Watches
- Thread starter Jason85
- Start date
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 77,488
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
Sorry, not a Rolex but a Omega Seamaster. Just spoke to him lol
Applogises for tarnishing Rolex's reputation!
But does it change my opinion about watches can be 30s out and be acceptable? No.
Why would anyone is beyond me.
Why would anyone what?
My Skagen from the watch thread:
Hate big, in your face watches, and this one is about as slim as you'll get.
Got this for Christmas...
Another Skagen!
Hate big, in your face watches, and this one is about as slim as you'll get.
Brand new? Should have told them to take it back and sort it under warranty - no different to owning a brand new car.
My Seamaster probably loses about 30s a week, I've never accurately checked. Why would I care - it's 30s a week. It's the least accurate watch that I own. I also own several Quartz G-Shocks, one of which gets daily radio updates. My automatic Seiko SKX009 keeps great time and is a great looking watch. I like to wear all of my watches regularly.
But which one do I wear the most? My Seamaster. Out of all of them, it it built to be utterly bombproof. I can wear it every day and every night, and it will take absolutely everything I can throw at it. The glass is un-scratchable, and the casing would survive a nuclear bomb. I can wear it 300m deep into the Ocean, and, if the Omega Speedmaster is anything to go by, I could wear it to the moon if I wanted.
I intend to wear it on a regular basis and give it to my first born whenever that time might come. As a bonus, I would bank on it being worth a lot more money then than it is now. I want a Speedmaster, and a small range or Rolexes which I can use and then pass down. After a service, they are as good as new, but with these watches you can pull off the war scars and patina even in a decent suit in a professional environment.
But then, all of this is beyond you.
Last edited:
You can get used Rolexes for cheaper (they have less desirable models, which seem to go under the radar), but a lot of watches are simply left unserviced.
Not taking a snipe at you, but a lot of watches should be refurb'ed every 3 years or so, but aren't - so it's not really the fault of the manufacturer that their watches aren't performing within COSC standards.
It's no different to forgetting to service your car within the specified service interval, and slating it for being 10mpg/50bhp down.
cosc spec is -28/+42 seconds per week
Rotty! Talking of reliability - I owe you an update on the 318. It has been running well as a daily for the past few years. I managed to snap the aux belt the other week through sheer abuse, but £14 and 10 mins of DIY and it's back to full health. She'll live forever
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 77,488
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
I don't understand that.
It's a watch, first and foremost it's job is to keep time.
Yours doesn't keep time. By any definition for a watch it is rubbish. You might as well wear a bracelet. Well, I guess if you wanted a bracelet then fair enough.
I want a watch, it has to keep time. I don't have the patience to check and wind it weekly to get it accurate. Hell, i got sick of ones with batteries dying and needs changing every few years and got a Kinetic so i don't have to.
Also, I really do not understand it. Where does all this money go if a watch this expensive cannot keep accurate time over a long period of time? What makes a £100 Seiko can do it but a £3k Seamaster can't?
What are you paying for?
If you say you are paying for the movement - that fails. If you say you are paying for the workmanship - that also fails. Ultimately it seems you are paying for the name.
All this 300m deep business...when was the last time you went deeper than the bath?
Also the servicing, people keep bringing up the car analogy...its a watch, not a car. It can survive 300m deep right???! Then what contaminent can get into it? At most you need is change the battery and it should be by design keep accurate time for eternity for the money you pay for it.
Ultimately though, I do not have problem spending money on expensive watches, it's your money, not mine. The mindset however is baffling, as its the argument. I would understand it more if one just admit "I want to show off". Since one clearly don't buy one of these if they want something accurate.
Last edited:
I could get it serviced, then it would be more accurate than my Seiko given that it is the Coaxial movement - but it really don't bother me. I don't have an auto winder, so once a month I have to wind it up from scratch and reset the time after not wearing it for a couple of days.
It's a item which has the purpose of being able to stand the test of time - which I guarantee it will do. It is designed to continue functioning for many, many years given proper servicing - THAT is why the car argument comes into it. Properly maintained it will outlive me.
As for the money thing, I could sell my Seamaster for at *least* the price I paid for it - so as frivolous as it sounds, it would probably make me a profit if I was to sell it.
The fact that I will never dive to 300m is irrelevant - the important aspect is that it is that unlike many consumer goods today, it is massively over engineered. This is an aspect that I appreciate and is reflected by a lot of the material goods that I buy.
It is an aspect of purchasing that you clearly see as crass. Unfortunately for you, you've missed the point.
Oh, and FWIW, I was swimming in the sea in Bermuda with it on Monday.
It's a item which has the purpose of being able to stand the test of time - which I guarantee it will do. It is designed to continue functioning for many, many years given proper servicing - THAT is why the car argument comes into it. Properly maintained it will outlive me.
As for the money thing, I could sell my Seamaster for at *least* the price I paid for it - so as frivolous as it sounds, it would probably make me a profit if I was to sell it.
The fact that I will never dive to 300m is irrelevant - the important aspect is that it is that unlike many consumer goods today, it is massively over engineered. This is an aspect that I appreciate and is reflected by a lot of the material goods that I buy.
It is an aspect of purchasing that you clearly see as crass. Unfortunately for you, you've missed the point.
Oh, and FWIW, I was swimming in the sea in Bermuda with it on Monday.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 77,488
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
I have a feeling that my £200 Seiko will last as long as your Seamaster WITHOUT servicing.
As for price, I could chuck it in the bin tomorrow and lose what? £200. Who cares about resale value. It's an item that is bought for its function, there is no intention for resale, that is not a variable in my equation when buying a watch. It is not an investment, it is a tool.
As for over engineered...clear not engineered enough if it keep losing time eh?
Guess our criteria for watches are different. Which is fine
As for price, I could chuck it in the bin tomorrow and lose what? £200. Who cares about resale value. It's an item that is bought for its function, there is no intention for resale, that is not a variable in my equation when buying a watch. It is not an investment, it is a tool.
As for over engineered...clear not engineered enough if it keep losing time eh?
Guess our criteria for watches are different. Which is fine
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 77,488
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
Your looking at this from a purely functional perspective. You could say why did I buy my Macbook Pro rather than a much cheaper dell (ignoring software).
Big Ben/Prague Astronomical Clock - these must be inaccurate and cost a lot of upkeep.. why not replace them for something digital?
I personally love them for the character and the ingenuity. I think measuring time that accurately from a purely mechanical device is breathtaking. Have you ever seen inhouse or heavily modified movement from any well know watch company? It's... hypnotic!
When it comes to showing off.... maybe for a Rolex and an Omega but who's ever heard of IWC or Jaeger LeCoultre?! I went to my opticians a while back in a very affluent town and saw one of the head opticians who runs the chain in the region, he had an IWC Spitfire Mk16. I complemented him on it... to which he seemed shocked and explained no one had ever even commented on it before.
I have a feeling that my £200 Seiko will last as long as your Seamaster WITHOUT servicing.
As for price, I could chuck it in the bin tomorrow and lose what? £200. Who cares about resale value. It's an item that is bought for its function, there is no intention for resale, that is not a variable in my equation when buying a watch. It is not an investment, it is a tool.
As for over engineered...clear not engineered enough if it keep losing time eh?
Guess our criteria for watches are different. Which is fine
Guess our criteria is different for cars too. Apples and Pears, etc.
But how deep DID you go?
My Seiko would survive the same no problem.
Probably 1 foot under the surface.
not really helpful or relevant to the OP
as for trying to apply that level of logic to what is essentially jewelry these days... good luck in future trying to get engaged/married without spending well over 100 on a bit of metal that doesn't even tell the time
![[FnG]magnolia](/styles/overclockers/avatars/9.png){kind=avatar}
Caporegime
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 28,767
- Location
- Auckland
I suppose you hold the same opinion of those who own a car worth more than £1000. They all get you from A to B. Why spend £100k on a Ferrari? That's just stupid, eh?