/fa/ - Fashion

>>15857969
Your points merit serious concern:

1) Every watch (unless it's Ceramic) get scratched. You live with it, and eventually recognize that the watch is simply 'living' with you. If you're careful, then you won't scratch them; it doesn't require anything serious in terms of behavior modification, it's just about observation. Not knocking into doorknobs or trying to pick up pencils from behind a desk.

2) Stolen: Where the fuck do you live where your watch will be stolen? Unless you live in Rio (where they'll hack off your hand for the Rolex on it) or London UK (where they'll hold you up with a gun to steel your Pepsi), you'll likely be okay.
3) Dropped: This is only fatal if you drop it on ceramic or tile floors. Carpet will be fine.
4) Acting different: I understand the worry about wearing something expensive...but you have to realize that it's simply 'dead' money. It's expensive, sure, and valuable, sure, but if you watch the secondary markets for long enough, you recognize that even though things had a value when you first bought them, that value has significantly decreased due to the wear and tear on the watch. Just buy it and enjoy it...everything else is worrying about the grave.
5) 1 nice watch doesn't match. You'd be surprised. There are quite a number of 'nice' watches that fulfill all the requirements of a watch. Stainless steel is acceptable for dinner wear (thanks to James Bond), so you don't have to worry about precious metals. As for style, simpler is more versatile, and if you buy it on a bracelet you can always take off the bracelet and switch it to a leather strap when you want it to look more formal or upmarket. I did that with the Seamaster quite a lot actually, and with the Panerais it was par for the course.
6) I might get bored of it. THIS IS THE KEY!!! This is the point I've been trying to communicate to you. If you keep buying substandard watches, you'll be guaranteed to get bored of it. cont.

>>15405823
Excellent; you did all the due diligence you can, so best of luck with the purchase. I've never bought on Chrono24 before, but they seem to do things right by the buyer, so hopefully everything goes well for you.

The movement is a good reliable one, so it should last you for a long time.

>I always liked this design too, only for the extreme legibility.

>>15389555
lol You should test it, just to know. For all we know, it could be within +2/-2 and be the best value watch in existence.

>>15389566
>Generic homage bracelet to 60s Omega....check
>Daytona style pseudo-ceramic bezel and hands...check
>Zenith style different sized subdials....check
>Tudor and Seamaster style pushers and crown with colours....check
>Satisfaction...priceless.

>>15389632
The Black seamaster variant has the best lumed face of all of them and is the most legible especially underwater. That being said, you should try on any mid-size version before actually pulling the trigger (i.e. if you can go to a boutique that has similar sized ones); they look odd because the proportions are all out of whack. The pic you have is pre-coaxial, so it uses the standard Omega 1120; reliable movement.

>>15389722
The pic you posted here is the quartz fullsize version I think.

>>15389746
The hands look small because the lumed indices are gigantic. That's part of the appeal, actually.

>>15389794
The Ball is a great watch; I've always been interested in the tritium tube stuff. That being said, I have never been a fan of their general aesthetic lines, and I prefer their pocket watches. I have a hunch that the popularity of the Mark 40 in Japan is because it's 39mm, and the Japanese tend to have small wrists so it looks better in proportion on them. I plan on getting a Speedy at some point, but this Mark 40 was the one that started it all, and is truthfully the watch that I like. The Speedy is something that I only like because of the perfect proportions and the relation to the space program, but as a daily wear watch it has issues, and I never paid much attention to it until I got older and every watch enthusiast would cream themselves over it. Don't kick yourself for not getting the Omega, there are plenty of them out there, and if you really wanted the Ball and enjoy it, then you won.

>>15342362
What do you normally wear? Whichever watch goes with more of your daily wear should be the one to get.

>out of all three, I like the yachtmaster because it has the nicest bracelet and is the most universal in what it can go with.

>>15297348
Tudor has a problem in the modern day. When it was first conceived, it was a company that would make a watch that wouldn't cost as much as a Rolex but still be as reliable. When everyone needed a mechanical watch, this made sense. After the quartz revolution and the reconstruction of the watch world in the 70s, mechanical watches were put in the drawer of 'luxury, prestige, heritage' rather than 'practical tool'. This purpose is anathema to the original purpose of Tudor, and thus it is now considered to be the watch for a person who can't afford a Rolex. It's a horrible connotation, but impossible to escape.

Some Anons like the design, and a few have claimed to own them. I think the designs today are definitely going in the direction of being somewhat unique or at least individual, but in my mind it'll always be a 'poor-man's Rolex'. I'd never buy one.

The most beautiful Omega ever made

Should l get an oris aquis, fortis cosmonaut, or pic related?

>>13945791
I don't understand...why not just take the time to save more money and buy a better watch? In other words, don't bother build up to it by buying successive higher and higher grades of watches...just save up until you get the watch you really want, and buy that, even if it takes a few years. You don't need a watch in our modern world, so why waste money on one that is inferior to the one you dream about?

>pic is one of the best starter 'big-boy' watches, and reasonably well priced on the secondary market. Movement is reliable, build quality excellent for the purpose, and rare enough that not many people know of it's existence.

Serious question time. I still can't figure this out, so I thought I'd ask.

Why is it so difficult to create a movement that takes into account positional variance so that there would be none across the board? It seems like elements such as temperature have been solved without a problem using different materials...but unless you do one of those 3 axis tourbillons, you're still stuck with a potential problem between dial up and crown up/down.

Are watch manufacturers specifically avoiding this problem? Have they solved it but are not willing to put it into 'normal' (i.e cheaper) movements?

Also, shouldn't the co-axial have given us an escapement with servicing intervals that are far longer than normal (Daniel's hopeful 10 years or more)? I can understand the first generation being problematic (as they were, with the Omega 25xx and so forth), but now that things have been evolving for a while, what is the excuse?

And the most potentially explosive question I've wanted to ask, but wanted to be sure that I should ask it is, are watch companies making so much money off of repair and servicing that they purposefully build-in problems and shorter lifespans of parts, lubrication, etc., to force a customer to spend more at servicing than they'd need if the watch was built 'right'? Is it a scam, not in terms of watch parts wearing out, but because the design is purposefully flawed in order to force servicing at certain intervals?

I was thinking about this a lot lately because of the apparently recent situation of companies no longer supplying repair parts to independent watchmakers, forcing customers to eventually only have their watches serviced by ADs and/or the actual company. Anyway, it added to my concern.

Thoughts?

>pic is only because some Anon hates it...and I love it.

>>13648932
One thing to think about is the purpose of the watch. Is it to be one that you want to keep long-term, is it one that you want to pair with a suit, is it one you want to actually dive with, etc.? Divers in general are easily the most popular iteration of the wristwatch sold today, so that means you have a VERY large selection to choose from. Help us narrow down the purpose of the watch (and if it's something you want to pass down or something you see as semi-disposable).

>>13560299
No no, you can. The problem is that they never did a sword hand version in blue for this model, so it's one of those things that will forever be a 'what-if'. A sword hand blue could have been the definitive version ever, if we pretend that Bond didn't exist. Whether or not it would have sold in the numbers is almost irrelevant compared with the aesthetics and the legibility.

By all means, buy the black version if you can, just make sure you get one with the original bracelet and NOT the cheaper-to-manufacture later bracelet. Don't worry, there are tonnes of Bonds out there, so if you eventually want to get one, you'll 'always' be able to. The black ones are getting rarer though....

>>13560300
Well, you have a few problems there. 1) Bond Seamasters before the co-axial usually suffered specific age related things. The second hand tip, which is originally red, fades to white with sun exposure, so a lot of the examples we see have a faded red tip unless it's been replaced. The box is a kind of fake red leatherette, which begins to shred after about 2 years or so. My box has left red shreddings everywhere in the outer white box, and I know I'm not the only one who has this problem.

Quite honestly, forget the box and shit. Just make sure the watch has been serviced by Omega. Then wear it and enjoy. You're not wearing the box, nor will it significantly add value given how quickly the box deteriorates.

>>13560303
I hate it too, but I think the Anon wants it for the size....many Anons on this board have small wrists, so this size is better for them in their eyes. It's just a guess though...as I completely agree with you about the spacing.

>>13517235
One more thing: consider seriously the 2264 variation, the black on black version with the sword hands. It's regarded as the most legible version of the seamaster ever created, and if you can get it with the normal Seamaster bracelet (which is considered the most comfortable bracelet Omega has created in their modern lineup) then you're really set.

I know it's different to what you're going after, espcially if you've had your heart set on the blue Brosnan classic, but it's a variaint that is rare, sought after, and excellent in execution. Same movement (ETA), but who the fuck cares when the watch looks this good.

WHY IS THE CAPTSHA SUCH FUCKING SHIT TONIGHT?