/fa/ - Fashion

>>18102822
Put the watch on and take a nap. When you wake up, it'll look right to your eyes.

>pic related

This is the smallest watch I have that could be worn today (i.e. it's still working); I always need to wear it through a sleep session in order for it to look right to my eyes.

If you do wake up and it still looks awfully small, wear it overnight and see what the next day brings. If it's still small, then your eyes will always tell you that it's too small.

Good luck though; those watches are wonderful.

>>17837720
They're measurably worse than eta if you compare like-for-like movements, particularly when it comes to wear and tear.

>>17837726
It's fun and catches the eye. The only people who will look down on it (i.e. 'that's not a real tourbillon') are those who suck. If you like the style, get one; just be sure the rest of the watch is handsome. If the design is awful, then the open heart will look cheap. Even Zenith makes an open heart.

>pic unrelated for the Anon who was asking about my shitter Seagull 1963.

>>15298973
If you buy from HKED, then you should be fine. Give in to the temptation, but consider it an historical curiosity and a temporary watch, something that will scratch the itch of 'I want a mechanical chronograph so I can play with it'. I've easily gotten my money's worth, and it's still holding +0.5/day.

>>15299050
You're right regarding the servicing costs; an independent might charge around 200$ for a chronograph, and that's very close to the initial price of the watch. I plan to use mine until it stops working, then I'll get some tools and deconstruct it as a hobby to learn more about watchmaking. That is, if my hands don't start shaking in a few years. The 1963 is a temporary watch, a beginner's chronograph. In today's world, that's all it can be.

>>14534698
Aww, well, perhaps to you. Here, have a 37.5mm Seagull for your trouble...

>>14534700
That's what they're called, though I still think it was started by the marketing department in Panerai when the only person wearing them was Stallone.

>>14520532
Yeah, it's a risk. I bought the Seagull 1963 without trying it on, just because I wanted a column-wheel manual wind chronograph. At first, it looked awful on my wrist, but then I took it off the damn nato strap it came with and put it on a leather band and now it's fine.

That being said, if the Vero is less than 500$, then it's a risk you can take. If it's more, then I'd say the next time you take a vacation to a big city, search for a dealer and call them to make sure they have one you can try on before you go.

Others have heard me a few threads back, but a few months ago I tried on a JLC Reverso for the first time, as I had intentions to finally buy one. When I tried it on in the boutique, along with a few different iterations of it, I really hated how it looked on my wrist, and more importantly, it felt very light and 'cheap'. I hated it. And I'm saddened by that because it looks so damn good on film, and it's an iconic design. But it just looked awful on my wrist, so I decided against it.

Such is life. Sometimes when you try on a watch, it sings to you (the Speedy does that to me). Sometimes you try it on, and there's nothing.

>>13967908
First time I wore mine was to a funeral. So, I don't actually care. But >>13967922 said quite rightly; if you can, match the leathers. Then at least there's some excuse...

Happy New Years Watchanons!! Thanks for an awesome year.

>>13962598
The watch is actually quite thick, so I've found that having it on a nato actually doesn't work for me too well.

That being said, there's lots of potential for colours. Red and blue work because it makes the hands pop. Traditional brown works because of the face, and of course black always. Hell, even bright yellow or gold works (because of the indices); it's a very versatile watch in terms of dressing up/down.

Hope you can sleep Anon...I was excited as hell for mine for two weeks straight...

>>13953303
The only reason not to buy one is because you don't want to be cool like me.

>>13953504
Happy Christmas!

>>13941168
None. Regulars can ignore my post from now on, as they've probably seen it a million times.

I received mine in perfect condition, aside from a chronograph wheel engagement issue which was easily corrected by my watchman. Currently it runs +0.5/day, though his timographer thing had it under 0.5 for the main orientations (crown up and dial up). It's been almost a year I think...and it's performed excellently.

Yes, it's thick, but that's what happens with this kind of chronograph movement plus acrylic crystal. Given that I bought it for the aesthetics (1960's China) and for the performance (if well regulated, it's an excellent movement), I have no complaints.

>>13941170
>not liking Chinese Communist Watch Aesthetics.

>>13941172
Nice! You got the 19 Zuan variant with only 1 line of text. Do you like it? How's yours running? Yeah, it's noisy (I can hear it from across the room) but in all honesty, I like that. If you listen to a Cal. 321 Speedy, it's nearly as noisy, so I honestly don't care. I like hearing 'the mechanics', as my Seamaster is nearly silent from the heavy-duty casing.

>>13898288
lol Fair enough. I shouldn't laugh, but your description of the quality of the crystal is so visceral that I can almost taste it. Given the potential for damage, would it not make more sense just not to wear a watch at all?

>>13898296
Ah, okay...I hadn't thought of that. The Seagull that I use doesn't have any protectors, and for a while I was scared shitless that I'd knock off one of the pushers or the crown itself. Now that that fear is gone, I have no concerns winding...but when I tried on the Speedy in a shop a few weeks ago, it definitely felt more difficult.

For a long time the Speedy for me was the ideal watch, and it was to be my first chronograph that wasn't a digital. I still might pull the trigger on it one day. For me the space history is a huge contributing factor for my love of the watch, but that's because I was a space nut when I was a kid. I still remember when they finally got back pictures of Pluto for the first time a few years ago....I nearly shit the bed.

>>13875166
Get a Seagull. It'll be your first column-wheel mechanical chronograph. Handwound, around $300, depending on where you get it.

>>13672131
>>13672165

One more thought on this. Pic related is my Seagull 1963. It cost around 300$ or so. The technology is 50-60 years old. The movement is a Seagull movement, which is in nearly every respect a Venus 175 movement, which was a chronograph workhorse in that era. The Chinese bought the tooling from Venus, and started replicating the movement for their Air Force. The point is, if the movement is serviced and clean, then it's as reliable as an original Venus 175.

I bought it for around 300$ new. I took it to my watchman to adjust the chronograph and to make sure nothing else was wrong with it for an extra 20$. It's non-hacking, manual wind, just like the Speedmaster is.

I'm not saying that the Speedy should be sold for 300$...obviously the assembly, regulation, and finishing are to a much higher degree than the Seagull. But in my view a Speedy shouldn't really cost more than about 8 or 900$ or so...there's no reason it should cost more.

But you're buying 'a piece of history'....you're not buying a virtually unknown military chronograph reissue that may or may not be well lubricated upon delivery...do you see what I'm saying?

>>13663122
Nice strap combo man...

>>13517132
Thanks....it's still inappropriate, because when the disccussions get good, it's all about technical superioritiry. Very little discusison here is about what watch goes with what shitkicker shoes.

>>13517138
I have no clue, to be honest. I've never been a fan of the Paul Newman...it never sang to me, so I didn't see the big deal. I know, I know, Paul newman but beyond this, unless it's an actual Rolex, it has no value to me.
In terms of Alpha, view them how you best see them. The movement (Venus 175) is reliable IF it's in good service, and that's the ultimate problem with any brand that uses them. The problem always occurs in the casing of the movement, not the movement itself.

If you had a shitty replica that had the Seagull movement in it, as long as the movement was serviced correctly (i.e. oiled in all the right places, adjusted to the right tolerances, etc.) then the watch would be fine. My Seagull has performed spectatularly well, despite all the stupid comments that always come up about the damn thing stopping if I clap or applaud. If your movement is in good order, the watch is fucking superb, and mine si still running at 0.5+ per day. I use it more than my Seamaster now, which is a surprise to me as well...but that's life.

>>13517152
You know that that claim is bullshit right? The greatest problem with watches and their water resistence, if the gaskets are good, is how much actual pressure and force is applied to the openings. Keeping a watch suspended in water is nothing. The reason that 100m watches fail so spectacularly is because of the movements of hands in water, and the resultant pressulres on the gaskets and shit. That's one of the reaons why watches rated for 100m are fucking useless....they're fine if you suspend them at 100m depth, but if you start to move around, then things fail.

That's why I hate the damn rating anyway...but that's noather gripe for another night.