/fa/ - Fashion

>>18101325
Funny, I was thinking about this exact problem the other day. My 105.012-66 has a flat caseback with only the hippocampus logo lightly etched on the back; it's supremely comfortable. The 3570.50 has the normal 'First Watch Worn...etc.' plus hippocampus medallion hard-cut into the back; I don't want to say I can 'feel it'...but I can definitely feel a difference if I switch from one watch to the other. The flat back is very comfortable compared to the etched one. Casebacks make a difference.

Similarly, on a hot day, a display back made of sapphire will feel like it's 'suffocating' the skin (my 0100 does this), whereas something like the Seamaster casebacks (which are ridged) help it to breathe and I don't notice a problem.

>>15406009
It doesn't look off to me, but you have to make sure you're comparing it to the bracelets of other mid-size Seamasters. That being said, the clasp is normally 'brushed' stainless steel as opposed to polished, which is why it might look strange in the pic.

I think you'll be fine, but don't take it in the water unless you've had your watchmaker examine it.

>>15295501
None of what you said makes sense. If you mean the construction of an individual link, then higher number of parts allows for finishing precision and aesthetic styling that might not be possible with a single piece of steel. The Seamaster has a link constructed of 9 individual pieces (5 brushed, 4 polished), and it's silky smooth. Other bracelets from other manufacturers go further or not. As much as the average joe might look down on the Submariner bracelet, for instance, it's a perfect tool-watch bracelet (just enough components to be smooth and not pull hairs, but still function over form).

>>15295504
You can do this, but you need to know your watches and be able to store them for 50 years. Anything less than that and you won't make enough profit to overcome inflation, and further to that if you can't wear the watch you own, what is the point? That in my view is a waste.

>>15295546
Love the technology, hate the aesthetic. Such is life.

>>15295593
The valjoux 7750 is a proven workhorse; 1250 Euros new is a good deal. Anyone can service it, and it'll go as long as you want it to. As to the design and fit, that's your choice.

>>15295605
Off-the-shelf Etas have been used by everyone, especially during the 80's reconstruction, so I think it's unfair to turn your nose up at that. In-House movements are usually modifications of already proven movements, as real in-house is built from the ground up and costs a tonne for R+D. What I'm saying is, in-house vs. off-the-shelf ETA should not be a dealbreaker for anyone; it's a talking point for sellers, and usually a justification to charge more.

>>15295616
You do notice the difference in finishing, but you have to try the watch on your wrist to see it. Pics don't do this kind of thing justice.

>>15295629
Sellita is the main competition for ETA/Valjoux, but usually simplified in terms of components and construction. Something to know.

>>15153866
Because I dive. My seamaster is my secondary, my Suunto is my primary. That's the point. Furthermore, the dive extension on the bracelet is actually correctly sized for a wetsuit.

That being said I don't begrudge anyone from wearing a diver...they're cool watches that can take a beating.

>>14844775
Also I took those shots this evening while the movement was running...I'm still trying to determine how much power reserve this thing has. It should be around 30 hours or more, but I won't know until it runs down.

>another shot I like of ye olde Semenmastere

>>14508259
Well, make sure you try it on and see how it looks on your wrist. The watch is surprisingly thin for the width, so it's like wearing a rather large and heavy coin on your wrist. But the steel band is hefty enough so that the watch doesn't feel top heavy in the slightest.

If it's in the low 1k range USD, then it's definitely a steal, but then you have to ask why it's so low. Does it need a service (Omega servicing is in the 800$ range)? Is the face faded out because of too much sun light? Is the bezel in shit condition due to knocks and scrapes?

As you saw on Chrono24, the lowest range for this watch starts around 2500USD. If the seller did his research, surely he'd know this. So I'd be skeptical, and I'd be sure to have your guy open up the watch to determine how the movement is in terms of lubrication and need for service. The last thing you want to do is think you got a deal but then find out you have to service it.

One other thing to know about these Seamasters; the second hand has red paint at the tip, and this red paint fades away to white with sun exposure after a few decades. Mine has been preserved because it doesn't see sun unless I'm diving, but most older ones I've seen have white second hand tips rather than red. It's just one of those details you notice.

Good luck with the whole thing. I'll never get rid of mine ever, not only because it performs well but because it always works for my lifestyle. It fits under collared shirt cuffs without problems, you can switch out the band for leather straps (or sharkskin, which is what I have it on in summer), and quite honestly it's a no-bother watch.

>>14110582
>Omega has garbage bracelets...

Not sure what you're comparing it to in that price range. The Seamaster segmented one is universally enjoyed due to its non-hair-pulling design (but universally hated by polishers for their construction). The old Speedmaster bracelet (1969-74 or so) is perhaps the best period bracelet of its kind of any manufacturer in terms of comfort and durability....so....I shall happily disagree with you on that!

Wear one...you'll be surprised.

>>13846832
Nice....did you manage to get one that was not modified with replacement parts from Bulova?

>>13517197
>>13517215
cont.

The age of the watch is irrelevant: it just got through a major overhaul/servicing, so really anything that was noticable in terms of the age of the watch was either replaced or repaired (though Omega normally just replaces shit...they don't really repair anything as far as I know.). The bag of replaced parts was full to the brim, lots of movement gears, lots of crowns, etc.

Here's my 2 cents (written to the value of 2 shillings):

1) The design has become classic, not iconic, but classic. Not only with the Bond connection, but because it was the first diver that didn't look pure utilitarian AND wasn't a Rolex and yet still captivated enough people to be something that is sought after.

2) The movement is utterly reliable. Yes, it's an ETA, and people will bitch about that, but there's really nothing wrong with it, and it's taken everything I could throw at it.

3) The design is still superb, and not easy to date. It doesn't necessarily look '1990's' ish the way that some watches tend to look their decade (the 1970's watches in particular by Omega are VERY 1970's.).

The one thing that is a problem when you're buying vintage with this model is the second hand: the red tip tends to go orange, and then fade to white with lots of sunlight. You have to accept that, and if you see a pure red one, then either it's been replaced or it's been a safe-queen. Even mine has started to fade a bit, but I took care of it, to a point. I still wear the hell out of it, but I don't treat it like shit.

I can't say that there is anything seriously wrong with this model, and I can honestly say I'd never get rid of it. It was my first 'expensive' mechanical, and it'll always be with me. I've never fallen out of love with it, nor have I ever thought I'd rather have gotten a different model or iteration (the GMT is okay, but I hate the look to be honest). It's MY watch...and it suits me.

My best advice: try one on.