Hmm, those Panerais just don't do it for me. Always fancied a Hublot Big Bang
[img] 
[/img]
Our iced out hiphop bling watches are made with only top quality cubic zirconia rocks that sparkle like real diamonds - either gold or white gold plated making the bling on these iced out watches totally unbeatable - Your wrist will look da bomb!
Dat iz da shizzle, innit? 😆
Jesus. These watches do absolutely nothing for me. Just a con to get rich people to part with money for b*llocks. And not like MTBing - bikes do things differently or better or worse, all these things do is tell the time the exact same as any other.
WATERPROOF TO A THOUSAND METRES! YEAH BABY! Right. a) since when does anyone wear their expensive watch diving and b) you can't dive that deep anyway. Pointless empty willywaving in the extreme.
(This wasn't intended to be a rant, but it got out of hand. Sorry.. yes I know some might like the look etc etc)
Those Breitlings - dear sweet Jesus.. The 50s one is lovely tho.
Festina titanium for me, bought it in Avignon a few years ago. Also got a similar Festina in stainless, but the weight difference is noticeable.
Only problem with the Ti one is that it is very heavy on the batteries - goes through at least one a year.
Molgrips.
As I tried to explain earlier. I admire the mechanical watches for the Engineering achievement in such a small and self contained package, powered only by physical movement.
Then for these little wonders to do so in a wide range of temps and environments.
Its the 60s, and someone comes into your office and says
"What watch for the Moon"
Come on, surely you must appreciate the Engineering achievement of a fine, well made, Chronometre ?.
🙂
Well I kind of do, but the thing is that it's all futile. If you want to tell the time super accurately, the best way to do it is with a radio receiver and a simple display.
For me, engineering is about solving a problem cleverly, efficiently, reliably and cheaply. The problem of keeping time was solved much better by a cheap quartz watch than with a load of expensive inefficient gears and stuff. So it's a better solution from an engineering point of view. Plus it's solid state, and electronic circuits on tiny chips are absolutely stunningly elegant and clever engineering - far beyond any simple box of gears. That's what I really appreciate 🙂
Traditional watches are about creating value from nothing.
That Hublot is lovely. and so it should be for the price.
He's right, ultimately.
Its the 60s, and someone comes into your office and says
"What watch for the Moon"
Something else has just occurred to me - what timezone is the Moon in? 🙂
That Hublot looks like a footballer special.
My 16 quid Timex Ironman tells the time accurately. The numbers also light up when you press the "indiglo" button. It's really good! Look, I just pressed the button and I can see the numbers in the dark!
i want to buy one of those calculator watches that you can use to control the tv with......... my girlfriend/wifey said she couldnt be seen in public if i had one.... this makes me want one even more!
cheap rubber/plastic strap, lcd calculator type screen. perfect.
molgrips - Member
Jesus. These watches do absolutely nothing for me. Just a con to get rich people to part with money for b*llocks. And not like MTBing - bikes do things differently or better or worse, all these things do is tell the time the exact same as any other.
OK, I'll briefly rise to the debate.
Of course there is no real point to an expensive watch, or £4k bike vs a £2.5k bike, or expensive cars, or beautiful buildings rather than purely functional or steak vs burger, 50" TV vs 42" TV etc.
Some things are just to be appreciated, and in general beautiful, highly engineered objects cost more than utilitarian versions due to cost of materials and labour. The fact that some people desire such things and are willing to pay for them is OK - it makes the world a prettier place and drives a lot of jobs.
If you don't appreciate such things, then fine. Just try to accept that some people do because they are different. If you won £5m on the lottery would you live exactly the same life as you do now?
Also don't assume that all people buy nice things because they want to pose - some do, but many appreciate them because of what they are.
Where's the thread for best watch collection?
£7 quid Casio for riding
Rone Sportsman
Cartier Chronoscaph
IWC Spitfire Chrono - brown croc strap - gone up almost a grand in value since I bought it about 5 yrs ago
...and yes my c0ck is tiny!
That Hublot looks like a footballer special.
+1
I really like Panerai watches and would like a PAM 111 or 000.
The overly high prices for many of these watches bears little resemblance to the cost involved with getting the watches to the marketplace but I would still buy one. It's the engineering bit that fascinates me. In fact I have a lovely Breitling Montbrillant Olympus and will be wearing it later.
hora - Member
That Hublot looks like a footballer special.
In real life it looks relatively understated - although the pink gold version is very bling
I appreciate items as art, but watches I feel are stranded between two things. They really should be art, in which case you might as well wear jewellery. If you really want to tell the time accurately, it's a £5 casio. Do you see what I am getting at? It's art, constrained by arbitrary constrants, and very much polluted by conspicious vulgar wealth advertising and competing. Unfortunately. Some of the watches on this thread are indeed lovely things, like the 50s one.
If you won £5m on the lottery would you live exactly the same life as you do now?
Yes, the exact same, but I wouldn't work.
Expensive cars drive better, expensive bikes ride better, expensive houses are bigger or in more desirable locations etc etc. It's all about what they DO or allow you to do. Expensive watches look gash (mostly, to me) and don't tell the time any better than a cheap one. And are very often a vehicle for showing off.
Of course, this is just my point of view, you are free to enjoy yours with full respect. I didn't mean my original post to be so confrontational.
A G Shock and a Seiko Monster are all that are needed...oh and an Heuer Monaco.
Molgrips
I understand what you mean but it's like saying the painting done by a 3 year old is just as good as a Chagall as both are simply paint on a canvas.
As you are an engineer you should be able to appreciate the complexity, workmanship and skill which goes into high quality watches. For most collectors it's nothing to do with public willy waving, as the vast majority of the truly expensive watches (and by that I mean by way of complications in the movement) will rarely, if ever be worn.
Have guess how much this one cost before scrolling to the answer at the foot of the pic. It's the same watch BTW photographed on both sides.
[img] 
[/img]
US$ 1.5M
It has 834-parts and took a master watchmaker more than 10,000 man-hours to complete.
Breitling Aerospace
Black Swatch
Both tell the time as well as each other.
Trying to justify any significant watch purchase on a logical level is practically impossible. Unless you're very shrewd or lucky it'll depreciate pretty heavily and it won't tell the time as well as a radio controlled one or even a £10 quartz... the thing is I get a lot of enjoyment from owning and wearing them and for me, that's all that matters.
I still defy someone to watch a well designed tourbillon working without being captivated by it. 100 individual parts, hand assembled and weighing less than a third of a gramme in total...
[IMG] 
[/IMG]
BontyBuns - Member
King of cool at a fraction of the cost
Hi there, my names Chuck, & I work as a member of the Nerd Herd (hope you've seen Chuck at least once in your life!) 😆
As you are an engineer you should be able to appreciate the complexity, workmanship and skill which goes into high quality watches
I think it's a distortion of the original point of a watch. In engineering terms, it's really nothing - to me. No-one will look or think twice about the laptop I am using, and it'll be in the bin in 10 years most likely. But it contains incredible engineering, effort and human endeavour on a huge scale, far more than a watch. It is quite frankly unbelievable, and if you could take it back in time 30 years it would have blown any computer scientist's mind. And yet most people think of it as nothing until it takes a few seconds longer to do something they ask whereupon they shout and swear at it and call it crap.
It would take years to explain how it actually worked.. I don't think one person would ever really master every part of what's happening in this plastic thing beneath my fingers, even given a lifetime. 834 parts? How many transistors are in this computer? How many electrical signals are whizzing about on perfect paths at lightening speed all perfectly matching up, BILLIONS of times a second?
There are 8 computers in this tiny corner of a large office in a large building.. they are linked with computers all over the world.. and so on and so on. You get my point. THAT is amazing engineering, and it thrills me 🙂
A mere 834 cogs don't do it for me 🙂 esp as they are only there to do a job that a 5p chip can do. To me, it's a perversion of what a watch really should be. Like a gold-plated soda stream or £400 trainers. I value engineering by what it does and how clever it is, not how long it took someone to do...
I agree that some watches are beautiful though. But like I say, for me, engineering is on one side, aesthetics on the other.
And why TF woudl you want a watch with a face on both sides? Someone surely just did that for the sake of it? I am struggling to think of that as anything other than one-upmanship.
US$ 1.5MIt has 834-parts and took a master watchmaker more than 10,000 man-hours to complete.
Whoops- I've dropped it. 🙁
[img] 
[/img]
You need some real "special wrists" to read that watch with the two sides!!! Invisy wrists come to mind!
Worn my Sea-Dweller 24/7 for the last 2 1/2 years and look forward to the next 30 or more. Classic understated styling with amazing mechanical accuracy & reliability. Normally worn with the original bracelet but occasionally with this one too.
[IMG] 
[/IMG]
Seadwellers are the industry standard in my game (helium release for saturation decommpression), a friend of mine recently sold his Comex faced issue for £24K... yes £24K. I went for a Panerai Luminor Marina Auto PAM 164 in the end, due to the heratige, simplicity and originallity of the design. And also break the Rolex strong hold, the dweller was one of the only specialist diving watches available back in the pioneering days so has a mega reputaion, although is far from reliable. I've just bought another G Shock (for general usage) as the Marina is gettign a tad worn on a daily basis, and i am very nervous incase i happen to loose it on the seabed at -150 meters.
Would love a Jaeger Master compressor, the internal craftsmanship is something else. Seen as though my sis is now living in 'Singers' that may be attainable in the near future! 😆
[IMG] 
[/IMG]
[IMG] 
[/IMG]
[IMG] 
[/IMG]
Nice touch Mtt!
My old man has a Portugese... and a Bi metal Daytona. Both very nice, yours is a very tasteful collection also.
mtt that must get very confusing, they're all telling a different time.
Mtt - middle one, yes.
Got one of these (orange/clicky to make bigger) on its way http://www.momentumdive.co.uk/deep_6.html
MTT good taste- the IWC is just stunningly simple with clean lines 🙂
I have a G Shock (with new strap):
[img] 
[/img]
Missus has a Monaco:
[img] 
[/img]
And this which isn't strictly a watch, but does tell the time Meridiist:
[img] 
[/img]
I'm liking that 16600 on leather 'fatblokefromwarwick',
I dislike being called a willy waver, but totally get peoples mis-understanding at why some of us would spend large amounts of cash on a
watch like a 16600, i was planning to buy mine for my 40th, but when i heard at Basel they were launching a super case modern version of this classic(the SDDS), i jumped in at 38 yrs of age to secure the most iconic divers watch ever made,compared to the moden rolex and the modern expensive watch an original sd is subtle and everyone thinks your wearing a fake anyway so wheres the togder wave in that ????
[img] 
[/img]
Omega Constellation. I bought it from Watches of Switzerland in Manchester in August 1992. Looking pretty good after 18 years of almost daily wear.
This when I'm riding:
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
This when I'm not:
[img] 
[/img]
Rusty
[img] 
[/img]
My Omega Constellation F300Hz cica 1973. Tuning fork mechanism.
This is mine, don't wear it much as I'd wreck it on site. I like it, not really bothered if others do or not.... Sorry for the rubbish camera phone pic.
[IMG] 
[/IMG]
therapist and saleem on here both have nice watches..
cmon.. post pics!
one thing i notice with most expensive watches is the screw heads not tightening to the exact position to keep everything looking perfect.
theres no arguement.. if they can make the internals so precise then theres no reason why they cant go the whole hog and show their perfection by making a selection of fixings with the heads slotted in diffrent directions that they can choose from to complete the look of the watch.
I know someone with a nicer B&R than the one above but my wrists arent chunky enough.. wallet aint chunky enough either.
More pics?
Ok, two more of mine...
My IWC Portfolio Chronograph... crap picture, but my first really nice watch.
[IMG] 
[/IMG]
and an Omega Seamaster. Would usually be on a bracelet, but was trying it on a carbon Hirsch..
[IMG] 
[/IMG]
