What watch do you wear?

Thanks i will get winding now :)

mrk said:
Power reserve of what 42 hours~? After 7 hours, with power in reserve it should have plenty of power in the spring left. Nam's sounds like it's just not been wound up fully yet and lack of movement over a day's wear isn't enough to wind it. May need many more turns. I've seen people report 60 turns for theirs. Depends how low it is I guess.
Click to expand...
 
WillyNelson said:
I wear his skin like a onesie. By we digress...

Don't pull the crown out, just wind it clockwise (usually) until you feel it stop. Do not force it if you feel resistance (back off topic again!) or you'll damage something.
Click to expand...

Aye remember to unscrew it and it naturally pops out into hand wind mode.
 
I have never had to wind my Arbutus during usual wear. If i take it off overnight and the power indicator is never below 2/3's full.
By 10:30 its fully charged. In fact, i am often worried about it always being at full power!
Perhaps the mechanism is faulty?

I think if i left it for 48 hours, it would fully charge by lunchtime..
 
Last edited:
Side by side, build quality is very close and the biggest difference is the watch face of the Omega being pure/darker black and thus makes the glass seem clearer.

vUSQn7Kl.jpg
 
So on a value scale, what are your thoughts on Seiko vs Steinhart vs Omega. Personally, I would struggle to justify the cost of my Seamaster when compared to my Seikos or even my Orient. Don't get me wrong, the Seamaster is "special" but 10 or 20 times more so than the others? Probably not.
 
Raymond Lin said:
Side by side, build quality is very close and the biggest difference is the watch face of the Omega being pure/darker black and thus makes the glass seem clearer.
Click to expand...

Very expert review there. Will we be enlightened with part 2 where you review the Omega co-axial vs Steinhart ETA 2824-2 movement?

Plus isn't that the Omega 300m Seamaster Pro with the ceramic bezel... very nice.
 
Last edited:
I like the bracelet better on the steinhart. I really am not a fan of the Seamaster bracelet. Must get around to getting the PO bracelet or a cheaper replacement alternative.
 
Casio G-Shock analogue/Digital 2327. had it well over a decade, had a new battey and case about a year ago (new case as the orignal black has faded to very dark green) and wouldn't part with it at all. It is the only watch I have ever had that I haven't managed to scatch or generally mess up.
 
I think the Omega is nice, it is very nice indeed but if I had to put a number on it, is it 10 times as nice?

I don't think it is 10 times better built, it certain doesn't keep time 10 times better, or it certainly doesn't look 10 times as nice but the last part is subjective anyway, but then again they are both divers and to the lay person they are all the same apart from the name.

So taking away the name. Both having Sapphire crystals, stainless steel, (I can get a ceramic bezel for mine easy enough) both of almost equal weight in hand, they both feels the same when on the wrist to me. The difference is in the innards, but the Steinhart has ETA movements, not some Chinese knock off (hence the waiting list on their website), also the back of the watched is not see through so I can't appreciate it visually which sucks, part of me wants to see it, if spending so much money on it, much of it for the internals.

The things I like on the Omega is the darker watch face, the glass seems and look more transparent.

The marker at the top on the Omega is inside the triangle, that I like, and I like that it is flat, The Steinhart's market is dome shaped and goes outside the triangle.

I am not a fan of the bracelet on the Omega, prefer the one on the Steinhart. Although a lot of these are mere design choices rather than simply build quality issues.

Overall, taking everything into account, I am happier having the difference in my pocket than spending it on the Omega.

With regard the Seiko vs. the Steinhart. Is the Steinhart worth double the cost of the Seiko?

Yes, I think so. Picking it up you can see which one is more expensive than the other.

The Hardex crystal on the Seiko although hard when you tap it, it looks like clear acrylic plastic rather than glass.

The Seiko's bezel doesn't click as loud (the Omega is very pronounced when you turn the bezel), it is also easier to turn with minimal force on the Seiko plus it has a tiny play before it clicks to the next notch.

The brushed finished on the Steinhart also seems more rugged and hard wearing than the polished finished on the Seiko. The strap on the Seiko is also thinner, and the pins to remove the chain are not as convenient compare to the Steinhart. So, yes, it is worth the £150 difference.
 
Last edited:
Raymond Lin said:
I think the Omega is nice, it is very nice indeed but if I had to put a number on it, is it 10 times as nice?

I don't think it is 10 times better built, it certain doesn't keep time 10 times better, or it certainly doesn't look 10 times as nice but the last part is subjective anyway, but then again they are both divers and to the lay person they are all the same apart from the name.

So taking away the name. Both having Sapphire crystals, stainless steel, (I can get a ceramic bezel for mine easy enough) both of almost equal weight in hand, they both feels the same when on the wrist to me. The difference is in the innards, but the Steinhart has ETA movements, not some Chinese knock off (hence the waiting list on their website), also the back of the watched is not see through so I can't appreciate it visually which sucks, part of me wants to see it, if spending so much money on it, much of it for the internals.

The things I like on the Omega is the darker watch face, the glass seems and look more transparent.

The marker at the top on the Omega is inside the triangle, that I like, and I like that it is flat, The Steinhart's market is dome shaped and goes outside the triangle.

I am not a fan of the bracelet on the Omega, prefer the one on the Steinhart.

Overall, taking everything into account, I am happier having the difference in my pocket than spending it on the Omega.

With regard the Seiko vs. the Steinhart. Is the Steinhart worth double the cost of the Seiko?

Yes, I think so. Picking it up you can see which one is more expensive than the other.

The Hardex crystal on the Seiko although hard when you tap it, it looks like clear acrylic plastic rather than glass.

The Seiko's bezel doesn't click as loud (the Omega is very pronounced when you turn the bezel), it is also easier to turn with minimal force on the Seiko plus it has a tiny play before it clicks to the next notch.

The brushed finished on the Steinhart also seems more rugged and hard wearing than the polished finished on the Seiko. The strap on the Seiko is also thinner, and the pins to remove the chain are not as convenient compare to the Steinhart. So, yes, it is worth the £150 difference.
Click to expand...

Veblen goods arent ever going to tangibly worth their price differential over micro brand homages, the same principal applies to designer anything, handbags clothes etc.

They are desirable because they are expensive essentially.
 
Cyrus said:
Veblen goods arent ever going to tangibly worth their price differential over micro brand homages, the same principal applies to designer anything, handbags clothes etc.

They are desirable because they are expensive essentially.
Click to expand...

I was merely comparing them on their merits without brand influence. Don't get me wrong, I understand brand value, I have plenty of designer stuff in other parts of my life. I prefer Diesel jeans over Primark, I have Hugo Boss glasses instead of Specsavers' own, I prefer getting Kelloggs over supermarket brand cereals, etc. But the argument could be made that Diesel jeans fit better, Specsavers don't have a design remotely close and branded cereals have more nuts than supermarket's own...etc. in each there is a function advantage argument over designer but I can't say that for the Omega, no matter how hard I try. The end of the day you can't say it tell better time.

In terms of brand value, there is a line for me though, it's obviously different for everyone else but when the difference is that drastic in costs with the quality being so close, I can't bring myself to spend the money for the name of the brand for watches.

If however, you say, or Omega has some super watchmaker grandmaster and he assembles watches and his name on its own carry weight in the industry, much like a painter, so one can say "assembled and build by Mr. Swiss guy" then I do buy that as an added value as that guy is not going to live forever (so anything he makes is limited) and one can argue he has an art of building watches like no other. But when a company assembles it, I can't say it's the same. It's similar to buying a dress bought from Gucci and another made by Alexander McQueen that was used on the 2005 summer collection in Paris fashion week. The latter being one of a kind, the former although has an expensive label, it is still mass produced.
 
Last edited:
Wouldn't that be the dream. To commission the hand build of your own custom watch by a watchmaker somewhere in the Swiss Mountains?

I'm sure there are people with serious money that actually do that and it's only known about to those close to them.
 
mrk said:
Wouldn't that be the dream. To commission the hand build of your own custom watch by a watchmaker somewhere in the Swiss Mountains?

I'm sure there are people with serious money that actually do that and it's only known about to those close to them.
Click to expand...

This is the kind of person you would need.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-24141997

There's an article about his protégé somewhere but I can't find it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom