/fa/ - Fashion

>>16006801
You've clearly never handled one.
1) On the wrist, it's not fat and chunky due to the way the case hugs the wrist. In 2D pictures though....that fattens out everything.
2) The fluted bezel is actually part of the setting mechanism. It has different positions which allow you to select which complication to set (i.e. time, GMT, Month, etc.). Brilliant actually, and I've never seen it in another watch yet. Very easy to use once you get used to it.
3) The numerals are big because GMT. There are lots of GMTs in the industry that have this configuration (i.e. numerals instead of indices).
4) Partially Skeletonized hands allow you to always be able to read the GMT disk.
5) Cyclops helps as you get older, and the wall of text is what they do now for anti-counterfeit (if it actually works is another story).

I think you should try one on, then see if you feel the same way. They're awesome watches in terms of engineering and design, and thankfully they don't have the crazy aftermarket price increase like a SS model.

>>16006875
Mechanical watches aren't about function, they're about luxury and emotion costumed using function as a selling point.

>>15857725
Scarcity applies, no doubt, but rarity also applies as I've stated. Considering the number of watches made and worn worldwide, Rolex numbers are not considered 'common'.

Or perhaps I'd ask you; what is the threshold that you would consider a watch to be rare? 1 of 10? 1 of 1? 1 of 100? Is 1 piece in 1000 considered rare?

>>15303469
My own Seagull 1963 is at +0.5/day, and my Seamaster from the mid-90's (uses the ETA) is running -2 on the wrist, +2 flat over night, so realistically day to day it's 0. I've owned ETA movements for decades, and their performance (if we're talking chronometer calibre) is better than +2/-2 that Rolex has for their Superlative (this also compared with the Rolex GMT that my brother owned a decade ago). The Daniels information comes from his writings (see Watchmaking, 2011, p239) and lectures, and I mentioned the lack of data regarding Patek, VC, and others in terms of real-world performance. You're welcome to either buy one and talk about it or find someone who does. I haven't found anyone who owns one that actually cares.

You can look up Zenith Defy as well; their movements are remarkable, but their watches are still ugly. I'm not sure what else you have a problem with. I don't guess about this shit unless I state so.

>>15303478
This.

>>15094648
No, hobbies are actually quite healthy, as long as you don't endanger your ability to live in any way that is permanent. Most men I know have hobbies they're passionate about, though it can range from anything like cars to old books.

Watches offer a lot to men who like mechanical and technological objects, and there are many areas of complexity in which they can be enthralled. As for >>15094652; you have to understand that for many of these people it's not only a hobby but also a business, and the projection of 'enthusiasm' is similar to what you see in the access media whenever something by Disney premiers.

>>15094661
I don't fall into that category, Anon. I'm quite happy being me, as my life adventure is more exciting than theirs. Sometimes after a while in life you learn to trust your intelligence and your abilities to learn and research...then you realize that the people who follow others don't really know much better, and through biology or training (or both) they've given up the struggle to learn on their own and instead just want easy answers handed to them on how to be individual. Then they become one of the flock, and the snake eats itself.

Save up, buy what you love, and wear it for your own enjoyment. If others like it, it's a bonus. If they ignore it, who cares.

Apologies to those who've seen this kind of question before, but I'm still narrowing down my choices and I came across one in person in a shop and I'm curious.

For the past 6 months I've been thinking seriously about getting a pocket watch. Waltham and Elgin always come up, but I can't find much literature at all on what is worth going after. Recently, I came across a Waltham in a shop that I really liked, but I haven't had a chance to look at it close up, or to see the condition of the movement.

So, to the pocket-watch Anons who know:

Is there any reason to avoid vintage Waltham pocket watches (open face)? Are Elgin's really just a step up from them?

My plan is to only get 1 pocket watch, and I've been recommended the Railroad grade ones from Elgin. It all makes sense, and I can find them on Chrono24 no problem. Basically I'm just looking for any ideas you Anons might have.

Incidentally, I'm not opposed to getting an Omega pocket watch, or any other one. It's just that the Elgin ones seem to be from the period when people still used them for 'accurate' timekeeping. I know it probably won't be within COSC or anything like that....but I don't really want a pocket watch from the 1950's either...it seems wrong somehow.

Anyway, thanks in advance, and I look forward to your thoughts.

>>13991558
Wow...I had no idea you couldn't set the hands backwards....

Well, maybe you might be able to purchase a 'donor' watch that is similar or in semi-working condition...I don't know, just thinking off the top of my booze.

What will happen when you've completed your collection? In other words, will you start a new 'subject' of the collection? I could gently suggest 'all Daniel's pocket watches' but I think you'd have some competition from me...lol

You know Anons, I do wonder if it's not just me. I really have a lot of respect for Breguet, in particular for their history (not necessarily business practices or whatever else). As in, I should have the same reverence for their name as...well...Patek (I'm sorry, but it's ingrained in the society I grew up in...). Obviously we can see the flaws in these things, or the elements that could be executed better...

Back to the point though. Am I the only one who doesn't particularly like Breguet's aesthetic? I mean...I really really don't like anything of theirs....at all. And I've tried. Every few years I'll end up back on their website, checking out the new designs...but it all looks wrong to me. In other words, I 'should' like it...but I can't.

Is it just a coincidence that no one seems to talk about them here at all?

>>13846859
What the fuck does that mean? You 'jelly'?