watch to a modern day quartz watch. The BMW had state of the art technology such as electronic fuel injection along with liberal usage of plastic to lower weight while the Hog was a modern day creation with old school technology such as a carburator and the use of heavier steel. Comparing the two I would say that the craftsmanship of the H-D was every bit on par with the BMW. H-D now uses EFI in it's bikes, but not then.

So at the end of the day I guess you might say that in my selection of bike I took the route that you seem to advocate. I selected the more expensive option with modern day craftsmanship of old school technology. In other words, I chose the mechanical watch over the quartz watch, metaphorically speaking.

The reason you didn't recognize it is because of your fixation on the German brand name rather than the meat and potatoes of what it represents.

Cruiser


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

phr33dom said:


> Yes, I consider a mechanical movement comprising an elaborate hand-crafted system of gears and springs to be of a greater pedigree and more 'proper' than that of an electronic printed circuit board powered by a battery.


Everyone is entitled to their opinions. Even the wrong ones.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

Cruiser said:


> Granted, a similar sized BMW would have been less expensive than the Harley-Davidson; however, I paid the additional amount for the H-D in order to get the style bike that I wanted.
> 
> Not only that but when you get down to it, comparing the H-D to the BMW is sort of like comparing a mechanical watch to a modern day quartz watch. The BMW had state of the art technology such as electronic fuel injection along with liberal usage of plastic to lower weight while the Hog was a modern day creation with old school technology such as a carburator and the use of heavier steel. Comparing the two I would say that the craftsmanship of the H-D was every bit on par with the BMW. H-D now uses EFI in it's bikes, but not then.
> 
> ...


I know very little about bikes, I am a car person , never rode a bike. A question are 
BMW and Hardley Davidson in the same class , or the two motorcycles equal in quality and workmanship ? which bike offers greater performance ? why would any vehicle use carburetors when fuel injection is far superior and has been around for 70 years ? Fuel
injection appeared in German fighter planes in World War Two !

As for as German brands as it applies to cars no one questions that the Germans builds the finest cars in the world Germans now owns both Rolls and Bentley. with engine and major parts German , add to that Mercedes, BMW , Porsche , and Audi what you have is a line up of fast and dependable transportation equal by no other car producing country in the world !


----------



## neskerdoo (Jun 23, 2009)

Now this guy is throwing out movie spoilers without warning?!


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

silverporsche said:


> why would any vehicle use carburetors when fuel injection is far superior and has been around for 70 years ?


One might ask very nearly the same question vis-a-vis quartz and mechanical watch movements!


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

5 pages? Really?


----------



## upr_crust (Aug 23, 2006)

Irresistible forces have met immovable objects - all sorts of fun ensues . . .

As they (the proverbial "they") do say in my social sub-genre, "When Queens Collide . . ." (not making commentary on the orientations of the posters to this thread, but noting the vehemence with which opinions are held).



Pentheos said:


> 5 pages? Really?


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Motorcycles? Here we go.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, here's mine: Folks who ride HD are poseurs. The V-Twin is an all-show-no-dough motor that delivers inferior performance while being a big polluter. There is a reason that Arizona requires emissions tests for motorcycles, and it ain't the V4's, inline fours and other configurations produced by companies that long ago joined the latter half of the 20th century. It is because HD's belch pollution, and HD riders are the world's biggest whiners about it because they're always having to make repairs to get tags.

Pollution aside, HDs are unreliable, although not as much as in years gone by. But still. It is considered a triumph of HD engineering that a hog can now go 50K miles or so before it needs a new top end. Well, whoop-de-flipping-hoo. My 1996 Honda ST1100, which now has 65K miles, can go 200K or better without any major engine work. Same thing with BMW. Don't believe me? Ask Sonny Barger, infamous leader of the Hells Angels, who has publicly said that HD's are pieces of junk and that if the Angels had any sense, they'd ride BMW's or Hondas. You can look it up.

The only thing a HD has going for it is its sound, and most of us stopped having farting contests in grade school.

I do not ride motorcycles to take the kids to school, and I have the speeding tickets to prove it. My 15-year-old Honda will outperform a brand-new HD in every way: Acceleration, maneuverability, stopping ability and chick magnetism, presuming you are attracted to women with more than twenty brain cells and at least as many teeth. Don't believe it? Let's go riding, sport--I'll wait up at the beer parlor up the road and hope you're there in time for the second round.

Now, if you ride motorcycles because you want to adopt a certain aesthetic instead of get bugs in your teeth, that's something else entirely.

I confess I don't know much about watches, but I know a thing or two about motorcycles. I'd much rather have a timepiece on my wrist that actually keeps time than a what-have-you, be it mechanical or miniature sun dial, that requires one to do math in their head to compensate for lost/added seconds throughout the day. Same thing with motorcycles. I want a bike that performs, not one that has folks peering close and saying "Nice chrome job."



Cruiser said:


> Granted, a similar sized BMW would have been less expensive than the Harley-Davidson; however, I paid the additional amount for the H-D in order to get the style bike that I wanted.
> 
> Not only that but when you get down to it, comparing the H-D to the BMW is sort of like comparing a mechanical watch to a modern day quartz watch. The BMW had state of the art technology such as electronic fuel injection along with liberal usage of plastic to lower weight while the Hog was a modern day creation with old school technology such as a carburator and the use of heavier steel. Comparing the two I would say that the craftsmanship of the H-D was every bit on par with the BMW. H-D now uses EFI in it's bikes, but not then.
> 
> ...


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

CuffDaddy said:


> One might ask very nearly the same question vis-a-vis quartz and mechanical watch movements!


My thoughts exactly, and the response from silverporsche was the one I was trying to elicit; however, in fairness to silver he isn't really saying that one must necessarily shun the quartz and wear the mechanical watch as much as he is saying that one should wear the most expensive one, whether it be quartz or mechanical.

As for his comments about everyone knowing that the Germans build the "finest" cars, I suppose that depends on one's definition of finest. J D Power certainly doesn't agree if build quality and reliability are the governing factors. Mercedes-Benz is 14th on the list while BMW and Porsche are even lower. Also U.S. News and World Report ranks the Nissan GT-R number one over the Porsche 911 Turbo.

It doesn't appear that everyone knows that the Germans build the finest cars. :icon_smile_big:

Cruiser


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

32rollandrock said:


> I confess I don't know much about watches, but I know a thing or two about motorcycles. I'd much rather have a timepiece on my wrist that actually keeps time than a what-have-you, be it mechanical or miniature sun dial, that requires one to do math in their head to compensate for lost/added seconds throughout the day. Same thing with motorcycles. I want a bike that performs, not one that has folks peering close and saying "Nice chrome job."


Actually you sound like a kid on a crotch rocket.

FWIW, back in the late 60's I campaigned a drag bike at the local tracks winning the track championship at one of them. In that final run I beat a twin engine Harley-Davidson on my Yamaha. While I raced a Yamaha, on the street my choice was Harley-Davidson.










As for image, I would much rather be mistaken for a hard core biker than one of the goofy kids I see on crotch rockets flying in and out of traffic endangering themselves and others. What was that you said about having the tickets to prove something. :icon_smile_big:

Just to set the record straight, I have owned 3 Hondas, 3 Suzukis, 2 Yamahas, and back in early 60's some Italian bike who's maker I've long since forgotten, in addition to my Harley-Davidsons. I know a thing or two about motorcycles also.

Oh yeah, my watch is a quartz.

Cruiser


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Can't do the crotch rocket thing. But I can--and have--ridden from St. Louis to Seattle in two days, also from Seattle to Phoenix in two days. Do the math: That's back-to-back 1,000-mile days, utterly impossible on a HD and, while not easy, doable on a Honda (or a BMW, for that matter). One of those trips was on a 1975 Goldwing, the other on my ST1100. I like cruising long distances at between 90 and 110 mph for ten-plus hours, and you just can't do that on a Harley and stand up afterward.

You do not provide your age. The photograph provided suggests these glory days were sometime previous to AMF acquiring HD. In short, a long, long time ago--and even then, as you acknowledge, Yamahas were superior machines. It has long been the case that cutting-edge technology has been developed at the track, where HD hasn't been a winner--save for dirt ovals, which in and of itself says a lot--since long before I was born. I hear there were many fine makers of Conestoga wagons back in the day. Nonetheless, no one I know drives a Conestoga wagon. Yet, I see so many Harleys on the road. I have never been able to figure that out.

All this said, ride safely and keep your rubber where it belongs. Peace.



Cruiser said:


> Actually you sound like a kid on a crotch rocket.
> 
> FWIW, back in the late 60's I campaigned a drag bike at the local tracks winning the track championship at one of them. In that final run I beat a twin engine Harley-Davidson on my Yamaha. While I raced a Yamaha, on the street my choice was Harley-Davidson.
> 
> ...


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

Cruiser said:


> My thoughts exactly, and the response from silverporsche was the one I was trying to elicit; however, in fairness to silver he isn't really saying that one must necessarily shun the quartz and wear the mechanical watch as much as he is saying that one should wear the most expensive one, whether it be quartz or mechanical.
> 
> As for his comments about everyone knowing that the Germans build the "finest" cars, I suppose that depends on one's definition of finest. J D Power certainly doesn't agree if build quality and reliability are the governing factors. Mercedes-Benz is 14th on the list while BMW and Porsche are even lower. Also U.S. News and World Report ranks the Nissan GT-R number one over the Porsche 911 Turbo.
> 
> ...


One need not wear the most expensive quartz watch , but if one is wearing an expensive suit than one should wear a comparable watch quartz or mechanical. 
Performance cars are generally less reliable than the average cars. One does not look for reliability as much in a high end car as a cheaper car. Ferrari's and Lamborghini's are very unreliable. If one has to ask about reliability or the cost than the car is not for you.

I would think that in purchasing an expensive high performance car one should understand that maintenance cost may double and in some cases triple in cost.
High performance German cars are a want not a need. 
The Nissan GT-R is not in the same class as a Porsche of any kind. U.S. News and World Report does not test cars.
As for as build quality one is more likely to take excellent care of a high Performance car than the average car. You better!

My V12 BMW coupe rarely is in the rain and never in the snow. I have two sets of wheels and tires , one for summer the other for winter. Reliability was never the question. I knew
that a V12 BMW is expensive to maintain. Much more expensive than my wife's BMW 5 series.
It is not unusual for a repair bill to cost more than a $1000.00. I knew that when I purchased the car.
I paid $600.00 to have my Rolex cleaned and repaired 10 years ago ! To replace the tubes 
on my McIntosh power amp is over $700.00. If you want to play you must pay.

There are cars for everyone , watches , suits , shoes , audio , homes , motorcycles etc, etc.
If one thinks it cost to much than that item is not for you.


----------



## Mr. Mac (Mar 14, 2008)

silverporsche said:


> no one questions that the Germans builds the finest cars in the world


HA-HA!

I question it. Actually a LOT of people question it.

Performance cars they may be but dependable they are not. The Germans can't hold the Japanese's Jock-Strap when it comes to making reliable cars. Most German made cars are expensive, unreliable, expensive to repair, expensive to insure, and expensive to maintain. All for what? More performance? Says who? Japanese makes like Infinity, Acura and Lexus are fully the equal of any competing model coming out of Germany.

Come to think of it, most German luxury cars are appealing mainly for their snob appeal - kind of like most Swiss luxury watches.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

Mr. Mac said:


> HA-HA!
> 
> I question it. Actually a LOT of people question it.
> 
> ...


Interesting ,Japan makes some of the most reliable cars in the world ! All of what you post about German cars are mostly true. But Japan does not build a car to compete with Porsche Carrera ,BMW M cars nor 6 series and 7 series cars , Mercedes AMG cars or Mercedes S series cars , I might include the Audi's A8 Series.

As for as snob appeal there is some truth in your statement. Why would one spend twice as much for a Mercedes when he can by a Lexus ? A Lexus does not compete with a S series Mercedes or a 7 series BMW.
Lexus has more appeal to those driving a Cadillac or Lincoln. From a marketing standpoint it makes sense.

A good comparison German luxury cars and Swiss watches. Not for everyone.


----------



## JAGMAJ (Feb 10, 2005)

phr33dom said:


> The briefest fleeting glance is all that is normally required to distinguish an electronic movement from mechanical. But I would agree that this distinction cannot be made from across a room but can be made at a distance of normal social interaction.
> 
> If you pay close attention to details of your own attire you will inevitably also be observant about the details of the attire of others.
> 
> ...


Again, I find the entire premise of this thread to be disturbing. First of all, being "truly well attired" is an overall opinion of a person's outfit, which is composed of many parts. The OP's question implies that every single aspect of one's outfit has to be of the highest level of quality, but what this level of quality is for each item is subject to debate. Does one's tie have to be a 7-fold, do one's shoes have to be custom made cordovan by Italian cobblers, does the suit have to be bespoke from Saville Row, etc.? What if the socks are not the very best or the cuff links have a t-bar--or if the person isn't wearing a French cuff shirt at all? Who sets the standard for each item? With respect to watches, there is clearly a different level of workmanship that goes into a mechanical watch, but not everybody agrees that the increased complexity makes them per se more tasteful. If one is wearing an otherwise tasteful quartz watch that can only be discovered to be non-mechanical by a person watching the second hand of the watch as it is exposed beyond the shirt sleeve, I find it hard to believe that this one fact exposes a person as having less than the highest level of distinction in taste. While I'm a traditionalist and generally follow the "accepted" rules of taste, I'm immediately skeptical of any attempts to create hard rules that, if violated, automatically preclude one from being considered to be well-attired. I certainly wouldn't create one based on the sweep of the second hand on one's watch.

More to the point, however, I believe that the original question is akin to asking whether one can be truly well attired if one isn't rich. While I believe that it's nice to have high quality items in one's wardrobe, I try not to set minimum standards based on how much they cost. Indeed, I believe that people who focus solely on the cost of items generally have less class than those who don't.


----------



## DocD (Jun 2, 2007)

silverporsche said:


> One need not wear the most expensive quartz watch , but if one is wearing an expensive suit than one should wear a comparable watch quartz or mechanical.
> Performance cars are generally less reliable than the average cars. One does not look for reliability as much in a high end car as a cheaper car. Ferrari's and Lamborghini's are very unreliable. If one has to ask about reliability or the cost than the car is not for you.
> 
> I would think that in purchasing an expensive high performance car one should understand that maintenance cost may double and in some cases triple in cost.
> ...


Other than constantly repeating yourself, and always reminding us of all your worldly possessions, just exactly what IS your point? You are constantly going off on tangents, then bring up all YOUR high end purchases (as if anyone on this forum actually cares) and don't even realize that the majority of the other posters have ridiculed your responses.

Smell the toast burning.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

DocD said:


> Other than constantly repeating yourself, and always reminding us of all your worldly possessions, just exactly what IS your point? You are constantly going off on tangents, then bring up all YOUR high end purchases (as if anyone on this forum actually cares) and don't even realize that the majority of the other posters have ridiculed your responses.
> 
> Smell the toast burning.


I am not the issue sir, the thread was not about me. Why not discuss the thread !
Are you capable of discussing issues ???


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

silverporsche said:


> One does not look for reliability as much in a high end car as a cheaper car. Ferrari's and Lamborghini's are very unreliable. If one has to ask about reliability or the cost than the car is not for you.
> 
> There are cars for everyone , watches , suits , shoes , audio , homes , motorcycles etc, etc.
> If one thinks it cost to much than that item is not for you.


This logic may be true for cars, and even some motorcycles, but the question of reliability falls apart, I think, when it comes to watches and bikes outside exotic stoplight-to-stoplight racing jobs.

If someone spends tons of money for an unreliable watch, then I think that person is a fool (unless we're talking a piece with historic or artistic qualities that belongs in a museum as opposed to someone's wrist). If you have ever been stranded on a motorcycle in the middle of nowhere--which is the best place to ride a motorcycle--you'll appreciate reliability. Unlike a car, you can't just leave it and go for help because it may not be there when you get back. All you can do is sit and wait and hope that a kind person in a pickup comes along. That has never happened to me. I have, however, helped out guys on HDs in such situations.

It's worth noting that rarity seems to be prized both among aficiandos of watches and motorcycles. At the first and last poker run I attended, there were well over 1,000 bikes, most of them Harleys, many of them worth many thousands of dollars, but the bike that got, by far, the most attention was a Honda CX500 from the late 1970s. Honda's experiment with a longitudinally mounted water-cooled V-Twin engine on a shaft-drive motorcycle was short-lived--you don't see them every day. And folks flocked to this one, walking right past $30,000 custom choppers to stare and take pictures, even though you an buy a CX500 for practically nothing. Here's a dandy for less than $2,000:

https://cx500forum.com/index.php?/topic/2862-cx500c-restored-and-polished-fs/


----------



## neskerdoo (Jun 23, 2009)

silverporsche said:


> I am not the issue sir, the thread was not about me. Why not discuss the thread !
> Are you capable of discussing issues ???


Now this is rich. Are _you_ "capable of discussing issues"? The only attempt at a principle I have yet gleaned from your repetitive walls of question-begging braggadocio is "If you want to play, you have to pay." Please try at least once to enlighten the rest of us.


----------



## triklops55 (May 14, 2010)

Jovan said:


> I'm getting an inexpensive Timex just to rankle silverporsche.  In all seriousness though, I'm glad most of the members here are pretty sane when it comes to this subject.
> 
> There are those who say you should not wear a watch with a dinner jacket.


Tell that to James Bond or to "Pulp Fiction's" Wolf. Yes, I'm in the same category as those gentlemen :icon_smile_big:


----------



## DocD (Jun 2, 2007)

neskerdoo said:


> Now this is rich. Are _you_ "capable of discussing issues"? The only attempt at a principle I have yet gleaned from your repetitive walls of question-begging braggadocio is "If you want to play, you have to pay." Please try at least once to enlighten the rest of us.


Silverporsche,

Obviously, you simply don't "get it", but neskerdoo certainly is "spot on".

I already DID discuss my opinion on this ridiculous issue very early on in this thread. Then you went on to spin this issue and attempted to make other ridiculous analogies regarding cars, suits, your high end stereo equipment, etc., etc.

I'm not sure if your thought process intrigues me, baffles me or simply scares me.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

James Bond or other "wolves" notwithstanding, the idea that one does not wear a wristwatch with a dinner jacket is, I think, a fairly time-honored convention. That said, no sane well-adjusted person would object to a dress watch in black tie circumstances as long as it does not scream bling. Sorry for getting off-topic.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

silverporsche said:


> The Nissan GT-R is not in the same class as a Porsche of any kind. U.S. News and World Report does not test cars.


No, but _Automobile_ magazine does and they say about the Nissan GT-R,

_"Once you behold the 2011 Nissan GT-R, you will have no doubt in your mind that it is one of the greatest supercars ever built. Even more amazingly, the GT-R costs only about half of what most of its competitors do."_
https://www.automobile.com/2011-nissan-gt-r-review.html

_Car and Driver_ magazine knows a thing or two about cars also and they say,

_"The GT-R is a successful attempt to create a Ferrari rival with a Porsche price tag. Its twin-turbo V-6 is stunning, the grip ridiculous, and its performance numbers are a match for cars that cost twice as much."_

Do you really listen to yourself? It's OK if you prefer a Porsche, but to say that the GT-R isn't in the same class as any Porsche simply paints you as someone who knows less about cars than you profess. Just because you can buy an expensive car doesn't mean that you know cars. Your interest appears to be more about snob appeal than anything.

Cruiser


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

No reason to be scared or baffled, Doc. Like ants and other insects, status-obsessed snobs are everywhere. They are mostly harmless until you have to bail them out.


----------



## DocD (Jun 2, 2007)

Cruiser said:


> No, but _Automobile_ magazine does and they say about the Nissan GT-R,
> 
> _"Once you behold the 2011 Nissan GT-R, you will have no doubt in your mind that it is one of the greatest supercars ever built. Even more amazingly, the GT-R costs only about half of what most of its competitors do."_
> https://www.automobile.com/2011-nissan-gt-r-review.html
> ...


Couldn't agree more. It's *my impression*, that silverporsche simply purchases expensive, "prestigious" items for the snob appeal, and may not have any true appreciation for why he's actually buying the product, other than for having the ability to tell others.


----------



## phr33dom (May 4, 2009)

JAGMAJ said:


> Again, I find the entire premise of this thread to be disturbing. First of all, being "truly well attired" is an overall opinion of a person's outfit, which is composed of many parts. The OP's question implies that every single aspect of one's outfit has to be of the highest level of quality...More to the point, however, I believe that the original question is akin to asking whether one can be truly well attired if one isn't rich.


Where did I imply that every single aspect of one's outfit has to be of the highest level of quality to be 'truly well attired'? Neither did I write this nor did I intend to imply this. The mere possession of goods of the highest quality does not equate to the owner having a highly refined taste let alone basic good taste.

I do not consider it a requirement, or indeed preferable, to have all items of a gentleman's attire to be of the highest available quality to be 'truly well attired'. This can be achieved as long as most of his items are at least of mid-range quality and that he has selected them on the basis of a certain taste.

There are many mechanical watches available that are of reasonable quality at price points consistent with mid-range shoes, shirts etc and certainly at a lower price than quartz watches of some high-end manufacturers.


----------



## smujd (Mar 18, 2008)

silverporsche said:


> ...no one questions that the Germans builds the finest cars in the world...add to that Mercedes, BMW , Porsche , and Audi what you have is a line up of fast and dependable transportation equal by no other car producing country in the world !


As a devoted Porsche, BMW, and M-B lover, I wish this were still true. Putting aside my deep love for German cars, there is serious question regarding German quality and reliability.

My wife drives an Infiniti because the FX was (at the time of purchase), in my estimation, a substantially better vehicle than the X5, the M class, and the ill-advised Cayenne. It had better handling, better ride quality, a more refined interior, better reliability, and MUCH better dealer service. It was more fun to drive.

But, then, I do wear my Rolex with boots or a Brioni suit while driving my pick up (GMC 2500HD is my daily driver).


----------



## smujd (Mar 18, 2008)

silverporsche said:


> My V12 BMW coupe rarely is in the rain and never in the snow. I have two sets of wheels and tires , one for summer the other for winter. Reliability was never the question. I knew
> that a V12 BMW is expensive to maintain. Much more expensive than my wife's BMW 5 series.
> It is not unusual for a repair bill to cost more than a $1000.00. I knew that when I purchased the car.
> I paid $600.00 to have my Rolex cleaned and repaired 10 years ago ! To replace the tubes
> on my McIntosh power amp is over $700.00. If you want to play you must pay.


"I own many leather-bound books and my apartment smells of rich mahogany!"
--Ron Burgundy


----------



## Mr. Mac (Mar 14, 2008)

silverporsche said:


> Interesting ,Japan makes some of the most reliable cars in the world ! All of what you post about German cars are mostly true. But Japan does not build a car to compete with Porsche Carrera ,BMW M cars nor 6 series and 7 series cars , Mercedes AMG cars or Mercedes S series cars , I might include the Audi's A8 Series.
> 
> As for as snob appeal there is some truth in your statement. Why would one spend twice as much for a Mercedes when he can by a Lexus ? A Lexus does not compete with a S series Mercedes or a 7 series BMW.
> Lexus has more appeal to those driving a Cadillac or Lincoln. From a marketing standpoint it makes sense.
> ...


If "Japan" doesn't make cars to compete with the German models you mention, you might want to tell them - because they are selling a whole lot of them. That kind of delusional thinking is comforting to those who buy in complete ignorance of reality and focus simply on impression.

And you're right, most luxury items are not for everyone - because not everyone sees quality in a name and perception.


----------



## JAGMAJ (Feb 10, 2005)

phr33dom said:


> Where did I imply that every single aspect of one's outfit has to be of the highest level of quality to be 'truly well attired'? Neither did I write this nor did I intend to imply this. The mere possession of goods of the highest quality does not equate to the owner having a highly refined taste let alone basic good taste.
> 
> I do not consider it a requirement, or indeed preferable, to have all items of a gentleman's attire to be of the highest available quality to be 'truly well attired'. This can be achieved as long as most of his items are at least of mid-range quality and that he has selected them on the basis of a certain taste.
> 
> There are many mechanical watches available that are of reasonable quality at price points consistent with mid-range shoes, shirts etc and certainly at a lower price than quartz watches of some high-end manufacturers.


In that case, your premise is even less logical than I thought. Your question implicitly asks whether, even if every other part of one's wardrobe was top-notch, the fact that one's watch was a quartz would preclude a person from being considered as "truly well attired." Well, if the nature of your watch (a relatively insignificant accessory IMO) can automatically downgrade the overall class of your outfit, then why wouldn't other parts of your outfit? I had assumed that you were saying that all parts of one's outfit (including the watch) had to be of the highest caliber to attain the highest level of distinction. Instead, you apparently believe that the watch holds a special place such that it alone can make or break an outfit. So, under your logic, you could wear a mid-range quality suit, shoes, and shirt with a mechanical watch and be considered truly well attired, but if you wore a fantastic bespoke suit, nice shoes and shirt, with an expensive quartz Cartier watch, you would be precluded from being truly well attired just because of the internal workings of the watch.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

silverporsche said:


> A Lexus does not compete with a S series Mercedes or a 7 series BMW.
> Lexus has more appeal to those driving a Cadillac or Lincoln. From a marketing standpoint it makes sense.


OK, let's see what Motor Trend had to say after they did an extensive road test review of six luxury sedans including the Mercedes-Benz S430, the Lexus LS 430, and the BMW 745i. The Lexus finished second while the Mercedes came in at 4th and the BMW tied for 5th. Apparently the automobile experts simply do not agree with your assertions.

Dang silverporsche, you make this too easy. :icon_smile_big:

Cruiser


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

Mike Petrik said:


> James Bond or other "wolves" notwithstanding, the idea that one does not wear a wristwatch with a dinner jacket is, I think, a fairly time-honored convention. That said, no sane well-adjusted person would object to a dress watch in black tie circumstances as long as it does not scream bling. Sorry for getting off-topic.


I believe "correct" is a pocket watch, with slim chain matching other metals worn, and of course assumes a vest rather than cummerbun(sp?).


----------



## snakeroot (Aug 30, 2008)

phr33dom said:


> I am not suggesting that the wearers of quartz watches are inferior people but rather that they may not have yet reached the highest levels of distinction in these matters of taste.


You mean like famous mechanical watch collector and all-around class act Charlie Sheen?

Regards,


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

BTW, am I the only one reminded of the "leaving the labels on the coat sleeve" thread?


----------



## JAGMAJ (Feb 10, 2005)

phyrpowr said:


> BTW, am I the only one reminded of the "leaving the labels on the coat sleeve" thread?


I am, as well. What this really strikes me as is a case of the nouveau riche young professional who has finally acquired his first Rolex and now thinks that he's superior to all of the poor rubes who don't have a Rolex.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

triklops55 said:


> Tell that to James Bond or to "Pulp Fiction's" Wolf. Yes, I'm in the same category as those gentlemen :icon_smile_big:


You have to admit a huge diver watch is a bit distracting.



Mike Petrik said:


> James Bond or other "wolves" notwithstanding, the idea that one does not wear a wristwatch with a dinner jacket is, I think, a fairly time-honored convention. That said, no sane well-adjusted person would object to a dress watch in black tie circumstances as long as it does not scream bling. Sorry for getting off-topic.


I agree. It doesn't really offend me either, but some authorities assert that it's improper. The thinking is that if you need to check the time, you don't really want to be at the event or something like that. I don't think it really holds water in this day and age, but I suppose the same could be said of many of our members' dressing habits!



phyrpowr said:


> BTW, am I the only one reminded of the "leaving the labels on the coat sleeve" thread?


 Heavens, no, you are not the only one...


----------



## triklops55 (May 14, 2010)

Jovan said:


> You have to admit a huge diver watch is a bit distracting.
> 
> I agree. It doesn't really offend me either, but some authorities assert that it's improper. The thinking is that if you need to check the time, you don't really want to be at the event or something like that. I don't think it really holds water in this day and age, but I suppose the same could be said of many of our members' dressing habits!
> 
> Heavens, no, you are not the only one...


To be honest with you, I haven't had to wear a dinner jacket since my last college fraternity formal. Even at my wedding I only wore a blue suit. If I needed to wear a dinner jacket for anything, I would still wear a watch because I don't ever not wear a watch. Still, the point is quartz can be just as classy as mechanical.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

You're right, I don't care if someone's watch is $50 and is made by Timex or $500 and used as product placement in a James Bond movie.


----------



## wgb (Mar 2, 2007)

silverporsche said:


> Maybe you might get another luxury car Cadillac's are not really a reliable high performance car. .


I think this is starting to resemble "trolling." You have nothing on which to impugn the CTV-V's reliability. The Cadillac CTS-V is a world-class performance sedan -- I believe it holds the record for a production sedan at the Nuremburg Ring (sp?). No BMW owner should cast stones regarding reliability. FWIW, the CTS-V comes standard with Michelin Pilot Sport PS2 tires, which are performance tires. You know not of what you speak.

I don't know what you consider a performance tire, but my 2008 MX-5 came stock with Bridgestone RE-50s, which ARE clearly a performance tire, and it's (gasp!) *Japanese*.

True high performance (i.e., race) tires are constructed differently since there's no requirement that they last for more than one race. That's not practical for street use.


----------



## smmrfld (May 22, 2007)

phr33dom said:


> The briefest fleeting glance is all that is normally required to distinguish an electronic movement from mechanical. But I would agree that this distinction cannot be made from across a room but can be made at a distance of normal social interaction.
> 
> If you pay close attention to details of your own attire you will inevitably also be observant about the details of the attire of others.
> 
> ...


Your pomposity trumps all other "levels of distinction in these matters of taste." Best of luck to you in your future endeavours...in a previous post you indicated that you serve in a lower-level sales capacity of some sort. I might suggest to you that if you hope to progress in the professional world, you may wish to pay attention first to your boorish attitude; your other concerns expressed in previous threads, such as where to sit at a dinner table or whether your wallet needs to match your shoes (I should have guessed that was yours - and indeed it was), pale in comparison to the pettiness you've displayed in this discussion.


----------



## Mr. Mac (Mar 14, 2008)

In all the frivolity I almost forgot to answer the OP's question:

Yes.


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

Okay, here's a variant (actually, I just want to get to 1K postings): 

You have a truly fine automatic watch, Swiss certified, gold, exotic skin band, etc. etc....

but it's stopped! 

Are you still refined?


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

No, you are late. Sorry for lame attempt at humor, couldn't resist. Back to the fun!



phyrpowr said:


> Okay, here's a variant (actually, I just want to get to 1K postings):
> 
> You have a truly fine automatic watch, Swiss certified, gold, exotic skin band, etc. etc....
> 
> ...


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

This is my favorite post of all...



Mike Petrik said:


> No reason to be scared or baffled, Doc. Like ants and other insects, status-obsessed snobs are everywhere. They are mostly harmless until you have to bail them out.


----------



## jean-paul sartorial (Jul 28, 2010)

I don't know, man.

You guys can poke fun all you want, but on the other hand there's a decent chunk of the population that would laugh at 95% of the post topics here. Most people will not notice and do not care about whether a shoe is genuine shell cordovan, for example. I doubt they care about the craftsmanship of one's double mercerized viccel socks.

I really have no problem with the notion that if one is particular, everything from socks to underwear to watch needs to be just so.

This is not an assault on anyone. I just think that at some level, we all have our quirks and we all find some illogical thing to be snobby about. And we're allowed that, so long as we keep it somewhat internal and treat others with respect.

I can tell you guys that I am a tremendous music snob. Oh, I'll say the right thing about how music is personal and nothing is objectively better than the other. And in the logical part of my brain, I know this to be true. And yet, in my heart of hearts, I think people that like Miles Davis are tone deaf, insane, or just trying to be cool and have no real musical taste because I cannot understand how it is possible to like him.

Some people just care a lot about watches. There's nothing wrong with that.


----------



## phr33dom (May 4, 2009)

JAGMAJ said:


> In that case, your premise is even less logical than I thought. Your question implicitly asks whether, even if every other part of one's wardrobe was top-notch, the fact that one's watch was a quartz would preclude a person from being considered as "truly well attired." Well, if the nature of your watch (a relatively insignificant accessory IMO) can automatically downgrade the overall class of your outfit, then why wouldn't other parts of your outfit? I had assumed that you were saying that all parts of one's outfit (including the watch) had to be of the highest caliber to attain the highest level of distinction. Instead, you apparently believe that the watch holds a special place such that it alone can make or break an outfit. So, under your logic, you could wear a mid-range quality suit, shoes, and shirt with a mechanical watch and be considered truly well attired, but if you wore a fantastic bespoke suit, nice shoes and shirt, with an expensive quartz Cartier watch, you would be precluded from being truly well attired just because of the internal workings of the watch.


It is not just a watch that can downgrade an otherwise high class outfit. Also as I mentioned in another post on this thread it could be synthetic soled dress shoes. To add some more to this list...how about a shirt with a breast pocket when wearing a 2 piece suit. Or ill-fitting clothing? Or prescription spectacles that have been coated with a 'Reactolight' chemical giving them a residual darkness when indoors thereby obstructing a clear view of the wearer's eyes? These are a few examples of deal breakers where the offending items can even be of the highest quality and price, there are many more. My post was about just one of them i.e. electronic watches.


----------



## phr33dom (May 4, 2009)

smmrfld said:


> Your pomposity trumps all other "levels of distinction in these matters of taste." Best of luck to you in your future endeavours...in a previous post you indicated that you serve in a lower-level sales capacity of some sort. I might suggest to you that if you hope to progress in the professional world, you may wish to pay attention first to your boorish attitude; your other concerns expressed in previous threads, such as where to sit at a dinner table or whether your wallet needs to match your shoes (I should have guessed that was yours - and indeed it was), pale in comparison to the pettiness you've displayed in this discussion.


Anybody who is well presented to the world by necessity is somebody who pays close attention to detail and by definition suffers from vanity. The alternative is to be turned out like 99% of the population which is the greater of the two evils. The fact that you are a member of this forum is indicative that you are also one of the few who are concerned about his appearance. The world would be more pleasing if there were more.


----------



## neskerdoo (Jun 23, 2009)

phr33dom said:


> Anybody who is well presented to the world by necessity is somebody who pays close attention to detail and by definition suffers from vanity. The alternative is to be turned out like 99% of the population which is the greater of the two evils. The fact that you are a member of this forum is indicative that you are also one of the few who are concerned about his appearance. The world would be more pleasing if there were more.


The world would also be more pleasing if there were fewer unnecessarily and pettily judgmental people. That to me seems like the least of the three evils on the table. So you and silverporsche (and your plucked from thin air top percentile) go on and make sure you are "truly well-attired"--but realize that while your mechanical watch may finish your look, it obviously doesn't make you any more well liked or respected.


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

smujd said:


> "I own many leather-bound books and my apartment smells of rich mahogany!"
> --Ron Burgundy


ROTFLMAO!! :icon_smile_big:


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

neskerdoo said:


> The world would also be more pleasing if there were fewer unnecessarily and pettily judgmental people. That to me seems like the least of the three evils on the table. So you and silverporsche (and your plucked from thin air top percentile) go on and make sure you are "truly well-attired"--but realize that while your mechanical watch may finish your look, it obviously doesn't make you any more well liked or respected.


I've met people like this before, always boasting how much they paid for things. They're nearly always insufferable bores, who have very few real friends.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Just so there is no mistake, consider my moderator hat to be off! 

Come one, come all...and welcome to the 2010 Conference of 'Compu-fools and Cyber-Trolling!' This thread provides the most excellent example, I can recall, of why so many readers might be inclined to view participants in these type of fora to be ridiculously exaggerated characatures of reality...this sort of nonsense makes us all look rather foolish and really has nothing at all (or at best, very little) to do with clothing issues. Is this the best we can do? We really should try harder to avoid allowing a couple of Trolls to pull the rest of us down to their level! Please, give it some thought.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

neskerdoo said:


> Now this is rich. Are _you_ "capable of discussing issues"? The only attempt at a principle I have yet gleaned from your repetitive walls of question-begging braggadocio is "If you want to play, you have to pay." Please try at least once to enlighten the rest of us.


Are you going to discuss the thread or related replies , there has been replies to cars , motorcycles , quartz and mechanical watches, evening wear etc., but it appears your only contribution is to appear to gossip ! surly you can add something other than gossip.
As for as if you want to play , you must play . an old quote that I heard growing up , 
it cost time and money to play in the big leagues , if you don't think so read the Robb Report or better yet watch the motion picture "Wall Street "

Read my opening reply my response was one can wear a suit with either a quartz or mechanical watch. If one wears an expensive suit one should in my opinion wear an expensive watch either quartz or mechanical.
As for as my other replies it was only to support my position on my reply to the thread. !
There are some of us who wish not to go to much into detail. We use to call it connecting the dots ! Those people simply want quick answers. Especially most young Americans.
I was taught repetition was useful . Times have changed.


----------



## cdavant (Aug 28, 2005)

I move we poll the membership. 

Seriously, this has been a really amusing thread. Probably ought to move to a "Classics" sticky.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Jovan said:


> You have to admit a huge diver watch is a bit distracting.


The submariner isn't exactly a "huge" diver watch. It's a 40mm bezel, which is only a hair larger their their explorer line. I was worried about the size of the watch since i have a slim frame (130lbs~, 5'6") so took the opportunity to try one on and honestly it wasn't disproportionate for my frame. It's actually significantly smaller than my running watch , and only a hair larger than my dress watch (a 38mm Citizen).

It's not like we're talking about the larger Deepsea models, or some of the honkin huge models that seem to dominate men's wrists for casual wear.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

Mr. Mac said:


> If "Japan" doesn't make cars to compete with the German models you mention, you might want to tell them - because they are selling a whole lot of them. That kind of delusional thinking is comforting to those who buy in complete ignorance of reality and focus simply on impression.
> 
> And you're right, most luxury items are not for everyone - because not everyone sees quality in a name and perception.[/QUOTE
> Marketing , one must find a market for one's services or goods are one goes out of business.
> ...


----------



## riyadh552 (Mar 4, 2009)

JAGMAJ said:


> Indeed, I believe that people who focus solely on the cost of items generally have less class than those who don't.


Well said sir.

This has been a most amusing thread, and solely for the sake of amusement, I hope it continues.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

Cruiser said:


> No, but _Automobile_ magazine does and they say about the Nissan GT-R,
> 
> _"Once you behold the 2011 Nissan GT-R, you will have no doubt in your mind that it is one of the greatest supercars ever built. Even more amazingly, the GT-R costs only about half of what most of its competitors do."_
> https://www.automobile.com/2011-nissan-gt-r-review.html
> ...


What I mean by class has to do with pricing , and positioning of an item. The person who buys a Porsche Turbo is generally in a different class economically and socially than one who buys a Nissan. There are exceptions.
One who buys a Porsche Turbo is well aware of the price differences in more affordable cars. The Porsche has racing tradition a grand name plus image , the Porsche makes a statement about it's owner. So does the Nissan only the statement is different.

Go to a great restaurant , when the parking attendant parks your car and it is a Porsche Turbo you are treated very different than if it is a Nissan !
There are many people who purchase expensive European cars that may have little knowledge of cars. What they buy is exclusivity . No different if one buys a Vacheron Constantin watch or Burberry raincoat and scarf.

If what you say is true there are millions of snobs , there are even clothes snobs !


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

smujd said:


> As a devoted Porsche, BMW, and M-B lover, I wish this were still true. Putting aside my deep love for German cars, there is serious question regarding German quality and reliability.
> 
> My wife drives an Infiniti because the FX was (at the time of purchase), in my estimation, a substantially better vehicle than the X5, the M class, and the ill-advised Cayenne. It had better handling, better ride quality, a more refined interior, better reliability, and MUCH better dealer service. It was more fun to drive.
> 
> But, then, I do wear my Rolex with boots or a Brioni suit while driving my pick up (GMC 2500HD is my daily driver).


There is one thing great about being an American we have choices ! I hope we never lose those choices. Plus we can agree to disagree , at least some of us.
Opinions are our own and we must learn to respect others opinions as well as our own.

As for as I care one can wear what one chooses , drive what one chooses as well.
I offer counterpoints and my own point of view. I respect the views and opinions of others , why not all of us do the same.

As for as this thread is concerned I am moving on.


----------



## temple_gym (Oct 10, 2010)

Obviously your post caught my attention. You mean people actually take notice if you are wearing a quartz or mechanical watch and then judge if you are well dressed? The person must be a SNIPER!

In most instances, its a struggle with your innerself. Yes. The harsh reality is that people around us DO judge us by what we wear. That's the reason why some are donned in designer labels from head to toe, shouting brand provenance! 

I guess it has to alot to do with self-confidence. If one is confident, wear a fake Rolex and others will still believe that its real! As I have mentioned in one of the earlier posts, who say you cant wear a Casio with a suit?


----------



## smujd (Mar 18, 2008)

silverporsche said:


> Cadillac introduced a car the Allante which was intended to compete with Mercedes SL series again due to poor sales it was discontinued.


That was a dreadful car. Decent design, but horrid build quality.


----------



## DocD (Jun 2, 2007)

Silverporsche,

Wow, what else can I say. You obviously don't smell the toast burning. Dozens have come on here "bashing" you and your thoughts, and you keep posting and rambling on and on and on.......

You really don't get it do you?

Each time you post you seem to dig your hole a little deeper. Your comments regarding those who purchase Porsche Turbos vs. Nissan GTR's is another example of your illogical thoughts.

The car that's purchased often has nothing to do with socioeconomic class, it's simply got to do with priorities and choices. Just ask Warren Buffet what HE drives.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Let me summarise the thread for anyone unwilling to go through the last seven pages:

"Your watch must be EXPENSIVE if you are wearing EXPENSIVE CLOTHES. Also some other stuff about the luxury items I own and how much I pay to repair them."
"You really don't get what people think of you here, do you?"

Rinse, repeat. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

Jovan said:


> Let me summarise the thread for anyone unwilling to go through the last seven pages:
> 
> "Your watch must be EXPENSIVE if you are wearing EXPENSIVE CLOTHES. Also some other stuff about the luxury items I own and how much I pay to repair them."
> "You really don't get what people think of you here, do you?"
> ...


Post the reply sir, Where I posted your watch must be expensive if you are wearing expensive cloths . If I did post that it is my opinion.
Also post my reply as it applies to my car comparison. That reply had to do with the expense of operating a high end European car ! Read what I am replying to. Read the entire post.
You appear to be very selective when reviewing others post.

What people think of me is their opinion which unlike you I respect ! I don't know personally anyone on this site. I am sure no one knows me personally .
I try and give an opinion based on the thread and the replies.
What does stuff me sir ? With you being a Honors Members Moderator I am surprised at you
of all people , you appear to not respect the opinions of others.


----------



## Mr. Mac (Mar 14, 2008)

silverporsche said:


> What I mean by class has to do with pricing , and positioning of an item. The person who buys a Porsche Turbo is generally in a different class economically and socially than one who buys a Nissan. There are exceptions.
> One who buys a Porsche Turbo is well aware of the price differences in more affordable cars. The Porsche has racing tradition a grand name plus image , the Porsche makes a statement about it's owner. So does the Nissan only the statement is different.
> 
> Go to a great restaurant , when the parking attendant parks your car and it is a Porsche Turbo you are treated very different than if it is a Nissan !
> ...


Refutation #1: Any implication that buyers of Porsche are in a more exalted economic class than drivers of less ostentatious vehicles is speculation at _best_. In fact most of the legitimate, sociological research available (ever read the 'Millionaire Next Door'?) shows the exact opposite. As for such a purchase being a reflection of a different social class - who knows?

Refutation #2: Any grand racing tradition inherent in the Porsche name has been seriously compromised by recent, terrible acquiescing to the boomer class (perhaps you've seen the Cayenne?). The Porsche name being whored about is lamented by legions of faithful Porsche aficionados).

Refutation #3: Any perception on your part that driving a 911 Turbo affords different treatment from valets and others in the service class is pure, unquantifiable speculation. And for what it's worth, my years working in menswear have taught me that things like expensive cars, watches, American Express Black cards, and other billboards of conspicuous consumption are usually impressive only to adolescent sales clerks and valets. If impressing others is how you derive personal satisfaction, so be it, just don't try to convince the rest of us that it's a reasonable way to live a life.


----------



## JAGMAJ (Feb 10, 2005)

There's no doubt that some people are impressed solely by the cost of items, but I would suggest that such people are shallow. As I indicated before, both the OP and Silverporsche seem to have fallen victim to one of the perils of being noveau riche, that is, the belief that money=quality or class. These people have aspired to and respected wealth and social standing, and once they attain it themselves, they view everything through money-colored glasses. With the satisfaction of being in the "club" of the haves, they now obsess with having expensive items. The problem is that, while quality items are often more expensive, not all expensive items are of high quality or demonstrate high class and vice versa. With some exceptions, people who are raised around money don't have the same obsession with expensive items. The original premise of this thread (supported by silverporsche), is that all aspects of one's attire have to be reasonably expensive in order to reflect the highest levels of distinction. This is just hogwash and demonstrates a noveau riche mind-set. Watch any of the "Housewives of xxx" shows and you'll see the same thing. People come into money and they suddenly feel that they're high class, when usually, they end up looking little better than trailer trash. Money cannot buy class nor does having a Rolex make one upper class.


----------



## DocD (Jun 2, 2007)

I believe that Silverporsche should sell some of his expensive items and take some grammar lessons or writing lessons. Maybe that way he will be able to compose a coherent sentence and/or paragraph.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Branding is a powerful thing.

Today, at a country club, the waiter was wearing a dressy Seiko 5. Very respectable choice. One of the members at the table whom the waiter was serving was wearing a gold rolex. Honestly, I thought the Seiko 5 was a better looking watch. Only the knowledge that the Rolex was a Rolex made it "seem" better. I wonder what I would have made of it if I wasn't able to recognize the Rolex for being what it is and not something like a Citizen (no disrespect to Citizen owners, but you know what I mean). But given the context, no one would doubt that the gold watch on the member's wrist was anything but a seriously expensive watch. So one would assume that it's "nicer" than the waiter's Seiko. No doubt that it is, from a fit and finish and craftsmanship point of view. Still, odds are the Rolex is no more accurate or durable than the Seiko, and for the cost of periodic servicing, one could buy several new Seiko 5s. But does it make any sense to be enthralled by high-end labels?


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

Since we got off on cars, I'd like to know what advantage you have in, e.g., a 450HP AMG Mercedes vs. a Chevy Impala, when all you do is commute, go to the malls and on vacation over the Interstate? And back to watches, what is the time-telling advantage of a $6K Rolex over my $125 Citizen? 

Not talking about bragging rights here, but actual advantage in day to day use? 

And don't tell me I "wouldn't understand": if you can say it in English, I can.


----------



## Mr. Mac (Mar 14, 2008)

phyrpowr said:


> what is the time-telling advantage of a $6K Rolex over my $125 Citizen?


The difference? Your $125 Citizen is more accurate than a $6,000 Rolex.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

As someone who deviated into the field of motorcycles (I was lured by someone else, just so we're clear), I would generally agree with this. However, this thread has had a certain ebb-and-flow. Just when the patient flat-lines, boom, someone says something worth reading. It comes close to the line, I think, but doesn't cross over to the nastiness I hate so much on The Other Forum.



eagle2250 said:


> Just so there is no mistake, consider my moderator hat to be off!
> 
> Come one, come all...and welcome to the 2010 Conference of 'Compu-fools and Cyber-Trolling!' This thread provides the most excellent example, I can recall, of why so many readers might be inclined to view participants in these type of fora to be ridiculously exaggerated characatures of reality...this sort of nonsense makes us all look rather foolish and really has nothing at all (or at best, very little) to do with clothing issues. Is this the best we can do? We really should try harder to avoid allowing a couple of Trolls to pull the rest of us down to their level! Please, give it some thought.


----------



## phr33dom (May 4, 2009)

JAGMAJ said:


> As I indicated before, both the OP and Silverporsche seem to have fallen victim to one of the perils of being noveau riche, that is, the belief that money=quality or class. These people have aspired to and respected wealth and social standing, and once they attain it themselves, they view everything through money-colored glasses. With the satisfaction of being in the "club" of the haves, they now obsess with having expensive items. The problem is that, while quality items are often more expensive, not all expensive items are of high quality or demonstrate high class and vice versa. With some exceptions, people who are raised around money don't have the same obsession with expensive items. The original premise of this thread (supported by silverporsche), is that all aspects of one's attire have to be reasonably expensive in order to reflect the highest levels of distinction. This is just hogwash and demonstrates a noveau riche mind-set. Watch any of the "Housewives of xxx" shows and you'll see the same thing. People come into money and they suddenly feel that they're high class, when usually, they end up looking little better than trailer trash. Money cannot buy class nor does having a Rolex make one upper class.


There is a strong correlation between the cost of an item and its quality. In other words, generally speaking, the more more expensive an item is (in relation to similar items) the higher will be its relative quality. This has always been the case and will always be the case. I find it amusing that you think that this belief is one of the perils of the noveau riche. This is a very basic undisputable fact known to all classes.

However, I would agree that the mere purchase of expensive items does not necessarily, or perhaps even usually, give the owner high class, as I would define class. I consider high class to be more to do with the person himself than his possessions. I have stated in a previous post on this thread that to reach the highest levels of distinction in attire (not the same as class) it is not necessary, or indeed preferable, to have every item of the highest quality. Rather this level of distinction could be achieved by mid-quality items provided that they were selected on the basis of a certain taste. However, if a man has intrinsic high class it may take more time to convey this fact to others if most items of his attire are cheap eg plastic shoes, polyester shirt and suit material etc. See my previous post on this thread which you may not have read.

I find it odd that you state that I have aspired to and respected wealth and social standing and view everything through money-coloured glasses. Where did I state this or make this implication? My original post is merely about making a gentleman attired to a high level. I have never aspired to or have been ambitious in acquiring wealth other than to have modest funds to be able to live at a 'normal' level. However, I am selective in what I buy and choose my spending priorities such that I can purchase bespoke suits (from Thailand) and Edward Green shoes. I drive a 1996 Nissan.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

silverporsche said:


> Post the reply sir, Where I posted your watch must be expensive if you are wearing expensive cloths . If I did post that it is my opinion.
> Also post my reply as it applies to my car comparison. That reply had to do with the expense of operating a high end European car ! Read what I am replying to. Read the entire post.
> You appear to be very selective when reviewing others post.
> 
> ...


I was being quite flippant in my stereotyping of both sides -- it was meant as a bit of fun. In any case, I apologise.

You're using a straw man here. It's not that I don't respect your opinions, I don't respect the way you say them. Maybe you don't MEAN to sound pompous and holier-than-thou, but all of your posts on these subjects positively DRIP with it. This is what everyone has been trying to tell you! And I'm being a hell of a lot nicer than some are about it.


----------



## Guest (Dec 30, 2010)

phr33dom said:


> There is a strong correlation between the cost of an item and its quality.


There's certainly a postive correlation but its nothing like as strong as you seem to imply. Once you bring brand names into it, the correlation relates more closely to peoples perception of brand quality, eg Prada clothes are way overpriced.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

phyrpowr said:


> Since we got off on cars, I'd like to know what advantage you have in, e.g., a 450HP AMG Mercedes vs. a Chevy Impala, when all you do is commute, go to the malls and on vacation over the Interstate? And back to watches, what is the time-telling advantage of a $6K Rolex over my $125 Citizen?
> 
> Not talking about bragging rights here, but actual advantage in day to day use?
> 
> And don't tell me I "wouldn't understand": if you can say it in English, I can.


The citizen will be more accurate. However there are some advantages to the Rolex.

a) Longevity. The Rolex will likely outlast the Citizen. Using my own Citizen Eco-Drive (paid $200, retail $400) vs a Sub or Explorer (about $5000-6000), as a comparison, the Rolex would need to last about 15-30x as long to make up that difference. The Citizen i have is made well, but it's just not in the same league as the Rolex for construction. I have no doubt that a Rolex will last longer (15-30x as long may be a stretch though). Since we still see some vintage 1960s Rolex (Oyster Perpetuals) running around, that gives us a benchmark of 50 years, which would mean the Citizen has to last at least 3 years (personal experiences says it will).

b) Class of watch. The Sub is a Dive Watch (not everyone wears it as one), while my Citizen is Dress watch. Although the sub can be used for everything that the citizen can, the citizen cannot be used for everything the sub can. It does have additional functionality specifically when it comes to depth rating (200ft vs 3000ft). I realize this isn't "day to day" use, but it is use within it's class of watch. This in turn means that you aren't buying a separate watch (another $200-600.. see above for longevity). I've had to do this with running watches, so I know first hand how this can add up (and no I can't wear my running watch with a suit either).


----------



## JAGMAJ (Feb 10, 2005)

phr33dom said:


> There is a strong correlation between the cost of an item and its quality. In other words, generally speaking, the more more expensive an item is (in relation to similar items) the higher will be its relative quality. This has always been the case and will always be the case. I find it amusing that you think that this belief is one of the perils of the noveau riche. This is a very basic undisputable fact known to all classes.
> 
> However, I would agree that the mere purchase of expensive items does not necessarily, or perhaps even usually, give the owner high class, as I would define class. I consider high class to be more to do with the person himself than his possessions. I have stated in a previous post on this thread that to reach the highest levels of distinction in attire (not the same as class) it is not necessary, or indeed preferable, to have every item of the highest quality. Rather this level of distinction could be achieved by mid-quality items provided that they were selected on the basis of a certain taste. However, if a man has intrinsic high class it may take more time to convey this fact to others if most items of his attire are cheap eg plastic shoes, polyester shirt and suit material etc. See my previous post on this thread which you may not have read.
> 
> I find it odd that you state that I have aspired to and respected wealth and social standing and view everything through money-coloured glasses. Where did I state this or make this implication? My original post is merely about making a gentleman attired to a high level. I have never aspired to or have been ambitious in acquiring wealth other than to have modest funds to be able to live at a 'normal' level. However, I am selective in what I buy and choose my spending priorities such that I can purchase bespoke suits (from Thailand) and Edward Green shoes. I drive a 1996 Nissan.


I agree with your general proposition that high quality items are usually more expensive. I also agree with what you've stated previously about a person being able to have some tasteful mid-level quality items and still being considered as be truly well-attired. The problem is that your original question seems to suggest that either this rule doesn't apply to watches or that no quartz watch can ever be considered to be a tasteful mid-level quality item. As you've seen, the majority of people here believe that there are suitable quartz watches that can be worn with a suit. Now, I may have mischaracterized your social standing, but your question reminds me of all of the young attorneys I have seen who, being able to afford their first Rolex, suddenly draw the line of minimum acceptability at having an expensive Swiss chronometer. Or those who, having bought a BMW or Porsche, look down on anyone who doesn't drive a German car. So, my point regarding the nouveau riche isn't that expensive items aren't generally of a higher quality, but that it is the nouveau riche who are the ones who usually draw these artificial lines of acceptability once they are able to afford the items in question. Incidentally, I have several mechanical watches and I drive an Audi A6, so I'm not merely attacking your (and silverporsche's) views out of a position of jealousy. I just really despise those people who become snobs once they attain nicer things.


----------



## efdll (Sep 11, 2008)

Possibly the only rule of men's dress is: wear what you damn well wish. That said, there are old rules that no one follows but one can damn well wish to follow them or at least know them. One of them is, indeed, no wristwatch with black (or white) tie. Bond wears one, for product placement no doubt, but also because he needs to know the precise time the bomb will go off and stuff like that. And he is closer to typical life than one might think -- Lord Peter Whimsey had a valet, Commander Bond has none. So if you got to the black-tie party swimming underwater -- and your tux is miraculously neat under the wet suit -- or dropped from a helicopter, by all means wear a watch. You've earned it.



phyrpowr said:


> I believe "correct" is a pocket watch, with slim chain matching other metals worn, and of course assumes a vest rather than cummerbun(sp?).


----------



## phr33dom (May 4, 2009)

JAGMAJ said:


> The problem is that your original question seems to suggest that either this rule doesn't apply to watches or that no quartz watch can ever be considered to be a tasteful mid-level quality item. As you've seen, the majority of people here believe that there are suitable quartz watches that can be worn with a suit.


I have not stated or implied that no quartz watch can ever be considered to be a tasteful mid-level quality item or that they can't be worn with a suit. Of course there are many such examples of these watches and I own some and I do sometimes wear them with suits. However, my original question was whether one can achieve a truly high level of distinction in attire when wearing a quartz watch. In other words whether a quartz watch can convey the wearer as having a sufficiently refined sense of taste to be able to reach this level of distinction. Electronic vs mechanical watches are not a difference of degree but rather of kind (refer to my earlier post on this thread). The comparison is not similar to other items of a gentleman's attire such as whether a suit is made from 120 or 150 count material that are differences of degree rather than of kind.


----------



## Mr. Knightly (Sep 1, 2005)

First of all, I'd like to point out that while there is a correlation between price and quality, it is far more observable at the low end of the curve. As one spends more on products, the marginal increases in quality first get smaller, and then they will get entirely subjective.

I'd also like to explore this "ethos of consistency" posited by one of our brethren. 

Is it that inexpensive and expensive things are aesthetically inappropriate together? That can't be right, because appearance is determined by so much more than price, and in many cases, price is impossible to determine without a great deal of extrinsic knowledge about a particular kind of product.

Is it that "inconsistent" dressing sends the wrong signals? This is not just incorrect; it's actually the opposite of the truth. Inconsistent dressing has long been considered a hallmark of class, especially in the United States. (I presume, safely, that an appearance of class is what this poster is trying to achieve.) When I see someone who owns all of the right things, all from premium brands, I assume that they have made a conscious choice. For better or for worse, I think less of them. Truly upper-class people are not defined by their status as consumers. They are above their things. If they own something that serves its purpose adequately, they are unlikely to replace it simply to upgrade.

Perhaps this poster believes that consistency is some sort of intrinsic good. Perhaps it is some version of eastern philosophies of balance, warped by rabid consumerism.


----------



## JAGMAJ (Feb 10, 2005)

phr33dom said:


> I have not stated or implied that no quartz watch can ever be considered to be a tasteful mid-level quality item or that they can't be worn with a suit. Of course there are many such examples of these watches and I own some and I do sometimes wear them with suits. However, my original question was whether one can achieve a truly high level of distinction in attire when wearing a quartz watch. In other words whether a quartz watch can convey the wearer as having a sufficiently refined sense of taste to be able to reach this level of distinction. Electronic vs mechanical watches are not a difference of degree but rather of kind (refer to my earlier post on this thread). The comparison is not similar to other items of a gentleman's attire such as whether a suit is made from 120 or 150 count material that are differences of degree rather than of kind.


I'm sorry, but you did. After I said that you implied that all aspects of one's wardrobe had to be of the very highest quality in order to be considered to be truly well-attired, you responded that you didn't think that and that some items could be of mid-level quality as long as they were suitably tasteful. But now, you're still saying this rule doesn't apply to a mid-level quality tasteful quartz watch, which you view as being a "difference of kind." So, you do have a different rule for quartz watches, so that a mid-level quality watch can preclude you from achieving a "truly high level of distinction in attire," while no other part of the wardrobe has such a rule. I'm sorry, but I don't think the watch holds such a special place in one's wardrobe that it alone has to be of a certain type.


----------



## phr33dom (May 4, 2009)

JAGMAJ said:


> I'm sorry, but you did. After I said that you implied that all aspects of one's wardrobe had to be of the very highest quality in order to be considered to be truly well-attired, you responded that _you didn't think that and that *some* items could be of mid-level quality as long as they were suitably tasteful_. But now, you're still saying this rule doesn't apply to a mid-level quality tasteful quartz watch, which you view as being a "difference of kind." So, you do have a different rule for quartz watches, so that a mid-level quality watch can preclude you from achieving a "truly high level of distinction in attire," while no other part of the wardrobe has such a rule. I'm sorry, but I don't think the watch holds such a special place in one's wardrobe that it alone has to be of a certain type.


I have not been inconsistent or self-contractory as you are suggesting. Refer to my word "*some" *above. I do not include tasteful quartz watches in this rule (as you subsequently correctly state). However I have not mentioned that I have included them in any of my posts in this thread. It is precisely that I am stating that quartz watches are excluded, and there may be other items of attire that could also be included in the same group as tasteful quartz watches, for example synthetic soled dress shoes (an example I mentioned in a previous post on this thread). Do you think that a gentleman can reach the highest level of attire if he has tasteful synthetic soled dress shoes of any quality/price?


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Why not? I'd definitely get a pair with Dainite soles for rain and snow.


----------



## upr_crust (Aug 23, 2006)

Wake me when this dead horse of a thread has been beaten into a meringue.


----------



## cdavant (Aug 28, 2005)

I'll have a full report about page 10, or when I get back from an unscheduled visit to my opthamologist. After five days of serious looking I find most of the time I can't see if someone is wearing a watch at all, covered by the sleeve as they often are. When I do get a glance, it's usually too brief to check for a jumping second hand much less look for the word "Quartz.' I can't even tell what time it is. Either I'm going blind, or some few members are blessed with what we refer to as "The Eye of the Eagle/Breath of the Buzzard." 

There is a physiologic limit to what the human eye can resolve at a certain distance. A pilot must have at least 20/40 vision at 32" and a review of an FAA eye chart I sometimes use reveals ROLEX is smaller than the 20/20 RKNCD at that distance, thus it would require better than average vision to read. And the eye chart is illuminated and stationary. You may think you can judge a watch's maker from five feet away, but probably not by reading the name or discerning a 6 degree jump by a thin second hand.

Its been shown many times that people perceive wine poured from a bottle with an expensive label to be better than the same wine from a bottle with a cheaper one--just one example of how humans equate higher cost with higher quality, even when there is no difference at all.

Off to clean my contacts. Maybe that will help.


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

upr_crust said:


> Wake me when this dead horse of a thread has been beaten into a meringue.


Oh, that ship sailed, sank, got salvaged lonnggggg ago


----------



## Saltydog (Nov 3, 2007)

I finally (out of boredom) decided to visit this thread for the first time--and I check out the forum most days. I was amazed to see that it has gone on for 8 pages. This reminds me of the black suit thread a while back. Someone should do a study...


----------



## nosajwols (Jan 27, 2010)

Doing my part to get it to 9 pages.... 

If your watch is about accuracy, quartz (or better yet atomic) is the MOST accurate and therefore better suited to the purpose (of telling accurate time).

If your watch is about style, the case, band, and dial are the most important. This has nothing (ok little) to do with the movement.

Having said all this I prefer a good mechanical watch based on my own personal snobbery... Sometimes the trip is better than the destination.


----------



## El_Abogado (Apr 21, 2009)

*Can you be truly serious with a thread like this one?*

Why not:

Can you be truly well-attired without working buttonholes on your sleeves?
Can you be truly well-atired with pleated pants?
Can you be truly well-attired with a fused jacket?
Can you be truly well-attired without bespoke clothing?
Can you be truly well-attired without garters on your socks?
Can you be truly well-attired without a flower in the buttonhole of your suit jacket?
Can you be truly well-attired wearing Derbys in town?
This is what I wear, and it is sufficient for the task. Perhaps if I'm going to a formal function, I'll wear the 1955 Rolex Oyster Perpetual with black leather strap, but for every other non-sport ocassion, this is sufficient and I am always well-attired with it on my wrist.









:icon_headagainstwal​


----------



## bryand (Aug 11, 2009)

phr33dom said:


> A dead giveaway that your watch has a quartz movement is that the seconds hand jumps once a second. This can be seen by others around you in one quick glance...


It can only be seen by someone whose gaze is fixed on your wrist for at least 3 seconds. And that is too long to be unobtrusive. If they spot your quartz jerkiness, they are at fault, not you.


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

bryand said:


> It can only be seen by someone whose gaze is fixed on your wrist for at least 3 seconds. And that is too long to be unobtrusive. If they spot your quartz jerkiness, *they are at fault*, not you.


It could well be that they have some form of autism like Asperger's syndrome.


----------



## chotzo (Nov 26, 2007)

Silverporsche....surely you are aware of the Lexus LF-A?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexus_LFA

At around 375-400K$ it is significantly more expensive than anything Porsche offers for sale currently (save for the V-10 Carrera GT, if that is still for sale). Using terrible logic one could conclude, due to price, that is better than anything Porsche makes.

The current Cadillac V series are all very compelling vehicles, as are the current Corvettes. I never race a guy in a Corvette....lol

Working as a designer for an OEM automobile manufacturer I can assure you that original equipment tire choice is due to many different factors. Factors like fuel economy, NVH (noise, vibration, harshness), and cost are weighed even for so called high performance vehicles. Performance tires meant for street use are never really true high performance tires. True high performance tires are racing slicks meant for track use. 
Most street cars are not true high performance vehicles, even Porsches or other marketed "sports cars". Drive a go kart, or a true track vehicle and you should be able to quickly discern the difference. Of course performance is relative. A current model Honda Accord V6 sedan would beat almost any 70's- early 80's Ferrari at the track(with some noteable exceptions...GTO,F40 anyone?...lol). But that isn't the point is it?

My experience driving a late model 911 has taught me to be extremely suspicious of anyone who treats me better because I drive a Porsche. They think I have money. I may, I may not. Their assumptions are however very revealing about them. 
I bought my car used at probably near true cost. Porsche didn't become the most profitable car company in the world by offering outstanding pricing value to their customers. Perhaps it is due to the dealers offering $expensive$ "high performance" nitrogen tire fills to some hapless ignoramus in a Cayenne (I actually witnessed this...unbelievable). 
I love driving my Porsche in the rain to the Home Depot wearing sweatpants, tshirt and flip flops.

I also love wearing my Brioni suit jacket with gap jeans and Edward Green shoes and my free Brooks Brothers OCBD shirts (Thanks MOM!) and my 50$ automatic Seiko with a nylon strap. I determine outfit balance by a personally derived price vs performance value equation. Do I get a much better jacket with more cost? I think so. Is a 6K Rolex really that much better than my 50$ Seiko? I don't think so, at least not objectively. Sentimentally...sure.

In conclusion it seems for someone self named Silverporsche, your knowledge of automobiles is shallow and unconvincing.

As for the OP you should wear whatever watch you want and be secure in your own choices.


----------



## gordgekko (Nov 12, 2004)

I must hand it to the denizens of this forum for taking an inane beginning post and turning it into an even more inane thread.


----------



## vatoemperor (Jun 15, 2008)

Jaeger-LeCoultre makes a watch with a mechanical depth gauge. It's handmade and will only set you back a cool $22,000 or so.


----------



## nosajwols (Jan 27, 2010)

vatoemperor said:


> Jaeger-LeCoultre makes a watch with a mechanical depth gauge. It's handmade and will only set you back a cool $22,000 or so.


Of course 22K is not really all that much when it comes to high end watches...


----------



## WindsorNot (Aug 7, 2009)

Tread carefully all, a thread just like this started the Bolshevik revolution early last century.


----------



## StephenRG (Apr 7, 2005)

WindsorNot said:


> Tread carefully all, a thread just like this started the Bolshevik revolution early last century.


"The Society of Swiss Watchmakers has reported that Mr. V. I Ulyanov has recently departed from Zurich with a sample of wares to be offered for sale through authorised jewellers in St. Petersburg. As a security precaution, Mr. Ulyanov's train will be sealed."


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

My apologies for reviving a dead thread, but I wanted to share the following observation:

I recently spent the past three weeks traveling, and everywhere I went, from airplanes to dinner parties, I looked to see what the men had on their wrists. It became a weird hobby. Watch spotting. Here's what I learned: with only a few exceptions, it is very difficult to tell what brand a watch is, and it is impossible to know if it's quartz or mechanical. There's simply no way during normal interactions to get close enough to someone's watch to figure out what's what. And believe me, I tried. It gave me something to do.

Some watches are definitely more striking than most, but even then, from a distance, it's really hard to figure much out. Quartz or auto? $400 or $15k? Anyone's guess. Therefore, the only rule that seems to hold true is that one should wear a watch that's visually appropriate for the occasion and for the rest of one's wardrobe, ie a dress watch for a dressy occasion. The kind of movement is irrelevant. Otherwise, I'd say that good taste applies: understated is better than overstated, etc. But ultimately, the only one who will know or care what's on your wrist, is you. Unless you have the misfortune of sitting next to me on a plane . It's not like having nice shoes. Other people are far more likely to notice that you're wearing beautiful shoes, because that's visible. Watches are too small. Too close. Having a "nice" watch is a private pleasure only.


----------



## Salieri (Jun 18, 2009)

Yes, you can.

I'm sorry I'm so late to the party but I can't hold in how ludicrous I think the original post is. Don't get me wrong, I love clockwork and have a small collection of antique pocket watches and art deco wristwatches which I'm really passionate about, but I only wear them very occasionally. Clockwork is wonderful and nostalgic but no matter how advanced the movement and how precise the engineering, it doesn't tell the time as accurately as quartz, and is essentially inferior technology.

Insisting on mechanical over quartz is like insisting on travelling only by steam engine: a lovely idea but totally regressive in practical terms. My dressiest and most expensive watch? A quartz Cartier Santos and I'm not ashamed to admit it. People are awfully sniffy about Cartier being a jeweller and not a watchmaker, but surely in this day and age the most important thing is that the watch looks excellent and has a quality casing and bracelet. In my opinion most of the top-end mechanical watches look dreadful and and everyone knows they tell the time less accurately than a Timex, so what's the point?


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

Salieri said:


> Insisting on mechanical over quartz is like insisting on travelling only by steam engine: a lovely idea but totally regressive in practical terms.


This exact same thought also came to me, when I first read the completely stupid original post. The only person who may even care about what makes a watch go, is the person wearing it.

For me a watch has to be quartz. I don't want to be messing around winding a clockwork watch up each day, and making sure it''s showing the right time....some mechanical watch fans may enjoy doing this.. I do not.

A quartz watch, I may only have to adjust or reset it once a year.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
LOL. This thread, while arguably inane beyond measure, is like the "Energizer Bunny," in that it just keeps "going and going"...just like our quartz watches...and all, probably powered by the same brand of batteries!


----------



## Mr. Mac (Mar 14, 2008)

MikeDT said:


> This exact same thought also came to me, when I first read the completely stupid original post. The only person who may even care about what makes a watch go, is the person wearing it.
> 
> For me a watch has to be quartz. I don't want to be messing around winding a clockwork watch up each day, and making sure it''s showing the right time....some mechanical watch fans may enjoy doing this.. I do not.
> 
> A quartz watch, I may only have to adjust or reset it once a year.


I was watching Antiques Roadshow the other night. There were talking about some ancient, French made clock that only allowed the reader to tell time to the nearest quarter hour and how luxurious it would have been then to be privy to such accuracy.

I had to ask myself, if you were to go back in time and tell the makers of that clock that in a few hundred years quartz watches with mind-boggling accuracy could be had for a pittance and yet many people would insist on paying more for a less accurate mechanical watch to satisfy the snob factor, they'd think you were nuts.


----------



## StephenRG (Apr 7, 2005)

Mr. Mac said:


> I had to ask myself, if you were to go back in time and tell the makers of that clock that in a few hundred years quartz watches with mind-boggling accuracy could be had for a pittance and yet many people would insist on paying more for a less accurate mechanical watch to satisfy the snob factor, they'd think you were nuts.


This goes to an old principle of mine, "if the new technology were actually the only one, and someone came up with an invention which is actually the old tech, would this invention stick?" e.g, if we'd always had CDs, and someone invented the LP, would anyone switch from CDs to LPs? If we'd always had quartz watches, and someone invented the mechanical watch, would anyone switch?


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

Every time a thread with a title like this comes up I'm truly glad I participate mostly on the Trad forum where no one has such an all-consuming need to put on a little show about themselves.

Can you truly be considered a human being with rubber soles on your shoes?

Should babies born without spats be sent to the orphanage or simply dropped into a storm drain?

All questions I'd wants answered if I were an insufferable ponce.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Trip English said:


> Every time a thread with a title like this comes up I'm truly glad I participate mostly on the Trad forum where no one has such an all-consuming need to put on a little show about themselves.


Spot on! That's what it's all about really. But I'm not sure if the creators of these type of threads realise that the only person they might succeed in convincing is themselves.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
+1.


Trip English said:


> Every time a thread with a title like this comes up I'm truly glad I participate mostly on the Trad forum where no one has such an all-consuming need to put on a little show about themselves.
> 
> Can you truly be considered a human being with rubber soles on your shoes?
> 
> ...


Indeed, a very insightful post! Thank you, Trip English.


----------



## Joe Beamish (Mar 21, 2008)

I agree with Trip's post. I will add that those of you taking the high ground of "hey mechanical watch wearers, you are stupid because quartz watches are more accurate" are doing a lot of wanking. Quartz watches are less accurate than cell phones -- and the myriad clocks all around us 24/7, everywhere. 

Why wear a watch at all? 

Personally I wear mine for a quick glance at the date. And because I like it. And it's an automatic, so I don't have to do anything to it but continue to wear it. While a quartz faces some inevitable day of reckoning, my automatic might just keep going and going.

But really we wear watches because we like them, not for accuracy anymore.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Trip English said:


> Should babies born without spats be sent to the orphanage or simply dropped into a storm drain?


Classic line!


----------



## Salieri (Jun 18, 2009)

Joe Beamish said:


> And it's an automatic, so I don't have to do anything to it but continue to wear it. While a quartz faces some inevitable day of reckoning, my automatic might just keep going and going.


That's not strictly true; the recommended service period for a mechanical watch is usually less than the life of a watch battery, and it can easily cost in excess £100 just to have it cleaned and oiled.

I think the backlash has been not so much that _wearing mechanical watches is stupid_, but that _insisting on mechanical is stupid_. Obviously the two propositions are quite different.


----------



## nosajwols (Jan 27, 2010)

^ I get about 10 years between service on my mechanical watches (manual or automatic), this is mostly due to the fact I have many so they get lots of rest (and modern lubes last longer). 

For some of my quartz watches that I do not wear often I have actually taken to pulling out the stem so I get longer life out of the battery (they are stored in a case so dust is not a big worry).

In the end though a battery is a few dollars, proper maint on a mechanical watch is north of $100 even for a simple manual wind.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

nosajwols said:


> ^
> For some of my quartz watches that I do not wear often I have actually taken to pulling out the stem so I get longer life out of the battery (they are stored in a case so dust is not a big worry).


Does that work?

I tend to assume that the idea of having mechanical watches serviced every few years is a myth propagated by watch makers and dealers


----------



## ToryBoy (Oct 13, 2008)

My current watch is a chronograph quartz, it needed a battery change (after 5 years) and a minor repair (after 4 years) - total service cost after 5.5 years, £85. 

Although I am looking for another watch, preferably a mechnical watch (manual or auto).


----------



## AcridSaint (Jan 5, 2011)

Anyone who wastes their time staring at other people's second hands is not someone whose opinion is noteworthy.

By the way, there are quartz watches that have visually smoother movements than most, if not all, autos. The Seiko spring drive uses a quartz crystal and is, I believe, the smoothest watch on the planet. Bulova has the precisionist which is a sweeping second hand quartz watch.


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

People who wear watches are watching the clock and shouldn't be trusted.


----------



## nosajwols (Jan 27, 2010)

tocqueville said:


> Does that work?
> 
> I tend to assume that the idea of having mechanical watches serviced every few years is a myth propagated by watch makers and dealers


Most (not all) quartz watches the stem is also an on/off switch (many ship with the stem out these days to save the battery while it is sitting on the shelf/shipping container). You have to be careful though when it comes to dust or moisture, a pulled stem may not be properly sealed.

As for mechanical watch service, it depends on how often and where it is used. They will need service if dust or moisture gets in and of course like any other mechanical device there will be wear, it is not a myth but every three years may be excessive for a typical wearer.


----------



## Joe Beamish (Mar 21, 2008)

Salieri said:


> That's not strictly true; the recommended service period for a mechanical watch is usually less than the life of a watch battery, and it can easily cost in excess £100 just to have it cleaned and oiled.
> 
> I think the backlash has been not so much that _wearing mechanical watches is stupid_, but that _insisting on mechanical is stupid_. Obviously the two propositions are quite different.


Great. But I think you're quibbling. The air stinketh with condescension whichever way you slice it. The thick posturing of "oh those people insisting on the superiority of mechanical watches" (wherever they supposedly are) combined with the assertion of superior quartz accuracy in a world filled with nearly exact clocks staring us in the face is quite noxious indeed.

We out. This sort of nose picking sends me back to the trad board.


----------



## JerseyJohn (Oct 26, 2007)

While I'm not a "watch" guy, I will say this, which hasn't really been mentioned on this thread: one big difference between a mechanical and a quartz watch is that a quartz watch is usually difficult or impossible to repair, while mechanical watches are pretty much infinitely repairable (I just had my 74-year-old Hamilton serviced and it's still running fine). That makes it risky, if not foolish, to put a quartz movement into an expensive hand-finished solid gold or platinum case. True, my 1961 Accutron SpaceView "tuning-fork" watch is still running, but only because it has had parts cannibalized from its defunct brethren. If you want a watch that is also a piece of fine jewelry that will last for centuries, you're probably going to want a mechanical.


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

Joe Beamish said:


> Personally I wear mine for a quick glance at the date. And because I like it. And it's an automatic, so I don't have to do anything to it but continue to wear it. While a quartz faces some inevitable day of reckoning, my automatic might just keep going and going.


Actually mechanical watches need periodic servicing, cleaning and lubricating, just as quartz watches consume batteries.


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

JerseyJohn said:


> While I'm not a "watch" guy, I will say this, which hasn't really been mentioned on this thread: one big difference between a mechanical and a quartz watch is that a quartz watch is usually difficult or impossible to repair, while mechanical watches are pretty much infinitely repairable (I just had my 74-year-old Hamilton serviced and it's still running fine). That makes it risky, if not foolish, to put a quartz movement into an expensive hand-finished solid gold or platinum case. True, my 1961 Accutron SpaceView "tuning-fork" watch is still running, but only because it has had parts cannibalized from its defunct brethren. If you want a watch that is also a piece of fine jewelry that will last for centuries,* you're probably going to want a mechanical*.


I would say a quality mechanical watch. It's almost impossible and certainly uneconomic to keep a vintage Timex pin-lever mechanical watch going. It can be quite difficult to keep a vintage quality mechanical watch going as well, if parts are not available for it to replace broken and worn-out parts. New parts can be fabricated of course at great cost. I bet replacement parts could be fabricated for your Accutron 'Tuning Fork' watch, but again at great cost no doubt.


----------



## AcridSaint (Jan 5, 2011)

The entire movement for a quartz watch can be easily replaced. To top that off, most watch manufacturers are using the same movements, Seiko being one of the few that designs their own. I disagree that a quartz watch is a risky investment. I write this while wearing an auto.


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

JerseyJohn said:


> If you want a watch that is also a piece of fine jewelry that will last for centuries, you're probably going to want a mechanical.


Then why aren't you wearing a 200 year old mechanical pocket watch?


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

Bog said:


> Then why aren't you wearing a 200 year old mechanical pocket watch?


I know of collectors who are interested in and wear 35-40 year old working quartz LED watches, from the 1970s. Even these are often repairable, provided they've not been damaged by leaking batteries. I can't see any real reason why they shouldn't still be working in another 200 years.
https://www.ledwatches.net/


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

Why fuss about watches at all? A gentleman should not be concerned with the passage of time!


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

As the Dowager Duchess (played by the peerless Maggie Smith) in Julian Fellowes' wonderful Downton Abbey plaintively put it on learning that the new heir, a lawyer, would be attending to the estate only at the weekend: ‘What’s a weekend?’

Reminded me a little of this thread.... 

With that said, JLibourel, tell that to my hair line.....


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

JLibourel said:


> Why fuss about watches at all? A gentleman should not be concerned with the passage of time!


+100 Yes.


----------



## Luis-F-S (Apr 6, 2009)

cdavant said:


> Probably as big a faux pas as a brown wallet with black shoes...


'Fraid so!

L


----------



## Mr. Mac (Mar 14, 2008)

JerseyJohn said:


> While I'm not a "watch" guy, I will say this, which hasn't really been mentioned on this thread: one big difference between a mechanical and a quartz watch is that a quartz watch is usually difficult or impossible to repair, while mechanical watches are pretty much infinitely repairable (I just had my 74-year-old Hamilton serviced and it's still running fine). That makes it risky, if not foolish, to put a quartz movement into an expensive hand-finished solid gold or platinum case. True, my 1961 Accutron SpaceView "tuning-fork" watch is still running, but only because it has had parts cannibalized from its defunct brethren. If you want a watch that is also a piece of fine jewelry that will last for centuries, you're probably going to want a mechanical.


True. But if, for example, the quartz movement in my Victorinox 1884 Officers watch goes crackers, I can always buy a new cheap quartz movement, slap it in, and away I go.


----------



## JerseyJohn (Oct 26, 2007)

Mr. Mac said:


> True. But if, for example, the quartz movement in my Victorinox 1884 Officers watch goes crackers, I can always buy a new cheap quartz movement, slap it in, and away I go.


I think we all agree that quartz watches are just as good (or better) for keeping time and are less expensive. So is a cubic zirconium vs a real diamond, but I wouldn't try to pass one off on one's fiancee! My point was that if you want your watch also to be a fine piece of solid gold or platinum jewelry, you're probably not going to buy (or even find) a quartz watch.


----------



## AcridSaint (Jan 5, 2011)

John, you're just mistaken on this. People buy high-dollar quartz watches all of the time. Patek watches come to mind, which can be found with gold cases, quartz movements and 20K+ price tags. An automatic movement doesn't suddenly make precious metal a better decision. A quartz movement can be easily replaced, meaning that you can maintain a working timepiece no matter what the decided to make the case out of. Unless you have an exposed movement watch, no one can see how the internals are mashed up inside the box.


----------



## nosajwols (Jan 27, 2010)

If your vintage mechanical watch dies and the movement cannot be repaired it can also be replaced with a $10 quartz movement....

Changing movements is easy if it is like for like. It can be difficult even for a quartz if the original movement is no longer available because you have to find one that will fit any complications (day and date wheels, sub dials) and one that will also fit the case correctly (although lots of butchers just glue them in....).


----------



## godan (Feb 10, 2010)

AcridSaint said:


> People buy high-dollar quartz watches all of the time.


Yes. I had a Cartier Santos quartz that certainly was not inexpensive to buy. It became much less expensive when I decided to sell it.


----------



## AcridSaint (Jan 5, 2011)

I'm not sure I understand your point? Are you saying that the movement alone impacted the secondary market value of your watch?


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Quartz Cartier Santos watches are expensive!

Resale value might be the only good reason not to buy a quartz, or a least not an expensive one. A "real" Cartier Santos probably holds its value pretty well since it is such a classic. Actually, because it is so iconic, the longevity argument--that quartzes have a shorter life span--also applies. Santos watches are the sort of watch that future generations will happily inherit or buy as quality "vintage." Come to think of it, buying a quartz version of a Santos doesn't make much sense at all given that by buying a Santos you're buying a 100-yr old design. No doubt the mechanical movements in today's Santos models are not the same as the ones Cartier was selling a century ago, but I suspect watch collectors value as much "authenticity" as possible. I also suspect that a fairly good proportion of pre-WWII Santos watches are still operating.

I'm inclined to ask a watch dealer friend about the resale value of quartz v. mechanical...stay tuned.



godan said:


> Yes. I had a Cartier Santos quartz that certainly was not inexpensive to buy. It became much less expensive when I decided to sell it.


----------



## godan (Feb 10, 2010)

AcridSaint said:


> I'm not sure I understand your point? Are you saying that the movement alone impacted the secondary market value of your watch?


Yes. That was at the beginning of a long and expensive enthusiasm for higher end watches. After more education, I migrated to mechanicals, which in my direct and repeated experience, hold their value better in the secondary market.


----------



## AcridSaint (Jan 5, 2011)

Interesting, though I wonder if this is across the board, or is with certain watch types as was mentioned above. 　Regardless, I contend that it is not a foolish decision to buy a quartz timepiece, even an expensive one, if it meets your needs and expectations.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

AcridSaint said:


> Interesting, though I wonder if this is across the board, or is with certain watch types as was mentioned above.


Acrid, that has been my observation/experience as well. With very rare exceptions, the market for second-hand quartz watches is not particularly strong, whereas quite a few used auto watches sell for more than they ever did new. It's sort of like the difference between the market for used minivans versus high-end sports cars. Sure, some minivans are pretty pricey, and they are often more practical than a Lamborghini, but they are certainly a depreciating asset; the supercar, on the other hand, will lose value much more slowly, and sometimes will even increase. Just totally different markets.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

CuffDaddy said:


> Acrid, that has been my observation/experience as well. With very rare exceptions, the market for second-hand quartz watches is not particularly strong, whereas quite a few used auto watches sell for more than they ever did new. It's sort of like the difference between the market for used minivans versus high-end sports cars. Sure, some minivans are pretty pricey, and they are often more practical than a Lamborghini, but they are certainly a depreciating asset; the supercar, on the other hand, will lose value much more slowly, and sometimes will even increase. Just totally different markets.


I knew a man with an early 1970s Ferrari who explained that it was cheaper than a normal car because he could expect to get at least 100% of his money back when he sold it. The only costs were for gas, insurance, and maintenance, and he swore that none of that cost more than for normal cars, provided he didn't wreck it.

It makes sense that mechanical watches do better on the used market than quartzes if only for the reason that the vast majority of people who are into watches--and thus buy used watches--disdain quartzes, right or wrong. The exception would be historical quartzes like vintage Accutrons.


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

tocqueville said:


> The only costs were for gas, insurance, and maintenance, and he swore that none of that cost more than for normal cars, provided he didn't wreck it.


Hmm ... if he swore the insurance didn't cost more, he's lying, or has an expansive definition of "normal car" (_i.e._ one that would include the vintage Ferrari, thereby rending his whole statement a tautology). That makes his claim about the maintenance even more suspect than it otherwise would be.

In any event, he's ignored the time value of his investment in the car, or at least assumed it'll appreciate at least as quickly as an alternate investment.


----------



## JerseyJohn (Oct 26, 2007)

AcridSaint said:


> John, you're just mistaken on this. People buy high-dollar quartz watches all of the time. Patek watches come to mind, which can be found with gold cases, quartz movements and 20K+ price tags. An automatic movement doesn't suddenly make precious metal a better decision. A quartz movement can be easily replaced, meaning that you can maintain a working timepiece no matter what the decided to make the case out of. Unless you have an exposed movement watch, no one can see how the internals are mashed up inside the box.


You may be able to find a solid gold quartz watch, but I question the wisdom of buying one. A quartz movement may easily be replaced for the first few years after the watch is made, but how far back can this be done? Can you find a quartz movement to replace one from 1975? Will you still be able to drop a replacement for your Patek quartz movement into the solid gold case you paid $15,000 for in 2040? As I said, it's an unknown risk that doesn't exist for mechanicals.


----------



## blairrob (Oct 30, 2010)

Conversation from 1990, privately held company. Dad's in his office, 75 year old boss (and friend) walks in and sits down. 
"Bill, I'm thinking of trading in the old car on a new one."
"Uh huh."
"But I just can't get my head around spending that much money on a car."
"Well, how much is it?"
"$130,000."
"And how much are they offering you for the old Bentley?"
"$17,000."
"I see. And what year did you buy it?" 
"I think it was 1967."
"Well, what did you pay for it?"
"$13,000, I think"
"Gee Phil, sounds like a pretty good to deal to me". 

I think the 'good deal' involves a bit more than numbers. There's an intangible valuation factor added in for most folks that buy such a car, such a watch, or such a suit. It is seldom a winning proposition in a purely financial sense.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Starch said:


> Hmm ... if he swore the insurance didn't cost more, he's lying, or has an expansive definition of "normal car" (_i.e._ one that would include the vintage Ferrari, thereby rending his whole statement a tautology). That makes his claim about the maintenance even more suspect than it otherwise would be.
> 
> In any event, he's ignored the time value of his investment in the car, or at least assumed it'll appreciate at least as quickly as an alternate investment.


He didn't claim the Ferrari was an investment, just that it wasn't nearly as pricey as one might think, provided one could put up the cash required for the initial purpose (borrowing the money would wreak the logic of his argument...and trust me, this guy paid cash). I wasn't inclined to challenge him: we were in the Ferrari on a highway south of London when he explained the math to me...at about 80 mph the cacaphony of the engine and rattling body that had clattered its way through London itself transformed into a glorious chorus. It seemed that every bit of the car harmonized with the engine, which sang rather than roared. The car functioned as beautifully as it looked. I've never again questioned why people buy things like Ferraris--or high-end watches--if they have the bucks, so long as it isn't simply for the purpose of showing off.

By the way, the guy's daily beater was a mid-range Renault sedan. He insisted the Renault represented a larger cost...but yes, I suppose he wasn't factoring how much money he might have been making had he invested the money put into buying the Ferrari.


----------



## AcridSaint (Jan 5, 2011)

Even with complications, it's not going to be hard to find a suitable replacement. In 2040 parts may not be readily available for your auto either. In either instance they'd have to be fabricated. With manufacturing being as inexpensive as it is, I just don't see how one couldn't get a one-off quartz movement made for it in 30 years. I'd imagine it would be a drop in the bucket, even today, for someone who buys a $20,000 watch to get a new movement "custom" made.


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

JerseyJohn said:


> You may be able to find a solid gold quartz watch, but I question the wisdom of buying one. A quartz movement may easily be replaced for the first few years after the watch is made, but how far back can this be done? Can you find a quartz movement to replace one from 1975? Will you still be able to drop a replacement for your Patek quartz movement into the solid gold case you paid $15,000 for in 2040?


Most likely yes. Quartz movements nearly always come in standard calibers. Which means there is a very good chance that someone will be making a quartz movement of the appropriate caliber for that Patek watch, or any other watch which uses that caliber. Patek most likely didn't make the quartz movement in the first place, it was most likely supplied by ETA. A company which makes quartz movements in standard calibers for many watchmakers.



JerseyJohn said:


> As I said, it's an unknown risk that doesn't exist for mechanicals.


Actually it probably does. A manufacturer can stop making replacement parts at any time, or they may just simply go out of business. A clockwork watch been what it is, parts do wear out and break occasionally. Of course if money is no object and you know someone with the appropriate skills, replacement parts can be fabricated.


----------



## chrstc (Jun 11, 2007)

Hello,

I admit I haven't read through all 10 pages of this drivel but has anyone made mention of dead beat watches yet? Fancy mechanical watches that tick like a quartz watch that would confuse most (if not all) passing viewers:

https://www.apassionforwatches.com/...nefeld_One_Hertz_1912_Dead-Beat_Seconds_Watch

There's also the quartz watch without a second hand too-pretty hard to claim that that lowers the tone of an outfit..

Chris.


----------



## Mongo (May 9, 2008)

tocqueville said:


> He didn't claim the Ferrari was an investment, just that it wasn't nearly as pricey as one might think, provided one could put up the cash required for the initial purpose (borrowing the money would wreak the logic of his argument...and trust me, this guy paid cash). I wasn't inclined to challenge him: we were in the Ferrari on a highway south of London when he explained the math to me...at about 80 mph the cacaphony of the engine and rattling body that had clattered its way through London itself transformed into a glorious chorus. It seemed that every bit of the car harmonized with the engine, which sang rather than roared. The car functioned as beautifully as it looked. I've never again questioned why people buy things like Ferraris--or high-end watches--if they have the bucks, so long as it isn't simply for the purpose of showing off.
> 
> By the way, the guy's daily beater was a mid-range Renault sedan. He insisted the Renault represented a larger cost...but yes, I suppose he wasn't factoring how much money he might have been making had he invested the money put into buying the Ferrari.


Precisely the logic I used to justify my 1987 Mondial (whose time has sadly passed thanks to an inattentive stop sign runner).


Paid cash - much less than one might think.
Budget of $200 per month for maintenance, including major overhauls.
Insurance almost insignificant (~600 CDN per year)
Daily driver Pontiac AWD minivan
It's not that such a vehicle is an investment, so much as it's not a depreciating asset. And it costs far far less than most people think. Arguably, in my case it was a successful investment, since the insurance payout was better than what I'd spent on it (hey - the insurance company forced me to insure it for the higher appraised value, I tried to insure it for what it cost me).

OTOH, there is an apparently inescapable class perception I hadn't anticipated, which I had not experienced with any other vehicle - even a 1964 e-type Jaguar.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

tocqueville said:


> I knew a man with an early 1970s Ferrari who explained that it was cheaper than a normal car because he could expect to get at least 100% of his money back when he sold it. The only costs were for gas, insurance, and maintenance, and he swore that none of that cost more than for normal cars, provided he didn't wreck it.


I know several people that have taken that approach; not Ferrai-specific, but staying with high-end sports cars. They would buy low-mileage used ones at good prices, and sell them a year or three later for the same or _more_ money than they paid. You have to keep the cars immaculate for that to work, but you really can get ownership costs down to operating expenses and opportunity cost of the cash. It's not my strategy, but it is viable and works for some people.


----------



## JerseyJohn (Oct 26, 2007)

MikeDT said:


> A manufacturer can stop making replacement parts at any time, or they may just simply go out of business. A clockwork watch been what it is, parts do wear out and break occasionally. Of course if money is no object and you know someone with the appropriate skills, replacement parts can be fabricated.


My 1937 Hamilton had a broken winding mechanism (crown gear?) and the repair guy had no problem repairing it. There are plenty of watches a century or more old still running fine. As I said, can you repair a quartz watch from 1975? How long will ETA keep making "standard" quartz movements if some new technology comes along to replace it? Truth is, you really don't know. My initial comment stands: quartz movements generally can't be repaired. The fact that you may or may not be able to find an entire movement that fits your case doesn't eliminate the risk of paying $20k for a solid gold or platinum case that may eventually be worth only its melt value. Does that mean I wouldn't buy a quartz watch? Of course not. I own one - a $35 Timex. Does that mean I'd buy a $20k mechanical? Hell no! I wouldn't pay $20k for a watch if I hit a $100m Powerball. I'm just pointing out that putting a quartz movement in a $15k case is a risk that one probably doesn't face with mechanicals, which is why most high end watches aren't quartz.


----------



## AcridSaint (Jan 5, 2011)

Again, there is no risk. If a watch is truly valuable to you, a one-off movement could be had. What basis do you have in assuming the the "replaced" technology of mechanical watches will continue to have parts availability, but that quartz will not have a replacement parts market when it becomes old tech? Btw, replacing the movement -is- repairing a quartz watch, you're just treating the movement as an entire part. Also, I'll be the one who goes out on a limb and says yes, a quartz movement watch from 1975 can be repaired.


----------



## cdavant (Aug 28, 2005)

My late Father's Acutron Astronaut (the one with the tuning fork) the most accurate watch of its day, has been serviced by two experts and still doesn't keep time worth a damn anymore. The original battery hasn't been made for years and conversion to an available battery was expensive. Parts are only obtainable by cannibalizing other watches. Having been through refurbishing a not-really-so-old once state of the art watch, I'd bet having a metal part machined fifty years from now will be far easier than trying to replicate a circuit board.


----------



## some_dude (Nov 9, 2008)

The Porsche 911 is actually the car of choice for this plan. I bought mine used almost 20 years ago, and it's still worth most of what I paid for it. And the cars are indestructible and require fairly minimal maintenance.



CuffDaddy said:


> I know several people that have taken that approach; not Ferrai-specific, but staying with high-end sports cars. They would buy low-mileage used ones at good prices, and sell them a year or three later for the same or _more_ money than they paid. You have to keep the cars immaculate for that to work, but you really can get ownership costs down to operating expenses and opportunity cost of the cash. It's not my strategy, but it is viable and works for some people.


----------



## Broadus (Jan 6, 2011)

I'm in my mid-50's and have always worn a watch. Accuracy has always been important, so I have quartz watches. Sure, I usually have my cell phone with me so a watch is not essential, but it's more handy than getting out my cell phone. Concern that the second hand jumps instead of sweeps strikes me as pseudo-sophistication.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

some_dude said:


> The Porsche 911 is actually the car of choice for this plan. I bought mine used almost 20 years ago, and it's still worth most of what I paid for it. And the cars are indestructible and require fairly minimal maintenance.


Yep, two of the three guys I know who follow that plan have been Porsche drivers. Another moves between various serious sports cars. They all claim it works, although I haven't audited their books.


----------



## nosajwols (Jan 27, 2010)

tocqueville said:


> I knew a man with an early 1970s Ferrari who explained that it was cheaper than a normal car because he could expect to get at least 100% of his money back when he sold it. The only costs were for gas, insurance, and maintenance, and he swore that none of that cost more than for normal cars, provided he didn't wreck it.
> 
> It makes sense that mechanical watches do better on the used market than quartzes if only for the reason that the vast majority of people who are into watches--and thus buy used watches--disdain quartzes, right or wrong. The exception would be historical quartzes like vintage Accutrons.


For the car (purchase price/depreciation), it all depends on what year the car is and what year you bought it (buying at the bottom of the curve). For example you can buy a 10 year old Hyundai today for 2K on the road. You will likely be able to sell it for 2K in 5 years if you keep it in the same shape and keep the mileage low.

Today you can buy an 80s Ferrari 308 for 30 to 40K. In five to 10 years it will sell for 30 to 40K. In short for cars it is all about buying at the bottom of the price curve, regardless of make or model.

I do not believe for one second he could maintain it for the same cost as a "normal" car, he lied there or at the very min had no idea what it costs to maintain a normal car.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

> For the car (purchase price/depreciation), it all depends on what year the car is and what year you bought it (buying at the bottom of the curve). For example you can buy a 10 year old Hyundai today for 2K on the road. You will likely be able to sell it for 2K in 5 years if you keep it in the same shape and keep the mileage low.


Fair enough, nosajwols, but I think the proponents of these plans assume a certain minimum level of "acceptable" car. A brand new econobox may be acceptable, but once it hits the bottom of the price curve, it offers a less-than-ideal driving experience; few who could do otherwise would do so by choice. But once you get to a certain level of car, even a fairly aged example can offer a good experience, and still be near the bottom of the price curve. And there is the chance of the value of the car going _up_. I have yet to see that happen with a Hyundai!


----------



## JerseyJohn (Oct 26, 2007)

AcridSaint said:


> What basis do you have in assuming the the "replaced" technology of mechanical watches will continue to have parts availability, but that quartz will not have a replacement parts market when it becomes old tech?


The plain documented fact that the "replaced" technology of mechanical watches continues to have parts availability (e.g., my 1937 Hamilton) vs no crystal ball as to whether a quartz watch will have a replacement parts market when it becomes old tech. My point is that that's enough to make someone pause before investing $15,000 in a solid gold watch - always given, of course that someone actually wants to spend $15,000 on a watch - something I personally couldn't understand.

Here's some comments from forums:

"I'm thinking that even with $300+ quartz watches, at some point the manufacturer stops making the movement that fit in it... stockpiles a certain amount of inventory and then just "sunsets" service once the inventory is gone." 
"I purchased a new Casio calculator watch, circa 1982.

I simply had to put in new bats every few years. When it finally stopped for the last time circa 2002, & new bats would not get it going again, I discarded it."

"I had a digital Seiko Sports 100, bought in 1984 which died after about 12 years of normal use. A display failure, and *parts were no longer attainable*."

"If you wish to enquire about a Seiko watch repair please quote the 8 digit number from the case back *and we will check the Seiko UK web site for availability of parts*. If we cannot repair your watch you could try the contact ...

So what basis do you have in assuming the the "replaced" technology of quartz will have a replacement parts market when it becomes old tech? If you have a solid gold mechanical for $20k and the same thing in quartz for $15k, are you going for the quartz? I wouldn't.


----------



## AcridSaint (Jan 5, 2011)

If it were the same watch and I wanted it for the aesthetics, no I would not spend 33% more for a mechanical action unless there were actually $5000 worth of parts in the more expensive watch. I will maintain that if someone can afford a watch for 15K, they can afford to have a one-off custom quartz movement fabricated for it. Hell, for a thousand bucks you could probably have a crate of moments made to your specs in China.


----------



## cdavant (Aug 28, 2005)

Surely, we need a "Hall of Fame" sticky for threads like this and the Bookster one that have a gazillion views and over two hundred replies. New members and returning old members could read and decide to continue on or just go slash their wrists...


----------



## kontango (Jan 30, 2011)

Although I own only mechanical watches, I do this for my personal enjoyment and appreciation of the devices themselves. Otherwise, I'd have no problem at all wearing a quartz watch in a well-attired situation. BTW, there is really no practical advantage to wearing a mechanical watch....they are more expensive, less accurate, and more expensive to own over a lifetime (i.e., have to be serviced occasionally) than a quartz watch. Bottom line, don't sweat it.


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

Some people can't stop watching the clock, or this thread.


----------

