no offense but I really don't see the point in spending that much on what is a very basic quartz watch - essentially a swatch in a slightly nicer case and with a brand name that you've paid a huge markup for.
Watches
- Thread starter Jason85
- Start date
no offense but I really don't see the point in spending that much on what is a very basic quartz watch - essentially a swatch in a slightly nicer case and with a brand name that you've paid a huge markup for.
it might well do... they're very good watches - edit - just realised you're talking about a seiko kinetic - essentially a quartz watch minus the battery... not really the same thing in the first place... I could argue that a £20 solar powered casio watch will be better and require even less servicing (no moving parts and your capacitor might well need replacing within 5 years....)
seikos can keep losing time too and for the low end models the movements are often non-hacking. No mechanical watches will keep time as well as a quartz watch and you'll pay more for extra complications, nicer finishes etc... and yes, brand name.
Last edited:
Well, you don't know how much I paid for either watch, how much I earn, how much I value aesthetics or ownership of aspirational objects.
Out of interest, why is it a "very basic quartz watch"? My daughter's Mickey watch with two hands is basic. My s/el has 7.
Is my Omega Seamaster more worthy of spending money on because it has a clockwork movement? Or is that just a jumped up Swatch too?
As it happens, the TAG isn't very reliable. I didn't know that then though. I just desired the watch and thought the famous TAG brand was a sign of quality.
Last edited:
What's the first paragraph got to do with anything? Calm down!
Effectively (and anyone correct me if i'm wrong) but you can't really have a quality quartz movement (except thermocomp)... they're all pretty much the same from a Casio to a TAG. A chrono adds complication but again, not too much different from a chrono Casio. Improvements will be general chassis design, quality of materials and details (alignment of hands to face should be perfect).. you should get that with a TAG but when it comes to the movement......
Whereas with a mechanical watch the engineering and quality can vary hugely.
You'll only get noticeable improvements from a 'basic quartz watch' if you go for a thermocompensated quartz watch: http://forums.watchuseek.com/f9/thermocompensation-methods-movements-2087.html
General consensus of tag is they're like Louis Vuitton, Moet etc... it's all about the money. I've heard most of the components are from the likes of China then only assembled in Switzerland to get the 'made in' thing on their watches. Although I believe this mainly relates to the movement..?
Last edited:
I'm calm enough thanks.
The first paragraph is a direct response to his assumption. However, since it seems it doesn't read the way I intended I'll edit it to sound gentler.
What does what you earn or how much you value aspirational objects have to do with anything? I'm not claiming to be an expert or anything but I do have some interest in watches.
its a very basic quartz watch because tag chose to buy a very basic quartz movement from swatch group and stick it inside a case that you liked, put their brand name on it and charge you a huge markup for it - they just made the case and put a logo on it, that's all
it is much much more worthy and yes, actually, it quite literally is a jumped up swatch... in case you weren't aware Omega is one of swatch group's brands
Well, a watch purchase is primarily about aesthetics and aspirational value isn't it? If it was purely about telling the time then Rolex and all the other aspirational brands wouldn't exist. Also without knowing how much I earn or my net worth you can't possibly have a handle on relative cost to know whether there is a "point" to buying something purely for its aesthetic value.
However if you worded your post something like " I think expensive quartz watches are a rip off, they have very little engineering and are therefore far less desirable" (which is what I think you're getting at) then I would get your point.
As for the rest of your post...very informative.
It depends on the person buying the watch - some people also value the quality of finish and the movement inside the watch. People will pay extra for additional complications, in house movements etc... It doesn't have to just be about looks, brand names and aspirational value.
I didn't say it was I just said I don't personally see the point in paying over the odds for a quartz watch.
I really don't think its relevant, I'd hold the same opinion whether you were unemployed or Bill Gates.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 77,335
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
A car's primary job is to get from A to B.
A watch's primary job is to tell time.
A Ferrari is 10 times faster. (ok, making that number up, but it is very likely to be faster than a £1k car)
A Tag, Rolex or a Omega does not tell time 10 times faster or make time go nicer or tell time any better. In fact, according from Ben Cole and Rotty and Nick on here, it tells is worse as it is inaccurate. -28/+42s per week ??? That's bonkers.
If however you want to say, "I want to show off". Fair enough.
So please stop using the car analogy, unless you tell us why you want to spend thousands and thousands on a watch. But if you do, claiming it is more accurate is just flawed. You can say you like the way it looks, the way it feels, the way it make you feel. All perfectly valid. We are all vain in our own ways, it's fine, but just say it what it is.
To say it is a better watch however, ridiculous. For that to qualify it has to be accurate to begin with.
Last edited:
A mechanical watch does cost many more multiples of cost to design and build though and because it is purely mechanical it is naturally going to be less accurate than a quartz.
Without doubt some people will buy things for status symbols, whilst others buy them for the engineering and beauty. Using your Ferrari example, although it might go x times faster, the fact you cant use that speed makes the point of the car pretty much pointless. Some will buy the car because it shows how much wealth they have, whilst some people who are real car enthusiasts will buy it because they love the engineering, history of the brand and driving experience.
You will always get people buying luxury products for differing reasons, but to label everyones motives the same is just nonsense.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 77,335
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
Well, the motive for buying expensive watches clearly can't be the job it is designed to do in the first place, and what it is engineered for. Where as a Ferrari still can do the top speed it is engineered to do, you just value your licence more that's all, nothing to do with what it can't do.
Sure you can buy watches for its name and history and brand, it's fine. Like I said, it's your money.
It's just stupid to me as you can miss your train due to its incompetence.
Last edited:
Mechanical watches tell the time perfectly well, just not as accurately as an atomic clock or a quartz, to say it doesnt do the job it was designed for is moronic.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 77,335
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
Like a said, an inaccurate watch is just a rubbish watch.
If a cheap watch can tell time better, what are you spending the money on? Clearly all that cash isn't buying you a good enough engineering that can give you an accurate watch. It is the first criteria when comes to physically judging a watch, and the most important.
Accuracy.
Like I said, if I buy a £20 watch that loses 30s a week, it goes into the bin, or going back to the shop.
The only time I adjust the dial in my Seilko is between summer/winter time clock change, it is utterly flawless in its accuracy in between. If I were to lose 30s a week, I would miss my train day after day after a month. That's just not acceptable.
Last edited:
If you dont understand the mechanics of a mechanical watch then there is no further point discussing anything further with you here. Im out.
Agreed.
Why do people still buy film cameras? I mean, digital is so much better right?
Why buy a Leica M9 when a cheaper Canon/Nikon SLR will do the same job with no perceptible difference in image quality?
Same with mechanical watches and quartz/digital watches.