Forum menu
buy a £20 casio
Eh? We're talking about 'function', not 'bling'! 😆
@ransos I'm not sure anyone here is trying to justify why they buy expensive watches (nor should they need to). They buy them because they want them, same reason as they might buy an expensive car (why not get a second hand corolla? perfectly fine) or clothes (nothing wrong with tesco value is there?)
It's pretty humorous seeing all these people frothing at the gash with righteous indignation over choices other people make, that don't affect them in the slightest, and are none of their business 🙂
Random your mixing thing up a bit there, expensive cars and bike skills compensators quite often (to some extent) are functionally better so not just an aesthetics/status symbol thing. I actually have a 2nd hand corolla, as a wheeled box to get me where I want to go it's fine, it does lack some elements tho, comfortable seats and a decent MPG for starters, cruise control would be nice too. If extra money gets you extra/better functionality I'll save up (where possible/reasonable), if extra money gets you "ooooh you paid a LOT for that didnt you?" comments/looks, as I said I'll shake my head.
I'm hardly frothing at the mouth tho.
good enough to get a stricken space ship back to earth, and most automatics can run not far off COSC standards if they're properly regulated
the watch nasa endorse is neither automatic or COSC standard.
I own a 2000 Series TAG Automatic. It's midsized, has a simple white face & stainless steel strap and tells me the time & date. It's not 'bling' or flash just a nice plain watch that does a good job. Bought it in 1992 & it's been worn most days since including whilst mtbing, skiing, diving, football, DIY etc - it's even survived a day hydrospeeding and an unpleasant motorcycle accident.
I'm kinda confused as to which category this puts me in?
It's pretty humorous seeing all these people frothing at the gash with righteous indignation over choices other people make, that don't affect them in the slightest, and are none of their business
Eh? Where's that happening then? I don't see it.
There you go with that imagination of yours again... 😉
good enough to get a stricken space ship back to earth
Of course, I, and I'd suspect most people, really need a watch with this function.
I'm kinda confused as to which category this puts me in?
Your user name tells you.
(only kidding)
😆
All is clear now MF 🙂
It's funny that expensive watches get refered to a 'bling' watches. FWIW, I tend to think of 'bling' watches as either shiny cheap tat with masses of sparkly stuff stuck on, or the expensive version where only the materials change.
The other sort of bling, the 'I have more money than you will ever see and I show it by wearing a watch that cost more than your house, but is so complicated it's virtually unusable', like this one:
[img] 
[/img]
For myself, even if I had millions available, this would be my watch of choice:
[img] 
[/img]
Why? Because it's a robustly built watch that appeals by it's sheer simplicity. It does one thing. It tells the time clearly and unambiguously. One second's glance will tell you what time it is, which is why I've got the B&R replica, and I'll probably get a £50 replica of one of these too, as the £5000 it costs is out of my reach. Doesn't matter, I love the face, it's just perfection to my aesthetic senses, and it's all I require a watch to be. Even G-Shock watches shout 'HEY, LOOK AT ME, I'M A REAL ADVENTURE KINDA GUY, AND I WANT EVERYONE TO KNOW IT!!!'
And most of them are far too complicated too. I even dislike those cheap Casio's, they're to difficult to read quickly, especially in the dark. Yes, they have a backlight, but you have to press a button to get that.
the watch nasa endorse is neither automatic or COSC standard.
True - the Speedie pro is a manual wind, but it's still not a quartz, and I think the point I was making still stands. A properly regulated mechanical movement, whether it's automatic or manual wind is going to be plenty accurate enough for most people's real world needs.
I only really want a watch to perform one function, which is telling me the time. My life doesn't require me to know the time so precisely that I need greater accuracy than either my Seiko or Omega provide. I've owned Casios in the past, and part of what I don't like about them is the additional faff that comes with most of them, and what to me appears the ridiculously over-engineered look of G-Shocks. I much prefer the neat and tidy look of an analogue faced watch in a neat case, but that's entirely a matter of preference.
@ransos I'm not sure anyone here is trying to justify why they buy expensive watches (nor should they need to). They buy them because they want them, same reason as they might buy an expensive car (why not get a second hand corolla? perfectly fine) or clothes (nothing wrong with tesco value is there?)
Actually, that's exactly what they're doing. Your analogy is spurious - an expensive car is (usually) measurably better than a cheap car. This isn't the case with a watch.
As I said earlier, I completely understand why people might want an expensive watch, a point you seem to have missed.
I'd suspect most people, really need a watch with this function
A second hand seems a reasonable enough function for people to have on a watch?
Do automatic* wearers remove theirs at night?
.
.
.
.
the watch kind, not the 7.62 kind...
For myself, even if I had millions available, this would be my watch of choice:Why? Because it's a robustly built watch that appeals by it's sheer simplicity. It does one thing. It tells the time clearly and unambiguously. One second's glance will tell you what time it is, which is why I've got the B&R replica, and I'll probably get a £50 replica of one of these too, as the £5000 it costs is out of my reach.
Given that there are hundreds of watches with that clear a face and similar stylings costing a few hundred quid or less... why would you buy a fake?
tend to take my watch off at night when I'm at home - if I'm on a residential, or camping out, I tend to keep it on all the time.
FWIW, their is a lot to be said for s simple, aethetically pleasing face.
The case and bracelet of my watch is highly polished stainless steel, but the face is simple black with luminous numbers. The only clutter is the date display
That Paneri Luminor is gorgeous.. Bloomin loverly, such a simple and effective design, clear, concise, chunky..
You say you've a replica.. Not one of those funky "egyptian" market ones is it..
I much prefer the neat and tidy look of an analogue faced watch in a neat case
Me too. I love that Luminor one above. I really hate those watches with so many dials and hands that it's like looking at a "Magic Eye" picture to tell the time. Mine cost me £80. Black leather strap, stainless steel case, white face and black arms. I think I've had it 8 years or so and have replaced the battery and strap twice. It keeps great time and - if it wasn't for the scratches made when my 2 year old "borrowed" it I would be happy with it for the rest of my life.
Mondaine; maybe not über posh, but I love it for it's simplicity again, and it's ubiquitous iconic style
Most beautiful thing on this thread so far.
Mondaine = Mundane IMO
But then I like swatches...
Panerais are great, I have a 177 model in titanium as my girly reed-like wrists found the steel ones too heavy. Beware though, they wear very big on the wrist; I find mine a little too big to wear as a formal watch, and too nice to wear as a beater. Such is life I guess.
Are we still on this?
Anyone want to buy one? You don't need to justify it to anyone or convince anyone of the rationale behind the purchase. JFDI. Your money, your life, your choice.
The old buy cheap/functional vs dearer/same function debate will go on a slong as time. Make your choice for you and **** the naysayers. That's all. 🙂
"if I had a '67 Mustang it'd be wrapped in Vaseline and Visquine and hermetically sealed in a humidity-controlled room."
I've got a '68 fastback, and it gets driven,probably only once or twice every month but it does get driven.Bloody utterly pointless owning it otherwise.
"if I had a '67 Mustang it'd be wrapped in Vaseline and Visquine and hermetically sealed in a humidity-controlled room."
I've got a '68 fastback, and it gets driven,probably only once or twice every month but it does get driven.Bloody utterly pointless owning it otherwise.
whoops, sorry double post.I also own a cheapish automatic watch, that's 40 odd years old and still keeps time reasonably well.