Watches

The reason I like expensive watches is simple. They look much better than sub £150 watches.

I see a nicely designed watch as a thing of beauty, like a work of art. Cheap watches don't have the timeless designs or attention to detail, even when they're imitating their more expensive counterparts.
 
Raymond stop preaching about things you don't really know anything about.

Car analogy: A Ferrari probably has much more frequent, and expensive service intervals than a Yaris. Oh no the Ferrari is rubbish lolz.
 
NickXX said:
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.
Click to expand...

Oh I agree, I was only going on new prices as Raymond stated it was a new watch. I agree on the servicing too, it's a complex and precision mechanical instrument which is actually worth servicing. Unlike most quartz watches due to the fact if you get any problems with them you might as well throw them in the bin if you can't fix the fault with a new battery.

I was going to reply to Raymond on why a mechanical watch would be more desirable but as others have said it's a waste of time arguing with someone who doesn't understand or appreciate the workings of a mechanical watch.
 
Last edited:
Raymond Lin said:
If I were to lose 30s a week, I would miss my train day after day after a month. That's just not acceptable.
Click to expand...

If 30s is really the difference between you catching your train or being left crying on the platform like a lost puppy, I'd suggest you get out of bed earlier and if you miss the train two days in a row because you didn't learn the lesson from the last time then you're a lemming. Loads of people manage just fine, I bet you wouldn't even notice 30s a week anyway. That said, most mechanical watches should be more accurate than that and your colleague was just unfortunate.
 
Last edited:
scrlk said:
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.
Click to expand...

Bigpops said:
The reason I like expensive watches is simple. They look much better than sub £150 watches.

I see a nicely designed watch as a thing of beauty, like a work of art. Cheap watches don't have the timeless designs or attention to detail, even when they're imitating their more expensive counterparts.
Click to expand...

Both of those are just vanity. If you admit it that it's fine. Nothing wrong with that. If you want to brag about having a Leica then nothing wrong with that either. Like I said, nothing wrong with buying pretty things, but i struggle to understand how something so expensive can be so rubbish at what it sets out to do - KEEP TIME.

30s is massive in a week. Nothing to do with getting out of bed earlier, if a Timex is 30s out a week, would you still wear it? After a month it is 2 min, in 3 mins it is 6 minutes, which is HUGE!
 
NickXX said:
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 :D
Click to expand...

glad it turned out to be a good un :D
 
Raymond Lin said:
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
Click to expand...

Most ferrarris won't go on a track just as most Rolex Subs won't be taken diving. And it is fairly obvious that expensive watches aren't just bought for their ability to tell the time - they're not that good at it in comparison to quartz watches. People appreciate the engineering and craftsmanship that had gone into them too. Buying an expensive watch if telling the time to the exact second is important is silly, then again do would buying a Ferrari for your daily commute or as a family car - only two seats and a real pain to keep stopping and starting in traffic.
 
Last edited:
The film camera analogy is also flawed.

People shoot film because they like the look it gives, some like the chemical process, the tactile feel. However, this is the big however, you can buy a film camera for peanuts, not thousands. Plus they do not take out of focus photos, they can take as sharp photo as any modern day digital SLR.

You are however buying a watch that does not compare to a £100 Quartz in it's most basic function.

All I see is people buying expensive watches because they:

1 - they like the look of it - Fine
2 - they like the brand - Fine
3 - they like its built quality and workmanship (dubious as it clearly does not keep time as well as other means) - but i'll accept it if one go into it eyes open
4 - they like its history - Fine
5 - they like to show off - Fine

They are all perfectly valid reasons.

But hands on heart, who buy one wanting an accurate watch? And after spending £3k, £4k, £10k on these, are you not a bit annoyed that it doesn't keep an accurate time?

Is it more forgivable because it is so expensive?
Is it more forgivable because it is pretty?
 
Raymond Lin said:
Both of those are just vanity. If you admit it that it's fine. Nothing wrong with that. If you want to brag about having a Leica then nothing wrong with that either. Like I said, nothing wrong with buying pretty things, but i struggle to understand how something so expensive can be so rubbish at what it sets out to do - KEEP TIME.

30s is massive in a week. Nothing to do with getting out of bed earlier, if a Timex is 30s out a week, would you still wear it? After a month it is 2 min, in 3 mins it is 6 minutes, which is HUGE!
Click to expand...

Ugh why do you keep focusing on 30s? Every single mechanical watch on earth is not 30s out, that is an anomaly on a new watch TBH. If 100% accuracy is utmost why did you spend £200 on a quartz Seiko when a £50 watch would do the same job (I wear a steel bracelet Casio edifice which cost me £60 so you can't accuse me of being a snob) and you can get a radio controlled watch which updates itself every midnight for £200 to avoid you waking up 1s late and missing your train?
 
Last edited:
Raymond Lin said:
Both of those are just vanity. If you admit it that it's fine. Nothing wrong with that. If you want to brag about having a Leica then nothing wrong with that either. Like I said, nothing wrong with buying pretty things, but i struggle to understand how something so expensive can be so rubbish at what it sets out to do - KEEP TIME.

30s is massive in a week. Nothing to do with getting out of bed earlier, if a Timex is 30s out a week, would you still wear it? After a month it is 2 min, in 3 mins it is 6 minutes, which is HUGE!
Click to expand...

No, they set out to be mechanical watches that look good (to some). They do not set out to be more precise than a quartz.

Also, there are normally these twiddly twirly things on watches that let you adjust the time...
 
dowie said:
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.
Click to expand...

Thats a very small minority of people though (watch enthusiasts really). The majority are
apirational or purely functional purchases.

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.
Click to expand...

If you have said that in the first place and explained why (cheapo generic movements) I'd have just nodded and moved on probably.

I really don't think its relevant, I'd hold the same opinion whether you were unemployed or Bill Gates.
Click to expand...

True probably but after I'd made my first million on the New York stock exchange blowing£1500 quid on a watch of any description was no biggie. If you see what I mean.
 
Raymond Lin said:
30s is massive in a week. Nothing to do with getting out of bed earlier, if a Timex is 30s out a week, would you still wear it? After a month it is 2 min, in 3 mins it is 6 minutes, which is HUGE!
Click to expand...

that is just the spec limits, most decent mechanical watches are easily capable of acheiving within 1 second a day

I have just checked an Omega which hasn't been worn for about 4 months and it is certainly within 30 seconds of the correct time
 
All this bickering about watches has made me put mine on after not wearing it for months :).

Mine is a Kinetic Pulsar that hasn't been adjusted in 6 months, its 30 seconds out (maybe I put it the time wrong). In all honestly I got a £50 watch for the looks (I'm not a big boy with a rolex or Omega) but with the added benefit it doesn't need a battery.

On the whole, I love my watch as I made the active choice of buying it. It is a one constant. It stands the test of time. Mobiles go, people change and the world changes. But my watch remains on my wrist till I die. So OP, get the watch you like the look of the most, with the idea of keeping it forever. :cool:

Edit: I like the look of the watch in the second post.
 
Last edited:
Ben Cole said:
If you have said that in the first place and explained why (cheapo generic movements) I'd have just nodded and moved on probably.
Click to expand...

I thought I did say that in the first place - basic quartz movement in a fancy case + brand name.... was just saying I didn't personally see the point.
 
Raymond Lin said:
The film camera analogy is also flawed.
Click to expand...

Yes it probably is - comparing a mechanical watch to a quartz watch is more like comparing a photo to a painting. Regardless of the time and effort put into a painting and the additional labour involved it will never be as accurate a depiction as a photo.

3 - they like its built quality and workmanship (dubious as it clearly does not keep time as well as other means)
Click to expand...

Not dubious at all - high end watches are works of art - a painting also requires lots more human effort/work it's not dubious to say that just because the result is less accurate than someone's holiday snap.

But hands on heart, who buy one wanting an accurate watch? And after spending £3k, £4k, £10k on these, are you not a bit annoyed that it doesn't keep an accurate time?
Click to expand...

Nope - as per a portrait, you appreciate the art, craftsmanship and skill that went into producing the complicated mechanical movement. While paints and brushes used to depict of reality arent as accurate as a photo neither is the old fashioned method of measuring time with cogs and springs... measuring time accurately using any method isn't the poin - measuring it within the confines of a mechanical watch is - just as a portrait painter is confined to using brushes and paints - I'm sure a painter could take a photo and use photoshop to make something that looks like a painting and is more accurate as a depiction but it's not the same thing
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom