/fa/ - Fashion

>>15857739
Believe me, it's not that I don't agree with you; in certain parts of the world, or certain strata of society, Rolexes are more 'common' to be found on the wrists than Longines...or Breitling...or Omega. What I'm saying is that if someone decided, 'I've saved 12,000$ and I'm gonna walk into a Rolex Authorized Dealer or Boutique and buy a Stainless Steel Rolex Submariner', then they'd be shit out of luck. That's the reality of the system. They'd have to fork out 18-20K on the secondary market to get the same watch, which is absurd but can be explained due to the desirability within the watch market for this very shiny bracelet.

I can understand why you're tired of seeing them; in some ways I share that sentiment. Remember too that you're dealing with not only the authentic or genuine Rolexes but also with all the knockoffs and superfakes that are being churned out in China. It's a serious business, and there are loads of them out there. So the genuine product plus the fakes contribute to the observation of too many, common submariners.

When I was living in London UK, I didn't see nearly as many Rolexes as I did Omegas (probably due to the James Bond connection), and not just the Seamasters either...you could ride the Tube and see tonnes of Speedmasters as well. But that's only London and only the social circles I swam in. Who knows what people wear across the pond in Paris.

>>15857747
That's one reason I don't wear quartz watches at all...I like the 'machine' clicking along without requiring any electronic interference, but that's just me. But I've also bought so many low-end watches that no longer get worn that I would advise considering saving a bit more for something in a higher range that is better build quality or has a better movement. It's worth saving up, and if you keep an eye on watches on the secondary market, then you can get a good deal, especially now.

>>15405964
Yeah, even so for a watch to be called a 'chronometer' it has to pass some kind of certification, right? The point is, it's the same issue with dive watches.

The problem that I see down the road is that the average person who comes here won't be wishing for the hard distinction to be made because members of the watch community tend to have different boundaries that distinguish watches. To me, a pilot watch is a flieger (A or B) or a combination of chronograph + bezel complication (GMT or Slide Rule). But someone else might include things like the 1963 Seagull (which is technically a watch made for pilots in the Chinese Air Force) but doesn't fit the description. The average person who knows nothing about watches except Swatch will not care if there is a distinction, but they'll want to join in the conversation and understand what we mean by, 'well, it's not a bad pilot's watch, but there are better options for you...'. Same goes for dive watches, or dress watches.

Dress watches in fact have their own problems of definition. Some traditions suggest a dress watch as being made of a precious metal (i.e Gold), have only the minute and hour hands, and a leather strap. Then some might allow a small-seconds subdial, or a bracelet. Some might even allow a single complication in addition to the small seconds (moonphase). This definition obviously changes with the decade, and since no one today cares, the term 'dress watch' really just encompasses a wide variety of watches that are expensive but with simple aesthetic lines.

What do you Anons think?

>I would wear this to dinner...

>>13991494
Cool Anon! Have you completed 'the collection', or are you still on the hunt? The new year can bring many possibilities...