Forum menu
Agree, love the PAM 562 but struggling to pull the trigger. I have an Anonimo Polluce Drass which I'd highly recommend but you can only get them second hand and don't think there's much exciting in the current range.
The Ralftech WRX 1005 looks interesting and I may eventually go for one, hybrid movement which is pretty awesome, proper military too.
How about a Linde Werdelin spidolite if you like titanium or DVD but a little different ?
Last suggestion (I have one too) have is a Jorg Schauer - I've got a 12, very classic but niche too.
I regret selling my Submariner a few years ago, they soared in value soon afterwards ..... That said, I sold it because I got fed up with people staring at it, either thinking it was a fake or I was rich/flash, I guess.
I then bought an Omega Speedmaster, second hand, which doesn't attract any attention. My OH recently bought me a Certina DS Podium auto for a 'big' birthday, though, and I haven't worn the Omega since. The Certina is more comfortable, lighter and seems tougher. It's certainly more water resistant so it stays on all the time.
What about a Baume and Mercier Capeland, I have one and think it is rather nice.
[img] 
[/img]
I woke up this morning with an itch for a Tudor Heritage blue Chrono, on the NATO strap. Although I was also looking at some Baume & Merciers last night. Tbh, most of the fun is in the looking...
And for Rolex, it's tough to explain - I think some people (me included) just get stuck on the associations people make when they see a Rolex. It's not bling as such, it's the way some people wear them as a status symbol, along with the yellow Ferrari and fake-blonde arm candy, that put me off. Logically it shouldn't bother me but...
Good call on Ti PAMs - definitely makes me feel better knowing that it would've been a bad choice anyway 🙂
Oooooh, a (derailed) taste and style thread, based on watches! Hoorah!
A great believer in form and function in equal measures, but I hate ostentatious displays of wealth. The diamond encrusted Rolex phenomenon is absolute anathema, so much so that for me, personally, the mark is somehow "tainted". Something that works well, does what it says on the tin, but has a wealth of heritage (and, dare I say, class?) will always win over the flashy. I love understated, simple style. Joy of ownership is a very personal thing; my favourite watch is an heirloom. I wear it every day, and fondly remember its original owner. My son will wear it when I'm gone. That aside, it's a beautiful watch, but in a classic, simple way. It needs to be serviced and occasionally repaired, but as I have absolutely no interest in its resale value I have it serviced by an independent, trusted watchmaker for a fraction of what it costs to send it to the official servicing centre. That way it can stay on my wrist where any watch belongs. That it is an automatic Swiss watch with the company's heritage and reputation for excellence helps a good deal, but I don't care who notices
@cynic-al... yes I hear what you are saying, and I hope I am right when I say you are actually lambasting those who simply want others to notice their watch/car/labelled clothes, the price tag being more important than the actual item?
i amazed people think a blue/black/silver dialled air-king/explorer/oyster is OTT and a bit showy? they are 35-36mm for a start
how do you actually wear them as a status symbol? roll one sleeve up a bit? wave it in peoples faces? leave the little tag dangling off the bracelet?
they are under the radar compared to ****erwear like this:
[img] 
[/img]
Watches don't get any 'cooler' than this... 😉
[URL= http://i1280.photobucket.com/albums/a491/loddrik1/Mobile%20Uploads/32CDB67A-7F86-4EEB-A946-6F6AE031C0D9_zpstqbcwye8.jp g" target="_blank">
http://i1280.photobucket.com/albums/a491/loddrik1/Mobile%20Uploads/32CDB67A-7F86-4EEB-A946-6F6AE031C0D9_zpstqbcwye8.jp g"/> [/IMG][/URL]
the 1953 greenland expedition tudor that i photographed after it was found in the drawer by it’s 93 year old original owner is cooler than that tuna-can. 🙂
[img] 
[/img]
Class.
[img] 
[/img]
MrSmith - Member
you can apply that to just about everything. some people are quite happy with the everyday and dont care what went into it or what it looks like or if there is something better out there.
With many, many things there is a discernible difference in use - definitely NOT the case with the "quartz fashion watch from Argos" movement (your words - no snobbery there?) vs your expensive automatics.
MrSmith - Member
i amazed people think a blue/black/silver dialled air-king/explorer/oyster is OTT and a bit showy? they are 35-36mm for a start
It's the "Omega" writing and the whatever £K price tag that's showy.
cynic-al: Seiko, Certina, Record de Luxe, Swatch and one time Rolex owner.
Seiko, Sekonda, fossil, Omega, Breitling, Rotary, Skagen, Boccia and until recently a Werner flying watch. Check out the Werner site, some truely "[i]Amazing[/i]" kit on there.
[url] http://www.wernersflyingwatches.com/ [/url]
😯
It's the "Omega" writing and the whatever £K price tag that's showy.
the tiny certified chronometer (cosc accuracy test not some made up turbo-max decal) that you need a magnifying glass to read? 😯 😆 😆 😆
that ‘showy’ perception says more about the voyeur and their issues than somebody who wants an understated beautifully made wris****ch to wear and maybe hand down. if you think a 2.5k timepiece is showy then you are in for a shock when you find out how much a grand complication from Patek or Jaeger costs, most i have had in my hands are around $200-$250k each.
it’s another world thats for sure but then so is yours if you think a small plain automatic wris****ch which costs the same as a mid-range MTB that’s going to be junk in a few years is somehow OTT ❓ 😯
flashy is that watch that looks like a small treadmill, very cool. searching photo now
get a Welder, nobody will notice it
[img] 
[/img]
or one of my favourites
[img] 
[/img]
MrSmith - Member
The tiny certified chronometer (cosc accuracy test not some made up turbo-max decal) that you need a magnifying glass to read? 😆
Who needs or can justify a chronometer this accurate? (presumably as accurate as any one a quartz?).
Branding is pretty clear on most watches IME.
that ‘showy’ perception says more about the voyeur and their issues than somebody who wants an understated beautifully made wris****ch to wear and maybe hand down. if you think a 2.5k timepiece is showy then you are in for a shock when you find out how much a grand complication from Patek or Jaeger costs, most i have had in my hands are around $200-$250k each.
Are you a politician? You are really good at not answering questions and putting any negatives back on the questioner.
I think it is showy, tho not all wear them for that reason.
if you think a small plain automatic wris****ch which costs the same as a mid-range MTB that’s going to be junk in a few years is somehow OTT
I just don't see the point really, but even that's not my point. Lots of these watches are beautiful things...
...but you can get a watch that's just as good functionally and as well finished for so much less, I wish people would admit it's about having something expensive that they think is better, or has a certain brand, but, functionally, isn't any better.
...but you can get a watch that's just as good functionally and as well finished for so much less, I wish people would admit it's about having something expensive that they think is better, or has a certain brand, but, functionally, isn't any better.
You haven't become a proper adult until you've spent several thousand pounds on a watch.
I'd be scared to wear it though. Imagine being at a social event (a dinner party perhaps) and someone clocks your fancy watch and asks you how much it cost. Imagine telling them it was several thousand pounds; you'd feel like a right berk, as well as becoming a bit of a folk legend; "that daft **** with the five grand watch" - you'd never live it down!
Imagine being at a social event (a dinner party perhaps) and someone clocks your fancy watch and asks you how much it cost. Imagine telling them it was several thousand pounds; you'd feel like a right berk, and would probably become a bit of a folk legend as "that daft **** with the five grand watch"
Apparently in some circles you'd be given a patronising "couldn't afford the real thing?" look.
I wish people would admit it's about having something expensive that they think is better
what if it is better but the reason the owner thinks it’s better isn’t really anything to do with cost or performance?
a casio will be more accurate and you can pick them up for bobbins but i like nice looking watches if i can afford them then why shouldn’t i have them? they make more sense to me than a 50k depreciating asset motor car that does 155mph.
as a pure timepiece they are no better than my iPhone and i can play games, look at the internet, check my train times and phone people with it, far more cost effective.
i could easily pick loads of watches that were more showy, expensive and overly complicated and with features you would never use than a 2.5k plain stainless watch.
i mean who needs a 300m dive watch apart form divers? who needs a tachymetre scale apart form those who need to work out how far away an artillery shell is by pressing a button when you hear it fired and again when you get blown to bits by it? who deeds a million gauss anti magnetic watch?
but if that’s what you like to own and enjoy wearing it then great. if it’s purely to show other people how rich you are then you obviously have issues just like the people who judge you for having a nice watch purely by it sitting on your wrist and fairly obtrusive to the casual observer.
Branding is pretty clear on most watches IME.
there are so many rolex submariner-likes out there including some very nice watches from Squale and similar that are less than £500 and are just as accurate you really would have to be a geek or get really close to know what was what and if it was £15k or £400 anyone not into watches would just think its a dive watch.
i know people with watches that cost half the national average wage but i don't feel the need to compete by buying a more expensive watch or somehow inferior because i don't have one as expensive, that kind of mindset is for bedwetters.
MrSmith
You mention Squale - where do the likes of Steinhart, Stowa and Christopher Ward stand ....
Good products or tat?
MrSmith - Member
what if it is better but the reason the owner thinks it’s better isn’t really anything to do with cost or performance?
Then is is not better (as a matter of fact) it is only in the owner's opinion.
if i can afford them then why shouldn’t i have them? they make more sense to me than a 50k depreciating asset motor car that does 155mph.
I'm not saying you shouldn't, please read my posts.
i could easily pick loads of watches that were more showy, expensive and overly complicated and with features you would never use than a 2.5k plain stainless watch.
i mean who needs a 300m dive watch apart form divers? who needs a tachymetre scale apart form those who need to work out how far away an artillery shell is by pressing a button when you hear it fired and again when you get blown to bits by it? who deeds a million gauss anti magnetic watch?
Who needs an "understated" Swiss etc watch with a ££££ automatic movement?
there are so many rolex submariner-likes out there including some very nice watches from Squale and similar that are less than £500 and are just as accurate you really would have to be a geek or get really close to know what was what and if it was £15k or £400 anyone not into watches would just think its a dive watch.
How isn't it a dive watch?
As an aside, what does it matter, as you said above, if it goes to 300m?
You seem to be proving my point here. Thanks 
Yet you are missing my point. Which is not everyone buys an expensive watch to show other people how well off they are. Man has spent thousands of years embellishing and enriching their lives with pointless decoration and precious metals. The wris****ch is a current example of this. Yes some people like a huge yellow gold and blue bauble on their wrist to show everyone how rich they are, just don't put everyone who owns and cherishes an understated timepiece that has qualities they admire yet have no bearing on actually telling the time in the same basket.
Especially if you have ever purchased or adorned anything beyond the purely functional in your life.
MrSmith - Member
Yet you are missing my point. Which is not everyone buys an expensive watch to show other people how well off they are.
I am not, I have not said that.
don't put everyone who owns and cherishes an understated timepiece that has qualities they admire yet have no bearing on actually telling the time in the same basket.
As above, please read my posts rather than replace them with your own assumptions.
Especially if you have ever purchased or adorned anything beyond the purely functional in your life.
Of course I have, including a Rolex.
'kin 'ell.
I know!
Al is gradually morphing in to Nu-TJ.
Might start a thread about Scotchish rugby players wearing helmets just to see what happens!
😉
I think it is showy, tho not all wear them for that reason.
Apologies. I missed that.
Be picking my air-king dial colour (black, blue or silver) next couple of weeks, always wanted one, not really bothered if nobody asks how much or mistakes it for a seiko 5. So yes I'm not buying it for that reason.
To be like T-J you would be dealing in absolutes and have no margin for allowing another opinion or subtleties of reasoning . CA isn't that much of a cretin.
CaptainFlashheart - Member
Al is gradually morphing in to Nu-TJ.
I always think of TJ and c_a as kanga & roo, just undecided who's in who's pouch
why does anyone ever need/want a watch nowadays your never more than a couple of inches away from knowing the right time .
How's that then?
Dont you have a mobile phone Ivan
Imagine taking your mobile out of your pocket during a meeting to glance at the time.
Imagine taking your mobile out of your pocket when you could just flick a glance at your wrist.
Etc.
Equally, what's wrong with wanting nice things?
Yep, normally in a pocket or the bottom of a rucksack. Basically, 99% of the time it's less accessible than a watch and usually needs a shake or button press to get it to light up.
Which is remarkably similar to a pocket watch.
Equally, what's wrong with wanting nice things?
Makes you a showy winker and upsets poor people. 😕
just because they are new doesn't mean they are less worthy than an old chrono with an off the shelf valjoux movement
Sounds familiar... 😀
Not bothering posting photos, I've had Quartz movements, a mid 80's TAG Heuer, and a cheap-ish G-Shock, a manual chrono with a Valjoux moment, and an automatic Seiko, and the one worn most is the Seiko, the TAG hasn't been worn for several years, and its battery has now died.
None of them cost a fortune, except to me, but I would find it incredibly difficult to justify spending several thousand pounds on a watch, no matter how refined its movement is; I'd have to get a substantial lottery win to be able to afford the only other watch I'd seriously consider as an alternative to my Seiko, a Tudor Pelageo.
Why the auto? Sheer simplicity, basically; I never need to worry about having a battery die, I really like the idea of something composed of loads of little weeny cogs, all working together, using the power of a fine steel spring, to tell the time with accuracy that's more than adequate for daily use. The Seiko is consistently more accurate than my £80 Casio, or my TAG, which cost £250 in 1982, probably around £1800-2000 these days.
Just checked the Seiko, it's gained one minute fifteen seconds since the clocks changed, can't check the Casio, I forgot to alter it in March. Oops. 😳
Shows how often I wear it.
I hate ostentatious display of wealth, or the display of apparent wealth; cheap 'blingy' watches attempting to pass themselves off as expensive watches don't impress anyone except the very easily impressed, if I see someone wearing a watch that's clearly cost a few bob, but is obviously being worn because it's appreciated as a fine piece of engineering, it impresses me much more than when someone is using it in a "look, look at meeee! Look how much money I have to throw around to impress you plebs!"
Btw, I really like that Seiko Tuna, I'd love one of those, that's a great movement, and practically bomb-proof with the 'shroud' on. I think I'd have one of those over a Pelageo, if the money was available.
Makes you a showy winker and upsets poor people.
Strange that a £5k bike doesn't do the same, isn't it?
MrSmith - Member
Equally, what's wrong with wanting nice things?
Makes you a showy winker and upsets poor people.
Did you think I'd gone away and wouldn't see?
🙄
Strange that a £5k bike doesn't do the same, isn't it?
Doesn't that depend if you 'do it justice' and have awesome strava or not?
to the Op, have you thought of maybe a vintage watch? something like a 1960 ish 9ct auto omega in good nick would be a great watch, subtle compared to modern watches which tend to be overly big, and set you back about a grand.
I do support some of the previous suggestions though..IWC portofino, portuguese or the pilots mk Xvii or maybe a Stowa fleiger...cheaper and less obvious than the iwc, but with as much pedigree. or how about a ball trainmaster.
Neil
(Omega PO daily wearer, 1960 seamaster manual for occasional change, steinhart ocean 1 for diy and sport)
Just watching the jaguar lightweight program on TV.
A pointless ostentatious wealth bauble of bygone technology, yet it's captivating to see its construction and the final car will be a thing of beauty. I also see a parallel with the people who are building it and the people I have met in high end watch manufacture, they can't afford to buy it but they are obsessive about their work and obviously get a lot of enjoyment/pride in what they do.
I would hate to see these things disappear to be replaced by apple watches and smart cars.
[i] Watch experts - assemble! [/i]
Vintage watch?.... Oooh yeah!
[img] 
[/img]
That's not a vintage watch but a 2009 on-off reissue with Jack Heuer signature.
Is it yours? 🙄
I have one of these;
[img] 
[/img]
Looks better with an isofrane though.
I'll move it on soon, it's nice but a bit big for my tastes.
"[i] vintage.....[/i]"
😆
Nighty, night.
8)
to the Op, have you thought of maybe a vintage watch? something like a 1960 ish 9ct auto omega in good nick would be a great watch, subtle compared to modern watches which tend to be overly big, and set you back about a grand.
I hadn't, because I'm not sure where to start - there's too much choice! But thanks for the suggestion, I'll go check it out.
Cheers!