/fa/ - Fashion

Rolex:
>Everyone will respect me.
Grand Seiko:
>Connoisseurs will think I'm smart
Omega
>I want to be James Bond
Tudor
>I can't afford Rolex
JLC
>I can't afford a PP
Audomars Penis
>I don't care if I can't afford a PP
Patek Philippppppe
>I believe in marketing
Lange
>Fuck the swiss
Credor
>Fuck the swiss and the french in uranus
Vacheron
>do you heritage?
Cartier
>do you girlfriend?
Breitling
>I'm a hero
Panerai
>I'm the hero
Vintage anything
>I'm smarter than you
pocketwatch anything
>my family is richer than yours
Why can't we all just get along?

>>15857964
No...you can get them from Roots Canada or The Bay.

>>15302950
There are advantages to both.
The Seamaster chronograph is one of the only chronograph watches in the world that can be used at depth, so using the pushers won't flood the casing. This particular co-axial has been around for about a decade or so, so the bugs have been shaken out of it. Legible, and comfortable on the wrist if you have a big wrist; if your wrist is small, it bangs into the bones.

The GMT is in my view one of the most useless complications, and only if you travel a shittonne does it become worth having. As the Anon above mentioned, the new Master Chronometer is an advantage as far as we know in terms of testing and performance, but we don't know how that goes for the long run. Legibility is great on this watch as well, but it suffers the same issues of wearability if your wrist is small.

Try both on, and see which one sings to you the most. If I had to choose right now, I'd go with the chronograph because that's what I'd use it for the most (and I dive).

>>15303282
You have to be specific regarding which watches you are looking at. The classic pre-owned watch to compare is an Omega Speedmaster Cal. 321, which is sought-after on the grey market and holds the same value as a standard Rolex Submariner in terms of desirability. They have stayed in the 7-10k range for at least a decade (I know, because I've been watching the market), and this coincides with what I've seen in vintage boutiques (London UK, near Piccadilly Circus) as well as Ebay final prices when auctions are over. Furthermore, it's common to see sellers list the same watch on Ebay as a 'buy it now' price and Chrono24 as their standard price. Perhaps 6 years ago things were different and Chrono24 was just a place to scam unsuspecting buyers, but the market has rooted them out for the most part, and due to their escrow service, they're as reputable as anyone else as long as the buyer does their due diligence.

>>14858336
pic someone posted last thread
ffs

>>14852421
It depends on if you buy them for external reasons or internal.

I love vintage watches due to the quality of manufacture and innovation at that time; you're getting a lot of watch for your money. There are chronometers worth owning from the 60s; even back then it was possible to have excellent performance that rivals watches of today (Seiko in particular just before the Quartz Revolution). Railroad pocket watches were expected to be within +/- 30 seconds per WEEK or they were sent to a watchmaker to be adjusted/regulated. If the rate is consistent, you're looking at a pocket watch that runs +/- 3 seconds a day, which is well within modern COSC cert and very close to Rolex's +2/-2 that is their publicly stated 'Superlative Chronometer' rating. And that's for pocket watches from the turn of the Century. So in terms of technology, it's already worth looking at.

If the watch has an interesting history (i.e.'this was actually used by a soldier in WWII'), then there is something to 'talk about' with anyone who asks. But that goes into the external reasons...which is why most people wear expensive watches today anyway.

If an expensive watch is necessary to show that one is not poverty stricken, well...then all I can say is that I'm a little sorry that the individual has to deal with that. It's not easy, but if those are the rules towards advancing in a career...play by them.

>>14852728
No, he replaced a mechanical years ago. As far as I know, he just wanted the design without the mechanics, so convenience as you say. The reason it seems odd to me is that Quartz Seamasters are not cheap; you're paying a lot for the design and name, and the movement is not particularly well regarded (though it's not terrible either). To me it makes no sense; it's a quartz watch in a very expensive case.

Unless he were going tuning fork, then I do place it in the same category as Seiko Quartz or any other high end quartz.