/fa/ - Fashion

>>15685387
I do feel guilty though. For the same reason that I 'should' like Zeniths; their movement technology is well established, and their Defy Labs oscillator is a work of art. But their designs are odd to the point of being aesthetically displeasing to my eye, so I've never wanted one. I feel guilty about that as much as about the Omegas because quite frankly I feel like I'm 'missing' something about it.
>nailed the formula with the original
Hence why I have one (hopefully) clearing customs at the moment. I decided to just get a plain 1861 motmfm because the price was too good to pass up. A 69 cal. 321 can wait.
>legibility in average vs. poor conditions
For me if it's a 'tool' watch (by my own personal definition) then it must be legible in poor conditions (i.e a rainstorm at night, in a brothel, etc). If I wanted anything less, then precious metals and other finishing is okay (like Rolex or Grand Seiko).

Regarding the TV dial 4.5 - I've always hated that one too, but for an odd reason. I find the 'rounded square' that exists on this and the Patek Aquanaut to be visually disgusting, akin to people who have trypophobia. I NEED corners on a square, or I need a perfect circle if it's a circle. But this in-between thing makes my eye try to 'correct' it.

It doesn't stop the watch from being ruthlessly unique. However, the way that the tachymetre and dial markers have to adjust for the shape just make me hate it. Granted, it's rare and choice, especially if in great condition, and it's as 1970's as French porn in earthtones.

I do sometimes wonder if there will be a renaissance of 70's design in watches. Omega has been re-releasing new versions of some of their watches from that era (the new Mark II, etc.), but I am not honestly sure if these will catch on. The excess and unpredictability was a sign of the times, just like conservative minimalist 'future-looking' designs were common just before the turn of the 21st century.

>>15388627
Cool...thx.

>>15388640
The name is awesome. I had no idea it was so cheap though. The dodgy crown is hilarious. Does it keep decent time?

>>15388656
Thanks Anon; when the 'time' is better, I'll try to get better pics. The four center hands can make the dial look balanced, or horrifically unbalanced, and because I'm still doing timing tests on it I don't want to stop the watch or reset the date or anything just yet for the sole purpose of taking pics.
Sorry to hear about being ripped off; I've never bought a watch like this through eBay before, so I was prepared to have problems. The people I bought it from had a brick-and-mortar shop in Japan (confirmed by Google streetview), with phone number and everything...so I assumed they were legit enough to make the deal. That said, the price was surprisingly low, and given just how many of these were appearing at the same time, either they got a Yakuza shipment out of a damaged truck or the economy has hit the Japanese far worse than is known and they're all getting rid of watches. Right now you can get a basic Speedy, no box or papers, for around 2600USD buy it now...that's not bad, and there are lots of them, all coming from Japan. I had half a mind to buy one, even though they're not the Cal. 321 I'm saving for, because the price is just too good for a watch that should realistically be that price or less. The markup on modern 861/1861 Speedies is ridiculous and not at all indicative of the cost of production or cost of the actual technology inside. You do get a beautiful presentation box and shit with the new ones though...I'd guess that's where some of the thousands go. Sorry to hear about the Tudor...

>>15322724
Bless you Anon, I only had humility because I was drunk all the time I was posting. I've stopped imbibing though, and since I haven't seen the older Anons here at all, I find it entertaining to test the boundaries. Sometimes it's true, sometimes it's not.

You're right of course; neither are clones of each other. They're Chinese and shit in some respects, but other than that, they're originals of a sort. Incidentally, there's an awesome posting here on them:

https://rwg.cc/topic/134586-comparison-of-chinese-tourbillon-movements/

But there are other interesting sources as well.

Do you collect, or just post?

>>15302045
And yet Rolex continues to be just fine in terms of desirability in the general population who want a luxury watch. Just because you don't want to deal with Rolex's bullshit artificial scarcity doesn't mean that anyone else cares, because ultimately it's not about the way it's advertised, it's about what it means in the eyes of average people. You can get SS Submariners on the secondhand market no problem, it's getting them new from an AD that is a problem. You see, you can be the person who goes into a Rolex boutique, asks for a SS Submariner, and be told what you have to do to get put on the waiting list. If you put your nose in the air, and with a huff tell the nice lady behind the counter, 'fine, you've lost a customer', that's okay. But there will be 5 other people who will want your spot on the list. The artificial scarcity works, and just because it makes you mad doesn't change the effectiveness of it.

>>15302046
Any watch over 4$ is a luxury Anon. A tool watch is a fucking Casio or Seiko digital piece of shit that can take a pounding. The kinds of watches you see people in the armed forces wearing when they're on tour. All mechanical watches today are luxuries because they tell time less accurately than quartz, they require servicing more frequently and at a higher cost, and they use outdated materials and techniques that appeal to 'heritage' and 'prestige' rather than accurate timekeeping.

>>15302054
You need to work out Anon. That being said, Nato straps increase the height of the watch off the wrist, so the pic is misleading to a degree.

>>15138451
I tried it on a year ago. Severely disappointed.

1) They fucked up with the proportions: it's a large watch (i.e. around 41 mm) with the aesthetics of a 37-39mm watch from the 60s, so on the wrist it looks cheap.
2) The gold version is the only one that takes advantage of the bezel. The other versions, including the platinum, don't look right.
3) The movement is one of the best Omega has produced. The only drawback is the question about how it lasts and who will be able to service it aside from Omega themselves.
4) The pie-pan dial which is supposed to be an homage to the pie-pan constellation fails because of the proportions but most importantly the hands.

For the money you'd spend on this, you might as well spend on a good Rolex or a cal. 321 Speedy. I would.

>>14844541
It's not a real cal. 321 though; they reverse engineered a real Lemania 321 and updated it. Typical of Omega to do this. They think they know what the customer wants but have no fucking clue.

Why is it so dead here?

>>13880396
Sorry, maybe I'm being a little polemic here. The whiskey.

Here's what I can't wrap my head around. If it's possible to create a handmade watch using either sourced parts (like hairsprings) or building it with 'my own two hands', how can that compete with computer aided machinery, silicon printing, and all that? Is the issue solely in how the mechanism, specifically the escapement, is regulated? Is that the only source of failure in this?

In other words, by that reasoning wouldn't it be possible to get, say, my Omega Cal. 1120 (which is an ETA 2892-A2, chronometer grade) to be within tighter tolerances than it already is? Or, dare i say, at a perfect rate? Or would there be some mechanical issue in the design that would prevent this, that no matter how talented the watchmaker was who was adjusting the spring, there would simply be no way?

I know I've asked this before, months ago, but it was specifically about the old Speedy (cal. 861). The point that I can't quite get my head around is that a movement can be adjusted to be within a certain rate, say, somewhere within 10 seconds deviation total, but for a reason I can't quite understand it can't be adjusted finer than that.

Furthermore, if the results could be achieved approx. 50 years ago regarding the observatory certs, why on earth has there been no advancing of this in the past 50 years? How can it be solely due to human performance being the limiting factor?

With something human, I can understand that...like sprinters who can only run so fast as the body can go. But with things, with objects that are machined, it seems like a limitation that doesn't correlate with the rest of the extreme development of materials and manufacturing techniques that has happened in the intervening decades.

Or, am I just barking up the wrong tree because none of this matters, and we'll buy a L&S for the aesthetics first, and reasonable performance is okay but not really necessary?

>>13675277
You are correct.
1) The aesthetics are different, as you can see on the face, specifically regarding the proportions and placement of the subdials on the rest of the face.
2) The size is different; coaxials are larger.
3) The materials are usually different too, most notably with the lens (which on co-axials is usually sapphire crystal and not Hesalite).

Then there are other details too, but these are the most notable.

>>13672113
It depends on what you mean. The watch itself is not worth the premium you pay for one new, so if you want a standard Speedy the best way to do it is to buy one used in shitty condition and have it serviced by Omega.

In terms of its capability as a watch, well, it's a hardy chronograph, able to withstand a lot (except too much water), and it has perfect aesthetics and is virtually unchanged in look from the ones used in the Space Program. If you're a space nut like me, then it's worth it. If you don't give a shit about NASA, then it's just another chronograph with 1960's style.

>>13667825
There it is!!!! Is it working well?

>>13667836
Isn't there a bit of a difference though in exchange? pounds to dollars is a bit of a change....especially if going to CAN vs. USD...though it should be possible to get one heavily used at that price...