# What's Your Watch-Wearing Ways?



## Captain America (Aug 28, 2012)

I've got an expensive watch, which I hardly wear at all, while I have several cheapos. I find that I use the cheapos all the time.

I think I wear the expensive watch (to me; I bought it years ago for $350) only when I'm wearing a suit, and put on a nice-looking quartz when I'm dressed casual.

While expensive watches sure look neat, they can get scratched up. I suppose I'm saying I kind of think they're eye-candy but impractical at the end of the day, and so, for me, something I would end up wistfully walking away from.


----------



## Topsider (Jul 9, 2005)

IMO, it depends more on the style of the watch than the price. That, and what I'm doing while wearing it.

That being said, most of my "expensive" watches are nearly indistinguishable from my "cheap" ones.


----------



## Belfaborac (Aug 20, 2011)

I wear my expensive watches all the time and everywhere. Had I not been prepared to do so, I would not have bought them. I also fail to see how they're any more impractical than cheap watches, although if you are afraid of using them, then of course they will become somewhat pointless decorative objects rather than useful instruments.


----------



## tuckspub (Jan 18, 2013)

I would second Belfaborac's opinion. My expensive watch which I wear daily has a saphire crystal face and as such does not get scratched at all, the body is stainless steel and has a few scratches but nothing that I find intrusive. I have an expensive evening watch that I wear when the occasion is formal, it was given to my grandfather in the 40's and still runs like a charm, its manual and fairly plain and simple, but the fact that I admire the great workmanship that went into it only adds to my enjoyment. I do find it strange that nobody hesitates to buy a $500 pair of shoes, but will match it with a $35 quartz watch. I guess its a question of different strokes for different folks.


----------



## godan (Feb 10, 2010)

Topsider said:


> IMO, it depends more on the style of the watch than the price. That, and what I'm doing while wearing it.
> 
> That being said, most of my "expensive" watches are nearly indistinguishable from my "cheap" ones.


Both statements are true for me. My favorite higher-end watch for daily wear is a Rolex Explorer I whose appearance is not striking at all. For some client meetings, I wear a more distinctive DateJust, or a restored Bulova or Hamilton. Recently, I have tried Citizen Eco-Drive and Casio G-Shock models for mountaineering and ranch work. These two seem equally robust. The Citizen looks more civilized, and the Casio has more useful features.


----------



## blairrob (Oct 30, 2010)

Belfaborac said:


> I wear my expensive watches all the time and everywhere. Had I not been prepared to do so, I would not have bought them. I also fail to see how they're any more impractical than cheap watches, although if you are afraid of using them, then of course they will become somewhat pointless decorative objects rather than useful instruments.


I would think by definition that they _are_ impractical given a premium watch is unlikely to preform better or last longer than a standard one. Exceptions to this statement might include space use or other unique circumstances but they are exceptions. To be more practical an item must have a more useful aspect to it than another and provide value for that aspect, and I don't believe a premium watch does this.

I love my Co-axial chronograph but could never rationalize a 6 grand watch's practicality over my Timex digital or Citizen eco something. God knows I've tried.


----------



## tuckspub (Jan 18, 2013)

I wonder how many quartz watches will be running 70 years from now, my Patek still keeps time just fine. That in my book is pretty practical.


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

I have five analog watches, ranging from $150-1250, but these days I just put on a plain old atomic Casio on an olive green zulu band probably 4 out of 5 days a week to go to work. I also wear crewneck sweatshirts, khakis, and Sperrys to work, now, though. I work out at lunch and need my watch for that and it seems silly to change them. Plus, it is probably more accurate


----------



## Himself (Mar 2, 2011)

My favorite watch was a digital Seiko Sports 100 (?) that my father bought overseas -- a unique design with round body and face, all stainless steel with gold trim. Unlike similar models it was actually quite elegant, and I got a lot of compliments on it. The main feature for me was a countdown timer for sailing, plus various alarms. I wore it until about 15 years ago, when the bezel trim came off. If I ever find that part I will have the watch restored with a new crystal and a good cleaning, which I used to do every few years.

By the time my watch broke I had been carrying a phone, which is what I've been using since. Now wearing a watch seems silly_. Time is everywhere!_


----------



## cincydavid (May 21, 2012)

I quit wearing a watch several years ago. I have a dozen mechanical Gruens and an automatic Tissot but they never come out to play anymore. Maybe I'll dig them out and start wearing them again.


----------



## Belfaborac (Aug 20, 2011)

blairrob said:


> I would think by definition that they _are_ impractical given a premium watch is unlikely to preform better or last longer than a standard one. Exceptions to this statement might include space use or other unique circumstances but they are exceptions. To be more practical an item must have a more useful aspect to it than another and provide value for that aspect, and I don't believe a premium watch does this.


I never claimed they are better or more practical though, only that an expensive watch is no less practical than a cheap one. Hard to see how it could be otherwise.


----------



## blairrob (Oct 30, 2010)

tuckspub said:


> I wonder how many quartz watches will be running 70 years from now, my Patek still keeps time just fine. That in my book is pretty practical.


No, the fact that you might care more for a Patek than a quartz watch does not make it more practical. A cheaper mechanical watch with a basic ETA watch is just as likely to be running in 70 years, and perhaps more likely depending upon the movement in your Patek. Additionally, one could purchase a new watch every few months that has more functions (and probably but not surely more functionality) and still be financially well ahead in the time frame, a (usually) key parameter in determining practicality. You must either have an odd defintion of practicality or are rationalizing a luxury purchase, the latter being a very common happenstance. If I drove a Bentley cabriolet in the summer instead of my Saab it might well last longer because of the way I would treat it, but that doesn't make it more practical. Such as these are emotional decisions.


----------



## emb1980 (Dec 28, 2012)

One day I will pull my (as yet non-existant) son aside and say: "Today you are a man. Take this watch that you have seen me wear so often and that I have worn around the world on many adventures. May it be a faithful companion to you as it was to me."

While you could do this with any watch, it feels more fitting for it to be a watch of special quality and character.


----------



## Uncle Bill (May 4, 2010)

I have a small watch collection, mostly divers. My two main go to time pieces are a , 1960s Blancpain 50 Fathoms tribute that was issued to the Navy Seals and Marine Force Recon in the mid 1960s and for dressier occasions, a mid 1960s Omega Seamaster Deville on a walnut leather strap. I have a hankering for either a Trident GMT watch from Christopher Ward or a (pilot's) watch, neither is a near term purchase.


----------



## Belfaborac (Aug 20, 2011)

blairrob said:


> Additionally, one could purchase a new watch every few months that has more functions (and probably but not surely more functionality) and still be financially well ahead in the time frame, a (usually) key parameter in determining practicality.


It's good that you included the "(usually)". The price only has a bearing on practicality if paying it would impair your finances and negatively impact other areas of your life. If not, then it has no relevance as far as practicality is concerned. As far as I'm concerned my Richard Lange or F. A. Jones are just as practical as my Seiko Kinetic.


----------



## SigmaSix (Feb 21, 2013)

I have several expensive Swiss watches. Some dress and some sport. However, I don't really wear them around town and especially to work. For that I usually stick to something like a Timex or on occasion my inherited vintage Omega. 

Most of the time around the house I just wear an Ironman.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Uncle Bill said:


> I have a small watch collection, mostly divers. My two main go to time pieces are a , 1960s Blancpain 50 Fathoms tribute that was issued to the Navy Seals and Marine Force Recon in the mid 1960s and for dressier occasions, a mid 1960s Omega Seamaster Deville on a walnut leather strap. I have a hankering for either a Trident GMT watch from Christopher Ward or a (pilot's) watch, neither is a near term purchase.


Love the Skindiver.


----------



## Uncle Bill (May 4, 2010)

Bjorn said:


> Love the Skindiver.


I have to force myself to wear the Seamaster Deville, my Helson Skindiver gets most of the wrist time. Helson makes some great watches, mostly with higher end Myiota movements these days, which I have no problem with. My skin diver was #24 in the initial production run with a the eta 2824 movement with the domed acrylic crystal.


----------



## whollyroamin (Mar 10, 2013)

I have a couple Citizens, one more formal and one more casual, that I wear every day. But I observe in my classroom that very few of the next generation will wear a watch. It's a cell-phone-clock world, and wearing a watch is a conscious decision.


----------



## Captain America (Aug 28, 2012)

I like the Helson diver. Nice stuff.


----------



## blue suede shoes (Mar 22, 2010)

tuckspub said:


> I would second Belfaborac's opinion. My expensive watch which I wear daily has a saphire crystal face and as such does not get scratched at all, the body is stainless steel and has a few scratches but nothing that I find intrusive. I have an expensive evening watch that I wear when the occasion is formal, it was given to my grandfather in the 40's and still runs like a charm, its manual and fairly plain and simple, but the fact that I admire the great workmanship that went into it only adds to my enjoyment. I do find it strange that nobody hesitates to buy a $500 pair of shoes, but will match it with a $35 quartz watch. I guess its a question of different strokes for different folks.


It may be strange, but that $500 or $600 pair of shoes makes my feet feel and look like a million bucks, while spending $6,000 or more for a watch doesn't make me feel or look any better than a sub $100 fashion watch. Also those expensive leather shoes will make me walk better and give me better posture.


----------



## mayostard (Mar 10, 2013)

tuckspub said:


> I wonder how many quartz watches will be running 70 years from now, my Patek still keeps time just fine. That in my book is pretty practical.


I think you are way overplaying this hand. There are plenty of robust mechanical watches that will run 70 years and cost a lot less than a patek. There are also plenty of high-quality quartz movements that will run reliably (and require much less maintenance (seiko has a quartz movement with a 50-year service interval, for example)).

and of course, the person buying the $25 timex can just buy a new one whenever it breaks and have tons of cash left over after 70 years.

Watches are wonderful but beyond the $25 timex they're anything BUT practical.


----------



## mayostard (Mar 10, 2013)

Captain America said:


> While expensive watches sure look neat, they can get scratched up.


That's when they look their best!


----------



## mayostard (Mar 10, 2013)

Belfaborac said:


> I never claimed they are better or more practical though, only that an expensive watch is no less practical than a cheap one. Hard to see how it could be otherwise.


you have to consider the alternative uses of the cash. You're not comparing the usefulness of a patek to a timex. you're comparing the usefulness of a patek to a timex plus a big pile of money.


----------



## Topsider (Jul 9, 2005)

blue suede shoes said:


> It may be strange, but that $500 or $600 pair of shoes makes my feet feel and look like a million bucks, while spending $6,000 or more for a watch doesn't make me feel or look any better than a sub $100 fashion watch.


All that means is that you like shoes, but don't care much about watches. Value is in the eye of the beholder.


----------



## Topsider (Jul 9, 2005)

mayostard said:


> you have to consider the alternative uses of the cash. You're not comparing the usefulness of a patek to a timex. you're comparing the usefulness of a patek to a timex plus a big pile of money.


Most luxury watches can be easily converted back into a big pile of money at any time, should the need arise.


----------



## Semper Jeep (Oct 11, 2011)

None of my watches are too pricey or rare (a vintage Omega I have is the most expensive and I doubt it would fetch $1k) but I figure that if I did have one at the high end, I would wear just as I wear my Seikos and Swiss Armys.

I routinely walk around in $600+ shoes and boots and I don't go too far out of my way to avoid puddles or mud, I cannot imagine my watch-wearing would be any different. What's the point of wearing something nice if all you do is worry about it?


----------



## smujd (Mar 18, 2008)

I wear my Oyster Perpetual Datejust almost everywhere. It's been all over the US and around the world with me. Great watch. Its has scratches and a couple of dings, but that just gives it some character. I've never understood those who have nice watches, cars, rifles, etc. and don't use them.


----------



## filfoster (Aug 23, 2011)

I believe that you buy an expensive watch because you are an unrepentant watch snob. At least that's why I did.
I have bought three Rolexes, new and wear one every day, a SS Sub 14060M no date; I have new GMTII, ceramic bezel (really unnecessary embellishment, to me), that sits in its original box with all the papers, in a dark closet, and a two-tone datejust with white Roman face I wear for dress up. But, I wear a Seiko SS 5-Sport May-August for no particular reason. The Seiko keeps time just the same as the Rolexi and didn't cost a body part to buy.


----------



## mayostard (Mar 10, 2013)

Topsider said:


> Most luxury watches can be easily converted back into a big pile of money at any time, should the need arise.


Sure, but (outside of a tiny number of cases) at a loss, and usually a substantial one.


----------



## Topsider (Jul 9, 2005)

mayostard said:


> Sure, but (outside of a tiny number of cases) at a loss, and usually a substantial one.


Depends how much you paid in the first place. Sure, if you buy brand-new, expect to take a loss. If you're the second buyer, however, different story.

All of my so-called "expensive" watches were purchased second-hand at an average of 50% of retail. I'm not worried about resale, since I don't plan to sell them, but could easily get back what I paid for them.


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

I hate diver watches and chronographs. I also hate anything over 40mm. I love the way that Timex easy readers look, but I refuse to buy watches made in China. I've been considering contacting the Hampden watch company and ordering a Timex copy from them.

On most days, I wear an old Longines that belonged to my father. It actually isn't my top esthetic choice since the face lacks numerals (and I specifically prefer arabic numerals), but I wear it a lot because it has sentimental value. I put a burgundy band on it because I wear burgundy shoes most frequently.

On days when I'm not wearing burgundy shoes, I switch off between some other vintage watches I've purchased and which are more to my taste: a Hamilton, an Elgin, and a Waltham.

I also inherited a Movado from my father, which I almost never wear because I don't like the way it looks and it doesn't work very well, although it's not the worst Movado I've ever seen. It is, however, the "dressiest" watch I have, so I will typically break it out for black tie events.

I also have a Hamilton Railway Special that belonged to my grandfather. I only wear it with my three piece suit, although I would like to figure out more ways of integrating it. It is almost 80 years old and works better than every watch I have ever owned and has never required servicing.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

mayostard said:


> Sure, but (outside of a tiny number of cases) at a loss, and usually a substantial one.


I'm not sure that's entirely true. If it is an appreciated time piece, demand seems rather high.


----------



## emb1980 (Dec 28, 2012)

L-feld said:


> I also have a Hamilton Railway Special that belonged to my grandfather. I only wear it with my three piece suit, although I would like to figure out more ways of integrating it. It is almost 80 years old and works better than every watch I have ever owned and has never required servicing.


One thing I might consider: a primary reason watches need servicing is the inevitable breakdown of lubricants over time. When lubricants break down, eventually the parts start wearing down as well. On a vintage watch, replacement parts are not always readily available, so it may be worthwhile to consider servicing it as a preventative measure.


----------



## mayostard (Mar 10, 2013)

Bjorn said:


> I'm not sure that's entirely true. If it is an appreciated time piece, demand seems rather high.


Yeah, the number of watches that _actually_ appreciate is tiny. A small number might keep pace with inflation if you bought them on the 2ndary market. The vast majority of them are (big) losers over time.


----------



## mayostard (Mar 10, 2013)

Topsider said:


> Depends how much you paid in the first place. Sure, if you buy brand-new, expect to take a loss. If you're the second buyer, however, different story.
> 
> All of my so-called "expensive" watches were purchased second-hand at an average of 50% of retail. I'm not worried about resale, since I don't plan to sell them, but could easily get back what I paid for them.


Even if you bought used you're going to lose money (especially if you adjust for inflation). Plus you can't just instantly liquidate. The market for most pieces is really thin. If you need the cash in a hurry you're almost certainly going to take a bath.

I'm not sure why people are in such denial about this.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

mayostard said:


> Even if you bought used you're going to lose money (especially if you adjust for inflation). Plus you can't just instantly liquidate. The market for most pieces is really thin. If you need the cash in a hurry you're almost certainly going to take a bath.
> 
> I'm not sure why people are in such denial about this.


Because its still significantly better than buying clothes, cars, whisky etc?


----------



## Topsider (Jul 9, 2005)

mayostard said:


> Even if you bought used you're going to lose money (especially if you adjust for inflation). Plus you can't just instantly liquidate. The market for most pieces is really thin. If you need the cash in a hurry you're almost certainly going to take a bath.
> 
> I'm not sure why people are in such denial about this.


I've bought and sold several watches over the years, and have never lost money. I'm not saying that people don't, but again...I don't pay retail.

The secondhand market for watches from the major luxury brands is actually quite active. There are a number of internet forums not unlike AAAT where watch aficionados buy and sell. eBay is risky. I'd avoid that.


----------



## filfoster (Aug 23, 2011)

If you 'flip' watches, and some people do (visit the Rolex Forums), you will take losses. That's the price of fickleness. On the other hand, I got my Submariner by trading a datejust and got pretty much what I paid for it in trade, plus the cash for the new watch. The SS sports models hold their value well, compared to the other models. If you think you might trade out or sell then that's a consideration. I hope my sons in law fight over mine when I'm gone.


----------



## Topsider (Jul 9, 2005)

Yep...Rolex is generally a pretty safe bet as far as resale is concerned. As an example, I paid $2,615 in February, 2005 for a mint-condition 14060M Submariner (the most basic Sub). The current market value is around $3,200 (source: https://www.bobswatches.com/used-rolex-prices). They're no longer available new.

Even accounting for inflation, I'll make money if I ever decide to sell it. Most watches, however, should not be considered investments.


----------



## filfoster (Aug 23, 2011)

Topsider said:


> Yep...Rolex is generally a pretty safe bet as far as resale is concerned. As an example, I paid $2,615 in February, 2005 for a mint-condition 14060M Submariner (the most basic Sub). The current market value is around $3,200 (source: https://www.bobswatches.com/used-rolex-prices). They're no longer available new.
> 
> Even accounting for inflation, I'll make money if I ever decide to sell it. *Most watches, however, should not be considered investments.*


Who can disagree with this advice? On the other hand, if you're going to tie up that much swag in a watch, it's a nice incidental benefit to be able to monetize it if you ever want or need to.


----------



## Stirling Newberry (Mar 4, 2013)

I do not own a watch.


----------



## Topsider (Jul 9, 2005)

FWIW, current MSRP on the non-date Submariner (114060) is $7,500 (source: Rolex price list - https://www.minus4plus6.com/pdf/Rolex_Price_List_June-1-2012.pdf). They're definitely not getting any cheaper.


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

emb1980 said:


> One thing I might consider: a primary reason watches need servicing is the inevitable breakdown of lubricants over time. When lubricants break down, eventually the parts start wearing down as well. On a vintage watch, replacement parts are not always readily available, so it may be worthwhile to consider servicing it as a preventative measure.


Thanks for the tip. About how frequently should it be serviced? Also, what should I tell my jeweler to do, just lubricate it?

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Captain America (Aug 28, 2012)

L-feld said:


> I hate diver watches and chronographs. I also hate anything over 40mm. I love the way that Timex easy readers look, but I refuse to buy watches made in China. I've been considering contacting the Hampden watch company and ordering a Timex copy from them.
> 
> On most days, I wear an old Longines that belonged to my father. It actually isn't my top esthetic choice since the face lacks numerals (and I specifically prefer arabic numerals), but I wear it a lot because it has sentimental value. I put a burgundy band on it because I wear burgundy shoes most frequently.
> 
> ...


I'm kind of in this camp, too. As much as I can admire the points of a divers watch, I live in the midwest and we don't have oceans here. I'm no diver. It would be a bit like wearing a cowboy hat.

I don't see the uber-sized watch phenomenon happening around here; must be big (!pun, eh?) elsewhere. I do see young women wearing garish large rhinestoney things. That's about it.

I prefer arabic numerals.

The notion of everyday wearing my expensive watch doesn't work; it's a pretty formal piece. But I can get around the idea of wearing an expensive, less formal watch. As long as I'm not doing any plumbing, etc.


----------



## emb1980 (Dec 28, 2012)

L-feld said:


> Thanks for the tip. About how frequently should it be serviced? Also, what should I tell my jeweler to do, just lubricate it?
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2


A proper service involves disassembling all of the parts of the movements, bathing the parts in a cleaner/degreaser, reassembling, relubricating, and replacing any gaskets.

Most manufacturers suggest every 5 years-ish for service, but what people actually do varies. As I said before, my biggest concern would be that prolonging the service interval on a vintage piece could result in wear on parts that are difficult to replace. I might be more inclined to stretch the service interval on a more modern and/or common watch with easy availability of parts.


----------



## filfoster (Aug 23, 2011)

Not sure if this thread is still on track. If you are servicing a Rolex, you'd better send it to the nearest officially authorized service center, through your authorized dealer. And be prepared for a substantial bill, somewhere north of $400. Your local authorized dealer should be able to handle minor adjustments and repairs but the overhaul should be done right, and that means the service center. Yes, you can read the horror stories about that on the Rolex Forums but that's a very small sampling. Why risk a valuable watch?

(And yes, I understand younger generations will just use their fancy phones for the time. That's not really the point of the expensive watch is it? It's the snob appeal. Admit it. come on, I said 'admit it').


----------



## smujd (Mar 18, 2008)

filfoster said:


> Not sure if this thread is still on track. If you are servicing a Rolex, you'd better send it to the nearest officially authorized service center, through your authorized dealer. And be prepared for a substantial bill, somewhere north of $400. Your local authorized dealer should be able to handle minor adjustments and repairs but the overhaul should be done right, and that means the service center. Yes, you can read the horror stories about that on the Rolex Forums but that's a very small sampling. Why risk a valuable watch?
> 
> (And yes, I understand younger generations will just use their fancy phones for the time. That's not really the point of the expensive watch is it? It's the snob appeal. Admit it. come on, I said 'admit it').


Yup--the last service on my Oyster Perpetual Datejust was over $500. I was stunned at first, but then figured I don't mind spending ~$00/year for a watch I enjoy.


----------



## jbarwick (Nov 17, 2012)

I have a $375 Hamilton Khaki Field I beat the crap out of on a daily basis. It looks good dressed up and dressed down. One of my favorite conversations was with a guy whom had a similar watch and said his Rolex's just sit around as he loves wearing his Hamilton. An SS Submariner is in my future but it won't be on a bracelet for too long


----------



## filfoster (Aug 23, 2011)

jbarwick said:


> I have a $375 Hamilton Khaki Field I beat the crap out of on a daily basis. It looks good dressed up and dressed down. One of my favorite conversations was with a guy whom had a similar watch and said his Rolex's just sit around as he loves wearing his Hamilton. An SS Submariner is in my future but *it won't be on a bracelet for too long*


The classic Sean Connery/James Bond Rolex Submariner no-date, worn on a black and silver striped (sometimes referred to as a 'NATO') cloth/nylon strap?


----------



## Topsider (Jul 9, 2005)

filfoster said:


> The classic Sean Connery/James Bond Rolex Submariner no-date, worn on a black and silver striped (sometimes referred to as a 'NATO') cloth/nylon strap?


The black-and-gray striped watch strap commonly referred to as the "Bond" strap is actually not the same as the one worn by Sean Connery in "Goldfinger." The real Bond strap has nine stripes, and is navy, olive, and burgundy. It wasn't a NATO strap, either. It was a regular buckle strap. Details here: https://rolexblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/real-james-bond-watchstrap-comes-to.html


----------



## godan (Feb 10, 2010)

filfoster said:


> Not sure if this thread is still on track. If you are servicing a Rolex, you'd better send it to the nearest officially authorized service center, through your authorized dealer. And be prepared for a substantial bill, somewhere north of $400. Your local authorized dealer should be able to handle minor adjustments and repairs but the overhaul should be done right, and that means the service center. Yes, you can read the horror stories about that on the Rolex Forums but that's a very small sampling. Why risk a valuable watch?.


From substantial direct experience with several Rolex watches over a few decades, I can verify that this is good advice. Do it this way. Avoid local watch "repairers" who claim to be able to service your Rolex according to factory specs with factory parts. Categorically, that is not true. Put it into the Rolex system and pay your money.


----------



## rsgordon (Dec 6, 2012)

I have three watches. One I wear every day. Two I wear with a suit and formal wear. Three I worship and protect.

1 - Plain round Seiko exactly like the Timex watches people like to talk up on this forum. I just wear junky nato style bands and switch them the first of every month (if I remember)

2 - Cartier tank watch that was gifted from my mother to my father to me

3 - WWII tank watch that was gifted from my grandfather to my father to me


----------



## filfoster (Aug 23, 2011)

rsgordon said:


> I have three watches. One I wear every day. Two I wear with a suit and formal wear. Three I worship and protect.
> 
> 1 - Plain round Seiko exactly like the Timex watches people like to talk up on this forum. I just wear junky nato style bands and switch them the first of every month (if I remember)
> 
> ...


Nice watches plus sentimental, family attachment is the perfect combination.


----------



## vivabenfica (Nov 27, 2017)

rsgordon said:


> I have three watches. One I wear every day. Two I wear with a suit and formal wear. Three I worship and protect.
> 
> 1 - Plain round Seiko exactly like the Timex watches people like to talk up on this forum. I just wear junky nato style bands and switch them the first of every month (if I remember)
> 
> ...


I have a few, a nice epos tuxedo watch, an Alex James, a Seiko 5 with a leather strap I added, a very old Norton sport from Portugal, and some junky ones. The Seiko gets most use. I work from home so am usually very casually dressed.


----------



## Intrepid (Feb 20, 2005)

cincydavid said:


> I quit wearing a watch several years ago. I have a dozen mechanical Gruens and an automatic Tissot but they never come out to play anymore. Maybe I'll dig them out and start wearing them again.


Interesting observation. At some point, the wrist watch for men will probably cease to exist. Time is always available through I Phones, etc. A watch completely screws up the way most cuffs appear under a jacket. Anything larger than a Cartier Tank causes the left shirt sleeve to disappear under the jacket cuff.


----------



## katon (Dec 25, 2006)

Intrepid said:


> Interesting observation. At some point, the wrist watch for men will probably cease to exist. Time is always available through I Phones, etc. A watch completely screws up the way most cuffs appear under a jacket. Anything larger than a Cartier Tank causes the left shirt sleeve to disappear under the jacket cuff.


Cell phones are the new pocket watches. However, they have the same issue as pocket watches, namely that you have to reach into your pocket to look at the time.



Captain America said:


> I've got an expensive watch, which I hardly wear at all, while I have several cheapos. I find that I use the cheapos all the time.
> 
> I think I wear the expensive watch (to me; I bought it years ago for $350) only when I'm wearing a suit, and put on a nice-looking quartz when I'm dressed casual.
> 
> While expensive watches sure look neat, they can get scratched up. I suppose I'm saying I kind of think they're eye-candy but impractical at the end of the day, and so, for me, something I would end up wistfully walking away from.


My taste in watches is not very sophisticated. I use a Citizen railroad watch (basically a demilitarized field watch), and normally keep it on a plain nylon grosgrain band of some sort, although I do have a lizardskin one as well.


----------



## Hebrew Barrister (Oct 1, 2017)

Intrepid said:


> Interesting observation. At some point, the wrist watch for men will probably cease to exist.


Why? The need for them has pretty much 100% disappeared already, yet watches still exist. Watches are jewelry for men, which is why they will continue to exist.


----------



## Corcovado (Nov 24, 2007)

I confess that I have abandoned my style preference in favor of practicality. About a year ago I got a Timex Ironman watch and I have found that it suits my day to day needs better than my analog watches do. I still love the way an old fashioned military style field watch looks though.


----------



## barca10 (Apr 21, 2012)

I wear watches because I like watches. However, I also wear them because although the time is available on my computer, my iPhone, my desk phone, etc., I am not always at my computer or desk, and I don't always have my iPhone with me (and when I do it is usually in my pocket.) But I always have my watch with me, and it is in the same location every time. All I need to do if I want to know the time is glance at my wrist.


----------

