Ok, watch snobs, if someone wanted to get something nicer than a Timex or Fossil, what would you recommend at, say, a $100 price or $500 price? (Not too bulky and easy to read would be nice too.)

ShawnDoc: (Who the fark wears a watch these days anyway?)

kinda this ... Jewelry for men. That's essentially all a watch is.

Dylan and Eric: Ok, watch snobs, if someone wanted to get something nicer than a Timex or Fossil, what would you recommend at, say, a $100 price or $500 price? (Not too bulky and easy to read would be nice too.)

I'm a huge fan of my Citizen. As is my father-in-law. My father was in love with his Citizen as well, it looked like hell over many years of abuse and wear and still worked like a charm. He recently picked up a really nice Seiko though.

All I can say is what people eat doesn't make you shiat.

If someone enjoys watches and it doesn't affect us personally in any way why should we care?

SuperNinjaToad: FAILED! Actually you know how I know you know absolutely nothing about watches other than saying you don;t know anything about watches :) ?

Truth is most of the highly expensive watches keep terrible time. These watches are typically mechanical in nature and uses unwinding and winding parts of a spring to keep time. Compare to the $20 timex or eletronic watches you can get at walmart, $5000 mechanical watches are less accurate, often with errors of seconds per day, and they are sensitive to position, temperature and magnetism.
People don't wear expensive watches because of it's accuracy, people wear these watches to show off.

I'm just regurgitating what I've heard from several watch snobs to justify their expensive watches.

Finger51: ShawnDoc: (Who the fark wears a watch these days anyway?)

kinda this ... Jewelry for men. That's essentially all a watch is.

I can't tell if i agree or disagree. I'm not a jewelry man. I wear my wedding ring, and my watch. That is all. I wear it for me, and nobody else. Don't care if you notice or like my watch. I'll give you a polite thank you if you notice it or say "nice watch", but thats about it. I do agree that its not a necessity in this day and age, but after wearing a watch for 20 years for 99% of the time without fail, its more of an obsessive habit for me that I cannot break (nor do I have any desire).

Thats the disagree part. The agree part is the fact that I do notice other peoples watches and will compliment them on it if one catches my eye - so, perhaps your right on that front.

/Dunno
/Don't Care

I like nice watches and nice pens (Not penis, pens god damn it!!!)

/Oh, and knives, I like knives for some reason too
//And boobs, don't forget boobs

Pocket Ninja: Fascination with expensive watches ranks up there with tricking out Hyundais and Hondas as a hobby/interest whose appeal I absolutely do not understand.

At least tricked out Hyundais can function better than box stock Hyundais.

A $100,000 watch doesn't indicate the time any better than my $80 Seiko.

/Sports 60
//Railroad approved !!!

special20: Ha, that's funny because I wear a Russian Military watch that has a picture of a tank on the face of it. Eat that, Putin!

/hot like a comrade in a foxhole

Those are not our legitimate contacts. That was a Russian wristwatch. I know the country of origin of every timepiece in the world. That was a Russian copy of a 1969 Timex digital.

Finger51: ShawnDoc: (Who the fark wears a watch these days anyway?)

kinda this ... Jewelry for men. That's essentially all a watch is.

No, a watch (as pointed out above) is a convenient way to tell time, as opposed to the PITA that using your phone to tell time is.

Dylan and Eric: Ok, watch snobs, if someone wanted to get something nicer than a Timex or Fossil, what would you recommend at, say, a $100 price or $500 price? (Not too bulky and easy to read would be nice too.)

Seiko or Citizen quartz. Very accurate, can't kill 'em. Wore a Seiko quartz for years and the only time I ever set it was when I changed the battery. Checked it against the monitors at Stapleton Airport in Denver whenever I was through there.

That said, there are few things as pretty as a well made mechanical movement, even if less accurate/reliable. Not a watch snob - enjoy the style/workmanship of the older pieces and have enough "play" money to indulge myself buying quality older pieces and working on them (actually, son does the work these days since I'm old enough my fine motor skills are nearly nonexistent).

suburbanguy: special20: Ha, that's funny because I wear a Russian Military watch that has a picture of a tank on the face of it. Eat that, Putin!

/hot like a comrade in a foxhole

Those are not our legitimate contacts. That was a Russian wristwatch. I know the country of origin of every timepiece in the world. That was a Russian copy of a 1969 Timex digital.

Doctor.

JMel: Dylan and Eric: Ok, watch snobs, if someone wanted to get something nicer than a Timex or Fossil, what would you recommend at, say, a $100 price or $500 price? (Not too bulky and easy to read would be nice too.)

I'm a huge fan of my Citizen. As is my father-in-law. My father was in love with his Citizen as well, it looked like hell over many years of abuse and wear and still worked like a charm. He recently picked up a really nice Seiko though.

Agree on Citizen, that's my only watch. But I'd wear anything with a flight calculator on it (aka circular slide rule). Plenty of decent watches in the $100-$200 range. Big faces are in.

Mishno: A $100,000 watch doesn't indicate the time any better than my $80 Seiko.

The $100k watch is likely mechanical and the $80 Seiko is likely digital, so the cheaper watch is probably more accurate. Expensive watches are usually mechanical, so from a technical/engineering standpoint, they're anachronistic -- inferior for their supposed purpose.

Pretty though -- and impressive pieces of craftsmanship.

Phinn Smartest
Funniest
2012-06-08 03:17:46 PM


Pocket Ninja: Fascination with expensive watches ranks up there with tricking out Hyundais and Hondas as a hobby/interest whose appeal I absolutely do not understand.

It's a classic feature of middle-class insecurity as to one's social status. The upper and lower classes know where they stand, so they don't go out of their way to constantly assert their standing, but the middle class is always striving for that little extra social boost, and jewelry is the go-to device for symbolic status-jockeying. A watch is the male jewelry variant. (No homo.)

The middle class is also into collections, for some reason.

A collection of watches fulfills both emotional needs at the same time

I guess it depends on how you define upper class. I've met quite a few i-bankers, business people and law firm partners who sport very nice watches. Maybe they're just middle upper.

OTOH, not too many middle class folks I know can afford to buy the watches that Putin bought. Further, most (if not all) of the high end swiss watch brands manufacture watches with tourbillion movts and more than a few offer perpetual calender watches. These things easily go for 50k and up. They wouldnt build it unless someone is buying it. And middle class cant afford such things.

So how does your theory work out now?

houndoggie: FlashHarry: houndoggie: FlashHarry: houndoggie: Oh, and Obama frequently wears a TAG Heuer along with his gift shop secret service watch.

he does? i thought he wore a jorg grey chrono that retails for about $400. he seems like a patek guy. or maybe a lange.

I believe his TAG predates the presidency, but I've seen photos of him wearing it.


anyway... I am a watch dork so I pay attention to these things.

cool.

/watch dork here as well.
//not a big TAG guy, but i like colbert's monaco.

My buddy has the Monaco.. probably my favorite TAG.

I seem to end up wearing Omega mostly.


I have the Apollo 11 35th anniv. mega Speedmaster that I used to wear as my daily wear watch before it became nothing but problems, pushers falling off, water getting into the case, now I believe the rotor screw wasn't tightened properly and the damn think clunks and won't autowind. I've been wearing my day/date speedmaster and the Apollo is sitting in my drawer because I don't feel I should have to pay $$$ just to correct something their repairshop was the cause of and now the watch is out of its crummy 2 year warranty. Seriously, I should have realized an almost $5k watch with only a 2 year warranty was not a good sign, instead I went and bought another Omega. I'm not so smart.

Good luck to you and your Omega, maybe I was just unlucky, even though Omega should make certain they're not selling lemons at that price.

Pretty watch, nothing but problems

At one time I had several of the Burger King The Nightmare Before Christmas collection.

jshine: Mishno: A $100,000 watch doesn't indicate the time any better than my $80 Seiko.

The $100k watch is likely mechanical and the $80 Seiko is likely digital, so the cheaper watch is probably more accurate. Expensive watches are usually mechanical, so from a technical/engineering standpoint, they're anachronistic -- inferior for their supposed purpose.

Pretty though -- and impressive pieces of craftsmanship.

right, but that's like saying the mona lisa isn't as accurate as a photograph. it's not quite the same thing.

To be perfectly fair, he probably did not buy most of the watches in his collection. Some would have been gifts from other heads of state; that's not uncommon. Of course, it's also likely (though probably unprovable) that others were "gifts" from those looking to curry favor and "favors."

What about his 30-car garage with 22 sports and luxury cars? And three Hummers?
Or his three vacation homes?

Sure, King Vlade P may be a ruthless, murderous despot, but when it comes to style, he's got nothing on Mubarak:

I'm a watch dork as well. I got into buying and selling them as a hobby. Currently wearing a 50th anniv. sub.

20 percent of all business that foreigners do in his country, goes directly to one of his Swiss bank accounts.

/It's good to be king.

SirEattonHogg: I guess it depends on how you define upper class. I've met quite a few i-bankers, business people and law firm partners who sport very nice watches. Maybe they're just middle upper.

Yes, they are.

Under what conditions, and with what social values, did they grow up? That's what matters. Those are the class markers that stay with you for life, regardless of the income you achieve or the watches you buy with it.

It's a feature of the middle class to think that social class is defined by a type of job and an income level.

SirEattonHogg: OTOH, not too many middle class folks I know can afford to buy the watches that Putin bought. Further, most (if not all) of the high end swiss watch brands manufacture watches with tourbillion movts and more than a few offer perpetual calender watches. These things easily go for 50k and up. They wouldnt build it unless someone is buying it. And middle class cant afford such things.

Yes, they can. A few lower class people can, too.

Thinking that classes are defined by the watch one can afford is a typical middle-class idea.

twfeline: 20 percent of all business that foreigners do in his country, goes directly to one of his Swiss bank accounts.

/It's good to be king.

Opulence, he has it.

You don't say. I always knew there was something funny about comra...*dies of polonium poisoning*

PanicMan: Big faces are in.

Please do not recommend big faced watches. Anytime you wear something roughly the size and shape of a hockey puck made of metal on your wrist, you look like an utter douche.

If you have a large wrist and they fit, fine. But if you have a normal or a smaller wrist, for the love of god, don't go above 40mm. ~36mm ish if you have a small wrist like I do.

Though I do agree that citizen makes a good watch. I like mine quite a bit.

FlashHarry: jshine: Mishno: A $100,000 watch doesn't indicate the time any better than my $80 Seiko.

The $100k watch is likely mechanical and the $80 Seiko is likely digital, so the cheaper watch is probably more accurate. Expensive watches are usually mechanical, so from a technical/engineering standpoint, they're anachronistic -- inferior for their supposed purpose.

Pretty though -- and impressive pieces of craftsmanship.

right, but that's like saying the mona lisa isn't as accurate as a photograph. it's not quite the same thing.

Meh, at the time the Mona Lisa was painted, paintings were the photographs of their day. They were intended to record scenes accurately -- not necessarily as "art". And at one time, mechanical watches were all that was available.

Today they're like phonographs or tube amplifiers: anachronistic technically, but retained for aesthetics -- but at one time...

Phinn: Pocket Ninja: Fascination with expensive watches ranks up there with tricking out Hyundais and Hondas as a hobby/interest whose appeal I absolutely do not understand.

It's a classic feature of middle-class insecurity as to one's social status. The upper and lower classes know where they stand, so they don't go out of their way to constantly assert their standing, but the middle class is always striving for that little extra social boost, and jewelry is the go-to device for symbolic status-jockeying. A watch is the male jewelry variant. (No homo.)

The middle class is also into collections, for some reason.

A collection of watches fulfills both emotional needs at the same time.

I wouldn't exactly call Putin middle class... by most accounts he is actually a freaking billionaire therefore your analogy makes no sense.. neither was pocket ninja's.
Wouldn't the comparison make more sense if he had equate these watches to Ferraris and Lamborghini's as oppose to tricked out Hondas and Hyundais?

Maybe he can show me some of his watches the next time he picks me up in a black Escalade.

Phinn Smartest
Funniest
2012-06-08 04:13:09 PM


SirEattonHogg: I guess it depends on how you define upper class. I've met quite a few i-bankers, business people and law firm partners who sport very nice watches. Maybe they're just middle upper.

Yes, they are.

Under what conditions, and with what social values, did they grow up? That's what matters. Those are the class markers that stay with you for life, regardless of the income you achieve or the watches you buy with it.

It's a feature of the middle class to think that social class is defined by a type of job and an income level.

SirEattonHogg: OTOH, not too many middle class folks I know can afford to buy the watches that Putin bought. Further, most (if not all) of the high end swiss watch brands manufacture watches with tourbillion movts and more than a few offer perpetual calender watches. These things easily go for 50k and up. They wouldnt build it unless someone is buying it. And middle class cant afford such things.

Yes, they can. A few lower class people can, too.

Thinking that classes are defined by the watch one can afford is a typical middle-class idea.

I think we're talking about different issues. I'm talking about upper class as defined by purely money... be it noveau riche or classic "old money". You're talking about old money and their values. It's like the royals driving around a dented and well used 15 year old Land Rover. They dont care because everyone knows they are wealthy and/or part of the aristocracy.

But the point is that many people earned their way into the so-called upper class based on pure earnings numbers alone and will keep their so-called middle class values (which do i detect a bit of disdain in your tone toward?).

Further, how people perceive their ownership of a watch is irrelevant to the point. Rich people buy a Patek Philippe 100k perpetual calender because its a nice looking item to them alone. because really no one can tell the difference in a meeting or out on the street that a guy is wearing a gold colored dress Seiko with a leather strap versus a Patek watch, unless they go up close to the guy to examine his wrist - which often will be hidden under a cuff anyways. Part of my point being, many watches are a poor showing of wealth as they are often too subtle.

If anything your theory only works with some brands. Like say, Rolex which can be very flashy. Or a Patek with diamonds on it.

And I have yet to come across a blue color working class person who splurged more than a few hundred bucks on a watch. So, I'm not sure where you are coming from saying that lower class persons can afford to buy a Patek or even a Rolex.

Expensive watches are essential douche gear. Right up there with driving a BMW and hair gel.

SuperNinjaToad: Phinn: Pocket Ninja: Fascination with expensive watches ranks up there with tricking out Hyundais and Hondas as a hobby/interest whose appeal I absolutely do not understand.

It's a classic feature of middle-class insecurity as to one's social status. The upper and lower classes know where they stand, so they don't go out of their way to constantly assert their standing, but the middle class is always striving for that little extra social boost, and jewelry is the go-to device for symbolic status-jockeying. A watch is the male jewelry variant. (No homo.)

The middle class is also into collections, for some reason.

A collection of watches fulfills both emotional needs at the same time.

I wouldn't exactly call Putin middle class... by most accounts he is actually a freaking billionaire therefore your analogy makes no sense.. neither was pocket ninja's.
Wouldn't the comparison make more sense if he had equate these watches to Ferraris and Lamborghini's as oppose to tricked out Hondas and Hyundais?

No, because a Ferrari or Lamborghini can go faster and handle better than a Hyundai or Honda. Watches all go at the same speed +/- 0.001%

You don't gain any performance for your epic tons of extra money when you buy one of those watches.

Plus, I don't sit and look at my watch for hours on end, but I do drive my car for multiple hours. I'd rather put my money where there's a tangible gain.

jshine: FlashHarry: jshine: Mishno: A $100,000 watch doesn't indicate the time any better than my $80 Seiko.

The $100k watch is likely mechanical and the $80 Seiko is likely digital, so the cheaper watch is probably more accurate. Expensive watches are usually mechanical, so from a technical/engineering standpoint, they're anachronistic -- inferior for their supposed purpose.

Pretty though -- and impressive pieces of craftsmanship.

right, but that's like saying the mona lisa isn't as accurate as a photograph. it's not quite the same thing.

Meh, at the time the Mona Lisa was painted, paintings were the photographs of their day. They were intended to record scenes accurately -- not necessarily as "art". And at one time, mechanical watches were all that was available.

Today they're like phonographs or tube amplifiers: anachronistic technically, but retained for aesthetics -- but at one time...

Tube amplifiers are superior in sound quality to solid state amplifiers, though.

I wer a mechanical watch because I've been fascinated with them since I was a child. Plus, I lived in Geneva for a number of years, so there's that.

Btw, I was in a store not too long ago, and the salesman showed me a new jaeger le coultre tourbillon watch. He was excited because it was one of the first "affordable" tourbillons. The watch retailed for $87,000.

/csb

MayoSlather: Expensive watches are essential douche gear. Right up there with driving a BMW and hair gel.

Well, I don't wear hair gel, so I've got that going for me...

jshine: hey were intended to record scenes accurately -- not necessarily as "art".

Wrong. Photorealisim was actually pretty late to the game. They were done to portray a subject, not necessarily realistically. You had a lot of symbolic elements in there to tell a story, a simple scene exactly as it existed would have been regarded as boring. Hell, just look at Da Vinci's other work for some great examples.

It was absolutely done as what we could call art. Yeah, there was portraiture and whatnot intended to portray an individual, but the clothing and backgrounds and whatnot would all be calculated to tell the viewer something about that person- it wasn't just where they chose to sit the guy when they painted him.

Mishno:

No, because a Ferrari or Lamborghini can go faster and handle better than a Hyundai or Honda. Watches all go at the same speed +/- 0.001%



Lamborghini and handle better in the same sentence? Uh, what am I reading here?

They do, however, go very, very fast.

\Don't drive a Lambo
\\Watch Top Gear though.

SuperNinjaToad: I wouldn't exactly call Putin middle class... by most accounts he is actually a freaking billionaire therefore your analogy makes no sense.. neither was pocket ninja's.

From the Wiki:

"His mother was a factory worker, and his father was a conscript in the Soviet Navy, ..."

You're right. He's not middle class. He's a prole.

SirEattonHogg: But the point is that many people earned their way into the so-called upper class based on pure earnings numbers alone and will keep their so-called middle class values (which do i detect a bit of disdain in your tone toward?).

No, they haven't. They've just made (or in Putin's case, stolen) a lot of money.

Their children, or maybe their children's children, have a shot at entering a higher class.

No, I'm not disdaining the middle class. The upper class people I have known are, by and large, anti-intellectual, half-stupid, alcoholic, morally-bankrupt sociopaths. And those are the nice ones.

SirEattonHogg: And I have yet to come across a blue color working class person who splurged more than a few hundred bucks on a watch. So, I'm not sure where you are coming from saying that lower class persons can afford to buy a Patek or even a Rolex.

The ones that make a lot of money (by their standards) can. Like actors and drug dealers, for example.

FlashHarry: jshine: FlashHarry: jshine: Mishno: A $100,000 watch doesn't indicate the time any better than my $80 Seiko.



Today they're like phonographs or tube amplifiers: anachronistic technically, but retained for aesthetics -- but at one time...

Tube amplifiers are superior in sound quality to solid state amplifiers, though.



Expensive tube amps sound better than crappy solid state amps playing digital music using a lossy compression format.

The human ear isn't sensitive enough to tell the difference between analog and digital reproduction if the sample rate is high enough. Tube amps sounding "warmer" is hipster clap-trap.

Mishno: FlashHarry: jshine: FlashHarry: jshine: Mishno: A $100,000 watch doesn't indicate the time any better than my $80 Seiko.



Today they're like phonographs or tube amplifiers: anachronistic technically, but retained for aesthetics -- but at one time...

Tube amplifiers are superior in sound quality to solid state amplifiers, though.



Expensive tube amps sound better than crappy solid state amps playing digital music using a lossy compression format.

The human ear isn't sensitive enough to tell the difference between analog and digital reproduction if the sample rate is high enough. Tube amps sounding "warmer" is hipster clap-trap.

Uh no it's not. Not when you're comparing digital to music on vinyl or tape moving at 15 ips or better.

And especially not in the guitar world. (playing an all-tube fender deluxe reverb tonight)

NateAsbestos: I don't have the cheddar to buy overly nice watches, but to be sure I do like me some watches. I've got a Citizen, Seiko, and my newest piece:

[www.ugotwatches.com image 500x500]

in regular rotation.

May not be everybody's thing but I like them. *shrug*


Loves me my Orient watch. I bought a Mako a few years back. I've either got a G-shock or that Mako on. Nice, well made watches that don't cost an arm and a leg. I like the look of Paneri so I may be buying a chi-com knock off because I'd rather spend $100 on that nonsense than 6+k for a fat watch. Also, I'm more likely to have $100 disposable income than $6k+ disposable income any time in the next decade and a half.
Damned money pit childrens.

FlashHarry: s i'm not sure why it's bad for our presidents to wear anything decent. eisenhower, after all, sported a classic gold rolex for many years. clinton, on the other hand, wore a crappy digital watch.

The deficit went down when Clinton was running the show.

I wonder if there's a connection...?

FlashHarry: Tube amplifiers are superior in sound quality to solid state amplifiers, though.

Subjectively, perhaps (because people grew to like specific kinds of distortion that tubes introduce), but I'd like to see any objective, numerical evidence of the claim that they are better amplifiers. Introducing distortion is not generally a desirable characteristic in an amplifier.

Mishno: Tube amps sounding "warmer" is hipster clap-trap.

"Warmer" is just hifi talk for sounding a bit fuzzier.

Fuzzier sound definitely sounds physically possible to me.

I've spent far too much on mechanical watches (more automatics than manual wind watches) - Omegas, Zeniths, Girard-Perregauxs, JLC, Seikos, Rolexes and a Patek Philippe ... a few Russian and indie timepieces. A mix of contemporary and vintage watches. Yeah, I'm a bit insane, I guess ...

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Putin does not need watch

/is always Putin time

In Russia, watch watches you.

SuperNinjaToad: ShawnDoc: Pocket Ninja: Fascination with expensive watches ranks up there with tricking out Hyundais and Hondas as a hobby/interest whose appeal I absolutely do not understand.

But you don't understand, your cheap watch loses 1~3 seconds a year. Which means every year you have to adjust it by those 3 seconds. My $4,000 wrist bling, only loses 1 second every 10 years. Its totally worth the extra money to not have to change the time by 3 seconds every year.

(Who the fark wears a watch these days anyway?)

FAILED! Actually you know how I know you know absolutely nothing about watches other than saying you don;t know anything about watches :) ?

Truth is most of the highly expensive watches keep terrible time. These watches are typically mechanical in nature and uses unwinding and winding parts of a spring to keep time. Compare to the $20 timex or eletronic watches you can get at walmart, $5000 mechanical watches are less accurate, often with errors of seconds per day, and they are sensitive to position, temperature and magnetism.
People don't wear expensive watches because of it's accuracy, people wear these watches to show off.




... Casio!!

jshine: FlashHarry: Tube amplifiers are superior in sound quality to solid state amplifiers, though.

I'd like to see any objective, numerical evidence of the claim that they are better amplifiers.

First you have to define 'better'...

Introducing distortion is not generally a desirable characteristic in an amplifier.

Electric guitar players use things which deliberately distort their sound to hell and back. They see it as desirable.

jshine: FlashHarry: Tube amplifiers are superior in sound quality to solid state amplifiers, though.

Subjectively, perhaps (because people grew to like specific kinds of distortion that tubes introduce), but I'd like to see any objective, numerical evidence of the claim that they are better amplifiers. Introducing distortion is not generally a desirable characteristic in an amplifier.

You can't quantify better in this case. It is subjective. But it is generally accepted that the warmth imparted by the even harmonics generated by vacuum tubes is more pleasing to the ear. This is why a neumann u47 is one of th most sought after microphones on the planet.

Now, if your goal is to simply reproduce sound with as little distortion as possible, then, yes, one could argue that a solid state system might be superior. But then again we're talking the difference between a photograph and a painting. Or an analog photograph and a digital one, to be more accurate. Many people prefer the former to the latter.

cptjeff: It was absolutely done as what we could call art. Yeah, there was portraiture and whatnot intended to portray an individual, but the clothing and backgrounds and whatnot would all be calculated to tell the viewer something about that person- it wasn't just where they chose to sit the guy when they painted him.

Still, it's interesting how you don't get a lot of this:


(Picasso, 1941)

...until cameras have functionally replaced painting as the main method of portraiture.

Rich Cream: This whole thread needs to be at the gym in 26 minutes.

Lol