/fa/ - Fashion

>>17818501
No. Appreciation of beauty, technological innovation, and execution of design is a hobby in its own right. Any 'enthusiast' community is built upon this, whether they prefer fine wines, coffee, film, automobiles, etc.

Do you like anything, Anon?

>pic related. Will never own, but will always be passionate about.

>>16003585
I'll have a look again; I was basing it on my own handling of it as well as what info we can get online direct from Omega. Thanks for the heads-up.

>>15857784
I'll be as honest as I can be, though it may piss of a poster or two here.

1) To me, buying and wearing watches isn't a hobby; it's pure consumerism. So I think you should look at it that way; what does a watch cost, what does it do, how is it made, how desirable is it, etc. Then ask if the watch is an extension of your personality, or if it serves a function (like being accurate to the second so you can catch a train or if it's beautiful so you can wear it with a tuxedo and 'fit in'). So, the two things you first compare are function vs. form and determine what price you're willing to pay for that.

2) Automatic wind mechanical movements are expensive to buy and maintain, and generally the more expensive the movement, the better it can perform if regulated and serviced. This adage works for the 1.00$ - 1000$ range, but after that things get very weird. Reliable ETA movements pulled into regulation should be around 500$ or so, and you can get reliable Chinese movements for less (hence the Seagull 1963 which for me is 0.5 seconds fast per day...wonderful). But when you factor in that servicing a watch from a watchmaker is between 150$ and 300$ (depending on the complications of the watch), the question becomes 'is it worth servicing if the service is the cost of the watch'.
So, once you go into the 700-1000 range, you get watches wherein more money can be spent by the manufacturer on the case, the aesthetics, the finishing, and so forth. But under 500 or so, most of it must be spent on the movement if the movement is going to be good, or you get the combo of a shitty movement with better aesthetics and finishing.

3) In order to determine what you precisely want in a 'quality' watch (and therefore to decide budget and what it can do), I'd need to know what the purpose of the watch is for. Do you want to swim regularly with the watch? Do you attend formal dinners and gala events regularly? cont.

>>15691335
Yes. Try Chrono24, and when you realize just how many there are in the world and how easy it is to get one if you pay the price, you'll realize that it's not as special or unique as the name would imply. Rolex makes an excellent watch, but they are in a field of excellent watchmakers. The difference in perceived value comes most from the name and the status the crown confers.

>>15388982
Surprisingly not, but it's not the stripes that bother me at all. I've never liked the minute hand with the arrow that should be on the hour hand. I just...hate it. It makes the dial look off balance all the time, but this was a problem with the older ATs as well. I never had a problem with the movement or the rest of the execution, and I think they'd be excellent watches for someone who wants a unique looking general purpose watch that can swim and suit. But that minute hand...I always hated that idea. Just me though.

>>15388986
Only if you give them a 3 hour lecture on how the Spring Drive works and why the finishing is comparable to Langes for a 3rd of the price. Then you're a literal shoe-in.

>>15302064
The desirability comes from a few different factors:
1) Men like mechanical devices, and while quartz watches are in some ways mechanical, they do not offer the immediate 'I can see how it works' situation that a mechanical watch offers (especially if you have a transparent back on the watch). In the same way that gas powered cars are simply more desirable than battery powered ones, even though the battery powered electric cars are becoming serious competitors and will soon outstrip them in performance.
2) The ability to tell time has extended into society and our general tools to the point that a wristwatch in the modern world is unnecessary. We can see the time on our computers, our phones, etc. Therefore, a mechanical watch is actually something worn 'in defiance' of this; that we are saying it's possible to calculate and measure time using gears and grease rather than satellites and microchips. The choice to buy and wear a mechanical watch is literally one that is done for the love of the technology and aesthetics, because there is no other reason logically if telling the time were the only reason.
3) When quartz first came out, it was far more desirable (and far more expensive) than mechanicals because of the achievements in accuracy over a long time span. Furthermore, the stop-seconds was an innovation and something special (which if you grew up after this era, it was something taken for granted and the opposite was true: a running smooth second hand was special, and stop-seconds were considered ordinary). Mechanicals are unusual today, and thus more desirable by merely existing.

Finally, mechanical movements are not bought and worn for their accuracy over time. They represent the culmination of centuries of intellectual and mathematical thought and innovation, combined with the technical expertise and execution which only experts could achieve. Marry those aspects to aesthetic beauty, and you have art. On your wrist.

>>15296201
I highly recommend; can I assume you're going for the one using the modified ETA rather than the coaxial? The black one is the best in terms of legibility of any of Omega's divers, bar none.
Sadly, due to Corona I haven't dived in a while, but looking forward to it when things clear up a bit.

>>15296307
Nothing yet (finger's crossed).

>>15296354
Rolex.

>>15296515
Jesus Anon. Take it to a friendly neighborhood watchmaker to install a new hand (Omega hasn't been supplying independents, but there should be plenty of these hands spare out there). Also, there are other issues you'll want them to check just to be safe. The last thing you want is to be running the watch with dust and shit floating around the movement because you dropped it on the floor. Get it fixed ASAP.

>>15296888
The date on my Seamaster is really only useful for filling out forms and shit. It's a convenient complication, and on the Rolex it has the added benefit of a magnifier, which is horrific aesthetically but necessary as your eyes get older.

>>15297332
Stowa was one of the original manufacturers of Fliegers that were used by the German Luftwaffe. The others included Lange, IWC, and a few others I can't remember. At the moment, Stowa uses ETAs, but I think they might go into some in-house modifications if the sales pick up. Likely not, because the vast majority of watches they sell are fliegers that look like 1940's fliegers. They're awesome if you want one, but if you're like me you see them as yet another time-only watch that I don't need another of.

>>15297343
I know it's hard being lonely, but don't worry Anon. With your kind of positivity, you're sure to gain new friends just by being you.

>Here, have a beautiful watch, on me.

>>15140557
Yes, it is hard, But remember that taste is a function of experience and knowledge plus wisdom. you can't expect thsi out of the common rablle.

Nothing else worth responding to. Where is everone? Fucking hell it's like you all died of coronoa when I appear.

>>15090249
SHit, you remember that? Yes, but I solved it.
I no longer feel the need to buy shit. I've got what I want. I still feel the siren song once ina while, but it lasts buta n hour or two, and then it's gone. So much can be gained in life by bettering oneself, in terms of thinking and physical ability. That improvement can't be taxed or taken away from me. I still like watches, but for now I feel like I've got all I need. (though at times I've thought about getting that damned Seagull Tourbillon for 1g....cheapest fucking tourbillon on the planet.

How are you Anon? you have the advantage....what do you collect/what's the mos t recent in your stable?

>>15090252
I've seen them in person several times and tried them on (there's a boutique in my city), but it doesn't sing to me the way that other watches do when on the rist. When I tried on the Rolex Day-Date it was a perfect match. Perhaps one day. When I tried on the Speedy, a perfect match. I tried on a GS, quite a nunber, and they all were dead inside...so I moved on. Like Oris, or Cartier, or even the JLC Reverso, sometimes a watch looks good on paper or on film but looks terrible on my wrist or to my eyes. That's life, and we move on.

>>14844655
Elaborate please!

>>14527520
To me they're not. I have never liked the proportions (outside of the 18th C. pocket watches), but it's a personal thing. I think Lange has it down pat, but if I were to go outside of that aesthetic but still go with frenchified designs, it's obviously one by Daniels or his protege. I love the look.

Understand, when I say 'I find x ugly as fuck', it doesn't mean it actually IS ugly. It just means that I don't find it attractive. Something that is objectively ugly is...I don't know...Ladie's Panerais?

>>14527527
That's the problem; I can't do the 'throaty exhale'. As I said, it sounds like I have a collapsed lung. Such la vie...

>>14520507
Well, there's nothing wrong with Sellita movements (2nd largest manufacturer in Switzerland to ETA); they're fine. Yeah, it is sad that the hands are the only lumed part...it would make more sense to at least have them lume the 12 or even the 12 and 6 or something on the face.

It'll certainly be unusual; I'd assume you'd be the only one 'in the office' to have one. If exclusivity is important, then perhaps it would be an interesting purchase.

In terms of the casing, the face and all of that, it certainly is unusual (not in a bad way, more in an 'original' way). Perhaps try one on and then you'll at least know. I've mentioned it before in previous threads, but the bottom line is that you really don't know how a watch looks until you put it on.

>>14458347
Yes...but it's pretty damn strange that the same conversations are happening here as they were when I was here last, a few months ago. It's all the same. The reason I ask is because I get the feeling that 4chan is actually overrun by bots now to the point where it's just a series of bots talking to each other. Factories of responses that push the predictable conversation circle and nothing changes.

But not in the way that is comfy, like a familiar book you return to after a decade. No...this is like a mechanized, somewhat inevitable circling of the drain without actually diminishing in distance from the center. Forever circling.

Something is very wrong here...

>>14335577
The masterlist is simple, the first being a Speedy 145.012. Probably by the end of the year if I find the right specimen. Beyond this, I'm not sure.

I had a rather disheartening realization this past weekend. In the past week, I've glanced at the watch on my wrist a total of 3 times, and I remember each time. I don't notice it at work, I don't enjoy it when I'm driving to work, and when I get home I'm tired enough that I usually eat something and go straight to bed.

A new watch...well....I just don't think it'll get the love it should, or at least, I won't have the time to enjoy it the way it might deserve. So, a large collection is pretty much out of the question for me, because even if I were to rotate them on a daily basis, I find that I just wouldn't look at them enough to enjoy them. So...things have changed.

But, given how flexible and admittedly turbulent my emotions have been lately, I may change my mind again on this. If I were to continue, the next on the masterlist would likely be a Rolex Day-Date.

What about you? What's next for you after the JLC?

>pic unrelated and unavailable right now...

>>14243024
I'll jump in for a moment. It's a beautiful thing to have an experience in the job world today where you succeeded to the position based purely on merit. It's the ultimate: you work hard, you get rewarded. It's how a civilized society is advertised to function.

For my part, I tried this after university. And I got absolutely nowhere. I played fair, I did all the right things, I went to all the right conferences, etc. But the issue was the same: 'don't give up Anon, keep on trying'.

After 4 years of this shit, I caved in and 'called in a favour'. Basically, I scheduled a meeting with someone in my field who knew my skills, work ethic, and character from when I was a very young student. His company MADE a space for me, and I was instantly hired. Granted, I had to tell him of my struggles to get a job 'the normal way', so he knew I had done my research regarding what the market is like right now. But the bottom line is that I'm thriving now, because all I needed was a chance to prove myself.

The modern job market in certain fields is atrociously restrictive, which means that people who are hiring have to compare lots of candidates who all have the same creds. This is why 'knowing someone' has become so vital. If a company has to choose between two equal candidates (assuming there is no diversity quota), then will they choose someone they don't know or someone they do? Furthermore, bear in mind that this works the opposite way too...if your character or work ethic is shit, and the person hiring knows this because they know you personally, then they won't hire you.

It's a game, sure. But if everyone else wins by playing it and you don't because you want to do it 'the right way'...well...that's not going to work in this world anymore unless you're absurdly talented or absurdly valuable.

>>14179825
Well, here's the problem, and it's a universal thing that every watchmaker faces today:

1) Watches are not necessary. Phones do the job.
2) Mechanical watches are inferior to quartz in telling time. Also, they're far more expensive.
3) We're now 2 generations removed from people who depended upon fine watches, for normal daily use as well as precision use in a job.
4) The prestige of a fine watch has no social collateral in the modern world (i.e. 25-45, working in normal economic conditions). Excessive obvious wealth is now disappearing in the West, and only the Chinese and the Arabs (with a few Russians scattered amongst them) practice this.
5) The economic conditions for the typical working person are NOT favorable to buying watches. The reliable jobs aren't there, and with a gigging economy, you can't guarantee that you have the funds to sustain you in 2 years from now. Combine this with the fact that Mechanical watches are too expensive to buy solely for style or accessorizing (which is what cheap Fossil watches are for), they're very expensive to service, and they only do one thing. cont.

>>14109592
Well, you have two options:
>Keep it for sentimental reasons as well as a gentle reminder/warning of being careful what you purchase.

This is what I'd do, as long as it doesn't need servicing. Just polish it up a bit, put it in the box, and take it out once in a while and wear it for fun.

>Sell it, and take it as a warning for future purchases. Don't look back, and be careful of the 'seller's remorse' i.e. you might miss it a few years down the road and try to find it again, only to have lost it forever.

I would only do this with a watch that was ugly as shit.

>>14109599
This Anon>>14109586 is right I'm afraid. No one wants a Tag. No one will buy one for a high price.

>>13991547
In that case, I apologize for not asking sooner. I can never keep track of everyone.

How is the new Slava transistor? (That's the Accutron clone, right?) If so, did you manage to find a way to regulate/service it?

>>13953765
I appreciate that...that's what I kinda figured.

The thing about a Cal. 321 re-edition is that any fan of the Speedy would snap it up in a second, as long as the price was right (i.e. not 60,000$...but maybe 10,000$). That's what fans actually want. The 1957 reissue was nice, and sold reasonably well from what I've seen, but the movement is the problem. When you don't have the right movement with these aesthetics, it's like having a frankenwatch.

Sorry for the outburst. The replacement part issue hit my watchman directly, and since I have my older omegas (like my father's and my grandfather's) serviced by him, we're now in the situation that this might not be possible anymore. My watchman loses business because of this, and I lose the ability to keep my dad's watch looking the way it did when I was born. Fucking bullshit. I know the point of course, to buy knew watches, but brand loyalty only exists if the customer is happy...and unless you guys are banking on the Chinese 'dollar' staying strong and the Arabs buying random expensive watches...well, I don't see longevity in this business model if you strangle the independents who are already becoming fewer in number.

If you wanted people to buy new watches, why bother with servicing? Or even better, why not lower the price to the point where it's the cost of a new suit? People will buy new suits when they wear out, after a few years and the styles change. If it were under 1000$, then the replacement value doesn't seem as high if you pay 800 for a new watch every 4 years.

But think about this (and I know, it's a usual drunken rant): if the selling point of expensive watches has been 'heritage', 'tradition', etc, then it's not at all consistent with the idea that you want us to continue buying new watches. There is no heritage in something you can't hand down to your kids unless they're happy with it looking completely different after a service.

>>13866803
Sorry, meant. RH. Durnk as a lemur.

>>13858181
One other thing though: you mentioned that you have 'never tried on luxury watches'....you should definitely do so, as soon as you can. Whether it's a friend or colleague who has a base Omega/Rolex who's willing to swap for a few minutes, or you take the time to go to a boutique and try some things on, the bottom line is that you never know how a watch looks on your wrist until you wear it. You can look at watches online, love the precision and detail and all the rest, and then find that when you actually put it on your wrist it doesn't work....alternatively, you can go into a shop and a shopkeeper might encourage you to try on a model you don't particularly like, and then be gently surprised at how much you like it on your wrist.

There are lots of things about a watch that help to 'seal the deal'. How does it feel? Is it too heavy/light? How does it sound? Do you like the legibility of the dial? How does it feel when you wind it? Does it fit under the normal cuffs you wear? There are lots of things about a watch that you can't predict until you put it on, so my advice in that way is to definitely try on as many watches as you can. Only you can make that decision, but you have to figure it out in person.

>>13858244
Is my writing style that obvious? :) Actually, I've given up on the grail, not out of concern, but because now that I can comfortably afford it, I no longer want it. That's why I was looking at alternatives. The Daniels should be in a museum in my view (yes, Indy syndrome), for all to enjoy. As I said, I've crossed the Rubicon, and I can't figure out any way to come back. Get a good watch, and wear it...the experiences linked with it will be what makes it special, not the perception of others or even your own preconceived notions regarding 'value'.

>>13846782
Holy shit...are you the office Anon with the watch you need to water?

>>13710973
Holy shit...did I? Well, one thing I'm sure of is that the need to own a mechanical chronograph definitely has disappeared entirely after getting the 1963. The 'mystery' of owning a column wheel is solved, which makes any Speedy plans somewhat redundant.

But what has really changed tonight was that I was looking at many watches, all watches....and they all seemed 'the same'. That wasn't what I felt months ago. Now it's like everything has gone a step further, and the whole thing has lost emotional connection entirely to a point where a watch is a phone is a watch is a phone. Disposable, interchangeable, something that I perceive emotionally as no longer important. That hasn't ever happened before on such a universal scale, hence my concern.

>>13710974
Fair enough...I try to drop by once in a while just to see what's happening, but for a while I knew what I wanted and /wt/ never discussed anything related, so I just lurked, and disappeared. I did encounter my first Grand Seiko in person though the other day. A fellow I now work with was wearing his, and I complimented him on it. He was surprised I knew what it was...but in truth it didn't impress me much. GS people will not like me for saying that, I know...but still, it's definitely a 'personal' watch, one that doesn't have presence, but is one that is quietly enjoyed in private.

Anyway...there we are. Perhaps I just need a good night of sleep. Still...I hate this feeling. I can't help but feel like I've lost something.

>>13665160
lol No problem. I was trying to be a little more comprehensive in the earlier post...(I thought that would be more helpful)

>>13665162
Speedys are NOT officially considered within COSC, however both the Cal. 321 and the 861/1861 can be regulated into the spec from what I've been told by watchmakers. Again, it always comes down to how you wear it, how you store it, etc. But you're not going to be getting -/+ 30 seconds or something odd like that...it'll likely be well within 15 seconds if well regulated. I don't own one, this is what I've only seen from colleagues who own one as well as what I've read online.

You can get the co-axial versions of the Speedmaster, though they are off-proportion slightly. They also have the numerical date at the bottom of the hour counter. They'll be within COSC tolerances, even if they're not tested. I thought about getting one immediately when they came out, but was bitterly disappointed with the change in size and facial proportion (the subdials simply look too close together for the rest of the face...just awful). The engineering is fine...the look isn't. But that's just me. You could try that option actually, if you wanted a Speedy in general aesthetic but one that is more accurate over the long term.

pic unrelated, of course.