/fa/ - Fashion

>>17656364
>>17656371
That's not how water resistance works. A Calatrava 5119 has 30m of water resistance. You think you can actually swim in this? (You can't.)

>>15857901
I just did a google search for 'open-heart' watches...these might also be up your alley. To other Anons, forgive the shit here:

https://timetransformed.com/2018/07/19/top-10-open-heart-watches/

These are within your pricerange, and they tend to do what you're asking for. They look expensive, they have moving parts that people can look at, and they could be a conversation starter.

The 'Open-Heart' design is one where you can see the balance wheel rock back and forth from the front; it's like the Skeleton, but instead of seeing the whole movement you only see the balance wheel. Maybe that's something to consider.

A more expensive option would be to get a Seagull Tourbillon; Sugess makes one that is around 700$. It's without a doubt the cheapest tourbillon on the planet (normal tourbillons start around 25K).

https://www.amazon.ca/Seagull-Tourbillon-HandWind-Mechanical-Business/dp/B07LBPF686/ref=sr_1_5?dchild=1&keywords=sugess+tourbillon&qid=1610342205&s=watch&sr=1-5

If you're looking for mechanical bling, you've got options for sure.

>>15301904
Love them. They're the only watch from Rolex I'd buy new, but honestly Anon, you have to try them on in person to know if it works for you or not. Are you thinking of getting one too?

>pic unrelated but just as beautiful.

>>13946268
The only thing I'll suggest is to try everything on within your price range and see what it looks like on your wrist. Sometimes watches in pics look awesome and terrible irl on your wrist, sometimes terrible looking watches look amazing irl on your wrist. Some watches you'll love but find that they're too light or heavy, and some watches you'll hate until you feel that they are the 'right' weight.

One thing you can do is determine what the watch is primarily for. Is it a formal/dressy watch? Is it a 'function' watch (i.e. chronograph, moonphase, etc.)? Is it for wearing with suits most of the time, or wearing khakis most of the time? Do you want something manual-wind or automatic wind?

Once you narrow it down, then you can really target your search. There's so much there, by so many companies, that it's a tough thing. Just the Seamaster alone has many iterations, as does the Speedmaster. And that's just the main areas of Omega. When you look at JLC, Rolex, and others you have even more choice.

But really...probably the fastest way is to just go to a supermall that has watch company boutiques or an area of the city where there are lots of them, go in, explain your situation (Hi. I am going to purchase my first serious watch, and I wanted to try on a few), and then see what looks good and what looks bad on your wrist.

>can't go wrong with pic related, but it might be out of your price range unless you want to save up.

>>13866821
It's a tough one Anon. To be serious, the question then becomes 'why do you need a gold watch specifically"?

Is it for formal occasions? To compete in the office clandestinely?

Gold watches signify old-school wealth, so getting a gold watch today that isn't really fully gold nor is interesting and respectable as a movement is something of an unfortunate or ironic comment on consumerism and traditionalism.

If I were to get a gold watch, I'd save up and wait until I got something that has more value and aesthetic appeal.

That being said, why not try for something simpler but more beautiful. Hold on.

>>13675314
Well, I think Omega specifically fucked up the proportions to prevent the drowning of the traditional Speedy. If they did one that looked exactly the same as the original but was automatic, it would fly off the shelves but also no one would buy the manual-wind except history buffs, and those numbers are likely dwindling.

pic unrelated but beautiful nevertheless...the only Patek I like.

>>13664023
Well, I can't blame Omega too hard on that. From a purely technical point of view, mechanical watches today are obsolete and unnecessary, so there really needs to be an advertising ploy that gets people to buy these things. The modern 'moonwatch' still has all the aesthetic qualities I adore in the watch...the only thing I need is the applied Omega logo and the cal. 321. Sure, there are small details one could fuss over on the face (stepped minutes and counters, etc.) but the proportions are the same, the colours the same, and in all the important visual ways, everything is essentially the same.

I can easily see someone who hasn't had the time or inclination to do much research buying a modern Speedy brand new because they like the look and the novelty. Same goes for the sapphire sandwich (which is nice to handle in person). I mean, who doesn't enjoy looking at a watch movement, especially a chrono?

It's just not for me though. As an example of me taking the opposite side though, I really don't have a love for the Ed White Speedy...and the broad-arrow 1957 reissue is something I don't like at all. But I don't have any logical reasons to not like it...I just don't like the aesthetic combination as well as the lack of the original movement. And yet this edition was one of the best selling for the past few years, for obvious reasons. People like the design.

It's a really tough one in today's world. I dropped by the Patek website this evening, just because I have never liked their stuff except when it's really simple, and I still hate the look of the majority of their watches. I know they are sought after by many...but the aesthetic is something I can't handle. Yet, and here's the really difficult thing to admit, if someone gifted me a Patek, I'd treasure it because of the reputation and name behind it. No other reason...but the name and the reputation.

Perhaps that's the watch business...for now.