WATCH THREADWATCH THREADWATCH THREADThe place to actually DISCUSS watches, free of avatarfagging drama, including bittercelposting, random pics devoid of context, 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: >>18641026
Can anyone ID this specific watch? I saw it on the marketplace, and want to get it and swap out the strap for black leather, but wanted to know the MSRP to know if I'm getting it at a deal or not.
>>18649020Vortex 3989 Quartz 42mm, i think
>>18649020>>18649022https://stuhrling.com/products/3989-quartz-42mm-chronograph?variant=37474022424742
BENIS XDDD
>>18649021I hate this sub genre of watches so much it's unreal.
>>18649025This kind of clinical engineering design often purges any semblance of soul out of the watch, it's hard to do it right and retain some warmth.
>>18649025What are they called? Hyper-watches or something?
>>18649028That’s true. I would prefer they hide their technical wizardry behind a dial. Something like a Laurent Ferrier Galet which has a simple dial but still has all the impeccable movement finishing you’d expect.Stuff like OP’s pic just looks chaotic and unfinished.
>>18649030I don't think they have a name but I want them gone.
>>18649019
>>18649036>Ferdinand BERTHOUDThe names always crack me up. Who wants to wear a watch called Raymond Weill, or a Greubel Forsey, or a Bernard Grosfion, Philippe Proutard or whatever.
>>18649043I'm guessing a European architect with no friends.
>>18649043What’s a good watch name? Some meaningless word? How about a completely made up word?Of all the things to get hung up on, the name of the company is kind of trivial.(And yes, I recognize that the actual Ferdinand Berthoud was born 300 years ago and has no connection to the company. That kind of zombie branding is disingenuous, but that’s separate from your complaint since you also brought upGreubel Forest, and those are literally just the names of the guys that founded the company and currently run it.)
>>18649052>What’s a good watch name? Rolex = Horology + Rex aka king in latin, both meaningful and agressive.IWC = International Watch Company, congruent name, very straightforwardSeiko = meaning "exquisite" in japaneseKurono = meaning "chrono" in japaneseZenith, Omega (...) = words that are synonyms of some kind of excellency, the Zenith is the peak of something, Omega is one of the last letters of the greek alphabet (= refined, comes after many iterations).
>>18649059They have good names but don't make good watches.
>>18649022>>18649023Thank you so much, fellas
>>18649059Rolex is literally a made up word. It’s not a combination of anything. Hans Wilsdorf wanted a named that could be pronounced in any language.IWC is literally deceptive marketing. It was founded by an American back when American watches were the best in the world. He wanted to outsource watchmaking to cheap (at the time) Swiss labor but still make it sound like American workmanship was involved. If people realized it was just Swiss workers, then he would not have been able to charge American-made prices.
>>18649072You like the word 'literally'.
>>18649076It’s allowed when it’s used accurately.
>>18649059>Zenith, Omega (...) = words that are synonyms of some kind of excellency, the Zenith is the peak of something, Omega is one of the last letters of the greek alphabet (= refined, comes after many iterations).Imagine if someone called their watch company “The Best Watch Company” and it actually worked. Sell out every year, raise prices every year but people still say it’s a bargain because it’s the best watch.
>>18649078Like when deceptive marketing is "literally" deceptive? I'm not seeing it. Is there a figurative deception I don't know about necessitating you clarifying it?
>>18649025I like them. They look cool. They’re not practical as watches, but they’re not really meant to be every day wearers. They showcase engineering innovation and hand-finishing in a unique package.Many of these companies also make traditional dress watch-styled pieces as well, to show off how they interpret the classic style.
>>18649028Open heart watches have certain charm. A dial featuring something unique for mechanical watches, to make it clear there's no electronics inside.
>>18649072>IWC is literally deceptive marketing. It was founded by an American back when American watches were the best in the world. He wanted to outsource watchmaking to cheap (at the time) Swiss labor but still make it sound like American workmanship was involved.It's not called American Watch Company but International Watch Company. Americans don't own the trademark "International". Your explanation is "literally" bullshit.
>>18649139Skeletal watches on the other hand, where the most of the mechanism is exposed, always end up looking like a mess.In theory it should be perfect modernist aesthetics, mechanism itself used as an ornament. For some reason no manufacturer can get it right: that there must be some visual composition, contrast between hands and the dial, etc.I have been looking for a good looking skeletal watch for 2 years without success. Only recently I have noticed some companies use solid translucent dials instead of open ones, maybe it will work.
>>18649140nta, the other guy is right. Read up on the history of IWC. It’s actually quite interesting. Part of the reason why IWC ended up in Schaffhausen and not in the Geneva-area was because F.A. Jones, the founder of IWC, linked up with Heinrich Moser (the H. Moser & Cie namesake).
>>18649145Most skeletonized watches focus on skeletonization only and not what the final product looks like.Picrel is an example of what happens when they decide what the end product will look like and then design the bridges around that concept.
>>18649139>Open heart watches have certain charmNo. They're even worse than the cheap skeletonized ones. This >>18649145 >>18649154 is true, rarely do you come across a good looking skeletonized watch. Plus the background color is always the same, the color of your hairy arm skin. In theory skeletonized watches are the pinnacle of watchmaking, in practice not so much.
>>18649164I think this is one of the rare exceptions to the rule.
Can someone ID Alex Jones' watch?I'd say a JLC Master Control, but i may be way off.
>>18649171Looks like a 40mm Tudor Ranger.
>>18649168No, that one’s pretty grim. The skeletonization also does a great job of highlighting how the movement is too small for the case.
Jooce time.
Do you think it bother's TGV's family that they have to die to get his respect?
>>18649255Good evening.>>18649274QRD?
>>18649276He goes on and on frequently on his grandfather who was like a rich mogul he never met and some way or another his family lost a lot of that money and influence since his prime, he talks about him like almost a demigod saying grandpa was his greatest influence.Recently his mother died, bless her soul, and he's now milking that for all its worth with how great she was and how amazing the submariner she bought for him is. Prior to this he mentioned her very little. Hence it seems like you have to die to get a little recognition in his family.
>>18649019The problem is, that only white Speedy looks decent enough, so that you can unironically call it a good watch from Omega lineup.That's it. All other Omegas look like shit, and haters know it, making comics like this, making fun of Omega. Even Seamasters look....questionable in terms of purely aesthetics.
>>18649282Typical cut-throat eceleb behaviour; anything for the views.
>>18649304Wrong
>>18649326
I'm gonna do it I'm gonna buy me a Seiko Arnie.
>>18649282We don't care. That's not someone anyone recognizes. You are PATHETIC for following "influencers". I'm guessing that's what he is since you use the word. Get a life. Really.
>>18649338Yuck. I hope you have an 8" wrist.
>>18649340How does making fun of him mean you follow him? You typed a lot of shit just to act like you don't care.
>>18649349Really? You know all about his family and how often he mentions them and when they die and you have opinions on all this and yet you don't follow him?Yeah, that really makes sense.
>>18649282>>18649274kek, who fucking cares about his family or his life.His videos are okay-ish to begin with. He has the passion but not really the knowledge or the connections to make premium content. Also, he has awful taste, from the haircut, to the interior, to the fake persona, to his taste in watches. He's barely above ArchieLuxury in the hierarchy of watch channels. He was just there early. But he seems like a good guy tho.
>>18649363If you have seen ONE of his videos odds are you've heard all about grandpa. His picture is literally in every video.
>>18649380archieluxury is easily the best watch youtubers and overall one of the best youtubers period
want to switch up the strap on this seiko. black shiny croc leather just seems more formal than my usual jeans and t shirt style. the watch head is ridiculously thin so it might sit nicely on a nato. what would you go for?
>>18649483Try one of these funky bastards. I ordered one and I think it'll work with a few different watches. I hope so for the price.
>>18649483French parachute strap is like a single pass nato with elastic.
You could always get one of these new farting watch straps I've seen on sale. haha
>>18649483Do what i did when i bought a new watch and spend a little more than 100 euros on a bunch of cheap straps.
I just dropped $35 on a bunch of different sized suede straps and a couple of cheap tweed ones. I'll see how they stand up to a real $40 one that's also coming. I'm making sure to look for quick release more.
>>18649573shitterhoardtardello.
>>18649577You don't have any watch straps do you, little man?
Two more I forgot I had in my Amazon cart.
>>18649570shittatello over here!
Down to $160 so I'm getting it.
>>18649554The problem with the parachute straps is that the sizing slider constantly migrates so you always have to tweak the fit. It gets worse as the fabric wears out. Also, the elastic wears out really quickly, even in the expensive versions.When they’re new, though, they are incredibly comfortable.
Bump. Because why is this thread not popular? Fuck you all.
I had a dream about watches just now. I had one I kept discovering new things about. I saw a big power reserve meter on the face of it and I could spin the auto rotor and watch it slowly fill up. And then I hooked up some kind of pedals to it so I could move my feet like on a bicycle and fill it up, but the needle wouldn't move when I did it. And then I woke up.
>>18650366coké time
>>18650506You couldn't take a new one?
>>18650507no
>>18650509
>>18650511pacificó time
>>18650514That's better.
>>18649274>buy a whatever Longines>not even solid gold>act like it's one of the most important and iconic watches of its eras when it's not even an identifiable modelthis guythis fucking guy
>>18649282I mean at least they were rich and left him stuff. Everyone in my shit family just drained money and houses while dying and left me with absolutely nothing except debts.
My 4 piece shitter collection. What should I get next? >i need to get the plexiglass on the Waltham changed, I know
>>18650545Why do you have to get anything next? Try enjoying your watches instead of just buying stuff.A better question would be, which one would you get rid of and what would replace it with?
>>18650366>Because why is this thread not popular?Because the usual people who post here will deliberately stay away when /wt/ starts leaking.When they see Bittercel’s spambot posting, or the “x time” trolls posting, the majority of normal posters accept that there will be no watch discussion today and go on with their lives. Since there’s no moderation, there’s no point in fighting the trolls.
>>18650557Not getting rid of the Omega since it was giftet to me by a watchmaker when I started collecting watches at 14. Neither the Waltham as it's the same watch worn by Michael C. Hall in Dexter. Also the Baltany is inspired by the Vacheron Constantin Historiques American 1921 which I really like. The Pulsar I mostly use as my swimming watch.
>>18650566Then I think you’re all set. There’s really nothing to add for now.
>>18649274Weird looking. Like a cross between Mr. Inbetween and that little dirtbag who plays Charles Manson so well and was on Justified. Terrible hairstyle for the head he has.
You can only have one gold dress watch.>Cartier Tank>Patek Ellipse>Patek Calatrava>JLC ReversoWhich one do you pick?
>>18650624Out of those? I guess the JLC. I don't like gold or super expensive luxury watches. Anything but the blue really. I wouldn't wear that if you paid me.
>>18650624Calatrava 5227.
>>18650640Why does it have a hinge to expose the movement? Does it need servicing so often?
>>18650640I don't like it
>>18650624The Calatrava and the Eclipse blow the Cartier and JLC out of the water. I'd go for the Calatrava.
>>18650624Which is most expensive? I will respect it the most and then want it the most and declare that it's the finest. I'm a real watch enthusiast. I don't fuck around with any budget shit.
>>18650624Of those? None.The Tank is classic but has been watered down by a million steel models.The Ellipse is a watch that comes with an obligation to try to convince everyone (including yourself) that it’s actually a special watch and not just some minimalist slop that says Patek on the dial.The Calatrava is the most boring watch ever made (I know, I own one).The Reverso only looks good in steel.
>>18650681Fucking snob.
>>18650681>The Ellipse is a watch that comes with an obligation to try to convince everyone (including yourself) that it’s actually a special watch and not just some minimalist slop that says Patek on the dial.I genuinely love the Ellipse. It's a great design.
>>18650681Good take. If you’re looking at dress watches in the 20k range, why not get something unique from an independent manufacture?
>>18650694>not a rectangle>not round>quartzIt'll never not look like a ladies watch.
>>18650697B-b-but you don’t understand! It’s a Genta design! Gerald Genta? Heard of him? This watch’s proportions are the Golden Ratio, like all the classic Greek architecture. You just don’t understand.
>>18650698I like what I like and I don't like it. Nothing against anyone who does. Just not for me.
>>18650697>>not a rectangle>>not roundHence the name, the Ellipse.>>18650697>>quartzPic related.>>18650698>Genta designThe Ellipse was not designed by Genta.
>>18650715I note that you didn’t refute it being a women’s watch.
>>18650722does every watch need to be only for men or women? i feel like pointing out stuff like this except in the "obvious cases" is just insecurity
>>18650722Well, it's not a women's watch. Patek has made women's versions in the past though.A woman could wear a male Ellipse though, but then again women can wear pretty much any watch without looking ridiculous.
>>18650695Yeah. Moser Endeavour, Armin Storm Tribute 1, Arnold & Son HMS1, Schwarz-Etienne Roma, Moritz Grossmann Benu 37, Dornblüth Quintus, Laurent Ferrier Galet, etc.There are so many interesting dress watches out there that aren’t just the usual Patek or Cartier choices.
>>18650739Stupid take.People buy Cartier or Patek because they want a Cartier or a Patek. They want the classic, timeless, iconic design.It's like saying "DURRRR DON'T BUY THESE BLACK CALF LEATHER OXFORDS THEY'RE SO BORING, YOU SHOULD BUY THESE PURPLE ALLIGATOR BOOTS INSTEAD"
>>18650781Comparing it to shoes is actually a good take, even if you sound like a dumbass.The Cartier or Patek is buying a set of factory-made shoes with a famous name (a name that became famous because they used to make high quality bespoke shoes.)Now, what if, for the same price, you could get a set of actual bespoke shoes of higher quality than the factory slop? You’d have to be some kind of brand-whore to willingly pay for a shittier shoe.
>>18650786I think the problem is lumping Cartier and Patek together. They’re not in the same league.The Cartier is like $14k (and wildly overpriced for what you get). You can’t get too many interesting precious metal dress watches, new, in that range. A basic Calatrava is like $30k and there’s tons of great stuff available in that range. The only reason you’d settle for the Patek is that you’re trying to spend your way into a Cubitus or something.
>>18650624That Patek is easily one of the best wristwatches of all time.
>>18650786>bespokeDishonest comparison.That cringe Moser you bought wasn't made specifically for you. Thousands of tasteless douchebags bought the exact same one before you did, and thousands will buy it after. There's nothing "bespoke" about any of the brands you've named.
>>18650790Why?It’s a historically significant design, sure, but what’s left after that?The movement is antiquated and way too small for the case.It has no shock resistance to speak of, no water resistance. Minuscule power reserve.Even the finishing isn’t that good, since Patek doesn’t do full hand-finishing on their low end models anymore.In terms of styling, just imagine if it said MVMNT on the dial and mask yourself if you’d still like it.
>>18650794>Dishonest comparison.Not dishonest at all. Stop arguing in bad faith. A watch made by a company that produces under ten watches per day and hand-finishes their movements to the their highest standard is not the same thing as a machine-finished watch from a factory that cranks out 70,000 watches per year and only puts any effort into their most expensive products.I mean, if you want a watch that says Patek on the dial, great, you do you. Only one brand in the world can do that, but you can’t say it’s the highest quality watch for the money at that price point, because that’s objectively wrong.
>>18650624
Oh, Christ. This trolling dipshit is back.
>>18650766Snobbery is now tied to being jewish? You're getting further and further from reality all the time, troll.
Feeling like this Shanghai tonight.
So I've found a use for the Soki from the bathtub incident. I will wear it as a guard over slightly better watches. HahaThe movement is still clicking there on the door but the minutes do not advance.Wasn't able to find my warranty about the 200 meters snafu.Anything 36mm and under will fit under this case & crystal. Pretty sweet doncha think?
>>18650624I'd just buy a Rolex.Submariner.Black dial and bezel.No date.
>>18651050Couldn't afford a Tudor?
>>18650995Good choice but you need to remember to specify that you should not buy the ceramic bezel, supercase garbage.The 14060M reference is the best choice.
Worth picking up if I can't afford a real Polerouter?
>>18651130Never buy a cope for anything.If you actually like the Enicar for what it is, buy it. But if you just want a Polerouter, then the Enicar will just be a reminder to yourself that you didn’t have that patience to save for the watch you really wanted.
>>18651130No.Get a Polerouter if you want a Polerouter, or get one of Enicar's good models instead of a less interesting one.
>>18650545>What should I get next?Get a Lorus to go with the Pulsar.
>>18650624I'll take the calatrava.
I'm wearing a 32mm watch right now
for cheap beaters should i care solar/quartz versus auto? the best looking seiko diver ~38mm is solar
>>18651274For cheap watches, quartz is best. Cheap mechanical movements are truly dreadful. Honestly, mechanical is barely worth it at all until you start getting into the hand-finished segment of the market and you’re paying for artistry.A solar quartz Seiko diver will be a good reliable watch for a long time.
>>18651344of (>>18651339) these watches which would you pick? still quartz?
>>18651353Yeah, I would still take quartz.There’s no downside. It costs less. If it’s solar, the capacitor basically lasts forever. It’s thinner and more accurate.The mechanical offers no advantage, not even the cost of batteries, since a mechanical movement still needs to be serviced. The cheapest service is the equivalent of like 150 years’ worth of batteries.
>>18651374Even any cheap mechanical watch isn't going to actually need "servicing" before you die of old age. Life is short. Your preference for quartz is silly, but it is yours. You're just wrong is all.
>>18651374For me, it’s convenience. I don’t wear a watch every day, so I like not having to wind and set my watch every time I wear it. I think some of those old Seiko movements didn’t have hand-winding, so you’d have to shake the watch back and forth for a few minutes to get it to start before you could set it.
You guys have any pet peeves about watch reviewers? >colorways >strap monsterThat's all I can think of for now.
>"It's a re-hee-hee-al strah-ha-ha-haap moan-stah-ha-ha!"Just wait until the end of a sentence to giggle, fuckface.
>>18651517>You guys have any pet peeves about watch reviewers?Not so much a pet peeve as a fundamental dislike of them. They can’t say anything bad about the watches or the watch companies won’t give any more watches to review.Plus, their opinions are just opinions and I don’t care about those. I just want stats.That’s why Mosso is the only one worth watching. He doesn’t waste time with his opinions or reciting some made-up story about the watch.>lug to lug, thickness>movement hacks, 65 hours power reserve, automatic.>steel case, screwdown crown, 100m water resistance.>hand guillochéed dial, white gold markers.>lume? Here’s a lume shot>doneThe only silly thing about him is his wrist recommendations, which I think is even a joke to him at this point.
>>18651523I disagree. I've seen dozens of videos where the reviewer will preface the review noting that they got the watch for free and that it WON'T affect the review. And then they go on to review the watch with criticism on par with their other usual opinions, including the pros and cons. I've even seen them say things like "I don't know why they sent me this knowing full well I hate the brand and I'm probably going to shit on it" and then shit on it. Any reviewer on the take will not amass subscribers. The community seems to keep each other in check. Who is it you think is guilty of being such a sell out? Never heard of any "Mosso".
That Mosso guy seems alright but it's only very expensive luxury watches. I never understood people following all of that when they can't really afford to participate. Same with really super high-end cars. It would make me kind of sick to totally fanboy over a bunch of things I could never even hope to own one of. Maybe some of these people do save and plan and actually get something. But if you're not rich it doesn't really work practically. Anyone can live however they like of course.
yeah
>>18651562
>>18651553Well, firstly, it’s his business. He sells high end watches.But I think a lot of the fanboy behavior over expensive watches simply comes down to interest in watches themselves.If you like watches and want to see the art advance, then those sorts of watches will be interesting.Don’t you like seeing how new materials are used? Or novel techniques, or new technologies, or just seeing what a watch could be without budgetary limitations?It’s not about only being interested in what you can afford. He’ll, even if I could afford an MB & F, I’d never buy one because they’re enormous and would not fit my lifestyle. But I’m still glad they exist.
>>18651538>I've even seen them say things like "I don't know why they sent me this knowing full well I hate the brand and I'm probably going to shit on itI’ve never seen anything like that. That’s hilarious. Please post a link to a video like that?
Just discovered my Benyar has hacking.
Decent lume
>>18651681Not bad. Not a fan of two-tone lume. How long does it last?
>>18651670
>>18651683That bright? About six minutes. When I say "decent lume" I don't mean it lasts for shit. I just mean it looks cool out of the gate. It's totally gone within half an hour. But that's been my experience with all lume. Someday I hope to have radium, tritium, or some nice watch with five coats of the good stuff. I recently saw a video of a watch with a fully lumed dial, which was really cool. But like anything, I think you have to invest quite a bit more money for anything with staying power. But then there's the argument that you don't want it too bright because it might distract you from sleeping. If I think I'm going to need to check the time in the middle of the night I'll wear Indiglo or a Casio. I really wish most watches didn't apply lume just as an extra selling point. I prefer my watches that don't have it. I'm getting to feel the same way about day and date complications and exhibition casebacks.
Are you man enough to wear a full gold 80s Patek on a milanese bracelet?
>>18651718Sure, why not
Since buying this I no longer have interest in this hobby. It genuinely feels like the perfect watch, fit is absolutely buttery perfect, finish is perfect, can pick it up anytime and it's perfectly accurate, perfect size, perfect versatility, the way the minute hand perfectly slaps each second marker is perfect and just as satisfying as any automatic watch I've owned
>>18651733Yeah my 9F severely curtailed my upgrade-itis as well. I still kind of want a nicer big stupid casual watch, probably one of those neo-vintage divers, but I don't think about it often. Used to spend 10 hours a week browsing, consuming watch media, discussing watches online, etc. Now, maybe an hour a month.
>>18651733>I-I swear guys I totally love my Grand Seiko
>>18651718Not that one specifically, but sure.
>>18651564Looking good, i had one of these. The combo with the strap is great. They're a bit too big though. I sold mine, and gave away a Casio Lineage, and replaced them both with this.
>>18651523>He doesn’t waste time with his opinionsHis most beloved stat, the wrist circumference that is still able to accommodate the watch, is just that, an opinion, and a wrong one at that.
>>18651776You went out of your way to ignore the last sentence of the post you replied to. That’s very odd.
>>18651523mosso is fun to watch but he's the most unbelievable snob, he's more subtle about it than most so it goes unnoticed but if you watch enough you start to pick up on the subtle digs and you realize he's very harsh and has standards I think that are somewhat unreasonable
>>18651791Nothing wrong with having standards as long as they’re consistent.
>>18651791He seems like a good dude and that goes a long way. I only watched one of his videos and it was just one five figure watch after another. And it was a livestream and people were sending in their pics of the five figure watches they were wearing. Just feels like a club I'm not in. But no one who was in the armed forces was a super spoiled rich kid. Seems like he's just living the dream traveling around as some sort of watch guy living in the high-end watch world. I'm not into all that stuff so I'm not going to hang around and see him be a snob. He didn't seem like a dick about it in the 45 minutes or so I listened to him.
I don't like when all the reviewers have the same exact opinions as if they all got a memo of what they're supposed to think and say. And some of that is just plagiarism. I recently saw some newer reviewer with hardly any subs say almost the exact same words about a certain watch (when researching a purchase I'll watch pretty much everything about it) as a bigger reviewer. It was quite cringe to see.
>>18651804It’s not plagiarism. The companies will hand a reviewer a sheet of things to say in the video. They will also reserve right of first review, where they get to check the video before it goes out and they’ll edit things they don’t like.That could be anything from:>you said this was a 42mm case, it’s just. 40mm. Change it.to>You made an off-color joke in the intro to the video, get rid of it.If the reviewer is like “fuck you, I’m going to say what I want,” Then the companies have certain options, depending on what agreements they have with the reviewer.That could mean no more free watches to review. No more free tickets to BaselWorld. Or they sue you.And, with these conglomerates, imagine if you say something bad about a Tissot. Now, you’re blacklisted by the entire Swatch group.
>>18651788Yeah i saw my mistake after i already posted that. This happens a lot to me. I read a sentence and immediately stop reading and reply. Only then do i continue reading.
>wears an apple watch (it's just my gym watch bro)>thinks this swatch looks awesome>every second video is him defending price hikesMajorleague crashout
>>18651791How is his standards unreasonable? He's fine except for the debethune shilling (which 1916 owns)>>18651803He shows shitters on his livestream all the time
>>18651733Why didn't you just buy a SARB033 for $300 lmfao?
>>18651994show me where I can get a NOS SARB033 for $300, pleaset. the other grand seiko guy
>>18651962anything less than about $20k and his reviews are dripping with backhanded praise
>>18651996Sorry you missed it 5 years ago loser :)
>>18651994Why would you want a SARB when you can get a Weekdater?
>>18652009I've got better watches, I just saw it as an arbitrage opportunity. Perhaps if you had a better eye for numbers you too could afford a nice watch :)
>>18652023>arbitrage opportunityLMFAOOOOOOOOOOOO
I think I'm going to purchase a silver dial Hamilton Khaki field auto for full price at $1200 ausbux. Unfortunately the Hamilton website seems to be the only place to get this particular model
What can I say, I like shitters. GPM is my daily workshop beater, Max Bill is my weekday desk piece. What third watch would complement these two for diners out and more put together events?
>>18651811Where did you come by this "information"? Because it seems contrary to what these reviewers say to the audience. Maybe certain morons sign up for some deal where they get "notes" and have to make changes, but yesterday I saw a video where the guy specifically said the watch company doesn't see the video any sooner than we do.Apparently the kind of thing you're spreading here has led these guys to preface their videos debunking all of it as not so be mistaken for biased promotional channels. Is there a channel or reviewer that you know does any of that? Because the plagiarist I mentioned was a tiny channel and there's no way he even got a free watch out of it. You could tell he was heavily "influenced" by a more well-known reviewer.
>>18652040Where are the shitters then? What do you think that word even means? Fuck off.
>>18652044A shitter is whatever I strap on my wrist.
New arrivals today.
My first vintage watch has arrived. Under $30, works well.
I've really been looking forward to getting this watch.
I love them both. Probably won't wear the Jean Cardot very often though.
>>18652042> Apparently the kind of thing you're spreading here has led these guys to preface their videos debunking all of it as not so be mistaken for biased promotional channels.NTA, but that’s called journalistic disclosure. It’s an accepted and valued practice not to avoid the possibility of bias, since that is impossible, but to let the viewer know where bias might creep in.But, whatever, I don’t have a dog in this fight. I don’t watch or read watch reviews at all since I find them a bit repetitive. If you like them, though, that’s great. He’ll, I’m sure plenty of people would dislike the things that I read for entertainment.
>>18652042>Where did you come by this "information"?First-hand. I worked for Worn & Wound out of college before getting a real job. I can tell you exactly how the watch review industry works. It’s all payola, even the YouTubers who pretend they’re “just a guy talkin’ about watches to their friends online.”
>>18652166I don't think so. And there's absolutely no consequences for a youtuber shitting on brands. Otherwise it wouldn't be so common. You make it sound like as soon as you become a reviewer you're contacted and forced to sign a contract selling your soul to these companies. I've never even seen a single reviewer beholden to any watchmaker. They all have something negative to say somewhere.
>>18652166That sort of stuff tends to be different for "influencers" and youtubers compared to print and websites. Publications rely on pat-to-play to even exist whereas influencers rely much more on external sponsors than they do the companies they talk about. And they don't require or even want the same level of access either. Many of them are perfectly fine being armchair designers and talking about watches based off specs and photos alone and so are their audiences.>and then there's the Theo & Harris fag who unironically does it for free thinking sucking up to people he isn't even in contact with will grant him access
Yo guys I bought a piece of wood as an arbitrage opportunity maybe I can polish it and sell for 105% on the village market #stonkers #bizzap #bizznitch #yolo #fagolo
>>18652042Are you retarded or? Every industry "journalism" works the exact same way, you always get a press sheet with things to mention in the "review". From games to cars to tennis, it's always been the same thing, regardless of being a magazine or website or whatever. And if you don't follow it they contact you and make you correct it (if website) or just don't give you any shit to review next time (back in printed media days). Nowadays it's mostly AI probably.
>>18652204No. You're thinking of something completely different from YOUTUBE watch channels. Which is what I'm talking about. I should have known, this being 4chan, that you were some kind of paranoid conspiracy person who thinks everything is controlled behind the scenes and everyone is compromised. I'd never read anything A.I. generated about watches or anything else. No one is making anyone "correct" anything. There are hundreds of negative opinions of watch brands posted every day. Do you have any idea how many channels there are just on youtube? That's one platform. And not a single one of those guys seem to be working from a script. Even Teddy, who sells the watches in a brick and mortar store will say when something isn't as good as it used to be or isn't worth the money. Maybe back in the day SOME shitty publications were ruled by sponsors, but no one with integrity or a trusted reputation.
>>18652181No, not really. Here’s how it goes.>company releases a new watch>marketing team identifies sources of exposure from traditional print to product placement in movies to influencers>team contacts influencer>hey, we want to send you a watch to review. You can keep it for two months. >ok, here’s some high-res images and footage you can use if you’d like>and here’s a spec sheet along with some interesting features we’re excited about. Make sure to mention the ones that are highlighted.>great. So, don’t post anything before the 10th, because that’s when the watch is being released publicly. Go ahead and send us a copy of your video before you post it so legal and marketing can make sure it’s clean.>great working with you!It’s not nefarious. It’s just drafting the influencers into the marketing process.
>>18652205>You're thinking of something completely different from YOUTUBE watch channelsSorry buddy. YouTube reviewers work the same way unless they’re some stupid kid “reviewing” his Casio and his dad’s fifteen year old TAG.The mistake you make is in even calling it a review at all. It’s an advertisement.>b-b-but they said something negative Yep. If they only said glowing positive things, you wouldn’t trust them.But, like the other guy said, if you find them entertaining, then that’s all that matters. Some people like bird watching, you like watch advertisements on. YouTube. Different horses for different courses.
>>18652208You'd think they'd be tempted to ask the reviewers to remove all of the negative things they say about the watches if it's like you say it is.But they don't. They go ahead and list the pros AND the cons. "And what were they thinking not having sapphire crystal on this for $450?"Most of the reviews I've seen they say they get to keep the watches forever. Of course these are not luxury watches by any means, but $200-$300 ones. So they get to keep the watch and then trash it as much as they like. You're probably referring to some very specific and bigtime "influencers" that are on social media or something where I'm paying no attention. I mainly just watch Youtube watch reviewers. None of whom are beholden to any watch companies for mutual benefits.
>>18652212You've gone down too many rabbit holes, conspiratard. You're suspicious of everyone and have an absolutist view of how the world works. You're simply wrong. You come off like you've never seen any watch reviews. Or you really just don't take them at their word and really think that shit. Letting them slip some false criticisms in there to build trust? LOL, that's quite imaginative. And I'm sure every Youtube host has their own handler within Seiko or Longines or whatever it is, a guy they work with to ensure that the scripts are followed to the letter.hahaha! You've clearly never seen watch reviews. Too many people reviewing too many watches for that ever to be true or possible. Most of these guys are releasing 4-5 videos a week. It's their full time gig. The one guy from Australia even started his own microbrand. That guy doesn't kowtow to fucking watch companies. You're just a schizo. You had me going for a little while. Like you knew what you were talking about. You don't.
>>18652213>I’m just talking about reviews of 200 dollar AliExpress shitters Oh, ok. That makes more sense. lol.
>>18652213>>18652216Goddamn, man. You don’t need to get upset. I’m sure your favorite e-celebs won’t even read this thread. You don’t need to defend them so hard.
>>18652216Okay, pal. You can’t be convinced and you refuse to listen to anything but positive affirmation.
>>18652205>I should have known, this being 4chan, that you were some kind of paranoid conspiracy person who thinks everything is controlled behind the scenes and everyone is compromised.I worked in journalism for like 15 years dude, eat shit.
>>18652230But those publications don't operate in same way as Ben's Watch Club or Just One More Watch or any of the other channels I'm referring to. They SAY SO in their videos. I'm not disputing that you saw some of that in the real world of print journalism. You've just applied it to all watch criticism, and you're very sure that everyone is in shady dealings for kickback money. That they're threatened or ousted ("You'll never work in this town again") from the online reviewer's membership if they don't go along.That's frankly a paranoid worldview, and you're claiming that the reviewers are dishonest to everyone. That's kind of fucked up that you think things work that way. I worked in journalism for 5 years (local paper) and I can tell you that restaurant owners would get quite upset when the critic would give them a mixed or negative review. So since in my actual experience it has been the opposite of what you claim, I have a hard time believing your crackpot accusations.
>>18652208You appear to be operating under the presumption that watch reviewers on youtube have any sort of professionalism and are able to work seriously.How foolish of you to think their bread and butter isn't talking over photos and brand promotional videos.You are overestimating how serious most of them are.
>>18652238Dude there's nothing "shady" or "conspiratorial" in getting a fucking press kit with a spec sheet. Everyone knows how this works. Good for you for living in the magical land of Arcadia where everything is on the up and up. Go kiss your local Mohammed's feet.
>>18652244okay, man. Have a good one.
>>18652243This is why TGV is such a mixed bag, because his persona he puts on is so cringe and insufferable and fart smelling but you have to hand it to him for actually buying or borrowing almost all of the watches he talks about, wearing them, and reporting on a genuine experience with using the watches in person. And as you can imagine it can be very challenging to do that on a limited budget, so the watches aren't always amazing. Bit at least he can genuinely say he wore and reviewed a watch and didn't just google pictures of it.
>>18652238>no! I…uh…ALSO… was a journalist Why lie?
>>18652289“Lifestyle story” reviews, for lack of a better term, are just pointless, in my opinion.What does a detailed spec sheet plus some high-res photos lack that you need some wannabe celebrity tell you a story about how “””meaningful””” the watch is?I don’t know these people. Why are their opinions worth anything?In a real way, it’s a lot like the avatarfagging problem on the other thread. Posting a watch once and offering useful information about it seems to trick those posters into believing that we care about their opinion about anything else. Next thing you know, they’re posting pics of food just to give us all a check-in.
avaturdfaggots.
>>18652305This you?>>18652130>I have tried to uphold the rules and keep the avaturdfaggots in check for YEARS.. YEARS.Maybe you should go back to /wt/ and keep fighting the good fight. Or take a nap on the train tracks. Your call.
>>18652301It's not just lifestyle and history shit, he's actually worn the watch so he can tell you with certainty how the finish and edges feel, how good or shitty the bracelet or strap is, etc, if it feels big or small on the wrist and so on. This gives you more nuanced views of the watch than some nunbers on a spreadsheet can give you.I value that much more than "this watch is 37mm diameter whereas this one is 39mm diameter." that doesn't tell you what it's like to wear the watch.
>>18652342Maybe you and I buy watches differently. I don’t buy any watch without physically handling it. I’m lucky enough to live in an area with a boutique for basically any brand nearby.Saying “the edges feel sharp” or “the bracelet is well-finished” is actually pointless because we don’t know what his standards are. A watch that he loves will get more praise than a watch he hates because that’s a source of bias.In the watch he loves, “oh, the edges are a little sharp, but I can live with it. Not even worth mentioning.”In the watch he hates “this is literally the worst bracelet ever made”Then you look up other long term reviews and the opinions are all over the place.Which is why it always comes down to Check the objective specs, handle the watch yourself, try it on. Ignore other people’s opinions on fit and feel.
>>18652346Handling it and WEARING and spending a few weeks with it can be very different things.You can go to the dealer and try on just about any watch for a few minutes and walk around the store a little bit, but it's hard to get the idea of what it's like to wear it every day and wake up and put it on and wind a d set it and all that stuff just standing in a store looking at yourself in mirrors. Day in and day ourlt wear is how you get an idea for how much the lugs are going to dig into you, how it might chaffe you on a hot day or if you're exerting yourself, if the bracelet doesn't taper enough and feels like a fuckin shackle after a few hours.People will be like "nah, this 48mm panerai isn't too big" when they're sitting in a chair in an air conditioned mall, then they get out and take the dog on a hike and realize it feels like a fuckin anchor on their wrist.
>>18652230Sure but I watched a lot of youtube videos about watches (all of them under 200 usd because I could not fathom spending more than that) in the last 6 months and I purchased over 40 watches from aliexpress in 2025 (my favorite one is the IXQIUQIU, it's kind of an... homage) so I'm quite the expert on this topic. Youtube and print don't follow the same rules, I would know because the youtuber says so at the beginning of the video, duh.
>>18652362>Handling it and WEARING and spending a few weeks with it can be very different things.So is listening to someone tell you a story about their own experiences.>he wore this watch for months and said it’s comfortable, it must be.>oh shit this is awful>oh, didn’t you know? He wears his watches extra loose.>YouTube!!! You lied to meeeeeee!!!!
>Casio's are all locked in a glass case at Walshart
>>18652363If that's actually true You could have bought 1 or 2 really nice watches instead of a pile of cheap shitters that probably overlap in looks and use case anyway.
Post the most 90s watch you can think of.
>>18652485
>>18652485Piaget Polo
>>18652485Patek Neptune
Does anyone recognize this watch, please?
>>18652291I'm not lying. I wasn't a journalist technically but I worked at a newspaper for five years. I find it harder to believe someone so lost in paranoia had a stable job for 15 years. But normal brains go haywire all the time. Look how brainbroken covid made so many previously normal and trusting people. Believe what you want. Your type thinks everyone is lying all the time. And then you expect to be believed. I do believe you and I don't lie on the internet, especially on anonymous forums where it doesn't gain me anything. I just disagree with your idea of how things work, because CLEARLY most of these reviewers (especially on the budget level) aren't pulling any punches, and NO, those punches are not pre-approved and previewed by anyone.
>>18652380You seem to want to keep arguing. There's no conflict here.
>>18652405Casios. Why do you people have an issue with pluralizing words without an apostrophe?
>>18652475lol, this argument again.
>>18652493That's from the 80s
>>18652501Why do you like it so much if you can't even fully see it? You just want it because you know who the guy is and you want the same watch as his?
>>18652510Where's the lie though?
Whisky time.
>>18652516
>>18652518
>>18652512The black colour got my attention. Not many black analog watches look good, and this one looks kinda classy. I want to know if I'd like it, and what the price is. Here is another picture, but it may be too low quality. And yes, I know who Vyacheslav Gryaznov is and I admire him very much.
>>18652515I don't think you know what the word "lie" means. Are you ESL or just a zoomer?
>>18652516Hey, there's that one watch you own. The watch you're inexplicably proud of and post near beverages.
>>18652532>inexplicablyAnon, I have made it more than clear why this is the best watch ever made.This line represents the only Solar HAQ perpetual calendar watches in the world.
>>18652531I ask you again.WHERE?Is the lie?You know what I'm asking, so either answer or just stop posting.
>>18652539There's no calendar, troll.
>>18652545Lie? You mean a difference of opinion? I don't know what you're asking. I'm never going to agree with you that one $3,000 watch is better than 30 $100 watches. The word "lie" isn't applicable to our discussion on the matter. You need to learn to express your thoughts better. No wonder you're wrong.
>>18652548Are you calling people ESL while pretending to be ESL yourself? Interesting gambit.
>>18652546>TrollThat'd be you, I'm afraid.Maybe look up facts of a watch if you want to argue against it, this just makes you look stupid and lazy.
>>18652556So you don't know what ESL means either? I challenge you to point out any flaws that would suggest I'm not overly capable within the language. I'm not going to bend to your interpretation of definitions, anon. You can spend your watch money however you like. When will you be joining us in actually owning watches by the way? I'm sure there's some other board on which you could go be an annoying faggot.
>>18651997They're not reviews, he's selling you the watch
just kys faggot
>>18652507No, we agree that there is no one right way to buy watches or consume watch “reviews”. Finally.
avsturdfaggots.
>>18652640>avsturdfaggots.
>>18652691I thought he set a bot up, but he’s actually been typing it out every time for fucking years! That’s so fucking sad. Imagine spending years of your adulthood mad about a general on 4chins. What a loser.
>>18652508kill youre self
why do divers seem more fun than three handers?
>>18652566These Firstname Lastname microbrands all seem obnoxious as fuck to me but I can't put into words why.
>>18652751I think it's trying too hard. The established brands using the formula like Patek Philippe, Vacheron Constantin, A. Lange & Sohne are actual people with history and creds. And they just put some random bozo's name as the brand like you're expected to know who they are, and for all you know, they could have been a janitor 2 weeks ago.
>>18652712Is that a joke? Aren't Thorns about $200?
>>18652064>says day date>only displays datewhat did it mean by that?
>>18652766No idea. Someone already pointed that out here after I'd paid for it. The seller assures me it's "vintage", but I cannot find another dial online that looks like that or any that display a day. Another lesson learned. A cheap one at least. >mean by thatDon't.
>>18652485Any other answer is objectively wrong.Aside from, maybe, the Jellyfish Swatch.
>>18652751>>18652758>Jannie Balayeur>a new brand taking the world by storm with their new Echappement de Gratuité model with an exclusive complication that counts down to your next 5 minute shift every 30+ hours
shitters.
>>18652779I fucked YOURE MOM in her SHITTER and then IN THE VAGOO (I jammed it in) and she called me daddy all the day thru so now you can call me grandpa
>>18652485These peaked from 80's to mid 90's
>>18652790I had one of those for a while in 1989 or so. Barely remember. It was in a school lost and found and they let me have it at the end of the year.
>>18652751Because they're aping brands named after famous Swiss watchmakers despite being either some dude's name like CW of T-shirt dropshipping fame or a completely made up European sounding name like it is the case here. It's disingenuous and deliberately misleading.
>>18652766Yeah i would be livid. Can you imagine buying a Rolex DayDate and it doesn't have a day display.
>>18652767Should have gotten a Weekdater.
>>18652846>seikoseriously kill yourself
>>18652845I'm not going to be "livid" over a $30 working small seconds vintage automatic. Even if the dial is nonsense and the date wheel doesn't work. It was late so they refunded the shipping too. I've experienced disappointment far worse. It's not going in my A-team box or anything. I'll probably get a separate box for the vintage watches.
>>18652489This is so kino.The EXTRATHICC current version looks disgusting. Why is Omega shitting out new versions of the Speedmaster and the Aqua Terra every two weeks but refuses to make a nice Constellation?
>>18652493>>18652511It never looks like it has glass over it. Well executed for a super expensive quartz. Better than their horizontal line stuff now.
I miss omega drunk bros..
>>18653609Get over it. Be more interesting yourself or become a fan of me. Maybe get a life outside of this board. Maybe buy a watch. Or watch TV. How sad a person are you that you're posting about some made up thing? You have no proof it existed. You're crazy. No one was ever drunk with Omegas. Fucking liar.
>>18653609I'm gonna be the Steeldive Stoner. Wait'll ya get a load of me.
Does anyone here live around Brighton Beach in Brooklyn, New York? Is there anywhere remotely close by that would have watches worth looking at?>do not tell me to Google it, I'm not looking for a list of jewelry stores, I'm trying to ask people who know wtf they're talking about.
The King is here
>>18653681based and upsidedownpilled
>>18653659Yeah, anon. Bring your money and meet me down by the beach at noon. I'll sell you some watches. Don't trust anyone you find through a reputable online service. Trust your "frens" here on the scummiest forum on the planet.
>>18653659I'm nearby, bring your fat girlfriend to suck my dick and I'll by you a nice watch.
Everyone post the last watch you actually bought.
>>18653739I can post my Seiko...
>>18653739I am getting it
>>18653798>MelodyWhat kind of melodies does it play? Looks cool, like a budget slav root beer. It has S O V L
>>18653739Technically a Garmin, but that’s not a real watch. I bought this late last year.
I've got dive watches covered, and a gshock beater. I have an aqua terra for the office. I'm looking for 2 more watches. The Cartier Tank Louis Cartier appeals to me, because they can be had old, they're made of gold and they're manual wind. What are some other watches that aren't super common that I should look for that are dressy, gold, manual wind? Been looking at old Hamilton's and universal geneve's but interested in your suggestions
I would have bought a Grand Seiko if it weren’t so damn thick. I don’t understand why they have to ruin a potentially beautiful watch. You can’t be a dress watch at that thickness. Is it a limitation of the movement design or are they really just retarded at designing stuff?Also that stupid asymmetrical meter on the snowflake and the like is hideous. I was looking at other models though. Do they have anything more symmetrical and thinner that is spring drive?
>>18653831I'd love 100 hours in something that looked good to me.
>>18653831>Drops a like 30 grand watch without comment.Fuck this place
>>18654018>without commentAre you blind? He said he bought it late last year.
Would you bring a gold Rolex DD overseas? Feels like I'd become Romanian murderbait and better off keeping it safe elsewhere
>>18653951>What are some other watches that aren't super common that I should look for that are dressy, gold, manual wind?Lots of high end brands used to make manual wind gold dress watches. They’re not super popular so they can be pretty cheap. Piaget Altiplano or Protocole, for example. Old VCs are widely available, Old JLC.Look for 17j or 18j when searching for them because they often didn’t even have model names like they do today.>>18653831>Armin StromHoly fucking B A S E D
>>18654146If you're going anywhere remotely sketchy, especially a place known for watch theft, just wear a casio.That's the biggest problem for me with getting a rolex gmt, I actually travel pretty frequently for work and for vacation but I'd never want to use it for its actual purpose because I don't want to walk around with $20k worth of stuff on me in places I don't know anyone.
>>18654265Let's invent a slip-on watch cover that makes a Rolex look like a cheap shitter. Some sort of blue rubber thing that still allows you to read the time but obscures the name and coats most of the case and maybe even the band. But easily removable once you're safe in your room so you can wear it to the hotel bar. Nothing as ridiculous as this pic though.
>>18654265I used to feel this way but eventually I decided, fuck it, life is too short to worry about all your precious stuff.I wear my Exp2 all over the place. I’ve never had a problem, even when traveling in highly sketchy places.Fear of theft is overstated. Unless you’re a retard, you’ll never get robbed anyway.
>>18652489I got this for my 18th birthday
>>18654654How long ago was that? That watch has to be close to 40 years old.
RAWR
>>18655822gay
