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: >>18571100
>>18573183Let me guess, this watch thread is for special snowflake faggots who can't use the 4 others?
>>18573187Uh-oh, anon is grumpy today!
posting for my mom
>>18573206Well, the OP does state they’ll be gentlemen, so maybe they’ll buy her dinner first.
Rolex.Sent from my ipad using Tapatalk.
>>18573225wanna come over and align our coronets together?
It's okay you don't own a Rolex, dislike Rolex, or even loathe Rolex.Just keep your poorfag opinions to yourself and don't contaminate the space where people actually APPRECIATE Rolex.
>>18573183Way too soon faggot. Old thread is still on page 3.
>>18573240forget about old, oldold still hasn't 404'dand /wt/ has split into 2
>>18573240>b-b-b-but I wanted to make a new thread with an ugly shitter in the OP!!Grow up.
>>18573183Has Samuel Soleilhac actually built any of them yet or are they still just renders?
Does the Root Beer GMT-Master II align with your style?Sent from my iPod using Tapatalk
High accuracy quartz is all you need. I know it, you know it.
>>18573250Just renders. He plans to build his prototype around Q3 2026.He recently gave an interview for Monochrome Watches : https://monochrome-watches.com/portrait-independent-watchmaking-soleilhac-harmonie-samuel-soleilhac-montre-de-souscription/
>>18573259>The adjusted printing on the minute track at 3 o'clock.Kino
>>18573254>alignkek
>>18573238I just really, honestly don't understand what there is to appreciate anymore. They make millions of watches, so it's not a rare specialty item. The logo keeps getting bigger each gen, sacrificing classy design for poser appeal. And then there are issues with the movements and visible misalignments Rolex deems "within spec". So I'm honestly wondering, even though I can afford it, what do you actually pay $10000 for?
>>18573299>well reasoned points, admission of opinion vs fact>still has to point out “I can still afford one though” otherwise he’ll be called a poorfagI hate this place most days.
>>18573206Who did it first, Addiesdive or Citizen? Who did it best?
>>18573299>They make millions of watches, so it's not a rare specialty item.Scarcity is relative to the demand. If you produce 100 watches but nobody want them, your watch is not rare. Also no relation between scarcity and quality. Rolex make mass-produced high quality items.>The logo keeps getting bigger each genThat's wrong. Just compare a 1960s Datejust or Sub to a modern one, the logo is the same size. Pic related.>issues with the movements and visible misalignments3 pictures cherry-picked from the internet and 2 videos made for clickbait don't make a general rule. Rolex' success make a lot of people seethe, so obviously they will argue in bad faith at the first opportunity. Rolex' QC is known to be exceptional. >what do you actually pay $10000 for?The most accurate mechanical watches you can get. 5 years warranty. Watches that last a lifetime. The largest network of watchmakers in the world. Iconic designs. Great history. Tasteful marketing. Unmatched value retention.It's okay if you don't like Rolex. There are a lot of models I find ugly and of bad taste (Sky-Dweller, Yacht-Master, DJ41, etc). You really don't need to make up things that can be easily proven wrong to justify your hatred.
>>18573299Seethe more, poorfag.
>>18573345>>18573353got it. It's just a cult, and I'm not a member.
>>18573345Scarcity or rarity has absolutely nothing to do with demand. If there's 1 of something on earth it makes no difference who wants it, you are going to struggle to get it regardless.
>>18573299Rolex peaked with the 1675 and early 16750 GMTs, ‘60s submariner, etcThe newer models just lack the jennies Full honesty, I can’t afford either, but if I could drop $12k on a watch, I’d 100% go retro Rolex over contemporary
>>18573361Hate to admit it, but in a way you're right. You're only really allowed to criticise Rolex if you own one.
>>18573423>You're only really allowed to criticise Rolex if you own one.You can criticize anything you want as long as you’re honest in what is objective fact and what is your subjective opinion. You don’t have to own one to have an opinion on it.Are people going to seethe and piss their pants? Sure, remember where you are.
>>18573429objective fact: now that I've heard about the rehaut misalignment issue, it's present in about 1/3 of the pictures online. Including the Rolex website itselfsubjective opinion: Rolex used to make the best watches available to the common man, back when cheap watches were shit. Nowadays, you can get a watch with unique design, no visible flaws, robust movement, 10 year service interval, regulated to +2s/day, for under $500. So if you charge 20x more for your watch, it needs to be absolutely perfect. And Rolex watches just aren't.I used to dream of owning one, but now I'm over it, and the cult-like fans had a big part in it. So...thanks, I guess?
Another factor in the whole Rolex thing is that they used to cost like $1500 adjusted for inflation. I’d buy a 1675 for that price any day, but the GMT-II is just not worth 10x more money. That’s where the hate is coming from, their prices are going up far faster than any reasonable expectation. Even if I had $15k to spend on silly luxuries, it’d be tough to justify spending it all on one watch compared to getting a motorcycle, some clothes, maybe a $2k watch, etc
>>18573183thoughts on this Aquanaut cope?
>>18573361you can't be both a member of the Virgins club and of the Rolex club, you have to chose.
>objective fact: now that I've heard about the rehaut misalignment issue, it's present in about 1/3 of the pictures online. Including the Rolex website itself>subjective opinion: Rolex used to make the best watches available to the common man, back when cheap watches were shit. Nowadays, you can get a watch with unique design, no visible flaws, robust movement, 10 year service interval, regulated to +2s/day, for under $500. So if you charge 20x more for your watch, it needs to be absolutely perfect. And Rolex watches just aren't.>I used to dream of owning one, but now I'm over it, and the cult-like fans had a big part in it. So...thanks, I guess?>Another factor in the whole Rolex thing is that they used to cost like $1500 adjusted for inflation.>I’d buy a 1675 for that price any day, but the GMT-II is just not worth 10x more money.>That’s where the hate is coming from, their prices are going up far faster than any reasonable expectation.>Even if I had $15k to spend on silly luxuries, it’d be tough to justify spending it all on one watch compared to getting a motorcycle, some clothes, maybe a $2k watch, etc
>>18573490Hey now, I’m a skinny loser with hair
>>18573466That’s cool and all but I guess I’m still happy with mine. Maybe I just got lucky and got the one out of a hundred that’s perfect.I don’t really feel invested in making other people like my watch any more than I feel compelled to make them dislike their own watches.I’m just here to talk about watches, not flex (because literally no watch is a flex when you get down to it)
Bros I think I'm ready to buy my first higher end watch but I'm torn between buying a used Omega Aqua Terra (I think their 2002 or 2008 edition pic related), or buying a brand new Tudor. The Omega is in "very good" condition and looks to be that way, but I can get a brand new Tudor for the same price so I'm torn. What do you lads think, would you go for the 20 years old Omega, or go brand new with a Tudor? I'm not a watch snob and Omega has always been my favorite but I can't see myself ever paying more than ~$2000 on a watch
>>18573530what Tudor is it? If it's the 1926, don't bother.
>>18573533Yes the 1926 is probably my favorite of theirs, specifically this one. The Luna one is nice too but not really my style. Why, what's the deal with them?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lzqh2kroYIwhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgorm0DgkBAPoolex, not watchmakers but a watch corporation
>>18573498Keyed
>>18573530That's nice but I prefer the A060 movement over the A010. They do have some nice one with the older movement though (pic).
>>18573542See, i knew it was the 1926, because it's the cheap/shit model of their lineup.It's the less Tudor of all Tudors, it has no legacy and no personality. It's like the Eric Trump of the Tudor family. It's the Fredo Corleone.
>>18573530
What purpose does running a spambot in this thread serve? Get banned, reset your router, back to spamming this thread? Why? What’s the point?
>>18573353Your Guccis?
>>18573584
Let's post some watches. One of the nicest watches I've had on my wrist. Too bad the dude already had a buyer for it.
>>18573610Aren't these 35mm?
>>18573610Universal Geneve is over-hyped because the brand was discontinued, but the dial, the layout, the date, it's pretty much IWC level, and IWC gets shit for its date windows. It's a nice looking watch, like IWC are, no more no less.
>>18573610I’ve been obsessed with this one for a while. Such a great size and fantastic build quality. The new one without the polished center links looks even better.The high price and mediocre power reserve give me pause. (Yes, I know specs are not the point of fine watchmaking, but 40-something hours is still not much.)
>>18573633It's a superior watch but the pricepoint make it not competitive against ROOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLEXXXXXXX.SEXSEX
>>18573633The power reserve issue is not a problem for me. Setting a watch is not difficult and if you wear the watch for even a few hours per day, it’s fine for the next day. The kind of people who buy these watches have collections and frequently swap watches every few days anyway.IMO long power reserves are just a marketing thing, like anti-magnetism was a few years ago. In the real world, for the majority of users, it doesn’t matter. Are there people out there who like the feature? Sure, just like there are people who like the anti-magnetism stuff.
>>18573206I'll let her know
>>18573183>IDK under $500-3k used?>gay categores>automatic>idrc>idrc, just normal for a man I guessAnyone know where I can get a respectable quality gold vintage style square watch, ideally where it's completely uniform in almost a braclet like way.
55mm Victa Oak
How much would you pay for a digital MIPs display inside a land dweller case? Just a "dumb watch", no smart features. 4 year battery life on replaceable coin cell. 200M WR. No light, no buttons, no crown, no features...just date and time (in a nicer font than pic related).
>>18573743$0
What do you think?
>>18573762forgot pic
>>18573751Would you prefer one of these other cases or are you just against the idea in general? For this hypothetical, you can pretend that you have more than $0 in your wallet.
>>18573764NTA but I'd pay $70 ($50 for case, $10 for movement, $10 profit for you.)
>>18573763FOUR 20dude weed lmao
>>18573769Best MIP displays are like $40 and highest quality replica cases are like $80. Other electronics are maybe $20. You might be able to cut that by 1/3 if you're doing huge volume. Even so, I wouldn't sell something like this for under $250, which I don't think is all that unreasonable.
>>18573779But for that price I can buy an NH35, dial, hands, date ring, and any case I want, AND all the tools to for assembly. Yes it's not MIP but it would be "bespoke". I think the real business would be making/selling an integrated MIP display/controller that fits in an NH35-compatible case, and maybe is even settable with the crown. That would be cool.
