Images of items I have purchased (except trainers [no feet pics])

Mekrel said:
A television user interface should be quick, it's a device used for content consumption/leisure - there shouldn't be any slowdown when navigating the general UI. You say you're amazed, I'm amazed people are happy to not only put up with poor performance from top end products but to then spend extra as a work around - the mind boggles. Fair enough, pay for for a TV that gives you additional features such as a better panel, sound and/or codec support but ALL televisions should have a fast and responsive UI. I'm not sure what you're referring to as 'inferior', if it's LG OLED, all the research I did before going with LG was that there's not much in it in terms of picture quality between LG & Sony. Sony + Shield TV was on my list of considerations, despite the fact my experience wit Sony ATV1 was so bad but I went with LG as I came to the conclusion I wouldn't miss Android TV if I didn't have it at all (so no need for the Shield TV, especially as I have a PS4 Pro already).

As I said, it's nice to read that Sony have ironed out the slowness with the AF9 and I hope tatts enjoys his purchase (I'm sure he will), but it doesn't change the fact the previous generations of Sony Android TVs are simply slow in comparison to other televisions.
Click to expand...

OLED is terrible for gaming only and static content due to screen burn and image retention.

it needs varied usage. therefore it's not the best tv for everyone
 
NoobCannon said:
You think thats understated? It looks like an abomination
Click to expand...
Quite, but better than a lot of what TAG produce.

Amusing comment on Rolex too - like many manufacturers, yes some are shouty bling, whilst others are really pretty subtle. Try both the Explorer 1 and 2, the LN GMT Master 2, many of the Oyster Perpetual and DateJust variants...the latter two models can be blinged up as much as you want, but they can also be really toned down. Though I far prefer their back catalogue - almost everything with more refined proportions and less polishing.
 
crinkleshoes said:
I think it looks awesome. I like understated watches that blend in, so when someone sees them from a distance they don’t look like anything special. But when I look at it, I can appreciate what’s really there.

One brand I’ll never buy is Rolex, even their clean looking ones are so shines you can spot them from space... the Lambo of the watch world, for showing off only.
Click to expand...

Says the guy who has an orange McLaren :p

If you want subtle and plain, IWC?
 
New motorbike helmet. :)

DhFhMHLh.jpg
 
NoobCannon said:
You think thats understated? It looks like an abomination
Click to expand...
200sols said:
Ha I was thinking the same, nice watch but certainly a long way from understated.
Click to expand...

From a distance it blends in. It doesn’t look like anything special & is so subtle in its use of colour it can even blend in with a shirt/suit/jumper sleeve. It doesn’t go over the top with shiney-ness or scream “look at me” to astronauts on the moon like some brands.

But when you’re up close you can appreciate the Tourbillon & the detail in the design and carbon.

So yeah, it’s understated, as from a distance it doesn’t look much different to some cheapy Argos special. I like that a lot.

If you don’t think that’s understated, I don’t think you’ve ever seen a Rolex, Cartier or similar watch in the flesh.

As long as time permits, I’m picking up some bits for apartment at Peter Jones tomorrow and planning to go to Tag’s flagship store on Regent St after to check it out.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom