# Watches



## Bama Mike (Dec 14, 2007)

I'd love to get some opinions from the well-dressed members of this forum. What type of dress watch do most of you wear? Do you prefer gold watches, stainless steel, or leather bands? I have many watches of various values and styles. I often wear a Rolex Submariner in suits and casually. I've been thinking of trading it in for a DateJust because I've wanted something a little more "dressy" looking. Any opinions?


----------



## DorianGrey (Jul 6, 2007)

90% of the time I wear my Omega Seamaster, even with suits. I also have a white-faced Revue-Thommen automatic with black croc band that I wear for more formal occasions.


----------



## Aaron in Allentown (Oct 26, 2007)

When I was younger (in my mid-20s), I had an Omega Seamaster Pro (the James Bond model) that I wore with everything. As I got older (30s), I decided I wanted something dressier, so I sold the Omega for an IWC da Vinci SL. It has a bracelet, so it's technically not super-dressy, but I really like it.


----------



## DorianGrey (Jul 6, 2007)

Aaron - do you wear the IWC for everything? I would be too paranoid. My Seamaster is like a tank. I am never worried about damaging it during everyday wear.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

My preference for dress is my Jaeger LeColutre Gentilhomme in 18KRG. Sadly they stopped making it in the 90s. But the good news is ... it's much less expensive in the secondary market ... and it's not a watch that is likely to be "replicated." EDIT: Although I note in my avitar that I'm wearing an IWC Fleiger.

https://imageshack.us


----------



## Teacher (Mar 14, 2005)

Aside from my sports watch (an old IronMan Triathalon), I only wear vintage American-made mechanical watches. I have solid gold, gold filled, and stainless. All have leather bands (black, brown, tan, burgundy; calf, buffalo, peccary, snake, lizard...no shell cordovan or sea turtle yet!). Round, square, and rectangular. All are simple designs from the 30 sto the early 60s; most Art Deco is too busy for me.


----------



## Teacher (Mar 14, 2005)

RSS, that is a gorgeous watch! Clearly I'm in the wrong line of work.:icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Aaron in Allentown (Oct 26, 2007)

DorianGrey said:


> Aaron - do you wear the IWC for everything? I would be too paranoid. My Seamaster is like a tank. I am never worried about damaging it during everyday wear.


It's stainless steel, and the crystal is sapphire, so it's fairly rugged considering.

To answer your question, I wear it for everything except hiking, yard work and other physical activities.


----------



## brioni007 (Dec 3, 2007)

My favorite watch to wear is the IWC Portuguese Chrono. The watch to me is a dressy enough to wear with suits and sporty enough to dress down. However watches for me have been a weakness like bespoke clothing. Watches are so personal, some hold sentimental value, and others wear whatever they desire because they can afford to do so. Though I do check out watches that are being worn on daily basis. I more so check out the attire. I have seen guys in the best watches money can but the attire left something to be desired. So I figure a true sartoralist will always have the right watch no matter what brand their sporting.


----------



## DocD (Jun 2, 2007)

My stainless steel Rolex Submariner is my daily watch that I rarely ever take off, except when dressing formally. I find this watch to be an excellent every day watch that is rugged, reliable, accurate and not "flashy". It's a classic that never goes out of style and can take significant abuse.


----------



## Grayland (Oct 22, 2007)

Bama Mike,
I'm in the same boat and from what I've read/learned, dressy = very conservative. Leather band, simple face, no chronograph look, etc. The watch RSS displays is an excellent (but out of my price range) example. There are many vintage watch sites that offer nice looking watches at decent prices ($200-$500). Many like Omega, but there are many other choices such as Longines/Wittnauer and Hamilton. I've found a site, www.watchcat.com , that offers nice vintage watches in a variety of price ranges. Check often as they get new watches frequently. I like variety, so I have several "cheaper" models - I like gold & stainless depending on what I'm wearing. Do a search on this site for vintage watches. You'll be suprised by the number of "cheap" vintage watches that look really good.
Of course, if you've got the bucks, it's easy to find a great looking watch.


----------



## The_Consultant (Jan 13, 2008)

I generally wear a Parmigiani Fleurier Kalpha (silver face, blue strap) but have also worn my AP Royal Oak Offshore Rubberclad on occasion.


----------



## mano (Mar 17, 2003)

RSS said:


> My preference for dress is my Jaeger LeColutre Gentilhomme in 18KRG. Sadly they stopped making it in the 90s. But the good news is ... it's much less expensive in the secondary market ... and it's not a watch that is likely to be "replicated." EDIT: Although I note in my avitar that I'm wearing an IWC Fleiger.
> 
> https://imageshack.us


Now that's my kind of watch! What is "much less expensive in the secondary market"?


----------



## lichMD (Jun 30, 2005)

Every day wear a Kobold Spirit of America, this watch on a variety of bands (Nato, navy alligator, a Delaurian strap) gets the lion share of my wrist time, with the exception of formal and client meetings.
For the latter I wear a Rolex TT Daytona.

RSS your JLC is really very nice.
Cheers


----------



## Bama Mike (Dec 14, 2007)

Thanks to all of you for the replies.


----------



## brioni007 (Dec 3, 2007)

*different league*

Nice watches, you're in a different league. The royal oak is on my wish list! Do you like the AP. I think that is the hottest watch on the market right now. The price of course has kept me from entering the ownership club. But i have made my mind up to save until next Xmas then we will see.



The_Consultant said:


> I generally wear a Parmigiani Fleurier Kalpha (silver face, blue strap) but have also worn my AP Royal Oak Offshore Rubberclad on occasion.


----------



## speedster (Jan 13, 2008)

*formal watch ...*

I have 2 vintage 14K/18K wathes for formal.
One rosegold chrono, so slightly sporty.
One longines, they are both simple and have a black watchband.
Wondering about getting a tan austrich band for the rose gold one ...
For daylies my selection is much simpler than the previous posters.
A japanese market automatic Seiko and a CiticenEcodrive GMT.

But then im not a fan of Rolex ... 
Wondering about a grandSeiko GMT
Or a Chopard L.U.C. proOne GMT (the white dial LTD)
The Glasshutte GMT is not bad either ...
What do you think?

Will post pictures on request ...


----------



## A.J. Di Liberti (Jan 1, 2008)

When I think "_Dress Watch_", one word comes to mind... Understated!

Leather strap, never a bracelet.
Few if any complications.
Plain bezel.

My dress watches,

Hamilton - Mount Vernon and Jazzmaster "Power Reserve".
Omega - De Ville
Zenith - Class Elite and Port Royal "Reserve de Marche".


----------



## The_Consultant (Jan 13, 2008)

brioni007 said:


> Nice watches, you're in a different league. The royal oak is on my wish list! Do you like the AP. I think that is the hottest watch on the market right now. The price of course has kept me from entering the ownership club. But i have made my mind up to save until next Xmas then we will see.


I love the AP - it's a close call between that and the PF as to which I wear daily. It's usually the AP for casual wear and the PF for suits. I also have a Panerai 94 and a Jaeger LeCoultre Master Geographic (black face/strap) that get worked in as well.

As you can probably tell - I have a little obsession with watches!


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

Teacher said:


> RSS, that is a gorgeous watch! Clearly I'm in the wrong line of work.:icon_smile_wink:


 I agree with you completely. And thank you. Now don't say you're in the wrong line of work until I answer the post below.



mano said:


> Now that's my kind of watch! What is "much less expensive in the secondary market"?


I've found this watch (the version without the date and with hobnail bezel ... think of the Patek Philippe Calatrava with a similar design ... and frankly I think it looks better than the one pictured) in 18KG on TimeZone and on eBay for $2000.+/- That's not bad for a truly fine watch.

No, it's not insignificant money ... but it's relatively inexpensive when compared to what one must pay for the current model 18KG Master Ultra Thin from JLC ... retailing for $9000.+/- ... or to be had in the gray market for perhaps $6000.+/- Even the stainless steel version on the gray market will cost you more than $2000!

EDIT: My camera is currently on vacation (without me) ... but I'll take a photo of my actual version when it returns.


----------



## ciscostud (Jan 3, 2007)

My preference is for white metals or ROSE gold (not yellow).

Omega Seamaster was my first watch for casual and dress (dual use). I then sold it and bought a Rolex SeaDweller. Now the SeaDweller is a little chunkier in the case than the Submariner (and it goes deeper with a helium escape valve), but I think it is better off worn NOT under a sport coat or suit jacket.

I would NOT sell your submariner if you can afford not to. They are always going up in value. My Seadweller, due to repetitive new Rolex price increases, can easily be sold for slightly more than I paid for it and is increasing every year. I also think the submariner and datejust or day date are different enough.

I bought a Rolex stainless steel daytona about 2 years ago. My intention was to sell the SeaDweller, but I just kept it for the reasons mentioned. Also, the seadweller has become my every day watch and I wear the daytona when I dress up with a sport coat or suit. It takes the wear load off of just one watch.

Since I LOVE watches, the next three watches I will buy are: Patek 5196G White Gold Calatrava, Jaeger Master 8 days Rose Gold, and Rolex Platinum President.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

The two watches I wear are both mid-1960's vintage. One is a stainless steel Omega Seamaster and the other is a rolled gold Omega Constellation day/date with a crocodile strap. I wear the stainless when I'm not wearing cufflinks and I wear the gold one when I am (because all of my cufflinks are gold...and I'm in cufflinks at least a few times each week).

I am lucky in that these two watches were hand-me-downs, but you'd be amazed at how cheap vintage Omegas and Rolexes can be if you go back ot the 60's and 70s and how nice they look (I prefer the datejusts of 15 years ago to the ones of today in fact).

Because I'm not an NFL-lineman or a diver, I like my watches to have a 35mm diameter. All too often I see guys with normal-sized wrists wearing these ridiculously large watches. I'd sya 38mm is as big as any normal person should wear.

I don't know...while I think is a Datejust is a nice watch for going out to dinner and such, I'd be suspicious of a detective wearing one - even my dad leaves his at home and wears a stainless Omega to work (but then he doesn't wear cufflinks and you've noted that you do). It's just too dressy.


----------



## Teacher (Mar 14, 2005)

speedster said:


> I have 2 vintage 14K/18K wathes for formal.
> One rosegold chrono, so slightly sporty.
> One longines, they are both simple and have a black watchband.
> Wondering about getting a tan austrich band for the rose gold one ...
> ...


That sounds like a nice collection, and welcome to the forum!



RSS said:


> I've found this watch (the version without the date and with hobnail bezel ... think of the Patek Philippe Calatrava with a similar design ... and frankly I think it looks better than the one pictured) in 18KG on TimeZone and on eBay for $2000.+/- That's not bad for a truly fine watch.
> 
> No, it's not insignificant money ... but it's relatively inexpensive when compared to what one must pay for the current model 18KG Master Ultra Thin from JLC ... retailing for $9000.+/- ... or to be had in the gray market for perhaps $6000.+/- Even the stainless steel version on the gray market will cost you more than $2000!


I must say, that quite a lot less than I had thought.



ciscostud said:


> My preference is for white metals or ROSE gold (not yellow).


Rose gold is the only metal I'm missing and want, but it's pretty rare in the old American watches from the 40s and 50s...rarer even than with the European watches because of the tastes of the time. There were plenty of American Art Deco rose gold watches, but as I said before, I don't generally care for those (with a few exceptions).


----------



## JerseyJohn (Oct 26, 2007)

I wear my 1961 Bulova Accutron "Space-View" with everything. It has a stainless case. I'm hoping to get my father's pre-WW2 Hamilton tank watch going again as a dress watch (I'm looking for repair options on another thread). It's gold (filled). Both watches have leather bands.


----------



## andyslo (Dec 30, 2007)

*I have finally settled on my RGM Grand Guilloche;*








I have a Seamaster Bond Chrono that I wear sometimes but the RGM has been a delight since I have finally settled down to one or two watches. I was sold on RGM the first time I called and Roland Murphy answered his own phone. I also have a Gerard Perregaux Traveller II that I bought for the alarm and second time zone feature but I plan on trading up to the LeCoultre Master Memovox that chimes the alarm in a way that to me is almost angelic...

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v244/andyslo/150E_MAINWEB_001.jpg


----------



## jar2574 (Aug 30, 2007)

Christopher Ward C5 Malvern Automatic, brown strap.

Very pleased with the product, and you can get it for 1/20th (or less) of the price of the IWC off which it is modeled.


----------



## Bama Mike (Dec 14, 2007)

ciscostud said:


> My preference is for white metals or ROSE gold (not yellow).
> 
> Omega Seamaster was my first watch for casual and dress (dual use). I then sold it and bought a Rolex SeaDweller. Now the SeaDweller is a little chunkier in the case than the Submariner (and it goes deeper with a helium escape valve), but I think it is better off worn NOT under a sport coat or suit jacket.
> 
> ...


Thanks again for all of the responses. I would rather not sell the Submariner. It's such a classic and like you mentioned, always going up in value. The problem is that at this point I'm not in a position to have two of them. I really want a DateJust, but am scared that I will regret selling the Sub. I have many different watches, but I'm a big Rolex fan and would like to still have at least one of those.


----------



## Bama Mike (Dec 14, 2007)

Also, for anyone still reading this thread, what are your thoughts about diamonds on mens watches? I'm not talking about rap star "bling" but rather small diamonds as the hour markers. Is that trying too hard or is it accepted now? I'm looking at a Stainless Steel/18kt White gold Rolex datejust with a silver dial and diamonds marking the hours. I think it looks nice, but I'm not sure about how appropriate it its.

Examples of two I'm considering:


----------



## Bama Mike (Dec 14, 2007)

Pictures didn't work on the last one. Here are the two I'm considering. I like the diamonds, but not quite sure.


----------



## The_Consultant (Jan 13, 2008)

Bama Mike said:


> Also, for anyone still reading this thread, what are your thoughts about diamonds on mens watches? I'm not talking about rap star "bling" but rather small diamonds as the hour markers. Is that trying too hard or is it accepted now? I'm looking at a Stainless Steel/18kt White gold Rolex datejust with a silver dial and diamonds marking the hours. I think it looks nice, but I'm not sure about how appropriate it its.


It is, of course, just my opinion but I'm a firm believer that one is generally better off using the money that would be spent on diamonds or other jewels on getting better mechanicals for the watch.

Have you thought about Jaquet Droz? In my opinion they make an amazing and unique watch.


----------



## Bama Mike (Dec 14, 2007)

The_Consultant said:


> It is, of course, just my opinion but I'm a firm believer that one is generally better off using the money that would be spent on diamonds or other jewels on getting better mechanicals for the watch.
> 
> Have you thought about Jaquet Droz? In my opinion they make an amazing and unique watch.


I have not, but I will certainly look them up. I'm always interested in learning about other quality mechanical timepieces, especially those not so obvious.


----------



## Boris (Aug 4, 2005)

I wear a Rolex Oyster Perpetual Day-Date with the President bracelet for everything. Suits, jeans, bathing suits, summer shorts. It has a Mother of Pearl dial with gold roman numerals. For many years I wore a Rolex Datejust with the stainless and gold bracelet (the gold was 14k back then). It had a champaign dial with black roman numerals. And I also have a Vacheron Constantin Retrograde in rose gold with roman numerals. I never wear it. After about 6 months after I got the watch it went in for repair. Vacheron ended up replacing the watch (it had a two year warranty). I've never worn the replacement. Those complication watches (Patek, Audemars, etc.), in my opinion, are just too delicate. Get the Rolex with the roman numerals. It's a very classic and rich look. The Submariner, although nice, is a more "sporty" looking watch than the Datejust. Forget the diamonds. Too dressy. You need a watch that you can wear with anything and that's durable. I've owned the President since 1997. Other than cleaning I've never had any repair issues. And, by the way, the stainless and gold Datejust that I bought in 1982 still runs great.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Just say no to diamonds if you're a man. If you really want a nice watch...ok, so granted it's probably going to run you a good $5000 more than that Rolex, but I'd just find somewhere to cut costs and get a Patek Philippe 5196J...if it were my money and I had that kind of money...I recently had a birthday in case you're wondering what would be a good belated birthday present.:icon_smile_big:


----------



## Bama Mike (Dec 14, 2007)

Boris said:


> I wear a Rolex Oyster Perpetual Day-Date with the President bracelet for everything. Suits, jeans, bathing suits, summer shorts. It has a Mother of Pearl dial with gold roman numerals. For many years I wore a Rolex Datejust with the stainless and gold bracelet (the gold was 14k back then). It had a champaine dial with black roman numerals. And I also have a Vacheron Constantin Retrograde in rose gold with roman numerals. I never wear it. After about 6 months after I got the watch it went in for repair. Vacheron ended up replacing the watch (it had a two year warranty). I've never worn the replacement. Those complication watches (Patek, Audemars, etc.), in my opinion, are just too delicate. Get the Rolex with the roman numerals. It's a very classic and rich look. The Submariner, although nice, is a more "sporty" looking watch than the Datejust. Forget the diamonds. Too dressy. You need a watch that you can wear with anything and that's durable. I've owned the President since 1997. Other than cleaning I've never had any repair issues. And, by the way, the stainless and gold Datejust that I bought in 1982 still runs great.


Thanks. It's looking like the white dial with roman numerals. I hate to get rid of the Sub, but I'll get another in the future. I have some other "sporty" watches to wear for those occasions. I do want a watch that works well with any outfit. I'm familiar with the Day-Date you are describing - stunning. Take care.

Mike


----------



## Teacher (Mar 14, 2005)

I don't have a problem with a couple of subtle diamonds as markers on the right men's watch. I do, however, concur with the suggestion that the money would be better spent on the mechanics of the watch itself...or maybe a second watch altogether!


----------



## Bama Mike (Dec 14, 2007)

marlinspike said:


> Just say no to diamonds if you're a man. If you really want a nice watch...ok, so granted it's probably going to run you a good $5000 more than that Rolex, but I'd just find somewhere to cut costs and get a Patek Philippe 5196J...if it were my money and I had that kind of money...I recently had a birthday in case you're wondering what would be a good belated birthday present.:icon_smile_big:


I'll make a note of your wish, just in case I find myself swimming in money


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Bama Mike said:


> Thanks. It's looking like the white dial with roman numerals. I hate to get rid of the Sub, but I'll get another in the future. I have some other "sporty" watches to wear for those occasions. I do want a watch that works well with any outfit. I'm familiar with the Day-Date you are describing - stunning. Take care.
> 
> Mike


The only problem I have that one is that when you wear gold cufflinks it will clash (I'm not one of those who say the buckles on your loafers need to match your belt buckle, but the left cufflink and watch are so close to each other). I guess that's why they have that same watch with gold numerals on a white face with a stainless/gold bracelet. FYI, if you're paying the prices at www.alanfurman.com you can haggle further down (their prices are what every jewlery store's first realistic offer should be, but then you can get lower). Though, I do think the roman numeral one you showed is a better choice if you're going to wear it to work.


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

I am rather picky about never wearing sports watches only with casual dress (sports coat) and never with anything dressier. I also like to at least roughly match the colour of the watch strap leather with the belt and shoes. 

The classical features of a strict dress watch are:

Slim (<10mm)
<38mm diameter (classically 38mm and over was considered oversized)
Preferably of a solid precious metal
Plain white face
Roman numerals or plain indices
Black leather strap
No lumes 
No seconds hand
No complications

A classical watch which fits these demands is as rare as hens teeth today unless you buy vintage watches. However, for business, I think it is also fine to have a date (for when you sign documents) or other useful complications. A small seconds dial alone also detracts little from the dressiness of a watch. Complications invariably make a watch thicker and hence less dressy. Watch makers classically competed to make their watches sleeker than the next competitor, though ultrathin models are now offered by a few makers. 

We live in an age when watch makers market themselves towards buyers of oversized sports watches who dress mostly in short sleeve shirts or t-shirts with really loose fitting sleeve ends, which can easily accommodate an oversized watch. The image of a fellow in a t-shirt or polo shirt and jeans with an enormous, fabulously complicated watch comes to mind. It would appear that jewellery (in this case a watch and often also a gold necklace) serves as substitutes for proper dressing. 

In contrast to this, classical dress watches were made to slip discreetly underneath the well fitting cuff of a dress shirt. Sadly, most watches today seem to start at 38mm and seem at least 10mm thick. 38mm is no longer even regarded as being oversized as it classically used to be - it is now the basic size for a watch! - anything less than that is regarded as an anachronistic classically proportioned watch. The only watch maker left to have mercifully resisted this trend appears to be Patek Philippe.


----------



## The_Consultant (Jan 13, 2008)

Bama Mike said:


> I have not, but I will certainly look them up. I'm always interested in learning about other quality mechanical timepieces, especially those not so obvious.


Here's a picture of one of the Jaquet Droz:


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

Teacher said:


> I don't have a problem with a couple of subtle diamonds as markers on the right men's watch. I do, however, concur with the suggestion that the money would be better spent on the mechanics of the watch itself...or maybe a second watch altogether!


While in principle I agree, I do find even the most subtle diamonds on a watch to look rather effeminate.


----------



## Bama Mike (Dec 14, 2007)

marlinspike said:


> The only problem I have that one is that when you wear gold cufflinks it will clash (I'm not one of those who say the buckles on your loafers need to match your belt buckle, but the left cufflink and watch are so close to each other). I guess that's why they have that same watch with gold numerals on a white face with a stainless/gold bracelet. FYI, if you're paying the prices at www.alanfurman.com you can haggle further down (their prices are what every jewlery store's first realistic offer should be, but then you can get lower). Though, I do think the roman numeral one you showed is a better choice if you're going to wear it to work.


Most of the cufflinks I currently have are silver in color so that would work fine, but I understand what you are saying. I also think that particular datejust with white dial would look great if it were ever switched over to a nice leather band - I've seen it done.


----------



## Bama Mike (Dec 14, 2007)

The_Consultant said:


> Here's a picture of one of the Jaquet Droz:


That's beautiful. It kind of reminds me of a Glashutte Original. How do they compare in price?


----------



## Boris (Aug 4, 2005)

Bama Mike said:


> I'll make a note of your wish, just in case I find myself swimming in money


With all due respect for personal taste. I had looked into the Patek Calatrava with a hobnail bezel before the Vacheron incident. Never again. I'm telling you Gents that those watches (complications) are too fragile for everyday use. I know, those are "dress" watches meant for specific types of occasions. But you'll say, "what about all that intricate workmanship that goes into those watches?" Save it for the shoes. With the cost of these watches I find it makes more sense to have something that's universal in what you can wear it with and also will last. And, in the past when I wore the Datejust with the stainless/gold bracelet I found that it looked quite striking with gold cufflinks (as well as silver). Looked good with a Tommy Bahama shirt too.


----------



## Boris (Aug 4, 2005)

marlinspike said:


> The only problem I have that one is that when you wear gold cufflinks it will clash (I'm not one of those who say the buckles on your loafers need to match your belt buckle, but the left cufflink and watch are so close to each other). I guess that's why they have that same watch with gold numerals on a white face with a stainless/gold bracelet. FYI, if you're paying the prices at www.alanfurman.com you can haggle further down (their prices are what every jewlery store's first realistic offer should be, but then you can get lower). Though, I do think the roman numeral one you showed is a better choice if you're going to wear it to work.


Have you considered a champaign dial (if they still make it)? That would eliminate the starkness of white and add a very faint gold hue to the watch dial. Although the white dial with roman numerals is absolutely stunning. I only raise this isue because there seems to be some reluctance on coordinating gold cuff accessories. I personally don't see a problem particularly because you have the gold link center with the stainless in the Jubilee bracelet.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Boris said:


> With all due respect for personal taste. I had looked into the Patek Calatrava with a hobnail bezel before the Vacheron incident. Never again. I'm telling you Gents that those watches (complications) are too fragile for everyday use.


I rarely see well made complications fail (and I'd hardly say that Patek I was talking about has complications, though I guess the second hand ath the 6 is one), but cheaply made complications fail all the time.

I guess there's a reason the watchmaker I trust most looks down on Vacheron.


----------



## Bob_Brooks (Feb 21, 2006)

I wear a stainless steel Rolex Submariner date most of the time and a Heuer Monza with a black strap when I am wearing a suit.


----------



## Capt Ron (Dec 28, 2007)

Bama Mike said:


> I'd love to get some opinions from the well-dressed members of this forum. What type of dress watch do most of you wear? Do you prefer gold watches, stainless steel, or leather bands? I have many watches of various values and styles. I often wear a Rolex Submariner in suits and casually. I've been thinking of trading it in for a DateJust because I've wanted something a little more "dressy" looking. Any opinions?


Mike,
I just came across your post on watch wearing.

I swore after my military obligation was up that I would never wear a watch again...

The watch I wear now is a titanium highly polished citizen dive watch, it was given to me by my girlfriend on my 37th birthday, enough said? 
I adore the watch, I picked it out after we returned the original one. the first one she got me was stainless steel and way too bulky and heavy, I thought she wanted to drown me with it. 
My friend wears his father's watch, which his grandfather wore as well. I'm glad I picked out a watch that I hope will last through the years that I may pass down to my son.
For a number of reasons, the watch I wear has great sentimental value to me. it also matches with everything I wear. I'm suppose to give it back to her so that she can have an inscription put on the back, but I don't want to part with it even for a day.

I believe a watch is the most romantic gift a man can receive. Every time I look at my watch I'm reminded I'm wearing a "big wedding band" and it's Stacy time!

So, for me, my watch is more than a fashion statement and it tells me more than the time. It says I love you every time I look at it.


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

marlinspike said:


> I guess there's a reason the watchmaker I trust most looks down on Vacheron.


My watchmaker - much to my surprise - had few kind words to say about Jaeger Lecoultre either. He thought that the workmanship did not justify the price. He defended Rolex against my offhand dismissal of them as being "better value", much to my surprise. He does not sell Rolex BTW.


----------



## YYZ-LHR (Jul 2, 2007)

There are some beautiful watches on here. I agree with Sator that the small diameter, slim, uncomplicated watches that are most suitable for even semi-formal wear seem increasingly rare. I also agree with Teacher that the best value in watches fitting this description are in the vintage market.

My casual/weekend watch is a 1950s stainless steel Hamilton manual on a brown leather strap. It keeps fantastic time and has a surprisingly long reserve; the cheapest watch I've owned, and probably my favourite. For work I wear one of two Omegas: either a stainless steel Seamaster bumper automatic from the 1960s, or a gold manual-wind from the 1950s (currently in for some agonisingly expensive repairs). For work or formal dress, a very small 1940s Longines tank watch in gold.


----------



## Leather man (Mar 11, 2007)

I had an Omega Seamaster for 10 years but after the second time needing new workings I gave up on it ( still have it in its case). I now own two watches - both Seiko - one is a Titanium Chronograph and the other a Kinetic, stainless steel watch. I love them both.

My parents both own Rolex watches so I might inherit a Rolex one day but otherwise they are out of my league ( what money I have I spend on shoes - as the wise man said " you can't have everything!")


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

> https://imageshack.us


This Jaeger LeCoultre will probably be around 35mm diameter, and about 7mm thickness ie classical dress watch dimensions.

The Jaquet Droz will probably be about 42mm diameter and 15mm thick


----------



## YYZ-LHR (Jul 2, 2007)

Sator said:


> This Jaeger LeCoultre will probably be around 35mm diameter, and about 7mm thickness ie classical dress watch dimensions.
> 
> The Jaquet Droz will probably be about 42mm diameter and 15mm thick


A pilot's watch in that size might be attractive far casual use, at least on someone with a big wrist. But I can't understand how anyone could squeeze a "dress" watch in that size under a suit without looking ridiculous.


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

YYZ-LHR said:


> A pilot's watch in that size might be attractive far casual use, at least on someone with a big wrist. But I can't understand how anyone could squeeze a "dress" watch in that size under a suit without looking ridiculous.


There seems to be a fashionable trend amongst watchmakers to come up with such odd oxymorons as this pilot's watch - a bizarre chimera featuring both flagrantly casual and dressy features all at once. I could never imagine a pilot setting out on a mission with that watch, with the black leather strap, Roman numerals, and the thin blued out hands. I guess it is like ticket pockets and notch lapels appearing on dinner jackets, or single button seersucker sportcoats with peak lapels.

Whatever the case, you are dead right: that watch would ridiculous with a lounge suit. It would certainly never slip discretely under the cuff as the classical dress watch should, instead protruding out rudely at a business meeting, as though to demand that all and sundry gawk at it.


----------



## YYZ-LHR (Jul 2, 2007)

Sator said:


> There seems to be a fashionable trend amongst watchmakers to come up with such odd oxymorons as this pilot's watch - a bizarre chimera featuring both flagrantly casual and dressy features all at once. I could never imagine a pilot setting out on a mission with that watch, with the black leather strap, Roman numerals, and the thin blued out hands. I guess it is like ticket pockets and notch lapels appearing on dinner jackets, or single button seersucker sportcoats with peak lapels.
> 
> Whatever the case, you are dead right: that watch would ridiculous with a lounge suit. It would certainly never slip discretely under the cuff as the classical dress watch should, instead protruding out rudely at a business meeting, as though to demand that all and sundry gawk at it.


IWC makes some lovely pilot's watches, and this (https://www.timezone.com/library/archives/archives0003) certainly suggests they've been doing it for quite some time.

While a black leather strap is the only option for a dress watch, I don't think there's anything inappropriate about wearing it on a casual one.


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

YYZ-LHR said:


> IWC makes some lovely pilot's watches, and this (https://www.timezone.com/library/archives/archives0003) certainly suggests they've been doing it for quite some time.
> 
> While a black leather strap is the only option for a dress watch, I don't think there's anything inappropriate about wearing it on a casual one.


This IWC does look much more rugged and casual - consistent with the military origins of the style:










In this instance, I agree with you totally that the black leather strap does not look incongruous due to it's ruggedness, unlike the sleeker crocodile leather watch band on the Jaquez Droz.


----------



## mambo (Dec 29, 2007)

I purchased one of these at a silly price a few months back and have hardly taken it off since. Absolutely bombproof, not flashy and blends in nicely with the dark suits I tend to wear. All in all one of IWC's finest. I also have my eye out for one of the old style Doppelchrono's . I have a Jenny caribbean 1000 which was the first 1000m dive watch but due to the rarity of the model i own I only wear it once in a while. I have a Zenith High beat movement AF/P dress watch but having got used to the larger sizes find it hard to wear as it is about 35mm or so.


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

I must say I am always rather surprised that there is so much acceptance of wearing diver's watches, chronographs or pilot's watches with a city styled lounge suit. To me it is a faux pas akin to wearing sneakers, boat shoes or loafers with a city lounge suit. Somehow, the concept that there is a hierachy of formality with shoes has widespread acceptance but, oddly, it all goes right out the window with watches - even though there is an equally firmly established classical tradition there too.

I guess there is a tendency to just buy one watch and to wear it with everything and anything. To me buying just the one Patek dress watch to wear with everything, to name one example, is like just having one fine bespoke tail coat made for the wardrobe and wearing it to golf and the job interview alike.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Sator said:


> I must say I am always rather surprised that there is so much acceptance of wearing diver's watches, chronographs or pilot's watches with a city styled lounge suit. To me it is a faux pas akin to wearing sneakers, boat shoes or loafers with a city lounge suit.
> 
> ...
> 
> I guess there is a tendency to just buy one watch and to wear it with everything and anything. To me buying just the one Patek dress watch to wear with everything, to name one example, is like just having one fine bespoke tail coat made for the wardrobe and wearing it to golf and the job interview alike.


There is no such acceptance among people who actually care about watches other than to just go out and buy an expensive one. BTW - a real Pilot's watch - 1950's Breitling AOPA Navitimer. Ok, so probably no pilot ever used it except for the ones who bought it because they like buying things the AOPA endorses, but at least it's functional.

Oh, and I wasn't suggesting just having the one Patek, but I already have 2 watches in my daily wear rotation (well, 3 if you count the military issue cheapo watch I wear when I play tennis), so the Patek would be a nice addition, and we know from these forums that the OP wears a suit every day and already has a diver's watch.


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

marlinspike said:


> There is no such acceptance among people who actually care about watches other than to just go out and buy an expensive one.


Yes, I think that is why WIS (watch idiot savant) fora like Time Zone are great for a one sided discussion of watches as an extravagant end in themselves. However, by discussing watches in the context of the bigger picture of dress in general, we add another dimension to the discussion of watches which Time Zone could never provide. With that a watch discussion on AAAC becomes so much more than a mere repetition of Time Zone.



marlinspike said:


> Oh, and I wasn't suggesting just having the one Patek, but I already have 2 watches in my daily wear rotation (well, 3 if you count the military issue cheapo watch I wear when I play tennis), so the Patek would be a nice addition, and we know from these forums that the OP wears a suit every day and already has a diver's watch.


Of course the Patek was just an illustration (if a rather extreme one) of how the average man thinks about watches, but even two Rolexes would only give you two sports watches - one sportier than the other. And having and wearing one Rolex for everything is also like wearing the same sport coat everywhere.

Rather than complain of the tendency for WIS types to wear the most ridiculously WISy watch with polo shirts and jeans I should provide more practical suggestions on dress watches suitable with a lounge suit like this Vacheron Constantine:










The only drawback (which bugs me greatly) is that the diameter is oversize by classical standards 

Another less pricey alternative (a real giant killer, in fact) is the Ludwig from Nomos Glashütte:

It's mechanism has won it accolades and it's classical styling and proportions, based on 1930's A. Lange & Söhne watches, is all classy understatement. I also love the Horween shell cordovan leather strap it comes with.

Although not a proper dress watch, the Glashütte Original Senator Sixties is arguably unaffected and stylishly elegant enough to pull off with the humble lounge suit:

Again, the thing that troubles me the most is that they have made the model larger than the 1960s Glashutte GUB models it is stylistically based on. The 1960s models were more like 36mm whereas the current reincarnations are 39.5mm :crazy:

Given the abject paucity of proper dress watches, even something like this Girard Perregaux is passable for informal business wear with a lounge suit:

There are also less complicated and thus sleeker, dressier variants of this model than this too. And I don't mean this model either:










I think this one is better left to the WIS types - I call them WIS watches - rather than for the gentleman who considers watches just another building block of fine dressing.


----------



## Bama Mike (Dec 14, 2007)

I am a member of a watch forum (not TimeZone) and I agree that the discussion of watches on this forum is from a different angle. I like that and appreciate all of the comments and the discussion. Let's not forget that Rolex also makes a "classic" dress watch. I mention it only because I am a Rolex fan. The Rolex Cellini (and their Prince model) are beautiful dress watches in my opinion. Both on leather bands, manual wind, etc.


----------



## Bama Mike (Dec 14, 2007)

Also, here is a dress watch I received as a Christmas present. I realized that most of the watches I owned, including my Submariner, were sports watches so I wanted a more understated dress watch. This one isn't expensive, but it's very reliable and serves its purpose. Captain Ron mentioned a titanium Citizen watch. I bought one of those Citizen titanium dive watches (Eco Drive) when they first came out. I'll agree with him. They are great watches. I've had it for eleven years and it has been a fantastic watch.

Here's a dress watch by Citizen that I own.


----------



## The_Consultant (Jan 13, 2008)

Sator said:


> .
> 
> Whatever the case, you are dead right: that watch would ridiculous with a lounge suit. It would certainly never slip discretely under the cuff as the classical dress watch should, instead protruding out rudely at a business meeting, as though to demand that all and sundry gawk at it.


To each his own. I was just trying to add another option to the mix. And I can tell you, having seen that JD in person, it doesn't require a "lounge suit."


----------



## YYZ-LHR (Jul 2, 2007)

The_Consultant said:


> To each his own. I was just trying to add another option to the mix. And I can tell you, having seen that JD in person, it doesn't require a "lounge suit."


You'll find that "lounge suit" (or, when he's feeling particularly punchy, "beachwear") is Sator's code for the everyday business suit we all know and love. It's his way of reminding us that anything short of frock coat or tails shouldn't be considered formal.


----------



## Haruspex (Nov 23, 2007)

*Oh, that Nomos*

Is so very, _very_ beautiful. I covet.


----------



## upr_crust (Aug 23, 2006)

*I make do with a hand-me-down . . .*

. . . silver-gilt Le Must de Cartier ivory-faced tank watch (quartz - yes, I know, declasse for those of you purists who value only mechanical watches), but, it's attractive, thin, and goes with virtually anything that I wear during the week. (Weekends, I wear a cheap Pulsar imitation of a Cartier tank - for travel, I have an equally cheap cushioned-shaped bronzed-face Seiko).


----------



## The Other Andy (Jan 9, 2008)

I wear a Jaeger Master Compressor Geographic almost every day


----------



## The_Consultant (Jan 13, 2008)

YYZ-LHR said:


> You'll find that "lounge suit" (or, when he's feeling particularly punch "beachwear") is Sator's code for the everyday business suit we all know and love. It's his way of reminding us that anything short of frock coat or tails shouldn't be considered formal.


Ah ha... Thanks for the translation! I can feel myself relaxing a bit as I read this!


----------



## Capt Ron (Dec 28, 2007)

Bama Mike said:


> Also, here is a dress watch I received as a Christmas present. I realized that most of the watches I owned, including my Submariner, were sports watches so I wanted a more understated dress watch. This one isn't expensive, but it's very reliable and serves its purpose. Captain Ron mentioned a titanium Citizen watch. I bought one of those Citizen titanium dive watches (Eco Drive) when they first came out. I'll agree with him. They are great watches. I've had it for eleven years and it has been a fantastic watch.
> 
> Here's a dress watch by Citizen that I own.


This is my baby with the eco drive. It says a few hours of daylight should keep the watch charged for 4-5 months! why cant they make cars with eco drives? 
So many watches, only one time...
In my hand








Stock pic


----------



## tasteful one (Oct 6, 2006)

The topic of 'which watch' often bring out the differences between us guys unlike just about any other topic, and not surprisingly, with a lot of strongly held opinions. The answer to 'which watch' depends on 2 things: First is the purpose of the piece, and second is one's taste.

Personally, I see a watch as a piece of jewelry (i.e. ornamental) that happens to also serve a function. So, for me, frankly only a watch that is made from a precious metal (gold, silver) qualifies. Things like balance and proportion, details of the case, hands, and dial, the stance on the wrist, basically the same characteristics I'd look for in just about any article of fine clothing (or jewelry) is in play. Anything stainless steel looks like a kitchen appliance to me, and serves a similiar function, both aesthetically and functionally. Mercifully, this means I never have to decide which Rolex or Omega I'd get, because eventhough they might be fine time pieces, they have the warmth and charm of a coffee maker. Likewise, for humungo watches, like the silly Pannerai or anything over 36mm.

I think larger/stainless steel/sports' pieces look terribly out of place with anything even remotely dressy/casual elegant. If you must have one, treat yourself to a dressier watch for those occaisions when you want to look like a grown up.


----------



## ciscostud (Jan 3, 2007)

Sator said:


> My watchmaker - much to my surprise - had few kind words to say about Jaeger Lecoultre either. He thought that the workmanship did not justify the price. He defended Rolex against my offhand dismissal of them as being "better value", much to my surprise. He does not sell Rolex BTW.


That is ODD. From what I have seen and understand, Jaeger is one of the BEST built watches for the money and represents true value. Especially when compared to Patek where you are also paying for the name and prestige.

I thought I also heard about a poll among many watch professionals that gave Jaeger quality and value high rankings. If you look at the whole watch, the case materials and construction, or the back with the see through insides (though I am no watchmaker), it just appears VERY well made.

Maybe the watchmaker is just cynical and down on most watches that cost 5 figures.


----------



## Aaron in Allentown (Oct 26, 2007)

tasteful one said:


> The topic of 'which watch' often bring out the differences between us guys unlike just about any other topic, and not surprisingly, with a lot of strongly held opinions.


What kind of watch should I wear with a black suit? :devil:


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Sator said:


> My watchmaker - much to my surprise - had few kind words to say about Jaeger Lecoultre either. He thought that the workmanship did not justify the price. He defended Rolex against my offhand dismissal of them as being "better value", much to my surprise. He does not sell Rolex BTW.


Actually, my watchmaker is all but retired so he doesn't really sell any brand these days, but what he said is similar to what your watchmaker said.

He actually said these days there are only two brands who have workmanship that justifies the price: Patek and Rolex. Now, that's not to say there aren't other good watches, just that their prices don't match their quality. When I said what about Vacheron and Jaeger he said naw not good. I named a few other brands, most were dismissed, a couple he said are good but not as good as their price (A Lange & Soehne, there were two others but I can't remember them, Omega he said is ok with the co-axial movement, but again not worth the price).

Now if we are talking about vintage watches there is a whole slew of good brands.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

ciscostud said:


> If you look at the whole watch, the case materials and construction, or the back with the see through insides (though I am no watchmaker), it just appears VERY well made.


Skeleton case is one of those ooooo aaaaa things. Throw in a little engine turning and any mechanical movement will look awesome to the naked eye.


----------



## The_Consultant (Jan 13, 2008)

marlinspike said:


> Actually, my watchmaker is all but retired so he doesn't really sell any brand these days, but what he said is similar to what your watchmaker said.
> 
> He actually said these days there are only two brands who have workmanship that justifies the price: Patek and Rolex. Now, that's not to say there aren't other good watches, just that their prices don't match their quality. When I said what about Vacheron and Jaeger he said naw not good. I named a few other brands, most were dismissed, a couple he said are good but not as good as their price (A Lange & Soehne, there were two others but I can't remember them, Omega he said is ok with the co-axial movement, but again not worth the price).


That's very strange. If you open up a Rolex, it is very "workhorse" in design. The parts and pieces are not polished, are not decorated, etc. They certainly work very well and are extremely rugged - they just aren't finished to other manufacturers standards. JLC is made in-house but does finish the internals. Same with Patek. Lange is an amazing watch made in the German tradition (3/4 plate in nickel silver, etc.) When you look at the Datograph (their chrono) it is a truly amazing piece with something like 400 parts. Expensive - yes, but worth it to some.

For him to say that PP and Rolex are the only two that justify their prices is a little narrow of view.


----------



## Boris (Aug 4, 2005)

ciscostud said:


> That is ODD. From what I have seen and understand, Jaeger is one of the BEST built watches for the money and represents true value. Especially when compared to Patek where you are also paying for the name and prestige.
> 
> I thought I also heard about a poll among many watch professionals that gave Jaeger quality and value high rankings. If you look at the whole watch, the case materials and construction, or the back with the see through insides (though I am no watchmaker), it just appears VERY well made.
> 
> Maybe the watchmaker is just cynical and down on most watches that cost 5 figures.


Look. All of these watches are overpriced. All are "made" by watchmakers using metal and precision instruments. I bought Vacheron because I liked the Retrograde style, functionality and history (being the world's oldest watch company with more than 250 years in business you'd think they might have done something right). My choice didn't work out. When I brought my watch in for servicing there was a 6 month wait time. Patek, from what I was told, was longer. Audermars Piquet, supposedly one of the top three watch manufacturers (and "youngest" of the group) was the shortest. Frankly I've heard the most positive feedback about Audemars. I just never cared for any one watch of theirs to buy it. Do I care what one guy thinks? Hell no. Who made him king? At the price points of Vacheron, Jaeger, IWC or others if they were all that "naw not good" they'd be "not around". Buy what you like, wear what you want and hope for the best.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Boris said:


> Who made him king? At the price points of Vacheron, Jaeger, IWC or others if they were all that "naw not good" they'd be "not around". Buy what you like, wear what you want and hope for the best.


Actually, he likes IWC, that's the one I forgot, though it wouldn't be his top 2 choices.

As far as service lengths, that's the nice thing about finding a watchmaker you would trust with any watch and who can get official parts from any brand. Quite frankly, even he isn't pleased with Patek service. When customers insist on it he sends it to Patek, then when it gets in they ask him to make it better (and he always does).


----------



## mikeber (May 5, 2004)

Boris said:


> My choice didn't work out. When I brought my watch in for servicing there was a 6 month wait time. Patek, from what I was told, was longer.


What went wrong with your VC ?


----------



## Teacher (Mar 14, 2005)

Boris said:


> Do I care what one guy thinks? Hell no. Who made him king? At the price points of Vacheron, Jaeger, IWC or others if they were all that "naw not good" they'd be "not around". Buy what you like, wear what you want and hope for the best.


This is a very sensible post, but I doubt many are listening, unfortunately.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Teacher said:


> This is a very sensible post, but I doubt many are listening, unfortunately.


I don't think it's sensible to say that just because something is expensive and people buy it t must be good. As someone who has worked on cars, I can tell you that there are a few expensive brands (and a higher number of expensive models from otherwise good brands) that are garbage.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

The_Consultant said:


> That's very strange. If you open up a Rolex, it is very "workhorse" in design. The parts and pieces are not polished, are not decorated, etc. They certainly work very well and are extremely rugged - they just aren't finished to other manufacturers standards. JLC is made in-house but does finish the internals. Same with Patek. Lange is an amazing watch made in the German tradition (3/4 plate in nickel silver, etc.) When you look at the Datograph (their chrono) it is a truly amazing piece with something like 400 parts. Expensive - yes, but worth it to some.
> 
> For him to say that PP and Rolex are the only two that justify their prices is a little narrow of view.


And just how much is that A Lange & Soehne in the picture? Is an ALS better than a Patek? Well, I think so, he'd probably agree, but how much better and how much more expensive is the key. Of course, if you have a ton of money, why not.


----------



## Boris (Aug 4, 2005)

marlinspike said:


> I don't think it's sensible to say that just because something is expensive and people buy it t must be good. As someone who has worked on cars, I can tell you that there are a few expensive brands (and a higher number of expensive models from otherwise good brands) that are garbage.


Look. It all comes down to personal preference, perception and pocketbook. But, over time, if people don't believe they're getting the value for the price they paid they stop buying the product. Or the manufacturer begins to lower the price point to where it intersects with perceived value. Ask the American car manufacturers about that. Rebates anyone? Marketing can only get you to the doorstep of result. If the high end watch manufacturers didn't, overall, have the quality and performance they couldn't continue to command those prices. Ferrari, Lamborghini, Stutz Blackhawk, Patek Phillippe, Vacheron, Rolex. Remember, at the end of the day we're still just talking about different shapes of metal made by people.


----------



## oceanwalker (Dec 22, 2007)

i've been eyeing this watch for several years. i really like the classic styling. not sure if i want to get it with the chronograph or not though.


----------



## Teacher (Mar 14, 2005)

marlinspike said:


> I don't think it's sensible to say that just because something is expensive and people buy it t must be good. As someone who has worked on cars, I can tell you that there are a few expensive brands (and a higher number of expensive models from otherwise good brands) that are garbage.


That's not at all what I said, nor what Boris said. However, when one watch "expert" says one thing, and then another watch "expert" says the opposite, and then a third watch "expert" says something different alltogether -- and none of it with a shred of any evidence except annecdotes -- why are we to believe only one of the "experts?" This is why I quit going to TZ, except for the vintage section.

With cars, we know what brands are reputable and what ones aren't because of large-scale market research that is done on the subject. _Consumer Reports_, as just one example, taps into this market research to give us information on each year of each model. What they would never do is call a couple of mechanics and the car company itself and ask what they think. If they did, they'd be out of business, because the consumers who take the time and care to read the publication would know that "information" is basically worthless.

We can all find a watchmaker who thinks Rolex is the greatest thing since sliced bread and just as easily one who thinks Rolex is overpriced junk. But until one of them can give me some kind of _proof_ one way or the other, I'll remain skeptical of both and simply admit that I do not know which -- if either one -- is truly correct.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Boris said:


> Ferrari, Lamborghini,


Well, those two were bad examples. They were garbage as far as quality is concerned for the longest time. Even into the 90's Ferrari wouldn't bother tightening all of the interior screws so you'd see screwheads sticking out all the place in pre-dealer-prep cars.

Marketing gets you very far (I won't name the brand I have in mind to start a flame war with people who have never changed a spark plug), though it works better with cars where most people tend to replace them frequently. And then some people just don't care. Jaguar has always had awful quality, and everybody knows it, but they still exist (even if they are going to get sold, they still exist).


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Teacher said:


> That's not at all what I said, nor what Boris said. However, when one watch "expert" says one thing, and then another watch "expert" says the opposite, and then a third watch "expert" says something different alltogether -- and none of it with a shred of any evidence except annecdotes -- why are we to believe only one of the "experts?" This is why I quit going to TZ, except for the vintage section.


He said "At the price points of Vacheron, Jaeger, IWC or others if they were all that "naw not good" they'd be "not around". "

So far we've had two watchmakers in agreement and none in disagreement in this thread from what I can tell.

FWIW, you'll find most mechanics have no problem bashing their own brand when speaking off the record. There are also a lot of mechanics who don't know left from right. Having said that, take apart some cars and you'll see just how little Consumer Reports knows (or JD Power for that matter). There are way too many unaccounted for variables when you use consumer data (especially when it looks at a relatively short period of ownership) as evidence and there are no variables when you use your own set of knowledge eyes and hands.
I remember they once said Craftsman Professional were the best screwdrivers, HA! Their digital camera rankings are laughable at best (as is the general advice they give, I don't know if they've finally figured out the truth, but they used to say that higher resolution was always better for making enlargements). Back when Zenith was still around they used to always say Zenith was either the best or near the top for TVs, again, laughable.


----------



## The_Consultant (Jan 13, 2008)

marlinspike said:


> And just how much is that A Lange & Soehne in the picture? Is an ALS better than a Patek? Well, I think so, he'd probably agree, but how much better and how much more expensive is the key. Of course, if you have a ton of money, why not.


You misunderstood what I was saying. I'm NOT saying Lange is better than PP - just that it is a very high quality movement/watch. I personally like both Lange and PP (and JLC, Parmigiani, AP...)

BTW - a great site for info about high quality watches is https://www.thepurists.com. It's far more informative and less "fashion" driven than the aforementioned "timezone."


----------



## Teacher (Mar 14, 2005)

You will forgive me, marlinspike, if I once again choose to believe large groups who employ a number of professionals/experts _and_ sound data-gathering technique instead of blindly following your (once again) annecdotal experience.

As for Craftsman Professional screwdrivers: this just goes to prove my point. I have had a set for about fourteen years, and nothing has held up like them...not even the Snap-Ons that I stupidly splurged for.

ADDENDUM: Forgot to address the rest (I have to rush off): sure, there are TWO watchmakers with an opinion here. TWO. Out of how many? And that's only on this thread...a good many threads in the past have demonstrated the exact kind of behavior I addressed. And as someone who reads TZ, you should have known what I was talking about from the onset.

As to Boris's comment, I really think you were simplifying what he was saying. You indicated that his sentiment was that just because it's expensive it must be good; however, I think we can all agree he was making a statement about market force and price, not a direct connection between price and quality.


----------



## mambo (Dec 29, 2007)

People who make an attempt to dress well are already rare enough and matching the watch to the clothes being worn is even rarer still. Most simply cannot bother. Sometimes budget dictates that one watch fits all, so one has the choice of buying more than one medium to cheap-priced watch or one more expensive model. 

Many watch enthusiasts wear dive watches because of what it is perceived to say about them or their character.

I agree with those who insist on dress watches for more formal wear but still prefer the look and heft of a dive watch on my wrist. Having said this I love the Glashutte Senator in the earlier post and will definitely at some stage pick up an Omega constellation pie pan in rose gold and perhaps even one of the classically styled Jaegers, but will still prefer the feel of a good old heavy, masculine dive watch on my wrist.


----------



## Boris (Aug 4, 2005)

marlinspike said:


> Well, those two were bad examples. They were garbage as far as quality is concerned for the longest time. Even into the 90's Ferrari wouldn't bother tightening all of the interior screws so you'd see screwheads sticking out all the place in pre-dealer-prep cars.
> 
> Marketing gets you very far (I won't name the brand I have in mind to start a flame war with people who have never changed a spark plug), though it works better with cars where most people tend to replace them frequently. And then some people just don't care. Jaguar has always had awful quality, and everybody knows it, but they still exist (even if they are going to get sold, they still exist).


marlinspike:

You can see the trees just fine. It's the forest you're having a problem with. It wasn't the specific car manufacturers I was using as an example. It was the concept of perceived value.


----------



## Boris (Aug 4, 2005)

mikeber said:


> What went wrong with your VC ?


After about six months the date hand (that runs in a slight half circle near the top of the watch that automatically resets after 31) stopped on the 19th. No amount of winding the hour hand forward or using the automatic reset button would get it to move. In all fairness to Vacheron they replaced the watch after about six weeks (there had been a six month service backlog). The Vacheron rep came in to where I bought the watch and gave me the new one with an extra strap. Now I should tell you that I bought the Retrograde at the same time a good friend of mine bought the same model (from the same jeweler). I don't know if the Vacheron rep had a visit already scheduled or because we bought two at the same time or it was a combination of both but the customer service and follow-up were exemplary. By the way, my friends Retrograde has never given him a days worth of trouble. Luck of the draw.

I think the reason I stopped wearing it was that I was just plain disappointed and disgusted. And I am fortunate to have other watches that I really enjoy wearing. I still consider the Retrograde to be one of the most attractive dress watches out there. At least that's my opinion. Maybe I'll give it a second chance. Someday.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Boris said:


> marlinspike:
> 
> You can see the trees just fine. It's the forest you're having a problem with. It wasn't the specific car manufacturers I was using as an example. It was the concept of perceived value.


My point was that there are plenty of things that have a high perceived value and little in the way of quality.

Teacher, I didn't say he was saying if it's expensive it's good, but that if it's expensive and people buy it it's good.

BTW (I promise, this is my last OT post in this thread), take a look at your Craftsmans and then take a look at Felo 500's or Wiha Microgrips (in person). Also try using them and see which lets you exert more torque. Snap-on makes good ratchets, but a lot of their stuff isn't so hot, and it's all over-priced because mechanics don't pay the list prices and they pay for them in installments anyways. ANSI is a joke (oooo, but a big group set those standards - this one isn't just me on these forums, an engineer once noted here that to set ANSI they use the lowest common denominator standard). Get stuff that has to pass TUV.

Seriously though, whenever you look at a CR ranking look at the methodology. It's rarely anything that one would consider "sound"


----------



## Boris (Aug 4, 2005)

marlinspike said:


> My point was that there are plenty of things that have a high perceived value and little in the way of quality.
> 
> Teacher, I didn't say he was saying if it's expensive it's good, but that if it's expensive and people buy it it's good.
> 
> ...


I'm going to bed. It's time. And I promise not to tell you which watch I looked at.


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

marlinspike said:


> Actually, my watchmaker is all but retired so he doesn't really sell any brand these days, but what he said is similar to what your watchmaker said.
> 
> A Lange & Soehne, there were two others but I can't remember them.


That's uncanny. Two watchmakers on opposite ends of the planet saying the same thing! My guy (an Austrian) also thinks highly of Glashuette makers like A. Lange & Soehne and Original. He thinks they are better than most of the Swiss makers.


----------



## Teacher (Mar 14, 2005)

marlinspike said:


> Seriously though, whenever you look at a CR ranking look at the methodology. It's rarely anything that one would consider "sound"


That's exactly what I do and why I trust them. CR does not generally give specific ratings for specific components or systems (in general, at least); rather, they give things like customer satisfaction ratings. Now, if these numbers were small, that would truly be suspect, but they collect numbers from fairly large groups on things like "reliability" or "comfort" etc. Natually this is not good for very specific rankings, but that's not what they're doing...their purpose is to put cars into five groupings, which allows readers to surmise their probability of being satisfied or not with an aspect. It may not sound particularly scientific, but it is extremely practical and has proven quite useful to prospective buyers. So does CR allow one to directly compare the transmission systems on a Honda CRX and a Chevy Lumina? No, but it does give us an idea if we are likely to purchase a problematic car overall...or a comfortable one, etc. That's its purpose, and they do a good enough job of it to let the readers know what other buyers' experiences have been. As I said, on a small scale this would be useless, but when a large numbers of buyers are participating in these groupings, we get a good idea of what's going on.


----------



## Bertie Wooster (Feb 11, 2006)

This is my new day to day watch, having recieved it as a Christmas gift last year:


----------



## Boris (Aug 4, 2005)

Bertie Wooster said:


> This is my new day to day watch, having recieved it as a Christmas gift last year:


Beautiful. I thought this was a remarkable addition to the Rolex family when they first introduced it. I particularly liked the domed bezel with the Oyster bracelet. It is an extraordinarily handsome timepiece on your wrist. Congratulations.


----------



## Bertie Wooster (Feb 11, 2006)

Boris said:


> Beautiful. I thought this was a remarkable addition to the Rolex family when they first introduced it. I particularly liked the domed bezel with the Oyster bracelet. It is an extraordinarily handsome timepiece on your wrist. Congratulations.


Why thank you Boris, how kind of you. It's my first Rolex, even after only a few weeks, I can pretty much guarantee it won't be my last !


----------



## NavyNick (Nov 21, 2007)

*Thread revival - comments?*

Gents,
I thought I would revive this one as an opportunity to ask your collective opinion on a possible buy. As my handle suggests, I am a USNA grad, and I like to wear some little things, VERY understated, that bear the USNA crest or some such things. It's only nice when someone your drinking near at an airport bar or something notices and it strikes up conversation. So, what's your opinion of this piece:










Also, is matching the watchband to the shoes/belt a hard and fast requirement? or just a "nice to have"?


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

*Very Subtle*



NavyNick said:


> Gents,
> I thought I would revive this one as an opportunity to ask your collective opinion on a possible buy. As my handle suggests, I am a USNA grad, and I like to wear some little things, VERY understated, that bear the USNA crest or some such things. It's only nice when someone your drinking near at an airport bar or something notices and it strikes up conversation. So, what's your opinion of this piece:
> 
> 
> ...


Very subtle -- I do not see "USNA" anywhere...

Your stated goal of understatement in achieving elegance is excellent. Also, it is better to match both leather and metal as much as is convenient within reason as it shows better attention to detail.

Regarding the band, which appears to possibly be lizard, it is always better to have the real thing as opposed to some sort of faux. I always rant: "no faux anything, ever."

FYI: I gather that because this watch has Roman numerals and also might be a bit thick, it is not really a dress watch. In any event, the real watch aficionados will soon weight in on the subject in great detail...


----------



## The Other Andy (Jan 9, 2008)

Has anyone mentioned the Zenith Elite yet?


----------



## Capt Ron (Dec 28, 2007)

*Back to my earlier thoughts........*



NavyNick said:


> Gents,
> I thought I would revive this one as an opportunity to ask your collective opinion on a possible buy. As my handle suggests, I am a USNA grad, and I like to wear some little things, VERY understated, that bear the USNA crest or some such things. It's only nice when someone your drinking near at an airport bar or something notices and it strikes up conversation. So, what's your opinion of this piece:


IMHO, Watches need to have a sentimental value. A watch should give you more than the time, it should also remind you of the times you have had.
This seems like a good piece for you LT.
"Even a broken watch is right twice a day."


----------



## Bama Mike (Dec 14, 2007)

NavyNick said:


> Gents,
> I thought I would revive this one as an opportunity to ask your collective opinion on a possible buy. As my handle suggests, I am a USNA grad, and I like to wear some little things, VERY understated, that bear the USNA crest or some such things. It's only nice when someone your drinking near at an airport bar or something notices and it strikes up conversation. So, what's your opinion of this piece:
> 
> 
> ...


I think that's a great looking watch.


----------



## Bama Mike (Dec 14, 2007)

BTW, Here's my most recent addition - SS Rolex DateJust with white dial, roman numerals, and jubilee bracelet.


----------



## CarsonInDC (Dec 5, 2006)

For casual attire I wear either an Omega Seamaster Chronograph or Rolex Explorer II. For suits and odd jackets, a black strapped Zenith El Primero Grande Class Chronograph (stainless steel) or a brown strapped Jaeger LeCoultre Master Calendar (pink gold).


----------



## weckl (Jun 28, 2003)

Rolexes are ridiculously overpriced. $4,000 to $7,000 for a steel Submariner? That's nuts for a watch with no features. Though the company makes its own movement (and is still private, to its credit), it's still a rip-off. Sorry. You can get an $1800 Invicta COSC chronograph that will keep as-good or better time (or, for that matter, a Japanese quartz watch). You're quite literally paying for the name with Rolex. Keep in mind, Rolex makes about a million watches a year.

AP Royal Oaks are stunning watches that are also ludicrously overpriced, as are most "luxury" brands--Panerei, etc. Even Omega is getting a little nutty. Over $4,000 for an Aqua Terra chronograph with a Valjoux movement? Puh-lease. You, the customer, are paying for all the advertising they do. Those million-dollar magazine spreads add up...

Check out Jorge Shauer or any number of smaller, truly hand-made watches for a much better-looking selection and bargain. 

For what it's worth, I usually wear a clunky $1300 Glycine "Big 9" chronograph that never ceases to get compliments.


----------



## roba (Mar 5, 2005)

*I mostly wear Japanese quartz watches...*

This one works with most things, understated, very well made and accurate. If I need somethinga little more dressy then either an AP or VC ultra thin.









Getting a little casual.


----------



## avalon05 (Jan 26, 2005)

*Grand Seiko*



roba said:


> This one works with most things, understated, very well made and accurate. If I need somethinga little more dressy then either an AP or VC ultra thin.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I bought my first Grand Seiko the other day -- these remarkable watches don't get the recognition they deserve outside Japan -- perhaps one reason for this is that Seiko doesn't spend ridiculous amounts on advertising/celebrity endorsements like many of the Swiss firms do (You never own a ?? etc:

https://www.pmwf.com/Watches/GrandSeikoTable.htm

https://www.monoclemag.com/sections/edits/Magazine-Articles/Timing-is-everything---Shizukuishia/


----------



## Bama Mike (Dec 14, 2007)

The Grand Seiko is an amazing watch. You're right. They do not get the credit or recognition that is deserved.


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

My daily watch is a stainless Rolex Sea-Dweller, which I've worn practically non-stop for 15 years and has reliably kept the time in such lovely places as the Tunisian desert, the jungle of Cavite in the Philippines and La Gran Sabana. It has been dropped on a marble floor, and on cement and various wooden floors a number of times I hesitate to mention. I have had it serviced once (standard service, for its 8-year mark gear lubrication), and they returned it with a nice polish.

It still looks like new.

I have a few others, most notably a Patek tank in 18k gold, but I wear them very rarely; I originally got the Rolex because I was spending time in places quite inimical to less hardy watches, particularly those with leather straps (and it's infuriating to replace a Cartier "deployant" leather strap twice in a year, and $1000 per!), so I wanted a stupidly durable timepiece... which the Sea-Dweller is. I never have to worry about dropping it in a mile of water, either! Finally, one hardly ever sees anyone wearing a Sea-Dweller; I've met only one other wearer I can think of, and he was a professional diver. Not a dilettante's watch!

I can think of one watch that might challenge it for a spot on my wrist, and that would be a Bregeut. Thinking about it 

DCH


----------



## Bertie Wooster (Feb 11, 2006)

Bama Mike said:


> BTW, Here's my most recent addition - SS Rolex DateJust with white dial, roman numerals, and jubilee bracelet.


Lovely watch ! That's next on my list, thought probably in SS and YG with a diamond dial. How do you find the Jubilee bracelet wears ? I've always thought they loosened off badly, though have no direct, personal experience.


----------



## mambo (Dec 29, 2007)

avalon05 said:


> I bought my first Grand Seiko the other day -- these remarkable watches don't get the recognition they deserve outside Japan -- perhaps one reason for this is that Seiko doesn't spend ridiculous amounts on advertising/celebrity endorsements like many of the Swiss firms do (You never own a ?? etc:


Seiko's reputation has unfortunately been damaged by it's plethora of quartz models back in the heyday.

What many do not realise is that not only are they one of the great innovators in watchmaking - quarzt, kinetic, spring drive - but also make everything even down to the lubricants in-house.

The image problem boils down to "but it's a seiko", which is a shame. Their dive watches are practically bombproof.


----------



## Boris (Aug 4, 2005)

Bertie Wooster said:


> Lovely watch ! That's next on my list, thought probably in SS and YG with a diamond dial. How do you find the Jubilee bracelet wears ? I've always thought they loosened off badly, though have no direct, personal experience.


I can't speak for the more "current" Rolex Jubilee bracelets but years ago that was something that did happen, albeit minor. The SS and 14k YG Jubilee (Rolex Datejust) bracelet I purchased twenty six years ago was very flexible, particularly the center links. Even with the (minor) loosening it caused very little problem. You could always tighten the clasp on the bracelet, something I never had to do. The Jubilee bracelets today, from the ones I've tried on, have a much more rigid center link assembly with nowhere near the give of the older style bracelets. Maybe someone can chime in here that owns a more current Rolex with a Jubilee bracelet.


----------



## Bama Mike (Dec 14, 2007)

Bertie Wooster said:


> Lovely watch ! That's next on my list, thought probably in SS and YG with a diamond dial. How do you find the Jubilee bracelet wears ? I've always thought they loosened off badly, though have no direct, personal experience.


The new Jubilee bracelets are much better than the older ones - very comfortable, solid links, hidden clasp. "Stretching" is much less of a concern with the new bracelets and most of that stretching on the older style bracelets was caused by dirt and grime literally acting as sandpaper and enlarging the wholes in the links. Keeping the bracelet clean takes care of most of that. Here is a picture of the new hidden clasp on the DateJust Jubilee bracelet much like that of the Day/Date President model.


----------



## jholbrook (Jul 12, 2007)

Bama Mike said:


> I'd love to get some opinions from the well-dressed members of this forum. What type of dress watch do most of you wear? Do you prefer gold watches, stainless steel, or leather bands? I have many watches of various values and styles. I often wear a Rolex Submariner in suits and casually. I've been thinking of trading it in for a DateJust because I've wanted something a little more "dressy" looking. Any opinions?


I'm perhaps the wrong person to respond to this thread, as I violate strict sartorial rules about "sport" watches and suits every week.

The Datejust is a proper dress watch and certainly looks great with a suit. I believe our esteemed host Andy also wears this model:










I have a vintage 1680 Submariner, and the below two-tone Submariner that I also think look great with a suit:










If you can find one, the notoriously difficult to buy (at retail from an authorized dealer) Daytona looks great with a white dress shirt and suit:










The Yacht-Master is very dressy, but also very subtle and understated...a favorite of mine to wear with a suit:










If you're looking for something in the more classic dress watch vein, it's hard to beat Patek:










Hope this helps! :icon_smile:


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

Sator said:


> My watchmaker - much to my surprise - had few kind words to say about Jaeger Lecoultre either. He thought that the workmanship did not justify the price. He defended Rolex against my offhand dismissal of them as being "better value", much to my surprise. He does not sell Rolex BTW.


Of course, it's all about opinion.

One of the founders of _TimeZone,_ in an article titled _How to Judge the Finish of a Watch Movement,_ writes &#8230; _*"Among all current manufacturers, Patek, Audemars, Lange & JLC are the only firms consistently adhering to highest standards of aesthetic finish."*_

The owner of Second Time Around (Los Angeles & Aspen) in offering comments regarding what a Jaeger LeCoultre "says" about its owner writes &#8230; _*"You don't follow the crowd and you have a great sense of aesthetics. These are great watches." *_

Walt Odets, a psychologist and experienced watch maker, in writing an article about Jaeger LeCoultre's _Ultra Thin_ says &#8230; *"Perhaps more than another other current-production Jaeger LeCoultre, the Ultra Thin stands as testimony to the extraordinarily broad talents and deep quality of a manufacturer that, taken on the whole, is arguably the great house, among the greats, of contemporary Swiss watch manufacturing."* 

Walt ends his article with ..._"*There are, in all of Switzerland, no others with the design and manufacturing skills to conceive and execute this watch with such unrelenting attention to quality. For all its simplicity of appearance, the Ultra Thin is a true masterpiece equaled by only a tiny handful of other wristwatches."*_​
As for Rolex, in an article _Worldly Goods, _a major retailer of watches says ..._*"People who know watches don't buy them today."*_ 

However he does say ... _*"In years past, these were good watches."*_ 

Personally, I don't care for Rolex movements or their finish ... which is often very lacking in my opinion. I'm also fond of saying, *"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a Rolex to be worn discreetly." * But, that's all a matter personal taste. 

When it comes to a watch by Lange, from my point of view, I think they are a beautifully made watch. But Lange is not the best, technically speaking ... they seem more about making a watch in the most expensive way possible. They impress in a different way. 

But again ... all opinion.


----------



## mambo (Dec 29, 2007)

Bama Mike said:


> The new Jubilee bracelets are much better than the older ones - very comfortable, solid links, hidden clasp. "Stretching" is much less of a concern with the new bracelets and most of that stretching on the older style bracelets was caused by dirt and grime literally acting as sandpaper and enlarging the wholes in the links. Keeping the bracelet clean takes care of most of that. Here is a picture of the new hidden clasp on the DateJust Jubilee bracelet much like that of the Day/Date President model.


----------



## mambo (Dec 29, 2007)

RSS said:


> As for Rolex, in an article _Worldly Goods, _a major retailer of watches says ..._*"People who know watches don't buy them today."*_
> 
> However he does say ... _*"In years past, these were good watches."*_
> 
> Personally, I don't care for Rolex movements or their finish ... which is often very lacking in my opinion. I'm also fond of saying, *"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a Rolex to be worn discreetly." * But, that's all a matter personal taste.


*Reasons to wear Rolex:*
They donate profits to charity 
The movements are all built in house.

*Reasons why I would never wear a Rolex:*
Too many copies on the market so people think you are wearing a fake
Workmanlike finish of the movement
It is the first choice of those wanting to show off that they have more money than sense


----------



## Boris (Aug 4, 2005)

mambo said:


> *Reasons to wear Rolex:*
> They donate profits to charity
> The movements are all built in house.
> 
> ...


Reasons to wear:

Profits to charity- O.K. So do many profitable companies

Movements in house- I agree. I've seen (and I own) watches with the Geneva Seal. I still prefer Rolex for dependability over the others that I have.

Reasons not to wear:

Copies: So what. The only one that matters knowing is you.

Workmanlike finish: I'm not quite sure what this means. The only thing I know is that neither of my Rolex watches ever needed repair for any reason after decades of use.

First choice of of those who want to flaunt: Who said?


----------



## dopey (Jan 17, 2005)

Bertie Wooster said:


> This is my new day to day watch, having recieved it as a Christmas gift last year:


Beautiful. Is that a new model or vintage? With a white dial, it is exactly what I want to replace my current go-everywhere sport watch when it dies (not soon, I hope).


----------



## Bama Mike (Dec 14, 2007)

jholbrook said:


> I'm perhaps the wrong person to respond to this thread, as I violate strict sartorial rules about "sport" watches and suits every week.
> 
> The Datejust is a proper dress watch and certainly looks great with a suit. I believe our esteemed host Andy also wears this model:
> 
> ...


That's an amazing and beautiful collection of watches.


----------



## Bama Mike (Dec 14, 2007)

mambo said:


> Bama Mike said:
> 
> 
> > The new Jubilee bracelets are much better than the older ones - very comfortable, solid links, hidden clasp. "Stretching" is much less of a concern with the new bracelets and most of that stretching on the older style bracelets was caused by dirt and grime literally acting as sandpaper and enlarging the wholes in the links. Keeping the bracelet clean takes care of most of that. Here is a picture of the new hidden clasp on the DateJust Jubilee bracelet much like that of the Day/Date President model.
> ...


----------



## Bama Mike (Dec 14, 2007)

Some other thoughts on Rolex. First, any of us that can afford a watch better than a $20 Timex are fortunate. I think it's easy for people to stick up their noses around a Rolex and consider them just for trashy people who suddenly find some money in their pockets. Rolex has been a high end dependable watch brand for a number of years. In the Dive watch market they have been the bell cow. The Submariner is the most copied watch out there. Rolex has a history and tradition that few companies can match. Are they overpriced? Yes. Almost all watches are. Does the Rolex movement look as beautiful or as well finished as some others out there? No. However, Rolex prides itself on producing a dependable watch that can take a beating and I believe they are very successful at that.


----------



## mafoofan (May 16, 2005)

The new Rolex clasp design is actually pretty bad. The little crown is made to snap off; and when it does, how do you unclasp the bracelet? It's sad that, just now, Rolex bracelets are approaching decency. It's no achievement to stop using hollow links and stamped clasps; it's just being less cheap than before.

There are a couple of Rolex models I like. The Sub and Sea-dweller are classic, and I like the Explorer 1 on a strap. But the Datejust continues its relentless parade into tackiness with its chunkier, polished lugs, thicker stick indices, and 'Rolex Rolex Rolex' printed around the rim of the dial. The Daytona got ugly when they started using crownguards and chunky, white gold indices. I've never understood the aesthetic sense behind the Yachtmaster.


----------



## smlaz (May 13, 2005)

I was hoping not to see this become a Why Rolex vs. Why Not Rolex thread. I think we can all agree that whatever one's personal taste, Rolex, in the main, makes a durable movement housed in a durable case with a sometimes durable bracelet, depending on the type. We mustn't forget that Rolex manufactures over 600,000 watches a year, so there will always be outlier problems. Their service can be spotty depending on where you send your watch. Geneva is first on the list, Dallas next, New York last IMO. As to price/value quotient, we're talking about watches/jewelry here, not heart transplants. Rolex advertising/marketing is second to none and keeps the perception of value super high. There are so many watch marques on the market that one should be able to find a style/quality/price that is suitable, be it Swatch, Hamilton, Tissot, Longines, Omega, Blancpain, Breguet (all owned by Swatch Group). It's really a matter of separating a man from his cash in return for some ticktock on his wrist.
Cheers,
Steve


----------



## mafoofan (May 16, 2005)

smlaz said:


> I was hoping not to see this become a Why Rolex vs. Why Not Rolex thread. I think we can all agree that whatever one's personal taste, Rolex, in the main, makes a durable movement housed in a durable case with a sometimes durable bracelet, depending on the type.


It's not an issue of being 'for' or 'against' Rolex in any ideological sense. But it's simply rubbish to believe that Rolex movements are more durable than a common ETA, or that its cases are somehow more durable than any other forged steel watch case. People who buy Rolex watches because they believe the extra dollars buy more durability are really off the mark.


----------



## smlaz (May 13, 2005)

Mafoofan - to my point about their marketing machine! I would suggest that a "common" ETA movement is not such a common thing, or for that matter, any mechanical watch movement, however low-end. The miniaturization and accuracy achieved is a technological marvel, especially among the high-end movements of a JLC, PP, AP etc.


----------



## jholbrook (Jul 12, 2007)

mafoofan said:


> It's not an issue of being 'for' or 'against' Rolex in any ideological sense. But it's simply rubbish to believe that Rolex movements are more durable than a common ETA,...


Really? Then perhaps you can explain how, for example, the Rolex freely spring balance wheel with Microstella adjustment screws are actually inferior to the standard ETA balance with Etachron indexed regulator screw, despite the fact that is an accepted fact of horology that a freely sprung balance is a superior design for both robustness and rate stability? Or perhaps you could explain how the Breguet overcoil which is a standard feature in Rolex movements and generally accepted to be without peer in horology really doesn't measure up to ETA?

I could go on, but my point here is, if you're going to make such a sweeping statement, I think you should be prepared to back it up with some facts.



> or that its cases are somehow more durable than any other forged steel watch case. People who buy Rolex watches because they believe the extra dollars buy more durability are really off the mark.


Hmmm....this certainly doesn't jive with the physical properties of 904L steel (the grade of stainless steel used by Rolex and no other watch company for their cases and bracelets) vs. 316L stainless steel which is used by virtually evey other watchmaker for their cases and braclets. 904L is, among other properties, so resistant to corosion that "904L grade 
is intended for use under severe corrosive conditions. The steel grade was originally developed to resist corrosion in dilute sulphuric acid."

Again, I don't want to confuse you with the facts, but your statements are completely unsubstantiated.


----------



## mafoofan (May 16, 2005)

jholbrook said:


> Really? Then perhaps you can explain how, for example, the Rolex freely spring balance wheel with Microstella adjustment screws are actually inferior to the standard ETA balance with Etachron indexed regulator screw, despite the fact that is an accepted fact of horology that a freely sprung balance is a superior design for both robustness and rate stability?


The 'Microstella' system is merely an approach to a screwed balance design that allows regulation without removing the balance from the watch. Easier service is the chief advantage. It doesn't somehow make for a more 'robust' balance.

Also, while I agree that a free sprung balance is generally a more elegant engineering solution than a sprung balance, and theoretically enjoys better resistance to shock, the latter can be much easier to adjust and regulate, often increasing precision and accuracy in actual use. In that regard, the Etachron regulating system is actually pretty smart: the regulator pin can be rotated and moved to and fro within the regulator clamp, allowing very easy regulation by any watchmaker.

Regardless of the regulating approach, the design and manufacture of the specific regulation system in question is more influential on durability, both in the sense of material soundness and rate consistency.



jholbrook said:


> Or perhaps you could explain how the Breguet overcoil which is a standard feature in Rolex movements and generally accepted to be without peer in horology really doesn't measure up to ETA?


A Breguet overcoil has _nothing_ to do with durability. It reduces the effect of isochronism.



jholbrook said:


> Hmmm....this certainly doesn't jive with the physical properties of 904L steel (the grade of stainless steel used by Rolex and no other watch company for their cases and bracelets) vs. 316L stainless steel which is used by virtually evey other watchmaker for their cases and braclets. 904L is, among other properties, so resistant to corosion that "904L grade is intended for use under severe corrosive conditions. The steel grade was originally developed to resist corrosion in dilute sulphuric acid."


The superiority of 904L steel is almost as big a myth in Rolex lore as the claim that it takes a year to build each of the company's watches. True, 904L steel is less corrosive than 316L steel, but 316L contains much less nickel, and is much harder. I've only ever heard Rolex and its enthusiasts claim that 904L steel is somehow superior in watch cases. Both kinds of steel are cheap and readily available; both are equally resistent to corrosion in regular usage. If 904L steel were somehow superior, it's likely others would use it. But, of course, only Rolex knows best, right?

Furthermore, because 316L has less nickel, it polishes brighter and whiter. Since 316L steel is also harder than 904L steel (95 versus 70-90 on the Rockwell hardness scale), it is also more scratch-resistent. _These_ are the more likely reasons why most high-end watch companies use 316L steel. Given the application, scratch-resistance is much more important than corrosion-resistance in determining durability. Also, people like their watches to be nice and shiny.



jholbrook said:


> Again, I don't want to confuse you with the facts, but your statements are completely unsubstantiated.


Facts, I'm fine with; gullibly swallowed marketing spiel, not so much.


----------



## roba (Mar 5, 2005)

*Ah... the year to make a watch claim...*



mafoofan said:


> The superiority of 904L steel is almost as big a myth in Rolex lore as the claim that it takes a year to build each of the company's watches.


The "takes a year" claim may be accurate but not in the sense that it there's a watchmaker sprinkling pixie dust on the thing daily. A year between the raw materials going in the door at Carouge and a boxed product going out the door is feasible. Combine that with the image of Swiss watches and you've got a powerful marketing tool.


----------



## jholbrook (Jul 12, 2007)

OK, first you say:



mafoofan said:


> The 'Microstella' system is merely an approach to a screwed balance design that allows regulation without removing the balance from the watch. Easier service is the chief advantage. It doesn't somehow make for a more 'robust' balance.


Then you say:



> Also, while I agree that a free sprung balance is generally a more elegant engineering solution than a sprung balance, and theoretically enjoys better resistance to shock...


How does better shock resistance NOT translate to a better, more durable balance?



> the latter can be much easier to adjust and regulate, often increasing precision and accuracy in actual use. In that regard, the Etachron regulating system is actually pretty smart: the regulator pin can be rotated and moved to and fro within the regulator clamp, allowing very easy regulation by any watchmaker.


A trained watchmaker with the proper tools can regulate either quite simply. You can achieve a much more precise regulation with the Microstella system too.



> A Breguet overcoil has _nothing_ to do with durability. It reduces the effect of isochronism.
> 
> 
> > I never suggested as much...I just pointed out that it is one of the many differentiators which makes a Rolex movement an overall superior movement to an ETA product.
> ...


----------



## roba (Mar 5, 2005)

jholbrook said:


> How does better shock resistance NOT translate to a better, more durable balance?


Watches with a regulator usually have a pin that acts as a terminator for the hairspring, rate adjustments are by, effectively, lengthening or shortening the hairspring. When a watch of this type takes a hefty knock sometimes the hairspring will tangle on the regulator pin - something that can't happen with a free sprung balance. The free sprung balance is less prone to rate problems after a hefty knock. Both types of balance will use jewelled and shock absorbing bearings for the balance staff, that's what gives durability.


----------



## jholbrook (Jul 12, 2007)

roba said:


> Watches with a regulator usually have a pin that acts as a terminator for the hairspring, rate adjustments are by, effectively, lengthening or shortening the hairspring. When a watch of this type takes a hefty knock sometimes the hairspring will tangle on the regulator pin - something that can't happen with a free sprung balance. The free sprung balance is less prone to rate problems after a hefty knock. Both types of balance will use jewelled and shock absorbing bearings for the balance staff, that's what gives durability.


I guess this comes down to semantics then. I don't see you as disproving my point or proving it. To me, a freely sprung balance design is inherently more durable for the reasons you point out. Perhaps we define "durability" differently.

Again, my original premise was that mafoofan was off the mark in his statements comparing Rolex to ETA movements. If you want to talk strictly durability, let's talk size. Does anyone disagree that the relative size difference of, say the Rolex 3135 as compared to the ETA 2892 gives the larger Rolex 3135 an inherent advantage in both durability and robustness?


----------



## roba (Mar 5, 2005)

jholbrook said:


> I guess this comes down to semantics then.


I don't think that this is down to semantics - I was trying to describe how a freely sprung balance could be more shock resistant but not necessarily more durable than one with a regulator assembly in answer to your question. Durability -- for the balance staff -- comes from the longevity of the bearing surfaces and these are the same for both Rolex and Eta movements. I don't think that the size argument has much bearing on durability either. Once again it's bearing surface and wear between moving components that, in my view, dictate durability. Where size does have a beneficial effect is in making movements more tolerant of being out of kilter. If a bridge is slightly out of line then the balance staff, pinions or whatever else are between the bridge and base plate will be less out of true in a thicker movement.

The Rolex 3135 and the Eta 2892 are both good movements, each has advantages over the other.


----------



## jholbrook (Jul 12, 2007)

Well I wasn't comparing the durability of one balance against the other specifically. My point is regarding the movement in general, and the role of the freely spring balance design.


----------



## mambo (Dec 29, 2007)

smlaz said:


> We mustn't forget that Rolex manufactures over 600,000 watches a year,


Another good reason not to buy a Rolex and spend a similar amount of money on something a little more exclusive.

I think nobody can argue against the fact that Rolex do make a good quality, durable watch. Unfortunately, they are just not very innovative in coming up with new designs and they suffer from the stigma of oversupply, "I wear a Rolex" and too many fakes.

Perhaps if they limited supply...


----------



## mafoofan (May 16, 2005)

mambo said:


> Perhaps if they limited supply...


They do. That's why the Daytona is so over-priced.


----------



## Bertie Wooster (Feb 11, 2006)

dopey said:


> Beautiful. Is that a new model or vintage? With a white dial, it is exactly what I want to replace my current go-everywhere sport watch when it dies (not soon, I hope).


Its a new model Dopey, but not the _newest_ model. I believe its a NOS 2006 model but have yet to check the serial number. I far prefer this one to the new style Air King, I know its all very subjective, but I just don't like that new dial. IMHO the Air King ( rather like some of the Cellini models ) has always been a quiet, understated design, pared down it the extreme.


----------



## mafoofan (May 16, 2005)

Bertie Wooster said:


> IMHO the Air King ( rather like some of the Cellini models ) has always been a quiet, understated design, pared down it the extreme.


I can't stand the Cellini models, but I agree about the Air King. If Rolex decides it's going to mess with the Explorer 1 this year, I may feel compelled to buy a current generation model. I would be more attracted to the new Milgauss if its lugs were brushed instead of polished.


----------



## LeatherSOUL (May 8, 2005)

mafoofan said:


> They do. That's why the Daytona is so over-priced.


Man, it was so hard to get a few years ago but now everyone and their brother is wearing one.


----------



## mafoofan (May 16, 2005)

LeatherSOUL said:


> Man, it was so hard to get a few years ago but now everyone and their brother is wearing one.


Last time I was in Taiwan (three years ago), they were readily available at authorized dealers, but for $10k+ each.


----------



## mambo (Dec 29, 2007)

LeatherSOUL said:


> Man, it was so hard to get a few years ago but now everyone and their brother is wearing one.


I have sourced 3 daytonas for people, never had to wait. I would still prefer a Zenith El Primero chrono though. I think the limited supply on this model is an urban legend.


----------



## roba (Mar 5, 2005)

jholbrook said:


> Well I wasn't comparing the durability of one balance against the other specifically. My point is regarding the movement in general, and the role of the freely spring balance design.


Maybe I misread your earlier post, the one where you wrote "How does better shock resistance NOT translate to a better, more durable balance?"


----------



## jholbrook (Jul 12, 2007)

mambo said:


> Another good reason not to buy a Rolex and spend a similar amount of money on something a little more exclusive.
> 
> I think nobody can argue against the fact that Rolex do make a good quality, durable watch. Unfortunately, they are just not very innovative in coming up with new designs ...


Another uninformed statement....The new ceramic bezel used on the GMT Master II models...the Parachrom blue mainspring...the Yacht-Master II....all new within the last three years or so and highly innovative. Rolex R&D is 2nd to none in the watch business.


----------



## jholbrook (Jul 12, 2007)

roba said:


> Maybe I misread your earlier post, the one where you wrote "How does better shock resistance NOT translate to a better, more durable balance?"


Again, not my original point, but you never conceeded the obvious point that I made in the subsequent post, soooo....


----------



## mafoofan (May 16, 2005)

jholbrook said:


> Another uninformed statement....The new ceramic bezel used on the GMT Master II models...the Parachrom blue mainspring...the Yacht-Master II....all new within the last three years or so and highly innovative. Rolex R&D is 2nd to none in the watch business.


This claim is just ridiculous. If a ceramic bezel, a countdown timer, and an innovative hairspring are enough to make Rolex the top watchmaker in R&D, then I suggest you get out some more. Other watchmakers have been using ceramic much more extensively for years. The countdown timer is much simpler and much less useful than a common chronograph. The Parachrom spring is nice, but Rolex is hardly the only company innovating in hairspring design.


----------



## roba (Mar 5, 2005)

*True...*



jholbrook said:


> Again, not my original point, but you never conceeded the obvious point that I made in the subsequent post, soooo....


I didn't concede the point - I disagreed with it saying something like "I don't think that the size argument has much bearing on durability either". Physical size (thickness) will, as I stated, make the movement more tolerant of misalignment but I really don't believe that extra size and mass contributes to durabilty.

The difficulty here is that we're both dealing with, at best, anecdotal evidence rooted in beliefs which are weaker than knowledge. We're also dealing in vague terms -- durability -- so all that's going to happen is that we'll both get good at typing the  thingy.

Rolex movements are good, Eta movements are good, I wouldn't rate one above the other.


----------



## Akajack (Jun 15, 2007)

Geez, can't a guy like a watch without someone telling him his choice is inferior?


----------



## jholbrook (Jul 12, 2007)

mafoofan said:


> This claim is just ridiculous. If a ceramic bezel, a countdown timer, and an innovative hairspring are enough to make Rolex the top watchmaker in R&D, then I suggest you get out some more. Other watchmakers have been using ceramic much more extensively for years. The countdown timer is much simpler and much less useful than a common chronograph. The Parachrom spring is nice, but Rolex is hardly the only company innovating in hairspring design.


Well, you're putting words in my mouth (a popular tactic around these parts it seems...). You stated Rolex wasn't very innovative in their designs. I pointed out just a few of several significant design innovations they've come out with recently. I NEVER drew any causality between these innovations and Rolex R&D - I simply made the the statement that Rolex R&D is second to none, and it is. No other watch manufacturer has the money to spend on R&D that Rolex does, much less the committment. And let's remember that we're talking innovation in MECHANICAL watch technology...innovation in very dated technology.

So to sum up, I effectively countered your assertion about Rolex innovation, and have effectively dismantled your attempt trying to make my argument into something that it isn't....


----------



## jholbrook (Jul 12, 2007)

Akajack said:


> Geez, can't a guy like a watch without someone telling him his choice is inferior?


Apparently not...


----------



## jholbrook (Jul 12, 2007)

roba said:


> I didn't concede the point - I disagreed with it saying something like "I don't think that the size argument has much bearing on durability either". Physical size (thickness) will, as I stated, make the movement more tolerant of misalignment but I really don't believe that extra size and mass contributes to durabilty.
> 
> The difficulty here is that we're both dealing with, at best, anecdotal evidence rooted in beliefs which are weaker than knowledge. We're also dealing in vague terms -- durability -- so all that's going to happen is that we'll both get good at typing the  thingy.
> 
> Rolex movements are good, Eta movements are good, I wouldn't rate one above the other.


OK. Just out of curiosity, what movement would you rate above the Rolex 3135/ETA 2892 level?


----------



## roba (Mar 5, 2005)

*For workhorse movements - I can't think of any better.*



jholbrook said:


> OK. Just out of curiosity, what movement would you rate above the Rolex 3135/ETA 2892 level?


I'd be very happy with either on my wrist.


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

Again, as one of the few Rolex wearers who actually *needs* the durability of a Rolex, and who has seen many a lesser watch into the horological grave, their "hype" is very much warranted, at least in the case of the Sea-Dweller that has survived nearly 15 years on my wrist.

Now, I can't testify for Rolexes made in the past 10 years or so, nor for any but the "working" watches (like the Sea-Dweller), but my Rolex has survived things no watch should reasonably be expected to. It's just plain solid and reliable, best thing a watch can be.

DCH


----------



## mambo (Dec 29, 2007)

Dhaller said:


> Again, as one of the few Rolex wearers who actually *needs* the durability of a Rolex, and who has seen many a lesser watch into the horological grave, their "hype" is very much warranted, at least in the case of the Sea-Dweller that has survived nearly 15 years on my wrist.
> 
> Now, I can't testify for Rolexes made in the past 10 years or so, nor for any but the "working" watches (like the Sea-Dweller), but my Rolex has survived things no watch should reasonably be expected to. It's just plain solid and reliable, best thing a watch can be.
> 
> DCH


I'd back my aquatimer against your sea dweller any day!:icon_smile_wink::icon_smile_big:ic12337:


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

mambo said:


> I'd back my aquatimer against your sea dweller any day!:icon_smile_wink::icon_smile_big:ic12337:


Pfft, the Aquatimer can withstand a mere 2000m submersion... next time to find yourself in 4000m of water, think of me and my Sea-Dweller!:icon_smile_wink:

In seriousness though, the worrisome thing to me about the Aquatimer is lack of a crown guard... I find myself climbing from time to time, and I need a watch that can bang against a granite ledge without possibly snapping the crown off. While intellectually I realize that's probably never going to happen with the IWC, it just _feels_ precarious seeing the crown sticking out, unprotected.

DCH


----------



## The Other Andy (Jan 9, 2008)

jholbrook said:


> I'm perhaps the wrong person to respond to this thread, as I violate strict sartorial rules about "sport" watches and suits every week.
> 
> The Datejust is a proper dress watch and certainly looks great with a suit. I believe our esteemed host Andy also wears this model:
> 
> ...


All pissing contests about whether Rolex is better than brand "X" aside, that is a nice collection. And I thought I had a lot of cheddar tied up in watches,, now I see I'm a novice . . . I feel better about the Amvox II I just added to the collection, seeing as how I still have about 1/4 the value of yours 

Can I use your post to explain to my wife why I need more watches?

By the way, my beloved JLC Master Comp. Geo is water resistant to 10 atm, which is about 200 ft deeper than I'll ever go. Good enough for me


----------



## smlaz (May 13, 2005)

For the sake of dragging this out another few posts, I'll see your Sea-Dweller and raise you my Seiko Prospex diver AND my Doxa Diver...


----------



## mambo (Dec 29, 2007)

Dhaller said:


> Pfft, the Aquatimer can withstand a mere 2000m submersion... next time to find yourself in 4000m of water, think of me and my Sea-Dweller!:icon_smile_wink:
> 
> In seriousness though, the worrisome thing to me about the Aquatimer is lack of a crown guard... I find myself climbing from time to time, and I need a watch that can bang against a granite ledge without possibly snapping the crown off. While intellectually I realize that's probably never going to happen with the IWC, it just _feels_ precarious seeing the crown sticking out, unprotected.
> 
> DCH


Next time you are in 2000m of water you will have a watch that has exploded. put your glasses on and check the writing on your dial those are feet not metres!:crazy:

The aquatimer actually goes deeper and is so overbuilt it doesn't need a helium escape valve.

On a more serious note here is an excerpt from a review I am writing of the Aquatimer:

*Whilst I have read some criticism of the crown not having guards, this crown is so well made it doesn't even move fractionally when it is fully extended, it would take a hard knock to break it off. A crown can be relatively economically replaced, but a knock hard enough to remove the crown would definitely damage a crown guard significantly spoiling the look of the case. Overall I feel a crown guard is not only unnecessary, but would somewhat spoil the aesthetic look of the watch. I hate it when crowns dig into my wrist, and have often thought that watches designed to be used actively should have the crown on the left of the case as this would also minimise the risk of knocks to it. From the experience of my Aquadive Depth gauge, a crown on the left is hardly more difficult to operate that on the right. In the case of the Aquatimer, due to the cone-shaped case back, the crown sits a couple of extra millimetres above the wrist and even with my hand fully extended back towards my wrist, I am unable to get the crown to dig into my wrist. I don't know if this was by design or fluke, but it makes an already comfortable watch even more comfortable to wear.**"*

It really is bombproof and also waterproof even when fully extended.


----------



## mambo (Dec 29, 2007)

smlaz said:


> For the sake of dragging this out another few posts, I'll see your Sea-Dweller and raise you my Seiko Prospex diver AND my Doxa Diver...


You are obviously a man of good taste.:aportnoy: I also use a Prospex for mountainbiking and own a vintage Doxa sub with the US diver logo! So I'll call and raise you an aquatimer...


----------



## Dogrescuer (3 mo ago)

How are Seikos as a first dress watch?


----------



## StephenRG (Apr 7, 2005)

Dogrescuer said:


> How are Seikos as a first dress watch?


It depends which line - Seiko 5s, no, as they're sporting not dress. But thereafter, absolutely. Decide what you want to pay, and you'll generally find there's a dress Seiko to meet it..


----------



## Dogrescuer (3 mo ago)

StephenRG said:


> It depends which line - Seiko 5s, no, as they're sporting not dress. But thereafter, absolutely. Decide what you want to pay, and you'll generally find there's a dress Seiko to meet it..


Thank you, what's my first step, online, department stores etc? I and others know so little it's very easy to get ripped off, that's the world today.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Dogrescuer said:


> Thank you, what's my first step, online, department stores etc? I and others know so little it's very easy to get ripped off, that's the world today.


Watches are like shoes - so many categories/styles/features/materials and a bevy of brands. I believe you should begin by selecting the type of watch (you indicated it would be a dress watch) you want, and then establish a price range. Then explore quality brands that make watches that fit your desire. 

What's your approximate price range? Once you tell us, we can be of greater help to you.


----------



## smmrfld (May 22, 2007)

Dogrescuer said:


> How are Seikos as a first dress watch?


Seiko 5 from Amazon is a perfect first choice. You can dress it up or down with an infinite number of inexpensive bands.


----------



## ran23 (Dec 11, 2014)

I hated that tan fabric strap on my Seiko 5. Leather band dresses it up nicely.


----------



## Dogrescuer (3 mo ago)

Tiger said:


> Watches are like shoes - so many categories/styles/features/materials and a bevy of brands. I believe you should begin by selecting the type of watch (you indicated it would be a dress watch) you want, and then establish a price range. Then explore quality brands that make watches that fit your desire.
> 
> What's your approximate price range? Once you tell us, we can be of greater help to you.


Thanks, I'm looking to spend 2 -$250 , it will be a gift to myself for keeping an addiction at bay for 1 year, I'm at 6 months now. Yes definitely to wear with suits, and want to add a leather band. Any help would be very appreciated.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Dogrescuer said:


> Thanks, I'm looking to spend 2 -$250 , it will be a gift to myself for keeping an addiction at bay for 1 year, I'm at 6 months now. Yes definitely to wear with suits, and want to add a leather band. Any help would be very appreciated.


Congratulations, and stay strong!

Seiko and Citizen (Japanese companies) make many watches in your price range. Tissot and Hamilton (both Swiss made) might have a few models as well; websites such as Jomashop often sell them at a discount that will bring Tissot or Hamilton into your price range. In fact, you might be able to search for *all* brands in that price range on the Jomashop website, giving you a great selection of choices.

*Note:* You will have very few choices in manual & automatic watches in this price range, but plenty of quartz movement options.


----------



## Dogrescuer (3 mo ago)

Thanks Tiger.


----------



## Dogrescuer (3 mo ago)

Hello, as a beginner watch seeker is it recommended to stay away from ebay due to my lack of experience?


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Dogrescuer said:


> Hello, as a beginner watch seeker is it recommended to stay away from ebay due to my lack of experience?


Stay away from eBay - buy a new watch at the appropriate price point from a reputable business.


----------



## Dogrescuer (3 mo ago)

Tiger said:


> Stay away from eBay - buy a new watch at the appropriate price point from a reputable business.


I genuinely appreciate the help. Thanks


----------



## Dogrescuer (3 mo ago)

Question for anyone: If a watch comes with a medal band, can I replace it with a leather one?


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Dogrescuer said:


> Question for anyone: If a watch comes with a medal band, can I replace it with a leather one?


Some can, some can't. Don't overthink this or make it too complicated. Pick a style, and make the purchase. Maybe buy a watch with a leather strap and one with a metal bracelet, if your budget permits.


----------



## medhat (Jan 15, 2006)

TBH, I think it's important to know if you're wearing the watch for your own personal enjoyment (like the style, etc.) or if you're trying to project an image or impress people; those result in widely different suggestions. Mass market makers like Timex have a variety of very handsome watches, but they're seldom going to impress the "watch crowd," like a Rolex, Omega, etc. I didn't see it mentioned, but most of the young (at my age, that's pretty much everyone) folks I work with (in tech field) all have Apple Watches, and really aren't into "regular" watches at all. I could show up with a IWC and no one would blink an eye, but if I had the new Apple Watch Ultra I'd be answering questions all morning. But I actually don't own an AW, never really interested me. So when I travel for work and don't have some fancy dinner I typically just wear my Garmin Vivoactive 4s, so I only bring that one watch (for work and running). It actually ends up being a conversation starter because if you know, you know. If I have the inclination to bring a nicer watch then while I have more sporty watches from Grand Seiko, Tag Heuer, and such, if I'm going black tie (some would argue no watch should be worn at all), then I go back to an old Seiko I inherited from my father, a very simple and slim gold case, no chrono, brown leather band. An earlier commenter mentioned the desire for understatement, and I agree, but similarly due to the overwhelming popularity hardly anyone apart from a hardcore watch aficionado will poo poo someone who wears a Rolex in a more formal setting. If am Omega Seamaster is good enough for James Bond to wear with a tux, I guess it becomes socially acceptable for the masses.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

medhat said:


> TBH, I think it's important to know if you're wearing the watch for your own personal enjoyment (like the style, etc.) or if you're trying to project an image or impress people; those result in widely different suggestions. Mass market makers like Timex have a variety of very handsome watches, but they're seldom going to impress the "watch crowd," like a Rolex, Omega, etc. I didn't see it mentioned, but most of the young (at my age, that's pretty much everyone) folks I work with (in tech field) all have Apple Watches, and really aren't into "regular" watches at all. I could show up with a IWC and no one would blink an eye, but if I had the new Apple Watch Ultra I'd be answering questions all morning. But I actually don't own an AW, never really interested me. So when I travel for work and don't have some fancy dinner I typically just wear my Garmin Vivoactive 4s, so I only bring that one watch (for work and running). It actually ends up being a conversation starter because if you know, you know. If I have the inclination to bring a nicer watch then while I have more sporty watches from Grand Seiko, Tag Heuer, and such, if I'm going black tie (some would argue no watch should be worn at all), then I go back to an old Seiko I inherited from my father, a very simple and slim gold case, no chrono, brown leather band. An earlier commenter mentioned the desire for understatement, and I agree, but similarly due to the overwhelming popularity hardly anyone apart from a hardcore watch aficionado will poo poo someone who wears a Rolex in a more formal setting. If am Omega Seamaster is good enough for James Bond to wear with a tux, I guess it becomes socially acceptable for the masses.


This thread is fourteen years old, but was recently resurrected by a new member. His budget is approximately $200 - $250...


----------



## David J. Cooper (Apr 26, 2010)

A few years ago the answer would have been an Orient Bambino. I am not sure what has changed. It is a good choice still I think.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

David J. Cooper said:


> A few years ago the answer would have been an Orient Bambino. I am not sure what has changed. It is a good choice still I think.


One of many good choices!


----------



## StephenRG (Apr 7, 2005)

If I were in your position, I think I'd squeeze an extra $50 and go for this - the Seiko Cocktail time, available from the Seiko store at Amazon for $300.


----------



## Dcr5468 (Jul 11, 2015)

StephenRG said:


> If I were in your position, I think I'd squeeze an extra $50 and go for this - the Seiko Cocktail time, available from the Seiko store at Amazon for $300.
> 
> View attachment 92681


I have this same watch along with a Grand Seiko and Tudor - it’s a perfectly functional and attractive watch. Most true enthusiast appreciate the seiko - only the Rolex snobs would disagree.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## some_dude (Nov 9, 2008)

People on here get too hung up on the concept of "sport watches" versus "dress watches." The Seiko 5 is a great watch (I have had one for probably 10 years), and comes in a huge number of styles. Some are dressy, some are not. As a first "nice" watch, you can't go wrong with a Seiko 5.

I just ordered a Seiko for my son's Christmas present (fortunately, he doesn't read this forum). I got him an SSC819 (a Speedtimer Chronograph) because he really wanted a watch with a stopwatch function.









SSC819


Prospex Speedtimer Solar ChronographDesign inspired by Seiko's first precision chronographs, developed for international sporting competitions in 1964Powered by light energy - no battery change required6-month power reserve once fully chargedChronograph measures up to 60 minutes of elapsed time...




seikousa.com


----------



## some_dude (Nov 9, 2008)

Here is the range of Seiko 5 watches:









Seiko 5 Sports


The Seiko 5 Sports Collection. Sports watches that you control, with its classic mechanical technology automatically winding with every move and a see-through caseback so you can see real timekeeping in action




seikousa.com





This is very close to the one I have:









SRPE53


Seiko 5 SportsManual and automatic winding capabilities21,600 vibrations per hourPower reserve: approximately 41 hours24 jewelsBlue sunray dialDay/date calendarLumiBrite hands and markersCase diameter: 40.0mmStainless steel case and braceletWater-resistant to 10 bar, 100 meters (300 feet)Caliber...




seikousa.com


----------



## Tupelo (27 d ago)

This is what I wear as my dress watch. I wanted something more versatile than a pure dress watch.


----------



## Vecchio Vespa (Dec 3, 2011)

Tupelo said:


> This is what I wear as my dress watch. I wanted something more versatile than a pure dress watch.
> 
> View attachment 93517


Nice choice.


----------

