/fa/ - Fashion

>>15297955
The main concerns revolved around a few things:
1) extreme changes of temperature, including dials and hands that might absorb solar radiation and warp.
2) G-forces during liftoff as well as jolts and other sudden bangs.
3) 1 atm changes of pressure for EVA and other things. This also includes the rapid changes of humidity.
4) the maintenance of a reasonable timekeeping.

The Speedy was apparently tested along with chronographs from other companies, including Rolex. Watches were bought (unknown to the companies) at local watch stores and brought in for testing. Lots of hilarious things ensued (watches lost their crystals, hands warped stopping the functions, etc.), and no watch was left undamaged. Ultimately the Speedy was the one that survived better than the others, but it didn't survive perfect.

The Cal. 321 was issued because that was being used by Omega at the time, and as soon as Omega found out that NASA was using their watches as official gear, they put the 'Professional' moniker on the dial. Furthermore, Omega did a slight re-engineer to the Lemania movement to create the 861, which was also tested by NASA and approved.

As far as anyone knows, only the cal.321 actually went to the moon and was worn by astronauts who walked on the moon. There is conjecture about the 'personal' watches that could be flown as well, the most famous example being Jack Swiggert's Rolex (which appears in pics just after they got retrieved in the sea when Apollo 13 came back).

What you have to understand is that NASA has to approve all tech used for EVA, but any astronaut can wear anything they want inside the capsule. There's tonnes of research on this.

And so the hour turnd, without the rise of the moon.

>>15090333
Yo'ure new...don't worry, it's not your fault.

>>14536685
You know the strangest thing about sinn? I can't find one on their website that is aesthetically pleasing. Not one. Either they're complicated in the generic way you see with Fortis and Damasco, or they're trying to be 'classic' but without the proportions of IWC, Hamilton, or other makers from those eras.

The simple designs, while extraordinarily German, are not beautiful in the Nomos way nor are they well thought out like Lange. They're...like granite.

No, I don't like a sinn, nor will I ever buy one. As to your leftist strategy of getting a response, "why are you afraid of x", the only answer I can give you is "why are you afraid of y? (insert anything from Swiss watchmaking to Japanese watchmaking to better German brands to quartz).

Hell, the Lacos pilot's watch is infinitely better aesthetically than the sinn version. What can one say...sinn is shit, and that's why people disrupt this board with them.

>>14536943
Scary thing...just got a new watch, the first quartz I've bought in years, and I'm already not missing the question of how many seconds it'll be off by in a day.

>>14537093
Don't propose it, just do it.

>>14109980
You can't with this kind of display, unless you change the gearing. That's why retrograde dates tend to work best, but they're tough to pull off.

That's why I tend to prefer the numerical change rather than the dial date...something Lange gets so right it's almost absurd. Not that I wouldn't give anything for a Daniels....it's just an aesthetic observation

>>13945911
Hulk was limited edition, wasn't it? Daytona has a 5 year waiting list, as the Rolex woman told me 3 weeks ago. The GMT is heavily dependent upon location: for instance, it's easier to find one in an airport Rolex dealership than it is on the street, and they don't discriminate.

C'mon now....you're just complaining for the sake of complaining. Or because you were embarrassed one time at a boutique and now you just want to share your bitterness with the world.

You can easily go into a Rolex boutique and buy anything that is on display. You can go into an Omega dealership and buy the platinum Globemaster without problems. The list is endless. If you want something specific, and it's highly 'limited', then you absolutely have to 'pay the price' and be one of their 'preferred customers'. You find that insulting? Then don't buy their products OR wait until the product is so old that no one wants it.

On Chrono24 you can find the limited edition museum Omega Chronographs that they did around 2010 or so. Fucking beautiful, but it seems that no one wanted to buy them. Now they're available, in surprisingly high numbers.

But then again, that's not a stainless steel Daytona, which is always in demand because of the controlled low production numbers (which EVERYONE knows about).

Get with the programme grouch....

>>13898141
You have me at a disadvantage, of course...though it's been made clear to me that my writing style is easy to recognize...lol

Interesting about the Lange - I was very attracted to them when I first started looking at watches more seriously. They've really figured out a way to look unique as a brand without messing around with externals. Their faces are absolutely Lange, even the Zeitwerk.

So, this would be pure aesthetic choice for you, as opposed to anything technological as well? I too enjoy the Lange1 in general...something about the proportions of the main and sub dials is just...perfect.

>>13898150
Hmm...Then why are you here?

>>13675224
Cool, thanks for explaining Anon. I wonder how these observatory watches perform in the real world...in other words, if people wear them regularly and how well they do. What's the accuracy of your GP?

>>13664244
Always a beauty...how long have you had it?

>>13664299
Fair enough. Regarding other brands, here's what I've been told in person.

Patek - better than COSC
Lange - better than COSC
Vacheron Constantin - better than COSC
JLC - better than COSC

The problem is that they are unwilling to guarantee specifics in person, hence why they'll use COSC as a comparison base because most of the mid-level watches will use COSC as a standard. Only Rolex traditionally went tighter in this group, but now that Omega is doing their Master Chronometer certification, that has changed too.

But as for a 'guarantee', I'd say there is none. For a 'goal', I think it's there, but left unsaid in case the goal is missed. And reputation, well the reputation is about the finishing, the luxury, and the status that comes along with owning a watch from said company.

If you're buying a Lange 1, are you buying it for its accuracy? Or a JLC Reverso? Or a Patek day-date complication? Furthermore, many of these watches have second-hand indicators that do not have a full gradation on the dial (i.e. 60 seconds marked out)...even the Speedmaster just has 60-20-40. It's not easy to precisely gauge if your watch is to the second or not with these watches because the readouts don't let you do so.

So, perhaps here's a more directed answer to your question. Higher companies don't care about accuracy as a primary goal, nor does the consumer who pays exorbitant amounts of money for the materials, the engineering, the finishing, and the status. COSC or better is enough for daily function and use, so once inside that circle, the differences are minimal and therefore not worth caring about by manufacturer AND consumer.

How about that?

>>13113080
A closer look...fuck me.