# Watches on a budget



## Wolfslair (Sep 11, 2014)

Good day to all. I am new to the site and admittingly have much to learn. I have a milestone birthday next week and decided to start dressing my age. My main hurdle, and excuse for not dressing properly, has been lack of monetary means. Could you gentlemen offer suggestions for an acceptable watch under $500. I can find bargains for most clothing, but a true mechanical watch is beyond my means. Has anyone bought a watch from one of the "boutique" websites?


----------



## godan (Feb 10, 2010)

One of the larger department stores, Macy's for instance, is a good place to see watches in real life. I strongly recommend a plain Citizen Eco-Drive and strongly do not recommend a Seiko Solar or Kinetic. If you are going to buy a quartz watch, which is wise in your circumstances, go with something solar. The button battery is, or soon should be, a thing of the past.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

What type of watch are you looking for - dress watch, sports watch?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Try Hamilton or Tissot. Very budget friendly mechanical watches.


----------



## Wolfslair (Sep 11, 2014)

I have one nice dress watch with a black leather band. I guess I need a metal band or brown leather dress watch for my next option.


----------



## dukedishin (Sep 12, 2014)

It's significantly under your budget, but the Orient Bambino is a great-looking option IMO.


----------



## TimelesStyle (Aug 25, 2013)

I'd look at the more basic mechanical offerings from Hamilton or Seiko. Can definitely have for WELL under $500 and good quality for the money. They also don't have that "I really wanted to spend more but couldn't afford it so got this cheap blingy watch to show off" look, which is part of why I admire them.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Oris is a good option as well. Many offerings around the ~$500 mark.


----------



## Brio1 (May 13, 2010)

SG_67 said:


> Try Hamilton or Tissot. Very budget friendly mechanical watches.


Hamilton is made in China now (formerly in the States). I would choose the Tissot as it is a Swiss brand.


----------



## TimelesStyle (Aug 25, 2013)

Brio1 said:


> Hamilton is made in China now (formerly in the States). I would choose the Tissot as it is a Swiss brand.


But don't they still use Swiss movements?


----------



## DG123 (Sep 16, 2011)

A $50 Timex and a $5,000 Rolex are both good values. In between those two price-vs-quality levels, not so much value.


----------



## TimelesStyle (Aug 25, 2013)

DG123 said:


> A $50 Timex and a $5,000 Rolex are both good values. In between those two price-vs-quality levels, not so much value.


Utter nonsense. In my opinion, a $300 Seiko represents a far better value than the Timex which, for all intents and purposes, is disposable. That Seiko, if properly maintained, will last decades. Just one example.

Also, as a Rolex owner, I can give a number of reasons why I love my watch, but "good value" wouldn't likely be one of them.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Wolfslair said:


> I have one nice dress watch with a black leather band. I guess I need a metal band or brown leather dress watch for my next option.


Well it might be stating the obvious, but a strap changing tool and two extra straps for your existing watch would be a lot cheaper. 

That said, I'd rather have a second watch, too. Consider the Tissot Visodate. Classic 50's styling and looks as good with a suit as with a smart casual outfit.

Mechanical pieces from Seiko and Hamilton are also very much worth considering (though the latter will be harder to find at that price point) and much more desirable than quartz (IMO).


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

TimelesStyle said:


> Utter nonsense. In my opinion, a $300 Seiko represents a far better value than the Timex which, for all intents and purposes, is disposable. That Seiko, if properly maintained, will last decades. Just one example.


Spot on and good advice.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Brio1 said:


> Hamilton is made in China now (formerly in the States). I would choose the Tissot _as it is a Swiss brand_.


They are BOTH Swiss brands - owned by Swatch Group - the same parent company for the likes of Breguet, Blancpain, Omega, Longines and yes, Swatch. Both will primarily use entry level Swiss ETA movements. Because ETA is also owned by the Swatch Group.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Brio1 said:


> Hamilton is made in China now (formerly in the States). I would choose the Tissot as it is a Swiss brand.





TimelesStyle said:


> But don't they still use Swiss movements?


Really? Then why do they say Swiss Made on the dial?

I'm not trying to pick a fight; simply wondering if there's some kind of legal loophole that allows a watch to say Swiss made if it's really made in China.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Another route to consider - as the above posts cover the buy-new options well (I like the one Roger P suggested a lot and there are several Hamiltons that I liked as well) - is to look at vintage. 

There are an incredible number of old watches (form the 1920s on), in great shape, that have classic styling (everything is there - tank, round, military, dress, mid-Century modern, curvex and on and on) that can be had for under $500. I own five vintage watches now - have never paid more than $300 for any of them and am constantly complimented on them. To be fair, they do cost more to own as every few years they will need a cleaning or something, which can be $50 - $150 depending on the what does it need and who is repairing it. 

It, IMHO, is a bit more interesting way to go, but as noted, it will cost more in the long run and, as shown in the above posts, there are several excellent new watches in your price range. If you just want to see what's out there, go to Ebay, put in "vintage watches" and then set the parameters for your price range (and go as low as $100 because some good values do pop up there). 

Good luck


----------



## TimelesStyle (Aug 25, 2013)

SG_67 said:


> Really? Then why do they say Swiss Made on the dial?
> 
> I'm not trying to pick a fight; simply wondering if there's some kind of legal loophole that allows a watch to say Swiss made if it's really made in China.


Typically I think the "Swiss Made" on a watch dial refers to the movement, but perhaps it applies to final assembly as well. But don't kid yourself, just like with apparel, you could make the parts anywhere, partially assemble them and then ship them to the "final assembly" point elsewhere.

I think of Hamilton as American the way I think of Panerai as Italian. They started in those respective countries but were then absorbed by large Swiss conglomerates (Hamilton by Swatch; Panerai by Richemont).


----------



## StephenRG (Apr 7, 2005)

I can recommend Aristo from personal experience. Usually available around $400, basic ETA movement, nothing too flashy about them.


----------



## godan (Feb 10, 2010)

*Maintenance costs*

Experiences will vary by locale, etc., but here in Colorado I recently had routine (four year) maintenance performed on three Swiss automatic watches by three different NAWCC-certified technicians. Costs were $400, $300 and $275. None of the watches were Rolexes, which I send back to Rolex for maintenance. In response to my questions, two of the technicians said they would not work on Chinese movements. One said he would try, but with no guarantees. Rather than a lower-end new mechanical, or a used one with an unknown service history, I reiterate my recommendation for a quality Citizen Eco-Drive.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

godan said:


> Experiences will vary by locale, etc., but here in Colorado I recently had routine (four year) maintenance performed on three Swiss automatic watches by three different NAWCC-certified technicians. Costs were $400, $300 and $275. None of the watches were Rolexes, which I send back to Rolex for maintenance. In response to my questions, two of the technicians said they would not work on Chinese movements. One said he would try, but with no guarantees. Rather than a lower-end new mechanical, or a used one with an unknown service history, I reiterate my recommendation for a quality Citizen Eco-Drive.


On the other hand, you can buy a pretty decent quality mechanical watch with a Chinese movement for $50-75 that will probably run just fine for 5 or 6 years, and when it stops, you chuck it. Compares rather favorably against the cost of servicing the Swiss pieces that you quoted above.

I don't necessarily recommend that route (though I have owned a few cheap Chinese mechanicals over the years) but in any event, the likes of Tissot, Hamilton and Seiko do not use Chinese watch movements.


----------



## Dieu et les Dames (Jul 18, 2012)

Tissot has quite a few nice looking dress watches. Some not so handsome. 

If you're looking for a dive watch that doesn't break the bank, consider the Seiko SKX007 or its cousins. Rock solid and comfortable to wear.


----------



## Carguy (Nov 29, 2012)

Fading Fast said:


> Another route to consider - as the above posts cover the buy-new options well (I like the one Roger P suggested a lot and there are several Hamiltons that I liked as well) - is to look at vintage.
> 
> There are an incredible number of old watches (form the 1920s on), in great shape, that have classic styling (everything is there - tank, round, military, dress, mid-Century modern, curvex and on and on) that can be had for under $500. I own five vintage watches now - have never paid more than $300 for any of them and am constantly complimented on them. To be fair, they do cost more to own as every few years they will need a cleaning or something, which can be $50 - $150 depending on the what does it need and who is repairing it.
> 
> ...


Ebay is definitely the way to go. Recently, I picked up 5 vintage Timex mechanical watches in great shape, took off the expandable bands and replaced with nice leather ones. These were back in the American made days and they are great watches. They are my favorite watches to wear as dress watches, and see more use than a vintage Rolex I own. People often compliment me on my watch and are stunned when they find out it is a 40+ year old Timex....


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Carguy said:


> Ebay is definitely the way to go. Recently, I picked up 5 vintage Timex mechanical watches in great shape, took off the expandable bands and replaced with nice leather ones. These were back in the American made days and they are great watches. They are my favorite watches to wear as dress watches, and see more use than a vintage Rolex I own. People often compliment me on my watch and are stunned when they find out it is a 40+ year old Timex....


I understand. I have an Illinois, two Elgins and two Girard Perregaux watches (from the '20s to the '50s) and I receive compliments all the time - effusive, "where did you get that" compliments, "that is a gorgeous watch" compliments and I, as mentioned, bought them for, on average, $200 bucks or so. Yes, I spend about $100 a year in total keeping the five going (as one needs work every year), but my God, for the cost, they seem so much more interesting, IMHO, than modern $500 watches.


----------



## Ματθαῖος (Jun 17, 2011)

Invicta makes a nice array of watches, some are real mechanical movements, and many of the cases look similar to Rolex.

You could buy a couple of watches for under $500. They are high quality and repairable under warranty

https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_...nvicta+watches+for+men&sprefix=invict,aps,128

Matthew


----------



## TimelesStyle (Aug 25, 2013)

Ματθαῖος said:


> Invicta makes a nice array of watches, some are real mechanical movements, and many of the cases look similar to Rolex.
> 
> You could buy a couple of watches for under $500. They are high quality and repairable under warranty
> 
> ...


Every Invicta I've ever seen just looks like a cheap knockoff of a more expensive watch. Nothing wrong with an inexpensive watch (and to many, $500 is hardly a cheap watch), but at least get one with its own styling/merits/history.


----------



## Wolfslair (Sep 11, 2014)

I really like the Tissot in the photo. It is funny how something simple like the retro Tissot logo can catch my eye. I also like the visible movement on the back of the watch, even though I would be the only one who knows it is there.


----------



## Ματθαῖος (Jun 17, 2011)

TimelesStyle said:


> Every Invicta I've ever seen just looks like a cheap knockoff of a more expensive watch. Nothing wrong with an inexpensive watch (and to many, $500 is hardly a cheap watch), but at least get one with its own styling/merits/history.


One man's "cheap knockoff" is another man's "imitation" and yet another man's "homage".

They are well built and nice looking. I use their diver watch cases with NATO straps for summer. (I find it hard to justify a real Submariner for beach use.)

Invicta, in its own way, does already stand on its own merits.

Matthew


----------



## Mickey Rhoades (Jul 18, 2013)

If you're fine with Swiss Quartz you can look into Shinola. Made in the USA, they are a subsidiary of Fossil. They make nice watches, but again, not automatic movement. I'm a watch guy myself and if I were to ever buy a quartz movement that's what I'd get.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Mickey Rhoades said:


> If you're fine with Swiss Quartz you can look into Shinola. Made in the USA, they are a subsidiary of Fossil. They make nice watches, but again, not automatic movement. I'm a watch guy myself and if I were to ever buy a quartz movement that's what I'd get.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


But they are too huge to work as a dress watch.


----------



## Mickey Rhoades (Jul 18, 2013)

RogerP said:


> But they are too huge to work as a dress watch.


I think they make a few 39mm watches. If they don't, your right. Too huge.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## smithey (Jun 27, 2014)

If you're looking into not-so-luxurious watches, Timex and Invicta are good ones.


----------



## cbh23 (Jun 12, 2014)

I've had a couple invicta watches. Nothing to write home about. I prefer them to fossil though.


----------



## Toto (Oct 27, 2009)

How about a Seiko SARB033 or 035?


Seiya is well known on the watch forums and a very reputable seller.
Price includes shipping if I remember correctly.


----------



## Brio1 (May 13, 2010)

Mickey Rhoades said:


> If you're fine with Swiss Quartz you can look into Shinola. Made in the USA, they are a subsidiary of Fossil. They make nice watches, but again, not automatic movement. I'm a watch guy myself and if I were to ever buy a quartz movement that's what I'd get.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk[/QUOTE
> 
> ...


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

TimelesStyle said:


> In my opinion, a $300 Seiko represents a far better value than the Timex which, for all intents and purposes, is disposable.


I would love to hear of the demise of any Timex or similar quartz watch. Short of something being smashed, soaked, or lost, I am just unaware of premature failures on modern timepieces. I have a couple of cheap watches that have easily lasted the "decades" and with negligible maintenance. 
Yes, the Mercedes may get to 400K miles by throwing pitchforks at it, but the Toyota gets to 300K with oil changes and new tires.


----------



## tigerpac (Jan 23, 2014)

Please no to Invicta! Or Fossil for that matter.

Tissot, Hamilton, Seiko all make nice timepieces at that price range. Enjoy the hunt!


----------



## Titus_A (Jun 23, 2010)

A lot of the suggestions here are probably good ones: you live in a major city, so you have access to watch shops that can fix up a vintage piece, or you can go for a basic-level new piece.

The kicker here is the thickness: an elegant dress watch is separated from a timex to the eye of the casual observer of your wrist by its thickness. Trying to find something thin enough to be elegant is the difficult part. Get the thinnest watch you can afford if you're looking to put it under a dress-shirt cuff.


----------



## filfoster (Aug 23, 2011)

The OP has been answered, but:

Not dress watches but for Swiss made, from a German company, have some fun and give Steinhart a look-see. 
https://wornandwound.com/tag/steinhart/
https://www.steinhartwatches.de/en/


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

tigerpac said:


> Please no to Invicta! Or Fossil for that matter.
> 
> Tissot, Hamilton, Seiko all make nice timepieces at that price range. Enjoy the hunt!


I really must second this. Those are great entry level watches and with classic styling. If you decide you want to upgrade, at least you'll have an appreciation for watches and be able to use those as the start of a collection.


----------



## Brio1 (May 13, 2010)

tigerpac said:


> Please no to Invicta! Or Fossil for that matter.
> 
> Tissot, Hamilton, Seiko all make nice timepieces at that price range. Enjoy the hunt!


I dislike that fact that Shinola is under the Fossil umbrella. :icon_pale:

I wonder how many parts Shinola is using that happen to be made in the Fossil factory...


----------



## Brio1 (May 13, 2010)

SG_67 said:


> I really must second this. Those are great entry level watches and with classic styling. If you decide you want to upgrade, at least you'll have an appreciation for watches and be able to use those as the start of a collection.


Disregard Hamilton as it is made in China. Seiko is made in Japan.


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

filfoster said:


> The OP has been answered, but:
> 
> Not dress watches but for Swiss made, from a German company, have some fun and give Steinhart a look-see.
> https://wornandwound.com/tag/steinhart/
> https://www.steinhartwatches.de/en/


The Marine 38 is a nice dress watch, simple and well sized (could use a nicer band,, though). I have a handwound Marine Chronometer 44, very attractive though a bit large and an excellent timekeeper.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

Not sure what would qualify as a budget watch, but Raymond Weil has some lovely, simply designed dress watches in the $400-500 range.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Brio1 said:


> Disregard Hamilton as it is made in China. Seiko is made in Japan.


This is the second time you've mentioned Hamilton being made in China.

They specifically say Swiss Made on the dial. What am I missing?


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

Also, Bing search "Christopher Ward" for a simple and handsome watch. I'm getting close to talking myself into one.


----------



## filfoster (Aug 23, 2011)

phyrpowr said:


> The Marine 38 is a nice dress watch, simple and well sized (could use a nicer band,, though). I have a handwound Marine Chronometer 44, very attractive though a bit large and an excellent timekeeper.


I appreciate hearing from another Steinhart fan but must point out that your first hyperlink 'marine 38' goes to Amazon elastic waisted mens shorts.


----------



## Brio1 (May 13, 2010)

SG_67 said:


> This is the second time you've mentioned Hamilton being made in China.
> 
> They specifically say Swiss Made on the dial. What am I missing?


The reiteration was necessary owing to your general obtusity. Please see the Wikipedia entry under " 50% rule " : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Made#A_minimum_standard
And they do not "say" anything, but in fact state " Swiss Made " on the dial.

You are missing the point that the Hamilton I bought is a piece of junk and therefore I would not recommend the watch to fellow members.


----------



## VaEagle (Oct 15, 2013)

I have a Tissot chronograph that I love, and I get more compliments on it than my more expensive watches. The Tissot Le Locle also received a lot of praise in a previous thread like this for its classically stylish looks. Available in numerous configurations for under $450. Its next on my own shopping list.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Brio1 said:


> The reiteration was necessary owing to your general obtusity. Please see the Wikipedia entry under " 50% rule " : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Made#A_minimum_standard
> And they do not "say" anything, but in fact state " Swiss Made " on the dial.
> 
> You are missing the point that the Hamilton I bought is a piece of junk and therefore I would not recommend the watch to fellow members.


Please refrain from personal insults; calling me obtuse is uncalled for in this context.

You've pointed out the 50% rule. Thanks.

Do you know in fact that Hamilton watches fall under this? Or are you simply assuming this? I can appreciate if you've had a bad experience with Hamilton so if you're containing your dislike for them to personal experience, I suppose you're entitled to that.


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

filfoster said:


> I appreciate hearing from another Steinhart fan but must point out that your first hyperlink 'marine 38' goes to Amazon elastic waisted mens shorts.


What the &%$?! ARE these stupid link things, anyway? I'm not trying to use them, and I get weird jumps to eBay stuff when I hit one.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

I believe the links are automatically inserted and not intentional on the part of the author. I've noticed this before as well.


----------



## Geezer (Apr 22, 2010)

Try these: 

Seiko SARB.
Seiko Presage.
Orient Bambino.
Orient Symphony.
Tissot Visodate.
Used ("vintage") Zenith or less fashionable Omega.


----------



## Fred G. Unn (Jul 12, 2011)

Geezer said:


> Used ("vintage") Zenith or less fashionable Omega.


He should be able to find an Omega bumper automatic for $500ish. That might be a pretty good option for him.


----------



## Tonyp (May 8, 2007)

Try Mido. Also owned by the Swatch group. It is a very high quality watch. you can find a strap model somewhere slightly above $500.00 but they are much better than Tissot or Seiko, or Citizen. Automatic movements or Manual.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Toto said:


> How about a Seiko SARB033 or 035?
> 
> Seiya is well known on the watch forums and a very reputable seller.
> Price includes shipping if I remember correctly.


I am wearing my Seiko SARB035 at the moment. I like it very much. I bought it from another Japanese vendor, Higuchi watch. Like Seiya, well regarded on the watch forums. Prices vary because of currency fluctuations. The watch is accurate, as enough lume to do what it has to do, and is water resistant to 100m. The only bad thing about Seiko's SARB series is that they're sort of a gateway drug for the Grand Seiko line.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Tonyp said:


> Try Mido. Also owned by the Swatch group. It is a very high quality watch. you can find a strap model somewhere slightly above $500.00 but they are much better than Tissot or Seiko, or Citizen. Automatic movements or Manual.


Also Certina. Mido and Certina often get lost in the Swatch line up, but they are regarded as very good values. It might be hard to find them for close to $500, but I think they are among the best options in the $500-$1000 category.


----------



## Toto (Oct 27, 2009)

tocqueville said:


> I am wearing my Seiko SARB035 at the moment. I like it very much. I bought it from another Japanese vendor, Higuchi watch. Like Seiya, well regarded on the watch forums. Prices vary because of currency fluctuations. The watch is accurate, as enough lume to do what it has to do, and is water resistant to 100m. The only bad thing about Seiko's SARB series is that they're sort of a gateway drug for the Grand Seiko line.


It would be great if there were more Seiko calibre options between the SARBS and the Grand Seiko level. 
There are some beautiful Grand Seikos but in that price range I would also be very tempted by Omega, JLC , IWC etc.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Toto said:


> It would be great if there were more Seiko calibre options between the SARBS and the Grand Seiko level.
> There are some beautiful Grand Seikos but in that price range I would also be very tempted by Omega, JLC , IWC etc.


Agreed. There are a few model lines below the GS, but they don't appeal to me. The ones I know are the SARC line, the SARD, the SARL, and the SARN. Good luck finding one.

Here's a SARD:


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

I maybe understand the fascination with "automatic" or manual-wind watches when they're handmade, but buying a non-quartz watch that is assembly-line made (i.e., less than $5,000) strikes me as extremely stupid. 

Quartz movements give more accurate time, and timekeeping is the primary job of a watch. Get real here. We have people suggesting purchase of a mechanical watch who have also excoriated silverporsche for asking whether status is a good reason for a clothing purchase. But why else purchase a mechanical watch <$5k other than to convey a bogus sense of status? Hypocrisy, in my view.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ Is it possible to simply enjoy a thing of beauty and quality for it's own sake?


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

SG_67 said:


> ^ Is it possible to simply enjoy a thing of beauty and quality for it's own sake?


What is fundamentally "more beautiful" about a watch that has a mechanical movement? The movement isn't visible in most watches.

What is "higher quality?" It seems to me that quality relates most to how well a product fulfills its function, which in the case of a wristwatch is how likely it is to provide its wearer with an accurate estimate of actual time.

Wearers of expensive mechanical watches can claim to appreciate the craftsmanship of the handmade movement, and I will accept their justification. But buyers of less expensive, assembly-line mechanical watches have no such excuse IMO. It's just a silly expenditure to acquire something that is inferior functionally, and that I have difficulty accepting. There are plenty of attractive quartz watches in the same price range that will give better timekeeping.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

MaxBuck said:


> What is fundamentally "more beautiful" about a watch that has a mechanical movement? The movement isn't visible in most watches.
> 
> What is "higher quality?" It seems to me that quality relates most to how well a product fulfills its function, which in the case of a wristwatch is how likely it is to provide its wearer with an accurate estimate of actual time.
> *
> Wearers of expensive mechanical watches can claim to appreciate the craftsmanship of the handmade movement, and I will accept their justification.* But buyers of less expensive, assembly-line mechanical watches have no such excuse IMO. It's just a silly expenditure to acquire something that is inferior functionally, and that I have difficulty accepting. There are plenty of attractive quartz watches in the same price range that will give better timekeeping.


I suppose that's what I'm arguing. There are cheaper mechanical watches available but you're correct as to their accuracy, at least over time.

There is something to be said for styling as well. Cartier is a prime example as their quartz movements are housed in some beautiful cases.

For me, it's the idea of wearing and using something that is purpose built. Like a well made and designed functional garment, it needn't be the most expensive but the idea that someone actually thought about the design and function is what appeals to me.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

SG_67 said:


> I suppose that's what I'm arguing. There are cheaper mechanical watches available but you're correct as to their accuracy, at least over time.
> 
> There is something to be said for styling as well. Cartier is a prime example as their quartz movements are housed in some beautiful cases.
> 
> For me, it's the idea of wearing and using something that is purpose built. Like a well made and designed functional garment, it needn't be the most expensive but the idea that someone actually thought about the design and function is what appeals to me.


I don't quarrel with anything you've said here. I don't have a problem with someone who buys a specific watch as a jewelry item without concerning himself with whether the movement is mechanical or quartz. But those who regard a cheap (<$5k) watch as somehow inferior if it's equipped with a quartz movement are both snobs and idiots IMO.


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

MaxBuck said:


> ... buying a non-quartz watch that is assembly-line made (i.e., less than $5,000) strikes me as extremely stupid.


1. But 100 years ago mechanical watch!
2. What if going on multi-year trip and no availability of $3 battery? Mission to Mars, say.
3. The maitre d' will sit you next to the restroom doors if he sees the word 'QUARTZ' on your watch.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

MaxBuck said:


> I maybe understand the fascination with "automatic" or manual-wind watches when they're handmade, but buying a non-quartz watch that is assembly-line made (i.e., less than $5,000) strikes me as extremely stupid.
> 
> Quartz movements give more accurate time, and timekeeping is the primary job of a watch. Get real here. We have people suggesting purchase of a mechanical watch who have also excoriated silverporsche for asking whether status is a good reason for a clothing purchase. But why else purchase a mechanical watch <$5k other than to convey a bogus sense of status? Hypocrisy, in my view.


A spectacularly high concentration of utter nonsense in one post. People have different preferences and value the objects they purchase for different reasons. Such people are not "stupid" because they think differently than you do. My watch purchases - from cheap Chinese mechanicals to classic vintage mechanicals to premium contemporary mechanicals have nothing to do with a desire for "status". Just because you can see no other reason to purchase such watches does not mean that such reasons do not exist.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

To the OP - another point to consider is that you purchase dollar will go a lot further if you buy used. A one or two year old watch (often much less) in pristine condition can often be had for far, far less than its original retail price. I check this site frequently: www.watchrecon.com

It allows you to search by brand, so you can see what is on offer in a broad cross-section of the used market for, say, Tissot, Hamilton, Seiko or whatever makes your short list.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

RogerP said:


> A spectacularly high concentration of utter nonsense in one post. People have different preferences and value the objects they purchase for different reasons. Such people are not "stupid" because they think differently than you do. My watch purchases - from cheap Chinese mechanicals to classic vintage mechanicals to premium contemporary mechanicals have nothing to do with a desire for "status". Just because you can see no other reason to purchase such watches does not mean that such reasons do not exist.


If you'd tell me what such reasons might be, I'd be happy to listen. My mind is open, but so far nobody has provided such a reason. (The notion that one might be stranded on Mars without access to battery retail is persuasive only if one is traveling to Mars.)

The fact is that most people who opine that one "should" purchase a mechanical watch provide no rationale for this advice, yet offer snobbish commentary directed toward those who might buy watches labeled "Timex," "Skagen," "Fossil" or "Casio," and suggest that if one is to purchase a Seiko one should limit one's search to their mechanical offerings. What rationale would you offer to avoid quartz that doesn't involve a sort of anti-technology snobbery?


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

SG_67 said:


> I can appreciate if you've had a bad experience with Hamilton so if you're containing your dislike for them to personal experience, I suppose you're entitled to that.


Yes, to a point. Damning an entire brand based one on person's experience with one watch does seem a bit of a stretch, though. Within the watch enthusiast community, Hamilton enjoys a reputation for quality, value and reliability. They have that reputation for a reason. I've owned probably six or eight contemporary Hamiltons over the years without so much as a single hiccup.

While I prefer the Tissot Visodate I posted earlier for its greater versatility, something like the watch at the link below certainly makes for a very nice pure dress watch.

https://forums.watchuseek.com/f29/fs-hamilton-intra-matic-38mm-silver-dial-1083548.html


----------



## Ekphrastic (Oct 4, 2009)

tocqueville said:


> Also Certina. Mido and Certina often get lost in the Swatch line up, but they are regarded as very good values. It might be hard to find them for close to $500, but I think they are among the best options in the $500-$1000 category.


I'll third the recommendation for Mido. I bought one, NOS and slightly used, on a forum (WatchUSeek, perhaps?) for all of $125.00. Swiss, sapphire, steel, etc. Had it serviced once for $250.00, and it'll run forever.


----------



## filfoster (Aug 23, 2011)

I love how these innocent question threads devolve into donneybrooks over old chestnuts, e.g., mechanical vs. quartz, new vs. used, snob brands, etc.. 
Mechanical automatics are appealing because they are relatively simple to own and have a broad appeal among watch buyers on the secondary market, if you ever need/want to trade up or sell.
I have a preference for buying new, but just recently bought two used (gently pre-owned or whatever we tell ourselves about wearing a watch someone else got to scratch first) Tag Heuers, one auto and my only quartz, the 'Bourne' CT1111 with the colored logo. Had both checked by the local Rolex/TAG AD and they're fine.
The three Rolexes I bought new rest in their boxes, on a shelf, in the dark. If my spouse finds the sales receipts, she'll get half in the divorce.
The Steinharts I mentioned above are nice Swiss-made *automatic* watches in the price point of the OP. I bought two (Ocean Vintage Red and the OV Military on a Nato strap) for 'wearers' on vacation trips.
And, everybody has a Seiko 5-Sport somewhere in their drawer.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

^^^ Well said.


----------



## DG123 (Sep 16, 2011)

TimelesStyle said:


> Also, as a Rolex owner, I can give a number of reasons why I love my watch, but "good value" wouldn't likely be one of them.


 There are not many items consumer goods, like Rolex, which can be worn and enjoyed for forty years and then sold for more than one paid. That is about as "good value" as is possible.
Most all other watches , from $50 to $2,000, are not especially enjoyable to wear, and have little resale pricing power. In this case a $50 Timex does offer a good value.


----------



## StephenRG (Apr 7, 2005)

DG123 said:


> There are not many items consumer goods, like Rolex, which can be worn and enjoyed for forty years and then sold for more than one paid. That is about as "good value" as is possible.


One should consider maintenance costs, of course.


----------



## filfoster (Aug 23, 2011)

StephenRG said:


> One should consider maintenance costs, of course.


Are you referring to the $300-$400 cost of the refurbishing of an auto every 5 years or so? Many will go longer and you do get what amounts to a brand-new condition watch back to start all over with. 
Quartz watches do require a new battery every year or so and if the batteries leak, well, that's not pretty.


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

MaxBuck said:


> If you'd tell me what such reasons might be, I'd be happy to listen. My mind is open, but so far nobody has provided such a reason.


Don't hold your breath.


RogerP said:


> To the OP - another point to consider is that you purchase dollar will go a lot further if you buy used. A one or two year old watch (often much less) in pristine condition can often be had for far, far less than its original retail price.





DG123 said:


> There are not many items consumer goods, like Rolex, which can be worn and enjoyed for forty years and then sold for more than one paid.


I am confused. Do these things depreciate like crazy, because who besides a chiseler is looking at used watches, or are they inflation-fighting investments requiring only that c-note per year in average maintenance?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Tempest said:


> Don't hold your breath.
> 
> I am confused. Do these things depreciate like crazy, because who besides a chiseler is looking at used watches, or are they inflation-fighting investments requiring only that c-note per year in average maintenance?


Not all Rolex watches hold their value or can be sold for more than they were purchased for. There are certain models, from certain years that the real aficionados go crazy for.

I am fortunate enough to have a Rolex military issue submariner (Mil Sub to the collectors). It was a gift from my father who himself received it as a gift. I've been offered some nice sums of money for it but it's an heirloom and I won't part with it. It's an interesting piece and a nice conversation starter.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

SG_67 said:


> Not all Rolex watches hold their value or can be sold for more than they were purchased for. There are certain models, from certain years that the real aficionados go crazy for.
> 
> I am fortunate enough to have a Rolex military issue submariner (Mil Sub to the collectors). It was a gift from my father who himself received it as a gift. I've been offered some nice sums of money for it but it's an heirloom and I won't part with it. It's an interesting piece and a nice conversation starter.


I have an Omega Deville from my maternal grandfather and an Omega Seamaster from my paternal grandfather. I find it kind of cool that they selected similar watches even though they were very different individuals. Not too many quartz watches are destined to become heirlooms, I don't think. Even an inexpensive mechanical, if maintained, can run for generations.


----------



## DG123 (Sep 16, 2011)

Tempest said:


> Don't hold your breath.
> 
> I am confused. Do these things depreciate like crazy, because who besides a chiseler is looking at used watches, or are they inflation-fighting investments requiring only that c-note per year in average maintenance?


The market for used or "pre worn" Rolex watches has always been robust. No other watch brand can make the same claim.


----------



## mhdena (Jan 4, 2008)

DG123 said:


> The market for used or "pre worn" Rolex watches has always been robust. No other watch brand can make the same claim.


There is at least one other brand higher up the food chain that could make that claim.

As that brand flys under the radar of the general public, Most of those owners prefer it that way.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

mhdena said:


> There is at least one other brand higher up the food chain that could make that claim.
> 
> As that brand flys under the radar of the general public, Most of those owners prefer it that way.


Correct.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

filfoster said:


> Are you referring to the $300-$400 cost of the refurbishing of an auto every 5 years or so? Many will go longer and you do get what amounts to a brand-new condition watch back to start all over with.
> Quartz watches do require a new battery every year or so and if the batteries leak, well, that's not pretty.


I've never had a problem getting at least three years out of a battery, and never once had one leak. Nor have I ever known anyone to have a leaky watch battery. These are really non-problems.

The notion that mechanical watches require less care than quartz is a fiction. Come up with better excuses than these if you want me to believe you're buying mechanical watches for any practical reason.


----------



## filfoster (Aug 23, 2011)

MaxBuck said:


> I've never had a problem getting at least three years out of a battery, and never once had one leak. Nor have I ever known anyone to have a leaky watch battery. These are really non-problems.
> 
> The notion that mechanical watches require less care than quartz is a fiction. Come up with better excuses than these if you want me to believe you're buying mechanical watches for any practical reason.


I never claimed to be buying them for a practical reason other than greater resale value. I'm a watch snob. Done.

I haven't owned a quartz watch since the late '70's until I bought the TAG Link mentioned above so I don't know about leaks but I did some online sleuthing before I bought it, (I would have bought it anyway), and the quartz watch types report that it does happen. Glad you haven't had that problem.


----------



## filfoster (Aug 23, 2011)

SG_67 said:


> Not all Rolex watches hold their value or can be sold for more than they were purchased for. There are certain models, from certain years that the real aficionados go crazy for.
> 
> I am fortunate enough to have a Rolex military issue submariner (Mil Sub to the collectors)..


You're a lucky guy to own that 'grail' watch. Generally, the stainless steel 'tool' Rolexes are the ones that keep their resale value, compared to the uber-blinged concoctions. That's what my local AD claims, and his opinion did affect my purchases. You never know when you'll want to trade up and there is the post-mortem yard sale to think of.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Weekend before last I was out shopping with my wife and daughter and we stumbled into a Swatch store. We each stumbled out with a new watch. Fun, funky, cool, inexpensive. Quartz has its place. Beyond a certain price point, however, quartz loses its appeal. For me. Those who find enjoyment in more costly quartz pieces aren't "stupid". They just have different preferences than I do.

As for the Rolex resale issue - it is quite overblown, IMO.

First, yes, Rolex do generally hold their value better than other brands - assuming we are speaking of the core professional models and not the blinged out pimp wear.

But that is comparing resale based on full retail - as those core models are not frequently discounted. If I buy a $5k Rolex and turn around and sell it six months later for $4k, I have lost 20% relative to retail and $1k in actual dollars. If I buy a $5k Omega, discounted 20% at point of sale to $4k, and turn around and sell it 6 months later for $3k, some will point out that I have lost a whopping 40% from retail. Which is true. But I'm still out the same $1k.

Did the Rolex hold its value better? Yes, absolutely. Does it matter one whit in this example? No, absolutely not.

Not hating on Rolex. Trying hard to resist the temptation of the new Milgauss Blue as I type.


----------



## filfoster (Aug 23, 2011)

RogerP said:


> .
> 
> Not hating on Rolex. Trying hard to resist the temptation of the new Milgauss Blue as I type.


Give in. You know you'll get it eventually.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

^^^ You're not helping. :mad2: :biggrin:

Another option for the OP. This particular example is sold, but these pop up from time to time in the secondary market at around the $500 mark. Quite a nice piece, IMO.

https://forums.watchuseek.com/f29/hamilton-khaki-navy-pioneer-auto-eta-2895-2-h78465553-1075782.html


----------



## filfoster (Aug 23, 2011)

RogerP said:


> ^^^ You're not helping. :mad2: :biggrin:
> 
> Another option for the OP. This particular example is sold, but these pop up from time to time in the secondary market at around the $500 mark. Quite a nice piece, IMO.
> 
> https://forums.watchuseek.com/f29/hamilton-khaki-navy-pioneer-auto-eta-2895-2-h78465553-1075782.html


Darn you! I am tempted to buy that one myself. What a beautiful watch! I might if I had any swag left after buying those two TAGs .


----------



## DG123 (Sep 16, 2011)

mhdena said:


> There is at least one other brand higher up the food chain that could make that claim.
> 
> As that brand flys under the radar of the general public, Most of those owners prefer it that way.


I don't know what brand you may be referring to, but Patek Phillippe does not have as good a used market pricing power as does Rolex.


----------



## Mute (Apr 3, 2005)

RogerP said:


> Weekend before last I was out shopping with my wife and daughter and we stumbled into a Swatch store. We each stumbled out with a new watch. Fun, funky, cool, inexpensive. Quartz has its place. Beyond a certain price point, however, quartz loses its appeal. For me. Those who find enjoyment in more costly quartz pieces aren't "stupid". They just have different preferences than I do.
> 
> As for the Rolex resale issue - it is quite overblown, IMO.
> 
> ...


I generally find your opinion on time pieces match pretty closely to mine. As for that Milgauss Blue Rolex. Looked good in a web browser. In person, not so impressive. If I ever get a Rolex, I'd probably just opt for a black Sea Dweller.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Mute said:


> I generally find your opinion on time pieces match pretty closely to mine. As for that Milgauss Blue Rolex. Looked good in a web browser. In person, not so impressive. If I ever get a Rolex, I'd probably just opt for a black Sea Dweller.


I saw it in person and quite liked it. I generally do not go for pale blue in a dial, but this one really did it for me for some reason. I do think that my second choice - a basic Sub Ceramic - is a safer bet though.


----------



## godan (Feb 10, 2010)

RogerP said:


> I saw it in person and quite liked it. I generally do not go for pale blue in a dial, but this one really did it for me for some reason. I do think that my second choice - a basic Sub Ceramic - is a safer bet though.


I, too, liked the Milgauss when I saw it, and I was wearing a much-loved Explorer I at the time. Perhaps wearing slightly larger 7750 pilot chronos recently has hardened me to the larger cases. The store manager, who knows me, came over and offered a very good deal on the trade in of my Explorer. If it had not just returned from complete spiritual rejuvenation at the Rolex ashram, I probably would have done the deal. I may just buy a Milgauss anyway.


----------



## irish95 (Sep 27, 2011)

Yes, some of these watches do depreciate like crazy. That is why the "used market" is great if you take the time to do a little research. I bought a Breitling Headwind through watchrecon a year ago and got a great deal. The watch had been discontinued, but it still beats paying 2 to 3 times for a new Breitling model. As to the resale of Rolexes, certain models definitely will go up in value. The problem now is those models have really appreciated over the last few years on the used market. I bought my wife a new rolex 12 years ago for Mother's Day and it is now worth more than what I paid. Having said that, I do understand Maxbuck"s opinion that a simple quartz will do the same job, but I don't drive a Toyota corolla either. Humor intended.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

irish95 said:


> Having said that, I do understand Maxbuck"s opinion that a simple quartz will do the same job, but I don't drive a Toyota corolla either. Humor intended.


Do you share his opinion that buying a mechanical watch below the $5k mark is "extremely stupid"?


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

RogerP said:


> Do you share his opinion that buying a mechanical watch below the $5k mark is "extremely stupid"?


OK, very poor choice of terms. Mea culpa. It would have been far better to say that there's no reasonable justification to do so for *practicality. *My choice of terms was likely a result of my reaction to watch snobs. But I shouldn't have used it at all.

I still believe that limiting recommendations to mechanical watches and acting as though quartz watches are a choice made only by ignoramuses is unreasonable. I've got watchmakers in the family and my wife has owned several fine mechanical timepieces, but the watchmakers migrated to quartz for their own use early on - because they give more accurate time.


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

mhdena said:


> There is at least one other brand higher up the food chain that could make that claim.
> 
> As that brand flys under the radar of the general public, Most of those owners prefer it that way.


I know I do.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^Indeed,
....seemingly a well kept secret to successfully dressing oneself properly and well! :thumbs-up:


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Pentheos said:


> I know I do.


He's speaking, of course, of the new iWatch.


----------



## irish95 (Sep 27, 2011)

To RogerP--No I don't. As has been discussed on these forums over and over, people choose to spend their money in a variety of ways and we all have opinions on the sanity of those choices. What I also recognize is that those choices are based on our own vanity. I am as guilty as anyone of making those type of decisions, i.e. my Toyota Corolla remark. I playa lot of golf. I have had the same set of irons for 10 years. I have friends who have had 4 sets in the same period. Is that necessary, of course not, but its what they like to do with their money. These same guys will wear the same golf shoes for 2 years. I have 6 pairs. To each his own.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

1. The watch thing is irrational. I happen to share the bug, which is a pity because I don't share the financial means. If I did...let's just say that if I ever won the lottery, before I even told my wife I'd probably call my friend who works at the Tourneau adjacent to my building..."Doug, I'm about to make your month."
2. I can't explain the pleasure I get from my seiko mechanical. My wife was asking me about that, since to her it's just another cheap seiko like all others one sees at the mall (of course, mine is JDM only, purchased through a Japanese retailer...). For her, watches are nothing more than fashion accessories, and she doesn't care if it's "quality" but only if it's "cute." These days's she's sporting a Shinola. 
2. That Hamilton naval watch RogerP linked to is sharp...and it reminds me of another good option, although relatively obscure: Kemmner. He sells through ebay.de (https://www.ebay.com/usr/erkahund) and has an ever changing inventory. Sometimes he sells sweet naval deck watches. I think his Tonneau is handsome.
3. I like Swatches...I agree they have their place
4. Some quartz are spectacularly accurate and are lovely in their own right. There's also something to be said for a watch that doesn't need to be set...since I wear a Seiko dive watch as my default "vacation watch," I've often regretted not picking up a SBCM023...which has both a "High End Quartz" movement and a perpetual calendar. 
5. I don't get the Milgauss thing.


----------



## godan (Feb 10, 2010)

tocqueville said:


> 1.
> 5. I don't get the Milgauss thing.


For me, the Milgauss is similar to the Explorer I, Air King and a few other Rolex models in that it offers quality without display.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

irish95 said:


> To RogerP--*No I don't. *As has been discussed on these forums over and over, people choose to spend their money in a variety of ways and we all have opinions on the sanity of those choices. What I also recognize is that those choices are based on our own vanity. I am as guilty as anyone of making those type of decisions, i.e. my Toyota Corolla remark. I playa lot of golf. I have had the same set of irons for 10 years. I have friends who have had 4 sets in the same period. Is that necessary, of course not, but its what they like to do with their money. These same guys will wear the same golf shoes for 2 years. I have 6 pairs. To each his own.


Good to know. I think it a safe assumption that the bulk of our clothing / shoe / accessory purchases fall outside the strict boundaries of that which is "necessary". I've played the same set of irons for around 8 years - and yes - I have seen many golfers on the endless equipment upgrade carousel. But is it "neccessary" that my one set of irons be custom fit Pings? Nope. Are puchases which fall outside the bounds of the basic essentials by definition stupid and / or vain? Nope. Do I presume to know with certainty the motivation behind the purchase decisions of any individual buyer or group of buyers? Nope. Not unless that individual declares his motivation.


----------



## Mickey Rhoades (Jul 18, 2013)

I work around high electromagnetic fields. I have had numerous friends have automatic watches get magnetized. It's like $500 to get them fixed at that point. The Milgauss will resist this and I see its point. However, a better bet is the new Omega 15,000 gauss. A completely U permeable balance spring is a better solution that a thicker cage. That being said, Rolex was selling the Milgauss 50 years ago to scientist at CERN and they didn't seem to have a problem with the protection. I'm a big fan of the coaxial movement, as it is the lowest maintenance, best time keeping mechanism around (outside of Quartz). 

In summary, the Milgauss serves a very specific purpose that I would possibly need. Does the average person? Probably not. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## orange fury (Dec 8, 2013)

I've never been a fan of the Milgauss- referencing godan's comment, I vastly prefer the Explorer I and Air King. I think it's the orange lightning bolt second hand I can't deal with.

my 1928 Elgin got magnetized once. A friend of mine is a watchmaker, and he said it was the worst case he'd seen in 55 years of fixing timepieces. Took 4 months to correct- point being, I certainly see why the Milgauss exists lol


----------



## EclecticSr. (Sep 21, 2014)

orange fury said:


> I've never been a fan of the Milgauss- referencing godan's comment, I vastly prefer the Explorer I and Air King. I think it's the orange lightning bolt second hand I can't deal with.
> 
> my 1928 Elgin got magnetized once. A friend of mine is a watchmaker, and he said it was the worst case he'd seen in 55 years of fixing timepieces. Took 4 months to correct- point being, I certainly see why the Milgauss exists lol


That must have been some case of magnetism, I can usually degauz any of my watches in about 20 seconds. If they need it.


----------



## orange fury (Dec 8, 2013)

EclecticSr. said:


> That must have been some case of magnetism, I can usually degauz any of my watches in about 20 seconds. If they need it.


I ad it for about 3 months after buying it before it suddenly stopped one day. I took it back to the shop, and they spent the next 2 years sourcing and replacing parts on it (mainspring, balance wheel, etc- major stuff). I eventually took it back and it worked temporarily, but I gave up when it stopped again. I was talking with a friend of mine from my lodge about it after a meeting, and he offered to look at it-he was the one that discovered it was magnetized (while railing about how crappy the other shop was lol). It took him 4 months of demagnetizing, timing, and making adjustments repeatedly before he was able to completely fix it. That was almost a year ago, and it's worked flawlessly ever since:


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

^ Lovely!


----------



## EclecticSr. (Sep 21, 2014)

orange fury said:


> I ad it for about 3 months after buying it before it suddenly stopped one day. I took it back to the shop, and they spent the next 2 years sourcing and replacing parts on it (mainspring, balance wheel, etc- major stuff). I eventually took it back and it worked temporarily, but I gave up when it stopped again. I was talking with a friend of mine from my lodge about it after a meeting, and he offered to look at it-he was the one that discovered it was magnetized (while railing about how crappy the other shop was lol). It took him 4 months of demagnetizing, timing, and making adjustments repeatedly before he was able to completely fix it. That was almost a year ago, and it's worked flawlessly ever since:


Do you prefer vintage? Half of my watches are vintage that I purchased outright or that I was successful bidding on them on -bay. Can't wear very large watches say wider than 35 mm or very thick ones. I enjoy tinkering with them. Nice Elgin.


----------



## orange fury (Dec 8, 2013)

EclecticSr. said:


> Do you prefer vintage? Half of my watches are vintage that I purchased outright or that I was successful bidding on them on -bay. Can't wear very large watches say wider than 35 mm or very thick ones. I enjoy tinkering with them. Nice Elgin.


I don't necessarily prefer vintage, but I won't turn them down. I have 5 in my collection- 2 Hamilton tanks (one 1955, one 1948), a square Benrus (1957, IIRC), the Elgin (1928), and a 1902 Illinois Watch Company pocket watch that my great gandfather and grandfather used on the railroad (it had the 3-finger Getty bridge movement, if anyone is interested in watch history lol).

One thing I do enjoy about vintage watches that was referenced before- they were fairly mass produced, but it's rare that you see someone wearing the same thing today. Also, in the case of the Elgin, it's kind of neat knowing that I'm wearing something made almost 100 years ago, and it works just as well now as it did at production.


----------



## EclecticSr. (Sep 21, 2014)

orange fury said:


> I don't necessarily prefer vintage, but I won't turn them down. I have 5 in my collection- 2 Hamilton tanks (one 1955, one 1948), a square Benrus (1957, IIRC), the Elgin (1928), and a 1902 Illinois Watch Company pocket watch that my great gandfather and grandfather used on the railroad (it had the 3-finger Getty bridge movement, if anyone is interested in watch history lol).
> 
> One thing I do enjoy about vintage watches that was referenced before- they were fairly mass produced, but it's rare that you see someone wearing the same thing today. Also, in the case of the Elgin, it's kind of neat knowing that I'm wearing something made almost 100 years ago, and it works just as well now as it did at production.


Some in your collection resemble some of those I have. I also have a Illinois three finger and others. Aside from the early vintage the balance of my collection range in age up to the present. I agree about early production watches still banging today.


----------



## Mickey Rhoades (Jul 18, 2013)

orange fury said:


> I ad it for about 3 months after buying it before it suddenly stopped one day. I took it back to the shop, and they spent the next 2 years sourcing and replacing parts on it (mainspring, balance wheel, etc- major stuff). I eventually took it back and it worked temporarily, but I gave up when it stopped again. I was talking with a friend of mine from my lodge about it after a meeting, and he offered to look at it-he was the one that discovered it was magnetized (while railing about how crappy the other shop was lol). It took him 4 months of demagnetizing, timing, and making adjustments repeatedly before he was able to completely fix it. That was almost a year ago, and it's worked flawlessly ever since:


Sir, your you have impeccable taste. That is a beautiful watch. On the magnetism note, I read in an article that all Omegas will have the anti magnetic balance spring and the other inners of the 15,000 gauss within the next 5 years. I'm not a fan of the "bumble bee" second hand (meant to represent high radiation tape you see on the floor). I'm waiting for the anti-magnetic plain white DeVille and then I'll have the watch I've been lusting for 3 years.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## cosmic_cookie (Jan 30, 2014)

I agree and suggest the Hamilton or Tissot for $500.

I really, really like the look of Orient's watches and wanted one, but I've never had one from them nor know of anyone who has, so I didn't get one because I don't know how long they'll last.

If you don't mind a quarts, I'd say Movado hit the nail on the head with timeless design. As a non-billionaire watch guy, I'd go with their Red Label, but I think the non-discount retail is $1,000 - $2,000; try to find one on sale or discount. I'd safely say 90% of their watches can be used as dress watches. I personally love their beautiful and timeless "Museum" style, so I'd strongly suggest you getting one of the quarts pieces. Plus, they're at like every mall, so you should be able to take a look in person any time you would like.

$1,000 - $2,000 Red Label:
https://www.intl.movado.com/movado-collections/red-label/red-label-0606112.html

Movado's $500 quartz collection: 
https://www.intl.movado.com/movado-collections/museum.html









Better yet: look for vintage watches! It's a really nice hobby to get into, but restoration and maintenance becomes pricey on mechanicals.


----------



## EclecticSr. (Sep 21, 2014)

cosmic_cookie said:


> I agree and suggest the Hamilton or Tissot for $500.
> 
> I really, really like the look of Orient's watches and wanted one, but I've never had one from them nor know of anyone who has, so I didn't get one because I don't know how long they'll last.
> 
> ...


If your interested in Orients I would suggest the Star Classics. Own one. the Bambinos are lower tier albeit nice looking watches. I can't speak to their longevity, I haven't had it long enough to tell. Well made watches. Take a look here https://www.seiyajapan.com/collections/orient
Very reputable dealer.


----------



## cosmic_cookie (Jan 30, 2014)

EclecticSr. said:


> If your interested in Orients I would suggest the Star Classics. Own one. the Bambinos are lower tier albeit nice looking watches. I can't speak to their longevity, I haven't had it long enough to tell. Well made watches. Take a look here https://www.seiyajapan.com/collections/orient
> Very reputable dealer.


Thank you for the link and buying one before me :tongue2: I'll search for one of their mechanical or automatics with their red logo. I'm a sucker for aesthetic design, so that pop of red in their logo is what attracted me the first time around. After digging around last year with the desire for one of their watches, something put me off about it the company... They try to service every range under one-thousand dollars and whilst doing so, they have what seems to be hundreds or thousands of different models... It makes me think they're more worried about quantity sold than quality of their mechanical or automatic moment. I mean, it is Seiko after all... which has its merits.

Then again, the watch snob creeps out of me when I have to purchase a watch... and makes things a little difficult to choose since quality obviously matters. Having a quality build for the movement, casing and design always ends up landing me in another time zone. Example: I recently set out to buy a Timex Weekender and found myself with a Nomos Tetra because I don't have anywhere to wear the Weekender. It's just fifty dollars to satisfy a want, but it'll be taunting me for the next decade. I bought a quartz Skagen out of impulse a little more than a year ago; I've only worn it twice regardless that I find it as a wonderful thing to look at. Maybe I'm a little too worried about the perception of others. Oh goodness, I'm insecure about my watches. I need a shrink. :confused2:


----------



## YukonCornelius21 (Oct 28, 2009)

A Seiko SARB that catches your eye and fits your budget. Most if not all can be had for under $500.


----------



## jf-intels (Sep 21, 2014)

Is it alright to wear a watch with arabic numbers instead of roman numerals? I have a watch with 1 2 3 not I V IV which is great because I don't screw up the time and its easy to read from afar because the numbers are so huge but is this frowned upon ? 

Should a watch with a suit be metal? 

What is the absolute most casual watch you can wear with a suit? 

What kind of watch would you bring with you to an interview?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^^^

1) Traditionally? No. Realistically? Sure, why not. As long as it's not some monstrous, over gimmicked diving watch that won't fit under the cuff of your shirt.

2) Former Treasury Secretary, Hank Paulson, wore a Timex Ironman with his suits. For mere mortals, I would think anything that is not digital and has either a leather strap or metal bracelet. No nylon. Ideally, you would want a simple and thin watch.

3) See above; simple and clean. You want to be the focus of the interview, not your watch.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

jf-intels said:


> Is it alright to wear a watch with arabic numbers instead of roman numerals? I have a watch with 1 2 3 not I V IV which is great because I don't screw up the time and its easy to read from afar because the numbers are so huge but is this frowned upon ?
> 
> Should a watch with a suit be metal?
> 
> ...


That would be frowned upon by none but the very geekiest of watch snobs, which is to ay, next to nobody at all.

A dress watch, if you want to be traditional, should be a simple, clean 3-hander on a strap. Think "elegant" and "understated" and you can't go far wrong. But people wear bloody anything with a suit these days and nobody calls the fashion police. I choose to wear a dress watch with a suit. Others choose differently. And you "can" wear absolutely anything you like.

For an interview, I would wear a watch least likely to be noticed.


----------



## cosmic_cookie (Jan 30, 2014)

RogerP said:


> That would be frowned upon by none but the very geekiest of watch snobs, which is to ay, next to nobody at all.
> 
> A dress watch, if you want to be traditional, should be a simple, clean 3-hander on a strap. Think "elegant" and "understated" and you can't go far wrong. But people wear bloody anything with a suit these days and nobody calls the fashion police. I choose to wear a dress watch with a suit. Others choose differently. And you "can" wear absolutely anything you like.
> 
> For an interview, I would wear a watch least likely to be noticed.


This. +1


----------

