WATCH THREADWATCH THREADWATCH THREADIf you post a Citizen or a Seiko in this thread, your mom will be raped by a pack of black gentlemen tonight.The place to actually discuss watches, free of avatarfagging drama, including bittercelposting, pics of food or drinks, or long-ass stories about your lives.>Your budget>Preferred brand or manufacture>Watch type, e.g. dress, diver, pilot, etc>Movement, e.g. automatic, hand-wound, quartz, etc>Desired features, e.g. water resistance, day/date, chronograph, etc>Preferred strap option, e.g. leather, nylon, bracelet, etc>Wrist size or desired watch sizePrevious thread: >>18533480
Kofe Time
>>18539276ID?
Looking for a watch:>Preferred brand or manufactureA first world brand with history and no gay French name. No Rolex. Available new.>Watch type, e.g. dress, diver, pilot, etc3 hands, so no Chronometer. Otherwise see desired features.>Movement, e.g. automatic, hand-wound, quartz, etcautomatic, as accurate as possible. At least COSC, but preferably better. No spring drive.>Desired features, e.g. water resistance, day/date, chronograph, etc50m+ water resistance. Rotating bezel, don't care if it's a diver, compass or tachymetre. Stainless steel body, sapphire crystal, good lume. Date would be a plus.>Preferred strap option, e.g. leather, nylon, bracelet, etcDon't care, will choose my own.>Wrist size or desired watch size6.5" wrist, <=42mm diameter watch>Your budgetAs low as possible with these requirements. Worthy enough to keep it and get it serviced.Preferably <$2k. Max $10k.The idea is to have a high quality, long-lasting, robust and precise daily driver.
>>18539291>6.5" wrist, <=42mm42mm is too big for you, 39mm should be your limit, sister.
>>18539291Have you considered a citizen from the Citizen:The Citizen lineup?
>>18539291You're describing a Black Bay 54 pretty much.
>>18539291>No Rolex.You barely had the budget for a Rolex anyways, but out of curiosity why "No Rolex"?
>>18539296I know, and I'd prefer 39mm or less. But I wore 42mm divers before and it was fine. And I feel like stating 39mm would disqualify lots of watches I might like if everything else matches.
>>18539297That's Quartz and they offer nothing with a rotating bezel.
>18539300I don't like what the name projects. I don't care about prestige at all and don't want to pay for it. And I'm not willing to beg and wait for a watch or pay a premium to some re-seller.
>>18539298Thanks, a lot! That one goes to the top of the shortlist.
>>18539258>Your budget€500>>Watch type, e.g. dress, diver, pilot, etcdress>>Movement, e.g. automatic, hand-wound, quartz, etcquartz>>Desired features, e.g. water resistance, day/date, chronograph, etcno stupid text like "water resistant" on the face>>Wrist size or desired watch size37-39 mm case
>>18539334Cartier Tank replica (it's quartz, so no problem servicing it)Frededrique Constant Moneta is out of your budget but around 800€ on chrono24Orient Bambino 38mm
>>18539341quartz, so no Orient Bambino
>>18539291Tudor Black Bay or Omega Seamaster. Pick your poison.
>>18539350grok is this real
>>18539350I have a hard time relaxing with my Rolex.I'm Rolex conscious when i wear it in public.
>>18539355As long as it's not a Daytona, no one in public is going to bat an eye.
>>18539351Sure. Rolex 6426. Back when the bottom of Rolex’s barrel was much lower. Hand-winding movement, no chronometer certification. Absolutely nothing.The 6694 was the same watch but it had a date.They’re great little starter watches for guys who have to have the Rolex name on their wrist but can really shell out more than 2k.
>>18539357I'd rather get a Tudor which has everything Rolex originally became famous for, without the name, for the same $2k.
>>18539430>tudor>$2k.it's not 2010 anymore
>>18539430I’d never get a Tudor, even though they make fine watches. Tudor can never be anything other than what it was founded to be: a way to give working class people a little taste of Rolex quality. It would bug me knowing that I’d bought something that was deliberately made to be not as good as it could be.
>>18539435lots of models available below $2k used
>>18539454It would bug me to pay 5x the price of the watch for a crown logo on the watch face.
>>18539454I have a Rolex and yet I sometimes think of getting a Tudor Black Bay 58 GMT. I prefer it over the current GMT Master II (I hate ceramic) and it's way more affordable and reliable than a vintage one.
>>18539474I’ve had my eye on the BB58GMT too, but I’m still waiting on them to release the watch in a better color scheme. Hopefully they’ll come up with something unique and not just “I know a vintage Pepsi is out of reach, but this will tide you over until you can afford it.”
>>18539474I would get it but i feel almost unexplainable hatred towards date windows and this is one of the worst.
>>18539435You can pick up an old Oyster Prince for about 2k. I'd say that's pretty 1:1 to the Rolex in your pic
>>18539541You weren't talking to me. It's a wonderful little watch and a chooda from the same era would cost you about a third or even a fourth of its big brother if you look around.
>>18539474I was just looking at this watch. I like it a lot, but they changed the diamond on the second hand to a circle. >that's a no from me
>>18539300>but out of curiosity why "No Rolex"?Cringy oversaturated brand for people who want to be seen wearing a name brand more than actually appreciating horology.Jeets/thirdies absolutely love them because they think it separates them from the toilet caste they were born into. The irony is most rolie owners today are buying second and third hand used because they can't even afford new, or get on the AD's priority list to begin with.
>>18539589I think that’s a little unfair. Sure, a lot of undesirables wear Rolex, but it’s the biggest brand in the world. A lot of every group except poors wear Rolex.You’re depriving yourself of a really good watch for reasons that ultimately won’t make any difference in the real world.I’ve been wearing the same Explorer 2 that I bought new 20 years ago basically every day and it’s been as accurate and reliable as anyone could hope for.I never run into jeets or nouveau riche influencers or anything like that in real life because I live in an affluent (white, obviously) area.
>>18539574The 41mm Black Bay GMT is awful though.It's 15mm thick lmao
>>18539598Oh, yeah, the physical dimensions are shit, but the coloration (silver print, white lume, clean red and blue in the bezel) and the consistent all-square handset are preferable to the faux vintage bullshit of the Bb58 version
>>18539594The thing is, I've worn the same Seiko 5 every day for 20 years. You don't need a Rolex for that. I just want a nice watch, and nowadays there are so many really, really awesome watches in the sub-5k range that I wouldn't even notice the difference in a Rolex.Apart from the name, which everyone sees as the symbol of a poser unless you're actually rich. Or worse, silently getting judged for wearing a fake since people assume I couldn't afford the real thing. Even though it costs less than a shitbox car. Which I don't have or need, so that, along with a job in IT frees up a lot of disposable cash for nice things.
>>18539594>A lot of every group except poors wear Rolex.Poors/brownoids are one of the biggest markets for rolies.The same poors who lease a BMW/Benz/Lexus at retard high interest rates so other people will think they are "grinding" are 90% of the grey and second-hand market for Rolex.>You’re depriving yourself of a really good watchI'm not, I have a date sub from an airport AD I bought without the wait and it spends most of its time in the safe.It's a great watch, but there are also just as great (and better) watches below, at, and above the same price range that don't come with the cheesy Lous Vuitton-level brand image and have a lot more personality. No hate on your explorer, it's just not a brand I would recommend anymore.
>>18539633>along with a job in ITAh, okay. That changes things. Lots more jeets in your field.
>>18539633>nowadays there are so many really, really awesome watches in the sub-5k rangeWhen you really start to get into the detail vs value proposition, the 1k-5k range is actually a graveyard (unless you’re buying used.)1k-5k is this sort of quasi-luxury zone where the buyers are just impressed by themselves and their ability to spend that much on a watch.
Why would you ever buy a watch new? Maybe I just don't get it. I've only ever bought watches used. Although there are some watches that go up/maintain their value, it seems like most lose a couple thousand dollars as soon as you put it on. The same Rolex new vs. lightly used is thousands of dollars in difference. I'd rather buy it for $3000 dollars off and pay for a service
>>18539646There are literally zero non-white employees in this company of 400 people. Even the cleaning ladies are white.(Not living in the US btw).
>>18539667>Why would you ever buy a watch new?If it’s intended to be a gift or if it’s less than 500 dollars.
>>18539667I buy watches the same way I buy most expensive things: doing an autistic amount of research and waiting over a year to make sure I won't change my mind and then using it for 10+ years. My personal car is coming up on 10 years and I could have saved some money buying it used, sure. The thing is, I don't buy things to sell them. I buy things to use them for their full lifespan, which in some cases might be longer than my own, and when you calculate the cost per month it becomes irrelevant anyway. I also use all of my stuff, even if it's nice. Tools, not jewels.
>>18539667Buying a watch for more than $1000 is absolutely irrational anyway. You literally spend money on feels.People want to wear a piece of the good life on their wrist, something that takes them out of their wage-cuck existence for a short moment every time they look at it.Buying such a thing used means someone else discarded it but it's still good enough for you. You're wearing sloppy seconds.
>>18539667Most people don't have the knowledge required to make sure they aren't getting a fake, or a franken-watch, or some combination of the two, so I could see why most people would just for peace of mind.
>>18539667>Why would you ever buy a watch new? If you can't buy it new, you're shopping outside of your income level to begin with. Same thing as poors and browns buying used or leasing luxury cars and purchase payment plans for watches, clothes, etc.All of the image of success and wealth, none of the actual income or investments.>Although there are some watches that go up/maintain their valueIt's a luxury item being purchased with disposable income, not a carefully selected daily driver economy shitbox. If you are looking for an investment, put the money into more stocks/options in your brokerage account.Nothing wrong with having a budget or not being able to afford something, but going out of your way to acquire it second hand or for cheaper on a luxury item is peak thirdie behavior. Might as well just walk into the Rolex/Omega store and barter with a goat/camel or offer them your sister.
When you see a Rolex on someone's wrist, it's safe to assume that person has no interest in horology. Just like someone who watches slop movies has no interest in film. At best, a Rolex can be a "guilty pleasure." There's just no way you can convince me an informed person would prefer a Rolex over a Grand Seiko, Breguet, Blancpain, Parmigiani, Adolph Lange, Omega, or other aesthetically appealing and technically proficient watch brand. When I hear "Rolex" I think of bourgeois slop: "squid game, avengers, TikTok, Instagram, Labubu"Opinions?
>>18539667>Why would you ever buy a watch new?The only reason I would ever buy a watch used is if it’s out of production or otherwise a collector’s piece.
>>18539697>Opinions?Well, Philippe Dufour wears a Rolex. I’m sure he has at least some interest in horology.One of my friends is one of the foremost authorities on Longines chronographs. He’s written books on the subject. He usually wears a Day-Date. You can’t say he’s not interested in horology.I don’t think it’s a good idea to assume anything about anyone just from their watch, especially not when it comes to the single largest brand in the entire industry. And certainly not when you’re forming your opinion based on what your social media scroll tells you.
>>18539697There are three types of Rolex buyers:>poors who buy them on credit, with money they'd actually need for other necessary expenses, or after saving up for decades, to pretend they're rich>upper middle class watch nerds who get one to complete their collection and soothe their autism>actually rich people who get a Sub as an EDC tool watch cause they're precise, robust, and easily available wherever rich people hang out.
>>18539258What's wrong with seiko and citizen?
>>18539334Might be too small for you, but these Seiko dolce models are beautiful and have great quartz mechanisms
>>18539723Nothing at all. They're the quality workhorses Rolex used to be in the 50's. Which makes watchfags seethe cause it reminds them they're spending their $$$$ purely on feels
>>18539697>When you see a Rolex on someone's wrist, it's safe to assume that person has no interest in horology. I'd say it's 80/20.80% of the time it's just someone who bought a Rolex to be trendy and wear the name, but 20% of the time I'd say it's someone who does appreciate the name and its brand origins as a quality working man's/professional's tool watch.>There's just no way you can convince me an informed person would prefer a Rolex over a....The problem here is this is a "one watch" mentality, e.g. there's no way any dive watch collection is complete without a Seamaster, a Fifty Fathoms, and a Submariner. It's the holy trinity of dive watches.>When I hear "Rolex" I think of bourgeois slop: "squid game, avengers, TikTok, Instagram, Labubu"This is the bigger problem overall. Not so much Rolex itself, but the brand image and its consumers overall.Mostly agree, for me it's the sub and that's about it. Everything else from Rolex is mundane.The land dweller was one of the worst releases I've seen in a while.>"Mom, can we stop for Audemars? No sweety, we have Audemars at home."
>>18539729Here's one thing: whenever I couldn't easily afford one I looked at them in awe and thought how cool they are. Now that I can afford them I see two things: those produced in the current year look very precise and can be discerned as brand new. The older ones literally look like any other watch, except for the iconic design language.
>WHY DO PEOPLE KEEP BUYING THESE HIGHLY REGARDED AND COVETED WATCHES THAT LAST FOREVER AND NEVER DROP IN VALUE FROM THE MOST ICONIC AND RESPECTED BRAND WITH THE LARGEST NETWORK OF DISTRIBUTORS AND WATCHMAKERS [ catch his breath ] INSTEAD OF THIS 14MM THICK GRAND SEIKO OR THIS ORANGE SEAMASTER THAT I THINK LOOKS COOLTruly a mystery.
>>18539737Their quality over the years has improved a lot if you compare previous models.A large part of their updates now aren't even quality oriented, they're just additions meant to make fakes more identifiable. >>18539745>agitatedjeet.jpg
Hey guys, can I get a size check? Does this look too big, too small, just right?
>>18539771looks too big and has a fake vibe
>>18539771Size is fine. Get the solid gold version, though.
>>18539771It's alright.I don't really like the watch though.
My collection. Rolex Datejust (it’s actually a dayejust II, which gets hated on online, but irl nobody knows the difference) and Tudor Chrono panda.What should I get next? I’m thinking an omega speed master but I already have a chrono..
>>18539771looks too fake
>>18539803I'll never understand this type of question. What do YOU want to get next? No one else gives a fuck about your collection.
>>18539803JLC Master Calendar
>>18539803>it’s actually a dayejust II, which gets hated on online, but irl nobody knows the differencePeople hate the DJ2 because it was the first DJ in 40mm.
>>18539667> The same Rolex new vs. lightly used is thousands of dollars in difference. I'd rather buy it for $3000 dollars off and pay for a serviceand what model is that? basically every Rolex is more expensive on the second hand market, sometimes by more than 100%
>>18539810>What do YOU want to get next?Obviously nothing in particular since he's doing rolex -> tudor -> omegaNext he'll get a "dress" watch either the santos or the reverso and maybe a diver (sub/BB/seamaster only of course)
>>18539810I’m just asking for suggestions man why are you tweaking. This is a completely normal discussion topic get the stick out of your ass
>>18539836So, only great watches?
>>18539840I suggest an Omega Seamaster since you seem to be crossing off a list of the default choices.
>>18539849only boring choices
rolex = poorlex
>>18539276avatardocrap for poor pajeets, keep copin
>>18539875what did he mean by this?
>>18539771way too big uuuu gay boy
>>18539803Rolex is fine. You should replace the 2poor with a panda though.
>>18539887The bot poster reset his router, apparently. Ah well.
>>18539887post it one more time in a few minutes, janny
>>18539771Looks fine
I was not expecting that, looks like april's fool somehow, I guess it looks fine and I'll get used to it
>>18539291
>>18539771this model can be worn big or small, it looks ok
>>18539974It's an interesting way to display the time but it doesn't work on an integrated bracelet sports watch. It's also way too big and thick, and looks terrible on the wrist even on the Trilobe's press photos.
>>18540121That movement itself is 7mm thick.The fact that they were still able to make the overall thickness 10.15mm is pretty impressive.Overall, though, I don’t think they’re doing themselves any favors but wading into the completely saturated blue dial integrated bracelet steel sports watch market.
>>18539771Smaller is better!
talk me out of a rail master preferably the 1957 style one from a few years ago but a normal one would be fine too
>>18540179They're tall and look bigger than they are. Check them in person if you can before you do anything.If you have an Omega AD somewhere, there's a chance they have one in stock at the back because it didn't sell well.
>>18540179Don’t bother with the new ones. Just the 57 version is worth it.
>>18540173Depends on the material. In gold, the smaller ones look better. The bigger ones look tacky. In steel, the smaller one looks like a girl’s watch.Gold should be subtle.
>>18540292Steel or gold, doesn't matter. This specific kind of watch is supposed to be small and dainty, even on a larger wrist. It's a style thing.
>>18539342Orient is releasing a quartz Bambino this yearshame on the "Water Resistant" text and the plastic strap tho
I'm looking for a watch after picrel (poljot 2616.2h movement, couldn't find the exact model, would appreciate if someone knows).>Your budget500 max I'd say, maybe a bit more>BrandDon't care>Watch typeI don't like divers, apart from that I don't care>MovementWould love an automatic or a manual>Features Should be somewhat water-resistant, doesn't need anymore than the time though. A major criteria is for it to be slim (about 10mm would be ideal) and with a dark dial though>StrapsDon't care, will probably do it myself>Watch sizeNot bigger than 40mm diameter and not thicker than 13mm. 20mm wristbands would be nice, cause I've got some good looking ones lying around.I'd really appreciate it if anyone knows something like what I'm looking for.
>>18540326>his coat compresses his arm
>>18539771Terrible picture, but the size is perfect for your wrist.
>>18540163>The fact that they were still able to make the overall thickness 10.15mm is pretty impressive.Well it has no hands, so that's a couple mill off right away.
i finally adjusted the prx bracelet. wdyt
>>18540378The stacked discs make up for the lack of handstack.
>>18540378
I don't like watches.
>>18540425Why not? Luckily you have plenty of other threads to explore.
>>185401792504.52.00 only but you have to pay out the ass for it
>>18540179>>18540474What year are these from? Are they both modern?
>>18540474Those ones look good but they have the same issues as all the other early two-level coaxial movements. I’d avoid it unless you’re absolutely in love with it.
>>18540486this one >>18540179 is a 2017 60th anniversary watch
>>18540189that's a shamecrazy how watch advertising pics make watches seem so much thinner than they aremust have models with divots in their wrist
Am I too much of a wristlet for a DJ40?
>>18540636How do they get the magnifiers so clear and not reflective? The cheaper approximations of it always get glare and distortions but the real ones always almost look backlit.
>>18540636The DJ40 looks likes trash no matter the wrist.Get a 36.
Let me guess, you "need" more?
>>18540875When Rolex was based and not a cuck brand.
>>18540883Rolex has always been based and highly redpilled.
Tudor is actually better than poorlex.
>>18540657They put anti reflective coating on the underside of the cyclops.
>>18540885Are you coping because you realized how ugly your 40mm explooorer looks?
>>18540766Too small. The only people who wear small watches are women and extremely online watch hobbyists.
>>18540909>women and extremely online watch hobbyistshaha, you got mein all seriousness though, I too think that you are looking at literal fakes here. If you're aware of that and the price is accordingly, alright. just saying
>>18540909This looks perfect. Get the 36mm you retard.Would you buy shoes 3 sizes larger just to feel more manly?
>>18540875What reference number is that? It looks like a frankenwatch.
>>18540934I want something fashionable not something my grandpa would wear.
>>18540973Get whatever you want. No one’s forcing you to do anything. If you do something smart, you’ll be praised. If you do something stupid, you’ll be corrected. In either case, you’ll learn nothing.
>>1854097234.110
>>18540982Thanks. What an odd watch. I’ve never seen a Rolex like that. It looks like a Nomos case.
>>18540981I don't think either of them is quite right. Leaning explorer in a 40.
>>18540988>40mm explorerif you're gonna go that big at least get a sub
>>18540984There has been a Bauhaus revival in the late 1960s and every brand their own version of this super minimalist stainless steel watch.Omega made tons of these, Rolex, even Patek.
>>18540988>40mm Explorer
>>18540992I really like the sub and would get it but no AD is going to give you a straight answer about if or when you can take it home
>>18540999No AD is giving YOU an answer.
>>18541008OK? My point still stands.
>>18540999Are you buying a watch you don’t want in order to get on the list for a watch you do want?
>>18541016I like the explorer. I like the sub more. And I like the panda more than that. But you need to be realistic about what is available.
>>18541018Fucking kek.
>>18541008the "AD" with a keyboard on the counter who doesn't even care about the faux leather peeling off from the corner of his presentation tray
>>18541018>I like the explorer. If you like it, you like it, but in my opinion it's not that great of a watch.It's just a filler watch that people settle for, like the oyster, so they can get in Rolex' good graces to wait for something more desireable.>I like the sub more. Valid, the sub is the most iconic and worthwhile watch in their lineup. A gentleman's tool and recreation watch.>And I like the panda more than that.Speedmaster will always be the better watch than the Daytona, which is really just an overprived gaudy hype piece.>one was certified by NASA and a top choice amongs astronauts in space and on the moon mission>the other was worn by douchey hollywood celebs and had a song written about it by a nog
>>18541054>has never been in an AD
>>18541059How about the datejust, is that good?
>>18541060my AD has a reception counter and separate tables for customers to sit down and try the watches, and their trays are not worn out
>>18540999Here you go buddy
>>18541069The DJ is the watch for people who want to buy one “good” watch and then never think about buying another watch again for the rest of their lives.
>>18541069I am not a Rolex fan in general outside of the sub and the GMT, so I am the wrong person to ask. I'd look at the constellation over the datejust if you want an opinion, personally the datejust screams old man's or women's wear watch to me.
>>18541084Are we talking about the classic constellations like from the 60s, or are we talking about the new ones that look like goatse?
>>18541054>>18541060>>18541073Different Anon, but the aforementioned AD does look like shit and it's not like ADs haven't been caught and dropped before for peddling fakes.Jewelers are not synonymous with honesty.Considering you're thinking of buying what is literally the most copied and faked watch brand in the world and will be paying MSRP regardless, you'd be foolish not to just make the trip to your nearest actual Rolex storefront.At least you'll get some free champagne and a perrier before they blue ball you and sign you up for a waitlist.
>there are people in this thread who unironically believe a Rolex AD will sell you a fake Rolex
>>18541059What you're saying is true for the OP, and that's why they need to market it in various bright colors to drum up interest. The Explorer meanwhile has every bit as much heritage as the sub and its design is relatively unchanged from 70 years ago
>>18541101>The Explorer meanwhile has every bit as much heritage as the sub and its design is relatively unchanged from 70 years agoAside from getting demonstrably worse with every iteration.And the Explorer has nowhere near the heritage of the Submariner. The Sub’s design and history is littered with firsts in dive watch history. The Explorer has done nothing. (The Rolex that was brought to Everest was a regular OP)
>>18541105>worse every generationopinion dismissed
>>18540425Based and blackpilled.
>>18541109Now compare that to the 1016’s masculine and purposeful design. You won’t, of course, because to accept a fact that you don’t like would be too emotionally damaging.
>>18541109>un-lumed numerals embarrassing, to be entirely honest.
>>18541086Either, but get your porn addiction checked out.>>18541100>being this naiveThere's a sucker born every minute.>>18541101>The Explorer meanwhile has every bit as much heritage as the subidk Anon, I just don't see it.If I wanted a sports watch, I'm taking the sub every single time. If I wanted a 24hr feature, I'm taking the GMT every single time. Fastest way to get offered a sub or GMT is to buy the OP/DJ>Explorer>Sub/GMT>Daytona pipeline and hardly anyone wears their OP or Explorer once they get their hands on the Sub/GMT. A lot of people just sell them once they finally got the watch they actually wanted at that point.Only people who seem big on the OP/DJ/Exp are people buying a one and done Rolex because they want the name but can't afford to play the dealer games and don't want to pay grey market prices. If you like it, you like it, but I still just see it as filler.
>>18541113>>18541115It IS embarrassing, and my point which apparently went over your head was responding to the claim that every generation has gone downhill. Here's the lume in the latest revision.
>>18541119They lumed the numerals correctly, but then made the size completely bloated. When they brought back the classic size, they fucked it up by giving it the girl’s size bracelet. (Which really lets you know that Rolex intends the large Explorer to be for men and the little one for women.)
>>18541121>rolex acknowledges that small watches are for womenbased
>>18541116You're telling me this looks better than a datejust?
>>18541116>>being this naive>There's a sucker born every minute.Retard. Mongoloid, even.Being selected by Rolex to be an official retailer is basically hitting the jackpot. You wouldn't risk losing your agreement and being sued by the largest watch company in the world by selling replicas.I can't believe I'm sharing the same board as this kind of brain-dead idiot.
>>18541124You're telling me this does?symmetric date window>asymmetric
>>18541116>A lot of people just sell them once they finally got the watch they actually wanted at that point.I personally know two people who did this. One got a 34mm OP and the other a 36mm Explorer. Both talked about how this was their dream watch and they’d never part with it. Within a year, both had upgraded, one for a Sub, the other for an Explorer II. Both admitted they only bought the first watch to be able to buy the watches they actually wanted. Both were relieved they could sell the watches without losing too much money.
>>18541135A 34 mm OP?? The explorer 2 is 42 mm. Lmao
>>18541132>Being selected by Rolex to be an official retailer is basically hitting the jackpot.There are over 270 Rolex retailers in the US alone and virtually every AD has unsold stock that they sell next calendar year, which is why the entire grey market for them exists to begin with.Being a rolex dealer is far from a jackpot.>You wouldn't risk losing your agreement and being sued by the largest watch company in the world by selling replicas.https://abovethelaw.com/2024/03/the-rolex-ip-cases-prove-that-time-is-money/>Sdot Watches LLC (d/b/a Swiss Wrist), First Class Dials LLC, and Austin’s Watches Inc.>have sold heavily altered or entirely fabricated Rolex-branded watches and parts, complete with counterfeit versions of Rolex’s famed crown logo and other registered marks.Two of these were previously ADs for Rolex before being caught.>I can't believe I'm sharing the same board as this kind of brain-dead idiot.lmao, cry about it because you bought into the Rolex exclusivity marketing for a brand that churns out over a million watches a year.You are both a gullible retard who easily falls for marketing tactics and a naive dipshit who then defends them, lmao.
My nigga Tom Cruise at his prime wearing a Datejust
>>18541207It looks dated and womanly.
>>18541134Datejust is a better watch, correct. At least compare like to like, don't compare it to a shit colored gemset gaudy shitter variant.
>>18541226>gold center links, bezel, crown, dial markers, and handsTasteless, looks like something a brownoid would wear so he could tell everyone he wears a Rolex any chance he gets.
>>18541207he was still on the waiting list for a day date
>>18541234This Omega is atrocious lmao
>>18541234The globe master is cope incarnate>thick 40mm shitter>fluted bezel for rolex cope>annual calendar so cheaped out complication masquerading as luxury>Lugs have radial brushing so that the linear brushing on the bracelet doesn't match, meaning omega is making the same mistake the swatch shitter companies like Hamilton makes with their finishesIt's so stupid you almost have to be trolling, and yet somehow I know you're serious.
>win ~$5k sportsbetting>want a breitling so fucking bad>can't let wife know i still sports bet so I tell her that my bro gave me the money for our wedding>she still throws a shit fit>idc I go to the AD and it's awesome, they got so much cool shit>try on the Superocean, it's a little big but it's 30% off and I think I can make it work>buy it, almost crash cuz i'm looking at it on my wrist when i'm driving>find out it was the 44, 42 would literally be perfect>come back the next day and return the 44, check out the 42>the 6 o'clock index is off center, it's clearly too far to the right>i ask the lady helping me, she claims she doesn't see it even though it is clear as day to me>returned the 42 and didn't get anything>stuck with this faggot-ass CW seamasterUgh. I'm going to Las Vegas in December for my wedding and visiting a Breitling boutique. This is not over.
>>18541100being licensed as a rolex AD costs them 100k per year. ask yourself the question if this rundown little shack makes that amount of money - if not they are not an authorised dealer. that means that they also have no reputation to lose and can sell you whatever fakes they like
>>18541254yeah my little shack AD as you call it spends $100k a year on armed guards alone. to get in you have to pass through a security door small enough to admit only one person at a time and on a time delay, lmao
>>18541250That's not all>5 different fonts on the dial>default Microsoft Word cursive font>confusing set of handsAnd yeah...>15mm thick
An independent jeweler in my area had this on sale for 580 bucks. I was chatting with the guy he apparently has a pretty good relationship with Seiko and had a huge selection, does special orders.The dial was a little smaller than I thought it would be after seeing it in person, but I'm stoked. Any recommended replacement straps?
>>18541267The regular Globemaster isn’t much better. It’s still too thick and it has the single worst bracelet ever made.
Rolex is an ugly watch
what's the point of prospex if it's not diver's ?
>>Your budget$10-1000>>Preferred brand or manufactureAnything European or Japanese>>Watch type, e.g. dress, diver, pilot, etcSomething simple>>Movement, e.g. automatic, hand-wound, quartz, etcSomething solid>>Desired features, e.g. water resistance, day/date, chronograph, etcNothing fancy>>Preferred strap option, e.g. leather, nylon, bracelet, etcSteel bracelet>>Wrist size or desired watch sizeSmall
>>18541586Casio
>>18541589Which?
Got myself a new watch
>>18539722From experience working at ADs and repair workshops>category 1Probably exists, but didn't come to us for repair because they are very likely not able to afford the maintenance costs. Happens a lot with Omega as well : dude gets a second-hand Omega the second he can afford it with no extra savings and thinks he's making a great deal then screams in agony when he sees the service costs because he did not account for it when purchasing his watch.>category 2Very, very rare and usually spend more time bragging about having a Fifty Fathoms, an older Navitimer and the cheapest Patek they could find to "complete" their collection. The typical stock collection from the guy with zero imagination has a Datejust, a Sub, a FF (it's the first real diver don't you know, the Submariner came five seconds later actually), a JLC (THE WATCHMANERS' WATCHMAKER) a Breitling, maybe an old Heuer for the motorsport connection and then eternal saving up for a Patek, Vacheron or AP. Guys like this think having the most predicatable collection gives them collector cred because they have one of the most basic "in the know" watches. Typically it's the FF but it can also be a Monaco or an El Primero (they were the first automatic chronos don't you know, the Daytona came later)>category 3In my experience, does not exist and is made up in online discourses to pretend Rolex are still "tool watches" and is propped by WUS retirees who swear they've worn their Explorer when gardening once.EXTRAS :>category 4Middle class guy celebrating his 50th birthday or a work achievement. Doesn't know about watches so he goes for Rolex because it's the one big name he knows. Factually Rolex's core demographic. Easily the majority of the guys coming in for service. Don't know what they have, never know they can hand-wind their watches, sometimes don't even know they can quick-set the date.>category 5Women. You have no idea how many Pearlmasters or tiny two-tone Datejust are out there.
>>18541613Good reply. There is some truth to what I say about rolex being bourgeois slop then.What is your ideal collection? Or are you more like me that you just need 1 mall watch, 1 tool watch, and 1 dress watch?
huge boobs
shitters
>>18541626>What is your ideal collection?I don’t think an ideal collection exists.I think the “I need a diver and a chrono and a dress watch and a travel watch…” is autistic box checking.Saying “All I need is a waterproof sports watch a a dress watch.” Is not a collection any more than owning a black belt and a brown belt is a belt collection. It’s a minimal wardrobe, that’s about it.Collections aren’t based on what you NEED, they’re based on what you’re interested in and what you like. That could be anything, there’s no ideal.Personally, I don’t care about sports watches anymore so I got rid of them. These days, I have a Garmin and a dozen or so interesting dress watches.
I'd like to save up for and buy a nice watch, but I almost never leave my house except to go to work (not a job where I can wear a nice watch) or to the grocery store, so I don't really have any reason to ever wear a watch.
>>18541626The longer I think about it, the more I warm up to the idea of themed collections.Grab a few watches you like to wear that suit your usual needs.And the rest, pick a brand, or a type of watch, or an era, or a theme. Beats just accumulation for its own sake I'd say.
>>18541692I'm extremely picky, and I apply the same mindset as when buying a guitar. Firstly, it has to be love at first sight. Then all the technical details have to be appealing, and finally the new watch needs shouldn't overlap with the others (ie I shouldn't have two watches for the same occasion).>>18541659Is right, it's not a collection, it's just owning a small number of watches to suit my use cases.
>>18541590casio is shitseiko quartz SUR309P1
>>18539291tag heuer aquaracer
>>18540909damn, looks amazing. get it.
>>18541611Noice
ahem
>>18539771any smaller and it would be too small imo
>>18540636looks perfecti dont like white gold or ss dj with fluted bezel and jubilee bracelet. looks to girly for me. id either go with plain SS or two tone
>>18541613>Fifty Fathoms>FF>FFHaving to mention the FF 3 different times in one paragraph screams "insecure rolex owner coping."Lighter case made from a better material, nearly double power reserve, spring drive is a more accurate and durable movement than hairspring, smaller brand with higher quality controls vs mass produced automated brand producing 1 million+ watches per year, etc. etc. The list goes on.If you think anything about Rolex is even close to pic related, you are far past reasoning and I kind of suspect you have never worked at any watch or jewelry store.
What do you think about the Credor Locomotive?It's a future Genta classic.
>>18541252Just buy a used one for a grand and save the money.
>>18539258Sup
>>18541995Irrelevant me-too sports watch based on the least effort Genta ever put into any design. I applaud Seiko for figuring out a new way to separate morons from their money.
AHEM
>>18542161It's technically impressive execution but unfortunately the end result looks like pure liquid shit flushing down a toilet.I never thought much about it, does Grand Seiko even make production precious metal pieces? Once in a while they do a limited run of gold hibeats or whatever but for the most part they're all steel. Maybe this dial would look better in a gold case? The steel resembles an actual litrine.
>>18542132>ai slop
>>18541995>It's a future Genta classic.lmao, no it's not. First of all: look at the watch. It looks like the Royal Oak's malformed parasitic twin.And then, people don't understand Genta's legacy. The Royal Oak and the Nautilus became icons because they're made by AP and Patek, brands that were admired and respected before for their designs and complications. The Locomotive is Genta's sloppy seconds made by Seiko's lolcow.Genta's name alone isn't big enough to turn a watch into a classic. It needs to be associated with a serious brand. Take the Ingenieur for example: nobody gives a shit about it because IWC has no prestige.
>>18542161>beefy sports watch>entirely polished>meme dialSame vibe as the Aqua Terra.This kind of design is so typical of the 2000s/2010s (an era that will never inspire the slightest bit of nostalgia) that it will age terribly. In fact, it already has.
>>18541986I went to see the 42 and 38 FF today. The 38 is ridiculously small, like a child's watch (it wouldn't fit my wrist on the biggest hole with the deployant), but the 42 is honestly perfect. It was already my favorite diver but in 42mm it would be very wearable even when you aren't under da sea.Also some info for my /nawt/y pals, Blancpain in Dubai gives 5% flat discount plus up to 5% additional if you're a return customer, so just post ITT when you're in town habibi, we can go together.I also had a hell of a time convincing the Omegalul staff to order a speedmaster telemeter bezel. They said they're going to check with Switzerland tomorrow if it's possible, but from what I've seen on other forums it totally should be.Also also, since I'm already blogfagging, I tried on the manual wind Santos and I really like it, except for the sunburst dial and unfinished piaget movement (which you can't even see).
>>18542493I think the 38mm is implied to be a women’s model. All FF’s wear small anyway. The 42mm version is nice but the thing that keeps me from getting one is the poor quality strap along with the oddball lug width that will make replacing the strap a pain.
>>18542493I saw the 38 and thought the same thing, but did like that it was noticeably thinner. I'm set on the 42mm, just deciding on black vs blue.Went to the nearest AD a while ago and was disappointed to see the BP bracelet has no microadjustments, I would have expected more, so I guess I will be getting it on a strap.
>>18542493i don't visit muslim countries for ethical reasons
>>18542605The FF looks better on a strap anyway. The rubber, Tropic-style strap is the best option.
>>18542297nope, epic paint skills
