/fa/ - Fashion

>>16002479
>every time you look at the watch on your wrist, you'll die a little more inside.

>>15867988
I wish I did know more. Back in the good old days, watch people would post about tonnes of things that were entirely out of my wheelhouse, which allowed discussion here to be serious and wide ranging. There was the guy who had all the slow movement webms of escapements, the very kind Anon who had the watch that you watered, the Speedy 4.5 with the flannel sleeves, the Seiko Anon who had enough knowledge to be an historian for that company, the Anon who collected only Observatory Chronometers, etc. Maybe some are the same, maybe not, but the point was that they were contributing too and I could learn with everyone else. There are specific watches I know a lot about but there are many 'dead' zones in my knowledge base which I don't comment on.

For instance, no one here is asking if a Grand Seiko Spring Drive has problems servicing, or if a Ceramic case is really worth all the hassle. If they did, I wouldn't be able to comment in depth (the Tuttonero is too new, and I've never owned a Grand Seiko nor do I like their aesthetic direction). Hell, for a while there was tonnes of talk about Damasko, but I think only one Anon here bought one (I could be wrong on this...I can't remember). When it comes to digitals or quartz watches, I'm entirely out of my depth, so I don't comment.

The point is, the old regulars might have moved on. If they were here, things would be far more balanced out. I'm happy for disagreement; that's the way I learn. I just assume everyone else is going to be doing the same; contributing their knowledge.

>>15867993
>>15868006
You Anons are kind, and I appreciate it, but do call me out when I'm wrong and show me why. Maybe I'm just getting old now....and obsolete. Anyway, it doesn't stop me from enjoying talking about watches.

>>15315214
I think you're simplifying it too much. Consider Seagull's tourbillon, which can be had for around 500USD depending on where you get it. In terms of function, it does what basic tourbillons from JLC, Omega, and others do; the escapement rotates once a minute, and...that's about it.

The finishing is poor, the aesthetic quality is questionable, but as a piece of technology, it is like a Seagull with a moonphase, or with a chronograph. If you put one of these next to a tourbillon by JLC, one is obviously more beautiful than the other, and I say that as an objective reality. Furthermore, both are 'real' from your definitions or concerns, yet one is obviously more desirable than another.

Mechanical watches do not exist solely for the technology that they contain; they combine the tech with finishing and beautification of the components, a watch face and hands that tell time in a way that attracts or inspires the eyes, a case that protects the movement (sometimes to a water depth that is allowable for diving), and a winding crown that is comfortable for the feel.

Fakes miss the details that turn a single element from being really nice to astounding. When you add up enough of those elements that are not great, you get something that is average.

Yes, there are markups due to the branding and name. Yes, a brand new watch will lose about 14% or so of its value as soon as you walk out the door of any of these boutiques. Yes, it's consumerism, and in many cases it's for an increase of social status. But that's because mechanical watches are luxury items: they're not necessary for modern life. In for a penny, in for a pound: spending 300 on a watch is really no different from spending 3000, or 30,000. The question is, does it hurt you financially, do you get enjoyment out of the thing, and does owning it stop you from looking at watches in the same category?

>cars, watches, food, mattresses, women...it's all the same.

>>15302160
Awesome, but >>15302162 is dead on. Why a fucking Milgauss?