advertisement


The watch thread: pocket, wrist, sporty, showy? You name it!

stevec67 said:
That's true. However a 50m watch is about the minimum for swimming in the sea. That's 5 bar and getting caught out by a bit of surf can do that. My best watch is a Seiko Alpinist. I'm va mountaineer so I'm in the clear. I wouldn't be with a super duper diver's watch, I'd feel like a fraud.
Click to expand...

I too have an Alpinist which is supposed to be good for 200m but it comes on a leather strap, so I don't wear it for swimming. I'm thinking of putting it on an oyster type bracelet but finding the right size is a bit problematic. What have you got yours on?
 
-alan- said:
Agreed. We need to start a bezellation backlash Mull.

I was going to post a picture of to my mind one of the worst - the ubiquitous Rolex fluted bezel..but decided I couldn't justify sullying the thread to such a degree.

So here's a link for the stronger of stomach:

http://www.sdwatches.com/product/ro...-bezel-rolex-datejust-2tone-mop-factory-dial/

(even worser in that dreadful 'bimetallic' two-tone)
Click to expand...

As we say up 'ere in't grim North... Yow'll doo fer me Lad... :)

Mull
 
The original faux croc cheap brown leather thing it comes with. It needs to go. I think the thing is classy enough to have a leather deployment strap. I don't want to take it in the sea, and I do t think they suit rubber or NATO straps. You can get a genuine Seiko bracelet to fit but they aren't cheap, about £100 iirc. That would be my choice, its worth it and the cheap Seiko bracelets are a bit nasty.
 
SteveG said:
This is one of my favourite watches although it does need the crystal replaced after I scratched it recently:
large.jpg
Click to expand...

Rado!!

Respect!!
 
If watches were Hi-Fi what would be what?

I've always thought of Rolex as the Linn of watches. Nicely made, overpriced, based largely on the reputation of one model and ultimately a bit 'meh'.

Seiko would have to be something like Rotel or maybe Marantz. Not too flashy, sensibly priced but capable of great results.

Further ideas?
 
wacko said:
I think this is commonly misunderstood. The certification is under some weird laboratory conditions and grossly overestimates the waterproof level. 100m is minimum for a watch you would actually swim with IMO.
Click to expand...

Although this one:

https://www.rolex.com/science-and-exploration/exploration-underwater/rolex-deepsea-challenge.html

went to the bottom of the Challenger Deep on the outside of the submarine, and lived to tell the tale.

Curiously, keeping water out of a watch is not a real problem, it's keeping perfume (with its associated solvents) out that's more of a problem.
 
tones said:
Curiously, keeping water out of a watch is not a real problem, it's keeping perfume (with its associated solvents) out that's more of a problem.
Click to expand...

That's interesting. So aftershave is a no-no then, not that I'm bothered as I don't shave and don't use it :). Presumably this applies to any volatile solventy stuff?
 
All sorts of household chemicals are bad news. A 30m watch in a shower can be ruined because the detergents lower surface tension and in it goes.
Watches use synthetic rubber O rings to seal the entry points. if a solvent gets in and attcks the rubber, look out.
 
Rapid 17 said:
What's the model number of the Seiko Joe ?
Click to expand...
It looks like a SKX007, which is
(a) a classic model
(b) got a cool model number
(c) Inexpensive
(d) Uses a 7s26 movement that any watchmaker can mend without trouble

There is also a SKX 009 which is the same with a blue face, and an SKX 013 which is a bit smaller (38mm ish iirc) and that I might prefer, not being the biggest chap out there. 40mm is an absolute maximum face size for me.
 
That IWC wears its beauty on the inside. The outside looks like a Seiko auto that I wear nearly every day and that costs £50 and is available in blue, black and green. I'd love an IWC watch but at $750 *more* than a Grand Seiko, itself not bargain basement, I'd want it to be a visibly different animal to a standard-issue £50 Seiko.

Bravo for thinking out of the box though, IWC and the like are a distinctive choice.
 
stevec67 said:
That IWC wears its beauty on the inside. The outside looks like a Seiko auto that I wear nearly every day and that costs £50 and is available in blue, black and green. I'd love an IWC watch but at $750 *more* than a Grand Seiko, itself not bargain basement, I'd want it to be a visibly different animal to a standard-issue £50 Seiko.

Bravo for thinking out of the box though, IWC and the like are a distinctive choice.
Click to expand...

If you don't much care about the engineering or the quality, but just something that LOOKS different, why not buy something designer? Surely there you'll find cheap AND flashy?
 
Mikeandvan said:
Very helpful! I must admit, being a lanky bastard I often break rule 3, 'the watch should only be partly visible under the shirt cuff'. I like watches as they hide the fact that some of my shirts don't quite reach my wrist, my left arm seems a tad longer than my right.
Click to expand...

I'll be watching with great interest how Bond wears a watch next time I see him in action. Product placement might not have been as scripted in Connery's day as it is now, but it's big business nowadays, that's for sure, so it'll be interesting to see whether Daniel Craig's 00 watch is on show more than it ought to be.
 
Rockmeister said:
If you don't much care about the engineering or the quality, but just something that LOOKS different, why not buy something designer? Surely there you'll find cheap AND flashy?
Click to expand...

I didn't see anything in Steve67's post to suggest that that he doesn't appreciate quality and engineering over cheap and flashy, quite the opposite in fact. There is nothing wrong with Seikos: they are well made, unpretentious, and they have just about every market sector covered, so something for everyone at all price levels.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top