/fa/ - Fashion

>>18102731
/wt/ will always skew older due to the material. If it was only teenagers, then there would be endless cycles of "should I get this Vostok?"

>>18102760
Wear what you love; don't worry about style, as we're in a post-cohesive fashion world now. Anything goes. As for size: what are you comparing it to? Any watch will look good to your eyes if you give yourself time to get used to seeing it on your wrist.

>>17886297
Sorry; wrong pic. Same strap though...lol God bless Omega for making their watches convenient to change straps.

>>17828303
Grow up, sweet summer child. You're behind the times.

>>17053842
Congrats Anon! It fits you well! If you haven't already, make sure you do a clean with a toothbrush and a little water, and it should be okay if you use soap as well. Detach the bracelet and clean that really well with the toothbrush, inside the link areas because that's where lots of grime gets into. How's it running?

>first for Omega Watches are the Final Word in Horology.

>>16002627
It's not your fault. I know it's difficult...but it's not your fault.

>>16002895
If you own the watch, you'd understand why your statement is incorrect.

>>16003004
I have before, and it's not a problem. There's no trouble to be had if the gaskets have been checked for water resistance prior to the trip. What you have to understand is that you're not protecting the inside of the watch with metal-to-metal seals, you're doing it by compressing and expanding rubber using metal. The purpose of any screw down crown is to prevent the crown from moving; the lack of motion is what prevents water from bypassing the gasket. This is why you had water resistant watches in the 60s and 70s that didn't have screw down crowns but still functioned just fine, my father's Seamaster included in this.

The tricky part is knowing that if a pusher is pushed underwater or if the crown is pulled out and pushed back in repeatedly, you may get water ingress. Assuming that the gaskets are fine, then this is the only danger. The only exception to this rule are chronographs that are designed to have the pushers be usable under water (my 'new' Seamaster Chrono was the first design to do this in mass production in Omega). So again, taking a 50m WR into the water isn't stupid; you have to know the condition of your watch and what you should and shouldn't do.

>>16003011
I'll disagree with you here; the movement isn't finished to a higher degree than the 1863; it's only hand adjusted and regulated; it's not near haute horologie at all.

>>16003120
For me I had to figure out where the 'purchase' was; the easiest way was to grip from 1.5-2:00 and 7.5-8:00 on the side of the case. The other thing (that people who've never gone diving seem to think is impossible) is that turning the bezel with rubber gloves is actually very easy, especially when wet. There's lots of surface to grip on to.

>>15857907
For sure, this is a possibility, and since she was a genetic opposite of me, I'm hoping it is as you describe (i.e. my mysterious foreign-ness rather than my display of obvious wealth). Still...it was odd that this change occurred as soon as she got a good look at the watch. It didn't happen before, and after she couldn't let go of me (lest any of the other women wanted to talk to me). The wonders of the past.

Regarding the tourbillon: Apologies for the random review channel, but here's the point:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tg4dt2j_11k

At 700$ it's more than your pricepoint, but still low enough to be considered a disposable watch. But it will definitely impress the ladies because it's cool to watch.

You're in a tough spot man, I won't lie. 500 isn't enough for real quality, and by spending that low you're guaranteeing to throw the money away. There comes a point where you should just save up for something nice and special which you can wear for a lifetime and service once in a while. Under 500 you don't have many options for that if you go mechanical.

>>15857920
Personally I have none, but I don't fit the regular profile. I look at it this way:

1) What watch do I want to own?
2) Can I save for it if I put in some money into an account every month?
3) When the money has finally accumulated, I pull the trigger.

It's not a matter of value per salary (like an engagement ring which is supposed to be 3 months salary according to DeBeers)...it's a matter of what you love. That's all. A watch, after you buy it, only requires servicing. Depending on the watch and who services it, it can be anywhere from 150 - 1000 or more. So you factor in those costs too. But ultimately, buying watches is NOT about looking for value. The best value watch is your iPhone.

>Watches that cost more than 4.99$ are pure luxury. Treat it as such, and don't try to justify it as anything else. If you see it as a pure luxury, then you'll be happier.

>>15405999
Correction. You wrote:

>It's also been serviced by Omega ast year and comes with the receipts for that

That's a shit-tonne of damage to accumulate in a single year Anon. Either the owner wears it on rollercoasters for their day job (in the sun for 8 hours a day, 7 days a week to fade out the red second hand tip) or they might not be telling the whole truth.

When watches come back from Omega, they come back 'like new'. It's rare for them to agree to not repair or polish the case and hands.

>my Seamaster after service

>>15388930
Nice! Do you find there's a significant difference in the running of the Master Chronometer vs. earlier movements or other watches? There's a shittonne of publicity stuff Omega is vomiting everywhere about the testing, but I don't know anyone personally who owns one yet.

I love the idea in terms of the tech and the testing, but I haven't found a model that I like in terms of aesthetic direction. I tried on the Globemaster last year, and it looked hideous in person (I think it's too large to do the pie-pan thing).
Do you dive with it as well?

>>15323052
Tough one there, both have advantages:
1) Go with the black Lefty; less common, excellent legibility, easy to pair with fashion, and full bracelet.
2) Go with the blue normy: fun colour, definitey unusual compared with other watches on the market.

Which one are you leaning towards?

>>15116161
I don't get it though...why are they worse? Panerai shilling, or other?

>>14534533
Ask someone who is over the age of 70. They'll be happy to tell you, and grateful that someone wants to listen.

>>14534539
The sad thing is, in terms of timekeeping quartz is actually superior in every way. Mechanical watches cannot compete.

That being said, there is a reason I love mechanicals. They represent a pinnacle of human engineering, innovation, invention, and intelligence, and they are a reminder that humans can do incredible things if they put their mind to it. I wear both quartz and mechanical, for different purposes; the quartz can handle rollercoasters, gun ranges, and the like, and the mechs are for the aforementioned beauty of human achievement.

There is value in both, but one has to be cognoscente of the marketing that drives the sale of things people don't actually need.

>>14508222
Perhaps not mainland. In the UK, it was a no.1 seller for Omega, and to this day you'll see it on riders of the Tube, second only to the Speedy.

In the US and Canada it was also a best seller for Omega, but perhaps more for the Bond connection and the price-point than anything else. You have to remember; at this time in history, this watch was about 1/3 or 1/4 of the price of the Rolex Submariner, so if you were a starting businessman and you wanted a 'nice watch' to fit in, this one worked. Bond also forced the issue of this watch being worn with a tuxedo, which traditionally dive watches were not supposed to, so the average person saw this as the dress-up/dress-down watch. All purpose, essentially waterproof, and Bond wears it. So, why not? lol

>>14508240
A little polemic, but some of your points are dead on. First, Omega isn't trash...they're mid-tier. Their marketing is definitely cringe, no argument there. Their consumer base does spend a lot of time and words in the manner you describe, but consider that Rolex is what every mid-tier watch company compares itself to, and for good reason. Rolex has perfected the art of mass producing fine timepieces; no one has even come close to the volume and quality control.

I personally think Rolexes are better engineered and internally designed than Omegas, but I do not like the outer aesthetic of Rolexes save their older models.

Still, I think it's lacking precision to critique a brand/company based on the behavior of their consumers. Omega provides watches, and people buy them.

On the other hand, mechanical watches are status symbols, so perhaps the behavior of the consumers should be taken into account because that's what the watch is for. In the digital age, we don't need these things at all, so to wear one is to send a public message of a kind. Same with a gold Rolex, or a Destro Panerai.

I don't know really...one could go on either side.

>>14335733
No no, life is excellent; I'm passionate about my work, and my work makes me happy. It's just that at the end of a productive day, I don't spend as much time admiring my watches as I did when I was working less. So, it's a tradeoff: I work a lot now, I can afford watches I want now, but I don't have the time or energy to enjoy them when I was working less and couldn't afford as much. However I'll consider your advice about not wearing one for a while, to see what happens. Though in truth, I use the date of the Seamaster a lot...

>>14336963
>>14336981
I do, though it's not my primary. The Suunto is my primary, the Seamaster is my secondary. There are lots of people who use Rolexes to dive with, but again, as a secondary, not a primary.

>>14337183
No, but we attach meaning to them because of what we've been through with them and the memories we have to them. They're like musical instruments...or cars.

>>14337206
Yes, that's why my next will probably be one from 1967. The perfect chronograph.

>>14337978
No. Their internal engineering is excellent, their movements easy to service, and their holding value better than most. They mass-manufacture watches at a higher quality than anyone else in the world. Re-read that sentence carefully before responding.

>>14337979
No. Omegas don't hold their resale value unless they are historically significant (Speedy Cal. 321, Original Ploprof, etc.). Other than that, they drop like most modern watches.

I personally love watches, for the aesthetics as well as mechanical ingenuity. I still find it to be something of a miracle that on my wrist is the culmination of 700 or so years of human intellect, with the goal of quantifying and measuring something that is by nature in flux and constant. I wear one, not out of need, but out of fun. It's a hobby, and it brings me pleasure.

Hobbies in our world make a lot of money. Entertainment (sports, movies, videogames, gambling) are obvious. Other hobbies that make a lot of money are tied directly to sex: fashion being the most important. But then there are other hobbies that have connections but not too secure: clocks/watches, carpentry, self-sufficiency in extreme environments, parasailing, etc. At that point, it becomes something of a niche, and must rely on aggressive advertising in order to sustain itself.

Diamonds only survived because of the connection with the engagement ring. Is there something watches could be tied to that is socially locked in place? I don't think so because now people aren't buying diamonds anymore either. Yes, marriage rates are going down, but society itself has moved in a direction that encourages and supports extreme flexibility and nothing long-term. Everything is for the moment.

How in the world can you sell a product that is meant for the long term in a world where long term has no practical manifestation anymore? That's what watch companies are facing. So, perhaps that's the answer to your question. Another question, which I absolutely don't have the answer to, because I honestly don't think there is one. Rolex I think will always survive. Watchmakers like Journe and Dufour will survive. But Oris? Fortis? even Tag Heuer...I'm not so sure about. Okay, blog over.

What do you guys think?

>>14126450
Don't pay attention to the 'ambassadors' of any watch company. Just buy what sings to you. Have you tried on this Seamaster yet? It's awesome.

I've thought for a long time to pick one up myself. It's essentially the same watch internally as my current daily wear, but in my view the black sword hand variant is far more applicable to legibility as a dive watch. And yes, it is quite thin, so it fits under cuffs easily.

On a different note...does anyone here collect pocket watches? I'm looking seriously into this now, but I don't know if anyone here cares about it or not.

>>13941333
Go with what sings to you. Try them both on, see how they look on your wrist. Mine is the old version, the one with the modified ETA movement. The new ones have the co-axial, with minor changes like applied hour markers, a longer minute hand, etc. The Tudors are fine too, though they might have a bad rap just because it's been known as the 'poor-man's Rolex' for so long. But I've never heard a bad thing about the actual watches from owners.

If the price isn't the problem, then in truth just go try them on and see what you think. I was horrified when I tried on a Reverso for the first time because it was so damn light compared with any of my other watches....it felt like the kind of watch you get out of a gumball machine at the local arcade. Furthermore, when I looked at it closely, the finishing on the casing wasn't particularly impressive...and the JLC runs about double what I'd normally pay for a basic Omega, and that doesn't even count the pre-owned market.

I've never handled a Tudor, as the aesthetic doesn't appeal to me. But if they're Rolex engineered, then in all honesty I don't see any downsides. Most people today don't know the connection of those brands, so really just buy it for yourself. A snob will be snobby no matter what, but if the watch makes you happy, then in a sense that's all that matters.

In today's world, buying a watch for more than 2$ means you're buying it for more than practicality. In other words, aesthetics, beauty, status; all of those things become reasons why you're buying a watch that costs more. Because of this, it becomes more and more difficult to 'justify' your purchase to others...which means you simply have to justify it to yourself.

When you put it on, do you smile? Does it give you good service? Are you okay with it losing or gaining time? That's all that matters in the long run.

In my experience, what makes a watch special is what the watch (and subsequently, the wearer) has been through.

>>13649100
Congrats Anon. Time to start buying some straps for it so you can diversify the look once in a while.

>>13649451
>>13649692
Beautiful Speedys. Still on my list....one day.

>>13517168
Chrono24? I haven't heard any bad things about them...
The Stowa fliegers are beautiful for their price...pic unrelated. I still want a flieger...but not bad enoug h tto spend mondy on them...