/fa/ - Fashion

>>13500173

Can someone please recommend me a skeleton dial watch for less than £400? Thank

What kind of horological clothes have you got? Wearing my Armin Strom socks today.

>>13500184
A Casio tshirt.

t. had to solve 8 captchas to say this

Help me find a watch. Requirements:
>Automatic/Manual
>full set of Roman numerals
>white dial
>no complications
>preferably not even a date complication
>no batons
Like pic related but without the date window. Also FC has a shaky reputation.

Any Anons have any suggestions for 19mm straps or bracelets that would suit these two? Ideally stuff that'd accept a 16mm buckle too if at all possible?

Thanks /wt/. Currently got the Rolex on a leather strap and the Tudor still resides on its bracelet.

>>13500167
Name 1 (one) good watch between the prices of $501-$3000.

>>13500201
>no price range
You're going to get people recommending Vostoks and Pateks.

>>13500205
>no price range
intentional. I want a very specific type of watch and will pay to get it. $50 or $50k.

>>13500205

>>13500213
>seiko
Blocked.

Post your grids including your wristwatches.

>>13500201
This actually seems to tick most of those boxes.

>>13500201
Seiko SARX049 though it has a date window.

>>13500205
I assume you mean "a watch between 501 and 3000 new that unambiguously provides a level of quality above what's available at the 500 and under range.". So,
> Damasko
> Grand Seiko 9F, Citizen chronomaster, longines vhp

>>13500201
>>13500222
Seiko SARX051 as well.

>>13500205

>>13500210
Lange 232.025, Richard Lange in platinum.

>>13500201
Patek Philippe 5119G

>>13500220
>no batons
not a full set - no XII
>>13500222
>>13500227
closer, date window still ruins it for me

>>13500205
>Name 1 (one) good watch between the prices of $501-$3000.
No, because you're a type of moron who will just find excuses to call it a shitwatch to prove your point. You are just wrong, and I don't even care about proving you wrong because everyone with some insight here too knows you are wrong.

>>13500241
>small seconds

>>13500243
Read:

>>13500223
>a watch between 501 and 3000 new that unambiguously provides a level of quality above what's available at the 500 and under range.

Watches in that particular price range typically aren't worth the asking price.

>>13500247
Was not listed as a requirement or deal breaker.

>>13500204
https://www.twostitchstraps.com/collections/all

>>13500249
No watches are worth the asking price according to some, for example according to you when you try to prove your point.

By definition tho, they're all worth it as long as people will buy them at its asking price. It's called the free market. There is no objectively correct price for any watch, just a market that will show us how much they are willing to pay.

>>13500205

>>13500256
This

>>13500250
>>13500201
>no complications
>>13500229
Have been looking at this for weeks; this is almost perfect

>>13500256
Amen brother

>>13500256
A market can have dislocations from my personal preferences, where watches sell at prices above those of watches that I would consider equal or better on the things I value. That said, there are absolutely watches in that price bacjet that I would consider better than watches in the lower price bracket, and I listed them here.
>>13500223
As with anything, there's no such thing as a good watch, only a watch at a good price. There are, if course, bad watches.

>>13500262
>almost perfect
What's not perfect about it
>>13500262
Center sweep seconds is traditionally considered a complication, compared to sub seconds, which are not.

>>13500266
Not mentioning nomos, and at least 30 other brands.

>>13500218

>>13500262
Okay, Patek 5120G

>>13500262
Subdial seconds is less complicated than center seconds.

>>13500275
Sexy.

>>13500256
I see what you're saying but once you get over the $500 mark the brand name of the watch starts to matter, and there aren't any names that matter until you start hitting Omega, Rolex, IWC, Tudor, Breitling etc. money. This is simply because you want something that'll hold its value, you can be sure is built properly, have spare parts available and be serviceable by anyone.

>By definition tho, they're all worth it as long as people will buy them at its asking price. It's called the free market. There is no objectively correct price for any watch, just a market that will show us how much they are willing to pay.
I don't disagree with this.

>>13500269
The roman numbers kek

>>13500275
I can see your alpenis, Anon.

>>13500282
According to you they don't matter. You're living in a bubble with archie-rules.

>I don't disagree with this.
The only thing that matters is what you're already agreeing on. So, now we can go on to a new topic. Perhaps we can talk about how nice this pic related lume is.

>>13500293
>So, now we can go on to a new topic
No, you WILL spend the next three hours arguing this with me or we're going to have a problem.

what's a good watch with a brown color that is completely water proof?

Reminder that this graph is 100% accurate.

>>13500269
The arabic numbers by the track. Especially that some of them are red.
Add sub-seconds to the no list
>>13500278
Not bad, although hands seem a little off, will look at it in person if I can track one down irl

>>13500298
There are no watches that are completely water proof.

>>13500295
Wanna step outside with me for a minute?

>>13500308
Is this actually real??

Reminder

>>13500311
Yes, it's where Tudor got the inspiration for the Black Bay.

>>13500316
What does the ring lock system do?

>>13500293
Jesus. Is tha lume backlit?

>>13500298

>>13500278

jesus. the roman numerals past 6 makes me want to smash that thing. I hate that they are upside down. It would be so much better if corrected

>>13500306
I’m at step 3 kek.
How about you, guys?

>>13500311
Yes, Rolex made it and sent it down to Challenger deep on an underwater ROV as a marketing stunt.

>>13500340
But is it a watch that you can buy with the AD, or is it only a gimmick that they did to impress?

>>13500306
I thought one of you were actually going to improve the original one. What happened with that?

>>13500347
No, the deepest rated Rolex (and deepest rated watch I'm aware of) commercially available is the 3900m Rolex 116660 deep sea seadweller.

just bought a Vostok. anyone have experience with them?
im just wondering what i threw $30 at

>>13500360
> Bought a non-amphibia vostok
Oops

>>13500204
>>13500252
I should note specifically that those straps come in 19 to 16mm tapers. You're welcome.

>>13500218

what wallet is that?

>>13500379
Just one that is sold a lot of in various colors, I don't know its name.

>>13500360
They are good if you want to use one as a beater and appreciate the quirkyness, they are built robustly and have a charm about them but they aren't a quality item. The movement in my Amphibia runs at +1 second per day which blows my mind for a cheap POS.

>>13500364
doesnt the Amphibia and the Komandirsky use the same movement?

>>13500417
No. For one good clue, the komandirskie is a hand wind and the amphibia is an automatic.

>>13500417
>>13500418
Also the cheaper Komandirskies are brass.

>screw down crown
>hand wound

Looking for a piece where the second hand moves smoothly or in 1/4sec increments. I've had pic related for 20 years that does this and it pleases me.

Can someone steer me towards more makes / models that do as well?

>>13500440
Any non-Quartz will do this.

>>13500421
what should i expect for $30?
and what difference does brass make?

>>13500452
>what should i expect for $30?
At that price, it's not like it's worth losing sleep over if you don't like it. I like my Amphibia a lot even though it's the cheapest watch I own. Vostok bracelets and bezels are dogshit though and are an immediate replacement for most people. Sadly what can't be fixed is the bidirectional nature of the bezel, it's the worst part of Vostok watches in my opinion.

Also, the crystal is soft as hell and will scratch on everything you touch it against. I can polish the scratches out of mine just by rubbing it quickly on a towel, that's how soft it is.

>brass
If it scratches it shows the brass color underneath.

>>13500446
Almost all modern mechanical movements move in either 1/6 second or 1/8 second increments. It has been a long time since mechanicals have commonly had second hands moving in 1/4 second increments.

>>13500359
>3900m
That's just ridiculous. You can't even go that deep without the pressure killing you. Even the most hardcore atmospheric diving suits are only good for up to 700 meters.

>>13500468
>the second hand moves smoothly or in 1/4sec increments
>OR
Anon just wants a watch with a sweeping seconds hand.

>>13500469
>You can't even go that deep without the pressure killing you
Maybe not you, pussy.

>>13500474
The only production wristwatch movements in history I'm aware of are the Seiko 5s21/5s42, Seiko spring drive variants, and the piaget 700p, so then those are your options.

Can anyone recommend something similar to this but more robust? I like the simplicity of them but they break after a month or two.

>>13500469
It's not practically going to withstand 3900m anyway, just like a 200m watch is not practically gonna withstand 200m

>>13500491
It was tested to that and would probably do even more.

>>13500315
Look here >>13500469
The theoretical water resistance is well-known to not be a practical water resistance. Just make sure you have a proper diver and that it has screw-down crown and no crono-pushers or any of that shit, if you want to use it as anything else than surface fun in the water.

>>13500489
Buying one of those every 2 months is probably the most cost effective watch.
A cheap g shock will be better but a lot more expensive

>>13500491
>just like a 200m watch is not practically gonna withstand 200m
Is it brain damage?

>>13500467
i remember reading that the crystal is actually plastic.

>>13500500
Lmao, sure, go take your 100m water resistance chronograph and take it 3 meter under water for 30 minutes and see what happens.

Do it tomorrow, and let me know. PLEASE take the challenge.

>>13500507
You too. Do this: >>13500514

An ISO water resistant watch to 10m can be used for diving up to a depth of 10m as it is tested and survives at that depth

>>13500519
Do it tomorrow.

Who among you have a nice JLC to put 5 meters under water tomorrow?

>>13500514
>being this brain damaged
When you exceed the rated depth of a watch the component that fails is the crystal, not the caseback or any of the seals. You are fucking retarded if you think 3 metres of water is going to kill any watch.

>>13500517
Are you talking real ISO water resist or random chink watch "water resist"?
Because if the former it's fine if the latter don't even sweat on it.
A 10m ISO rated watch can be used fine a any depth above 10m
https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/tale-of-two-isos-what-water-resistance-ratings-really-mean

>>13500525
Is that why the rule of thumb about pushers is "the more holes the less it likes water"?

>>13500514
I don't have 3m of water handy.

>>13500533
That's ok, keep it there overnight and see what happens.

>>13500521
I don't own an ISO 10m water resistant watch. I have a 100m water resist Casio (as far as I'm aware it's to ISO standard) that I have gone diving with irl and it is working perfectly but I wouldn't have gone deeper than 5m or so.

>>13500528
Generally speaking I'm thinking that divers are more or less true to the theoretical depth, while mere sports watches with the "hurr durr 200m" are not.

Yes your submariner will take a lot of depth, but don't try to put your speedy 50m under water.

>>13500252
Awesome, thank you Anon. I'll give them a look.

Here's a picture of one of my shitters for your troubles.

>>13500280
this.

center seconds is a complication

>>13500540
Casio officially recommend not using their watches that are 100m to anything beyond snorkeling just beneath the surface.

>>13500542
If it's ISO rated it can go to that depth because that particular watch has passed tests to that depth. If it doesn't, the company that makes it has broken ISO and can get massive fines.
This is what happens in the actual real world and not in your dream world.

>>13500552
Yes and a lot of mountain bikes don't recommend off road use.
Covering your arse is standard for companies.
As far as I'm aware Casio are ISO standard water resistance, and that means the watches can practically go to the depths on them.
But anyway that's all beside the point, ~1 hour in the ocean long enough? Because it passed that test with flying colours.

>>13500530>>13500530

I have actually dived, 25m max depth, with several watches; including GShocks.

Not a single failure.

Nice dress watch for under 500 or 600-ish?

>>13500542
A 50m wr watch is perfectly capable of swimming. Most triatlon GPSs are only 50m wr and you can swim ours in the sea with them.

Is the SKX013 ISO rated and able to take its 200m?

>watches are always rated higher than their real practical water resistance depth
>meanwhile in the real world https://www.seikowatches.com/us-en/products/prospex/special/evolutionofdiverswatches/sp/

>arguing about depth rating
ffs, people. there are two ISO ratings.
>ISO 2281 watch resistance standards
>ISO 6425 divers watch standards

100m ISO2281 is not suitable for diving

>>13500582
Yes, likely even deeper but it isn't rated at that depth and any failure could happen and you are at fault.
It is at minimum 200m water resistant in order to pass the ISO tests.

>>13500598
Is it ISO6425 tested at 200m or is it ISO2281 tested to 200m?

>>13500593
https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/tale-of-two-isos-what-water-resistance-ratings-really-mean
Not really true. If it has a screw down crown (knock protection so you don't jump the crown out) , a water resistance deeper than you will go, and you can read it it is a suitable watch for diving.
Reminder that the earliest dive watches were not to ISO dive standards and were used commercially with no issue.

>>13500489
I'm not worried about cost, but would like something that isn't all plastic while still maintaining the slim simple aesthetic. Not into g shocks, they're hideous.

>>13500604
ISO 6425

>tfw SKX will probably not take its 200m
I should never have bought it.

>>13500608
Does it say so anywhere? I want to see to be certain.

>>13500606
Well, not no issue. People were killing themselves left and right but watches weren't causing that.

>>13500612
Says it on the dial. Japan is a part of ISO compliant countries and it is illegal to use the specific markings set out in ISO 6425 while not being compliant to that standard.
>>13500609
It will likely exceed it's marked water resistance as it didn't fail the tests at 200m.

>>13500622
>ISO 6425
Doesn't say this on the dial tho.

>>13500632
It has the ISO markings on the dial. Case back too.

>>13500535
Hmmm
I’m actually intrigued.

>>13500635
Then I guess I can go ahead and shower with it.

>>13500650
I'm glad to see that my shitposting elicits something.

>>13500543
>tfw wanted an Alpha Paul Newman but too afraid of the Alpha site to buy

>>13500574

>>13500667
Sacm171. Dress size, plain white dial, high accuracy movement, sapphire crystal, diashield coating. Spend the extra 100-200 on a better croc or lizard strap.

>>13500679
>>13500574

>>13500679
>Dress size
What's its size?

>>13500693
Like lady small

>>13500315
Reminder that ISO promotes water resistance transparency.

https://www.iso.org/news/2010/11/Ref1367.html

Reminder that most detriments to water resistance are not true.

forums.watchuseek.com/f2/sigh-myth-busting-again-610734.html

>>13500693
34mm

>>13500173
thoughts?

>>13500707
That I wouldn't shower with it.

>>13500306
>women are going to be impressed

Women literally don't give a fuck about watches lmao

>>13500724
Lots of women do tho.

How many watches do you have?

>>13500729

>>13500751
I guess they're more materialistic here then...

>>13500746
More than I need. I think I'll aim for the 1/2 watch life in the near future. A beater just means my 1 watch can be a lot nicer.

>>13500767
I myself am thinking that 8 watches should be enough. But there are so many watches I'd like to have in my collection. Honestly tho, if you have too many watches I think you won't wear and enjoy all of them enough.

>>13500746
Over 30. Around 10 vintage, the rest modern.

>>13500746
1 (one).

>>13500833
Honestly if you weren't such a shitposter with porn and if you hadn't destroyed the thread on /g/, I would consider buying you a proper watch in the same price range of that faketudor. You deserve more than just a fake watch.

>>13500282
>hold its value
doesn't matter at all if you intend to keep it

>>13500842
Why would I ever need another watch when I have a Tudor Heritage Black Bay?

Watch with the best looking dial? No budget limit, this is just to see what the best looks like to /wt/

>>13500746
1 right now. When I get a big boy job, I want to add a Milgauss and Tank to my collection.

>>13500857
>Tank
Go for the reverso.

>>13500833
Kill yourself Rakesh

>>13500909
Why?

>>13500911
Because you are a cancer more so than other shitposters.

RIP Rakesh

>>13500514
All Rolex watches are tested at 20% over their water resistance rating.

I’m a 36 (soon 37) years old boomer.
I’m looking for my first vintage luxury watch and I’d like one made in 1981.

It’s not very specific but can you help me out? Around 2k would be my range. I don't really specify the style because the age is the main goal.

>>13500205
>He is right though that the $500-$3000 pricerange is generally a chasm of dogshit.

lol please. anything below %10,000 is dogshit.

>>13501122
>%10,000
what did he mean by this

>>13500306
created by poorfags who can only afford 5k to 15k watches ROFLMAO

>>13501155
Hello newfriend.

>>13500663
Honestly Anon? It looks sketchy as fuck, and it takes a good while to show up, but I bought direct from Alpha and they were great to deal with.

Bought the mother of pearl explorer I posted above + a black dialled explorer prior to buying my Rolex which I have since given to a friend. Solid watches for the price too - just avoid the none-automatic models or you might end up with one with an absolute dogshit of a movement. They will honour the 1 year guarantee, but it's a cunt and a half sending watches back and forth to China.

>>13501025
What's your source on that? Seems wrong.

Checked out some watches in person today.

Went to Rolex and looked at the yellow dial OP 34 and a two tone Datejust 36. 34mm was quite small, even for my small 6.5” wrist. 36mm is the sweet spot.

Went to Seiko and looked at the new GS quartz anniversary piece with the gold bezel and display back. Shame about the blue sticker on the back though.

Went to Omega and saw both the midsize 36mm Seamaster 300m and the Speedmaster. 36mm was small feeling for a diver. So checked out the 41mm and it was nice fit but kinda big. 38mm-39mm seems like the best for a diver for my wrist. Speedy was amazing classic in every way might be my next purchase. Only thing about it is the WR is not amazing but it is a chrono so whatever.

Went to Tudor and checked out the Black Bay black. Too chunky and big so will wait for the 58 to drop. They also had those old heritage chrono models kicking around so looked at the grey one. I actually loved it also bit chunky but did not mind as much for some reason. Screw down pushers and a rotating bezel are nice features. Could really see myself buying it. But the huge downer is the shit module movement it has in it. What a shitshow. Hope they put the Breitling movement in those next.

Was going to visit JLC but ran out of time.

>>13501212
Where did you go anon? Sounds like a really good watchshop.

>>13501261
Well the Tudor was in some multi brand store. Rest were single stores. NYC.

*Out of context

The watch of my dreams, any opinions?

>>13501283
Eww
No
WTF
Why

>>13501270
Gotcha. I only know two Rolex shops in the Bay Area. I should go out to NYC sometime.

>>13501290
Look at that red-white striped second hand.

ofc not as an everyday watch / heck even as a special occasion watch, but if I was rich then this would be the pride of my collection

>>13501294
The only watch I can understand from them is the ejector seat one, and that's still not even a very good choice. The rest are just marketing trash.

>>13501199
Rolex authorized service anon here.

we test every Rolex in water to it's specified depth in a fathometer (pic related, right)

>>13501339
You don't test Diver rolexes to 25% over their rated depth, as required by iso 6425?

>>13501357
huh, I never thought about it before. the thing has presents to different depths. I guess I don't know whether some depth is actually doing that depth or if it's some % above. I'll ask tomorrow

>>13501380
Cool, will be interested to know.

>paying for heritage
imagine being a yank

>>13501380
I'm also really surprised you don't use a dry tester. Seems generally safer and for a major service center it doesn't seem like that much to spring for.

>>13501392
Depends on the heritage. If we are talking worn on the moon or some technical/historic innovation that is cool. Worn by some faggot in some movie eh.

>>13501402
>If we are talking worn on the moon or some technical/historic innovation that is cool
You'd better just be talking about cal 321 speedmasters and not the 861/1861/1863, that share only a cosmetic, external similarity and are an essentially completely unrelated movement.

>>13501393
we have a dry tester and two wet testers, one pressure and one vacuum.

on a Rolex, we use wet pressure to test a case with new seals at it's depth before the movement is put in. once it passes, we open the case and put in the movement, then we double check with the dry tester to make sure the back went on properly

the wet vacuum tester is used to find failure points if a leak is found. it pulls out a stream of bubbles from a leak

>>13501413
Thanks, makes sense.

>>13501410
It's almost as if people care about different things. Some seek the movement some seek the design. Wow.

>>13501422
> I'm into this watch because it has a cool technical innovation
> So I bought a watch without that technical innovation
I'm not even upset, just confused. Is this the kind of person that buys the accutron ii?

>>13501410
>861 vs 321
>an essentially completely unrelated movement.
kek

1/2

>>13501431
historic design heritage is another aspect.

>>13501410
>>13501437
2/2
it's the same base calibre, friend

>>13501440
There are some pretty massive fundamental differences.

>>13501444
inb4 colunm wheel, right?

that is not a massive fundamental difference

it's the same base calibre mate

>>13501440
Which parts are interchangeable between a 321 and a 1861?

>>13501410
Delete your account.

>>13501449
That's the most obvious one that you can see from a mile off yes.

>>13501440
>>13501437
They are totally different movements, you're just being a fucking retard. If you actually understood anything about how movements work you'd know that there are far more dissimilarities than similarities.

>>13501440
>>13501449
Please reply
>>13501450
If it's the same base caliber I assume every part except the column wheel/cam system and accompanying levers, maybe the brake, etc.?

>>13500842
where do i go about buying that exact faketudor?

>>13501470
It's a different beat rate too isn't it so a couple gears will be different. And one is a lot more classically finished and more attractive to the eye.
Also one uses a plastic component.

But they are the same lol.

>>13501478
Excuse me they are both watch movements that tell the time they are the same. And PLUS they both have stopwatches so they are extra the same.

>>13501472
You don't, because it's dogshit.

>if a movement does not share parts they do not share lineage
lol wut

>>13501470
I've only ever serviced a single 321 and maybe half a dozen 861. so unfortunately I'm not intimately familiar with exactly what is and isn't interchangable. probably not much, honestly

the column wheel changes the geometry of all it's cams and levers involved, but their function is all still fundamentally the same. the gear train is the same, but might have a different beat rate which would change the number of teeth involved.

the dial side I think is different, too. the Rolex 861 reengineered their hour recorder reset lever, not sure whether Omega did the same thing.

all this is semantic, though. if you know how one works, you know how they all work. they're all fundamentally the same.

>>13501488
In that case the cal 321 is the same as the cal 2121
They both share the same lineage of being wrist watch movements
My 6R15 is basically the same too

>>13501488
> The Lemania 2310 and 1873 are the same!
> Really? How?
> They were made by the same company!

>>13501498
Fundamentally a cam is quite different to a column wheel. If you equate them and their different beat rates to being the same where do you draw the line of "same"?
It is much over muchness but they are different movements that work in different ways.

A 2 stroke engine and 4 stroke are the same. They both make fire to make the axle move!

>>13501520
>>13501499
>>13501481

>>13501511
dog, I don't know what to tell you.

its like the original Omega coaxial movements. you can say it's fundamentally different because of the one thing but when you get down to it, an Omega 2500 is still a modified 2892

>>13501529
>if I say that they are retarded first I'm right

>>13501533
If you split hairs right down to nothing all mechanical chronographs are the same.
Different parts, materials, beat rates, layouts, power reserve, what's it all matter if you do that?
All I'm really asking is at what point is it sensible to stop doing that? I agree it does the same job, but to what degree of difference?

>>13501542
how about a lemania 7750? it's a cam opperated, horizontal clutch, lemania chronograph, same as the 821, but automatic. no one would ever say that the 7750 is a modified 821. you ask any watchmaker, and they'll tell you an Omega 321 is a modified 821.

>>13501568
_why_ is a 321 a "modified 821" (I assume you mean 861, and that you mean the 861 is a modified 321, since the 321 came first - I'm giving you a lot of benefit of the doubt here), aside from "hypothetical watchmakers say so"? Is the train layout the same? Same bridges? same mainspring and winding parts? The guy who designed the 321 later designed the 861?

>>13501357
>>13501025
My bad anon, I completely misread your original comment. I thought you said "tested at 20% water resistance rating" and thought that was crazy.

Pressure test in the watchmakers office is not the same as to put your watch down to 300m in the ocean. There is no water that wants to be squeezed inside your watch when the watchmaker is doing it. He's only looking at a screen and some numbers that aren't dangerous.

>>13501771
wat?

>>13500746
Now, 17 counting a Garmin Forerunner and a Tom Tom GPS.

>>13501787
The watches are tested in presurized air, not water.

>>13501533
Yes BUT pic related.

>>13501771
Anon are you mental? Watchmakers use wet tests too that actually simulate water pressure.

>>13501792
>never took a chemistry or physics class

>>13501792
Here give this a read >>13501339

>>13501339

How does the Rolex Milgauss hold up to that thing?

>>13501813
>simulate water pressure
>simulate

>>13501861
Explain to me the difference between a simulated 30 bar pressure on a watch and a real world 30 bar pressure from under the ocean

>>13501339
If you really do it with the watch inside water, you are the most retarded watchmakers i have come across.

>>13501875
Are you actually brain dead?
https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/under-pressure-a-look-at-rolex-water-resistance-testing

>>13501869
In one of them there is no actual water that is pushing itself into the watch.

>>13501881
Which one is that?

>>13501875
ISO requires the watches to be submerged when tested at pressure. They also require a sustained submerged test.
You don't know what your talking about, just stop.

>>13501169
>gave Rolex away
>wears chink homages instead
Did you expose the swiss jews?

>>13501884
The simulation.

>>13501892
But the case is surrounded in water in both? And both are at the same pressure?

>>13501903
What happens if the watchmaker gets water into your JLC and the cosmetics are fucked? Is he going to tell you "nope it didn't pass the test"?

>>13501911
https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/under-pressure-a-look-at-rolex-water-resistance-testing
Read/watch this. You clearly don't understand what's going on Rakesh. Shut your mouth when you don't have a clue.

I'm willing to spend ~$100 on a watch that's interesting. Not necessarily reliable/accurate or even terribly functional, just something that looks nice and is interesting. I was thinking of buying some kind of Soviet watch like Molniya/Molnija. Worth my money or just Slav scrap metal?

>>13501922
Vostok Amphibia

>>13501922
Why do people think soviet watches are "interesting"? Because it's Russian? Why is that so terribly interesting? I never understood it.

>>13501925
They're interesting in America because they're very uncommon and unknown. Something with an out of the ordinary origin is interesting by itself, it it looks nice it's doubly so.

>>13501925
well russia has few makers and most of them have quite interesting history with the wars, soviet union etc and some interesting design philosophy too as a result

are mvmt watches any good or are they garbage?

>>13501212
>display back
>quartz
???

>>13501942
???

>>13501939
DW are unironically better. MVMT aren't worth the $2 movement, $5 case, and $3 straps. You can buy chink versions for like $10 plus shipping and they are near identical.

>>13501212
>WR
What's that?

>>13501950
cheers bud

>>13501947
eh fair enough. Doesn't look bad.

>>13501953
Wank rating. Hairsprings are very delicate and if the WR is too low it might sustain damage during a vigorous fap.

>>13501959
I think I got it, it's water resistance isn't it?

thoughts on this watch?

>>13501947
there's not much to look at but what there is is done nicely i suppose

Are you guys familiar with Volta watch boxes?

>>13501966
It's nice and simple.

>>13500173
My great uncles omega, been having a hard time dating it really, he died around 8 years ago, age of 93 and he got it roughly in his 30/40s but that might be inaccurate. Never had it priced or anything, any reliable sources? Strap is not original, the leather wasted away.

>>13501972
>simple
I wanted something that was simple. I think I might buy something like pic related also, if I want to wear something that's more like a piece of jewelry sometime.

>>13501977
Also another from the family collection, came with a green suede strap apparently. Apparently a bit of a rarity according to some shop we took it to, with the green face and what not but still no price or date.

>>13501988
Might be the biggest second hand I've ever seen, even bigger than Orient Monarch's.

>>13501995
Might be something to do with ease of visibility as it is a water proof, pretty sure this was bought around the 70s.

>>13501986
Anyone have recommendations for other watches of a similar style?
Also, thoughts on smaller watches for men, such as this one which is 34 mm? Compared to the standard 40 mm for example?

>>13501999
How is the strap attached to the case? Looks like it has no lugs and it goes in under the fucking caseback.

>>13500306
R
O
S
S

>>13502006
I'm actually not sure honestly, according to my nan it's been heavily modified over the years, it was originally a wind up but due to mechanical failures it now takes batteries. That may have something to do with with it, otherwise I'm just as stumped as you.

>>13502013
>it was originally a wind up but due to mechanical failures it now takes batteries
>take omega
>remove movement
>insert chinese quartz movement
>win

>>13502015
Not my doing ofc, holds more sentimental value to my grand parents than the actual price so they just wanted it to work. By the sounds of it, without just gutting it inside out that was the only option.

>>13502015
>>13502017
A shame yes, however I get the feeling it would be easily removed if needs be, however that would leave the watch obselete.

>>13501881
>t. retard who doesn't understand pressure

>>13501911
Any good watchmaker removes the movement before wet testing. Anon you are honestly so fucking retarded, please stay tf out of /wt/.

>>13502044
>Any good watchmaker removes the movement before wet testing. Anon you are honestly so fucking retarded, please stay tf out of /wt/.
We are /fa/ now. And that is Rakesh the porn spammer from /g/ with the fake Tudor. He said the same dumb shit over there too.

>>13502046
>We are /fa/ now.
So there's no watch thread on /g/ anymore? I didn't see one there.

>>13500201
You literally just described the Stowa Marine Roman

>>13500201
>no batons
what's batons?

>>13500241
Why is the hour hand thicker than the minute hand? I hate when they do that on watches.

>>13502050
Yep mods kicked us out to feel like they have done their job as the board slowly turns to shit each day

>>13502055
Hour markers like on this watch.

>>13502051
Excellent anon, thank you.

>>13502050
There was one that hit bump limit, then Rakesh the fake Tudor owner got buttmad and created a new thread with BLACKED porn as the OP to get it wiped. Truly a dedicated shitposter.

>>13502060
Redundant information since there was already the requirement for Roman numerals. I've never seen a watch that has both. Indeces/indexes, is that the general term that includes numerals?

>>13500201
I wonder why the holes are off center in the hands.

>>13502068
https://www.breguet.com/en/history/inventions/breguet-hands
Winder no more

>>13500201

>>13502072
That text doesn't really say why though? Only where it originated. (Breguet) I wonder if it was done on purpose as an aesthetic thing.

>>13500514
Is anyone with a pool gonna try this?

>>13502091
Many watch related inventions are pretty much created for dick-waving rights.
Just look at Breguet's tourbillion, it makes sense for a clock or pocketwatch, but does pretty much nothing for a wristwatch

>>13501986

>>13502011
Is that sum Laco?

>>13500220
>>13502067

>>13502101
close but no

>>13502103
Unclear whether those are batons or just part of the chapter ring, which usually has thicker lines or dots for the hours.
>>13501966

Talk me out of it guys. This is pretty close to what I've been looking for. I'd hate to cop this then a more suitable watch shows up, but I'd also hate to miss this if there's nothing better.

>>13502006
That's not a caseback, it's just a screw-down ring that holds the strap. There's no caseback, you have to pull the crystal to get to the movement.

are these tools worth the cost? Is it going to make a tangible difference compared to cheap tools and lessen the risk of scratching?

Sorry Virgin Fags im outta here

Tfw getting various shitter fashion watch ads on instagram, they all are literally mvmt or vincero toer copies of eachother.
The botnet got me guys!

>>13501472
it's here
https://puretime.io/heritage-2016-black-bay-shield-zf-1-1-best-edition-on-ss-bracelet-a2824-red.htmln

>>13502136
DISRUPTING THE INDUSTRY

>>13500489
>but they break after a month or two

You might be retarded, friend.
I have mine for 2 years now, nothing broke so far, even the bracelet is fine. I wear them often, outdoors, and for sports.

>>13502148
>I have mine for 2 years now
The battery on mine lasted max 2 years, maybe less. Meanwhile my first f-91w is still running, I don't know how old, maybe 8 years. Bought another f-91w about 3 or 4 years ago though because the strap cracked on the first one.

>>13502156
One of the buttons on the old f-91w feels like it's a little less responsive than the other buttons and the buttons on the new f-91w.

>>13502175
>>13502156
The buttons responsivenes depends on the contact they make with the pins.
If you want them to be easier to press, twist the pins inside so that they make contact sooner.

t. had to do this to my a158.

>>13501977
>>13501988
Really near vintage Omega pieces.

What do you think of this Samsung NOS watch? I was thinking of copping for 40 eurodollars

>>13502189
wtf are talking about nigger, plucking out the buttons on my f-91w and then pressing them back in?

>>13502195
Open the watch and look inside you fucking cunt.

>>13502198
I might actually do that because I don't use the watch anyway, or maybe I won't. I also have a shitter automatic mechanical Citizen with crap broken folded bracelet that I also don't use, might open that, might be more interesting. It doesn't hack. It starts moving when you twist the crown but I read something that makes me wonder if it's not hand winding, it's might just be the spring that got stuck and moving the movement a little sets it in motion again. NIGGER

Where did /g/ /wt/ bread go?

>>13502141
>https://puretime.io/heritage-2016-black-bay-shield-zf-1-1-best-edition-on-ss-bracelet-a2824-red.htmln
Anyone who buys this is a dumbass nigga.

>>13502207
kys

>>13502099
Not very similar though, bigger and more complicated design.

>>13502210
Why all my frens turn on me?

>>13502208
why? This is the precise chinkbay, that the tudorfag bought. Also puretime is a trusted dealer at the replica watch info forums

I like this, not sure though, 39 mm so almost 40, not 34 or 35 which I might like better but don't know. Also not sure about no chapter ring and no second hand, but then again that adds to the minimalist look which I like. Might buy another minimalist watch because it's fairly expensive. Also don't know if eco-drive/solar is good?

>>13502226
it's called autism, we have nothing but enemies

>>13502207
Mods being fags again. You have to prove to them, time and time again that watches are technology. Why do they persecute us so?

>>13502231
It's also a complete shitter.

What watch size looks classiest for men?

>>13502242
Can you post beads again?

>>13502104
That is beautiful.
Can’t afford it tho.

>>13502244
34-36mm
Less than 8mm thicc.

>>13502247
No benefit of doing that in here.

>>13502107
I prefer this one.

>>13502242
looks nice to me. Quality replicas like this often have only very minor external imperfections, that some originals may have too, by the way. The movement inside is a workhorse a2824, which can be replaced cheaply if the need arises. What's not to like?

>>13502257
I own it and I'm telling you it's dogshit.

>>13502118
Scratching?
If you’re a fucking idiot no matter the price or quality you’re going to scratch it.

I got the 20$ one.

>>13502255
Really? The significance of the one I pictured is that it's a spring drive chronograph for only 2.5k. If the style was a little more subdued I'd definitely get it.

>>13502262
Mine is a quartz shitter for 150$ I believe kek

>>13502260
Anyone can claim to own anything.
What's so bad about it?

>>13502250
The watch I ordered is 35 mm and 8 mm thick. To be clear you mean "LESS THAN 8 mm", not "8 mm or less"? Anyway I bought this watch because it looked plain which was just what I wanted. I might buy another watch that looks more classy than plain. Maybe >>13501986 or if I can find a similar watch without date window that might be even better. That watch is 34x7 mm. This is the one I purchased but haven't gotten in the mail yet:
https://www.watchshop.com/mens-pulsar-watch-pxh565x1-p99934461.html

>>13502270
Will you stop banging on about the cheap shitty Pulsar you've bought? It doesn't need to be mentioned in every thread ffs!

>>13502270
8 or less

>>13502276
>every thread
I've mentioned it in maybe 2 threads, nigger

>>13502252
But I liked it, it was nice to see the regulars butthurt.

>>13502279
No, this thread and at least two more making three although I'm almost positive it's been in more. Why are you so concerned about what others think of your shitty $30 watch? Either you like it or you don't. If it is a piece of shit then surprise - a pittance does not buy quality.

>>13502291
>a pittance does not buy quality
you never had an f-91w?

>>13502265
>What's so bad about it?

Gud:
>bracelet is top tier for a cheap watch, solid links all the way through and very rigid, clasp also excellent
>runs +2 pd
>case finishing is excellent
>bezel appearance is gud, action has some play but it's 60 click so expected
>looks essentially identical to a black bay in terms of dimensions in all aspects
>sapphire crystal

Bad:
>finishing on the hour indices is absolute dogshit, $50 watch tier
>finishing on the hands is absolute dogshit, $50 watch tier
>SELs extend past the case on my example
>printing on the dial (e.g. tudor logo, lettering and minute markers) isn't raised and is the wrong colour, is very, very obvious that it's a fake if you know what you're looking for, also makes it look shit as it doesn't match the hands or hour markers
>bezel pip is also wrong but that's a small thing
>the movement in mine fucked after like a month and whatever system it has for not overwinding is broken, when it's fully wound and the rotor spins it makes the timekeeping extremely fast (+5/10 minutes a day), I just removed the rotor out of it and use it as a hand wound watch

It's a shitter, I bought it as a curiosity and was prepared to throw my money away if it was dogshit (which it is). I plan to replace the dial with a sterile one and the movement with another shitter $25 A2824 clone that hopefully wont break.

The Chinese don't appreciate quality, and neither do the delusional repfags who buy these watches. When people say shit like "ur ma god it's a super rep!" or "it's 1:1!" they are retarded, the ZF Black Bay V4 is widely considered one of the best reps there is and it's fucking garbage.

tldr: don't buy unless you're prepared to replace the dial and hands with genuine ones or different/sterile ones, and you're prepared for the movement to shit the bed

Thoughts on "gold" watches that aren't actual gold?

>>13502298
Is this the tudorfag writing, or is this another anon who also bought the fake bb?

Second time recently I saw what looked like a Swedish coat of arms in random places. Makes me wonder if it's not actually a Swedish coat of arms but something else. Does anyone know? First I saw it in this video with a Vivaldi piece:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPba-i26YNA
And now while browsing "pope watch" on google:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/RARE-Vintage-Wrist-watch-VOSTOK-Pope-Pontiff-John-Paul-2-on-dial-Soviet-USSR-/401518758398

>>13502299
Nothing wrong with then except eventual fading.

>>13502308
another anon Tudorfag isn't clever enough to put together coherent thoughts like that and he just rages and posts bait

>>13502313
That watch is also interesting because there's an example of Breguet style hands that aren't off center, i.e. don't have that moon crescent shape.

>>13502321
And it's doing the rare thing mixing Roman and Arabic numerals, looks like a total shitter watch.

>>13502313
It is Pope John Paul II's personal coat of arms. He is Polish by birth and the crowned bird on the lower left is the coat of arms of Poland, or at least a crappy rendition of it.

>>13502317
Perhaps a sample of my BLACKED collection will convince you otherwise

>>13502330
Ok, but what about the painting in the Vivaldi video?

>>13502134
Is the Sub the Chad of watches?

>>13502337
It is the Lion of Saint Mark, by Vittore Carpaccio

>>13502353
Yeah, I'm asking about the coat of arms in yellow and blue which is in the painting.

>>13502356
Not sure. Historically Venetian COA's had lots of yellow and blue and Carpaccio was Venetian so I'd assume it has something to do with that, probably an obscure variant of the time. Wish I could give you more info.

>>13502134
>>13502341
A fake Sub like that guy's isn't.

Why is Omega trying to copy Kahuna?

why does everyone hate tags?

>>13502374

>>13502375
Have you ever looked at one

>>13502376
And why is Omega trying to copy Bulova?

Why is Rolex trying to copy Tag?

>>13502387
Looks like autistic child of sub and seamaster 300.

>>13502397
The crown is laughably big

>>13502397
Nice sinn homage

:^)

thoughts on eco-drive/solar?

Any recommendations for 34-36 mm watches?

>>13502407
I don't even know what they are, that's how much I think about them

>>13502407
IT'S FUCKING SHIT YOU STUPID CUNT

>>13502410

TIME FOR NEW BREAD ^_^

>>13502415
>>13502415
>>13502415

>>13502413
Archie?

>>13502407
They're good, some of them are mall core. I've had my BM8180 for around 15 years and it still keeps great time.

>>13502298
well micro-details like the color of the lettering or the finishing on the hands aren't a big deal to most people, I can't even see this from your photos. Regarding the movement, it's easily replaceable and probably would be fine anyway if you hadn't dropped it.
Overall, it's sounds like a pretty good watch for the money.