SCALPERS HATE
Two Poedagars you get to look at until thread dies.
I need to measure speed, distance and also your pulse all at the same time>Say no more
>>18720817>Phone wallpaperTHANK YOU SAAR
>>18720762G-Shock goes into trash
>>18720762I want a ball engineer iii marvelight 36mm in green. I think it will be my next purchase.
Reading these threads made me hate the goyim, and I'm not even jewish.
>>18720873
>>18720904FREUDIAN SLIP
>>18720762>indestructible™ watch >unless you fuck up the seal by opening the watch>rated battery life: 3 yearsWhy do people buy non solar G-Shock, if they really care about ruggedness?
>>18720942Don't get a pleb G-Shock, get the Chad S-Shock.
>>18720942Opening the watch won't fuck up the seal unless you have no idea what you're doing. Gaskets need to be greased/replaced from time to time.
>>18720762>Longines Ultra-Chron 37mm vs Oris Star 35mmWhich one would you chose and why?Also which one: >is the sexiest>is the most faithful reissue>has a better finishing
>>18721015I prefer the look of the oris. The cushion style case speaks to me for some reason. I think the Longines is more interesting from an engineering perspective though. I was not alive when these first came out, nor have I handled either in person so I am not qualified to answer your last two questions
>>18721015I personally hate that style case on the Oris, immediately makes me think of fat old boomer arms groping at the fat wife before he grabs her wrist and puts her hand on his tiny dick and forces her to give him a super mediocre and reluctant handjob. the longines is crisp and youthful, but still classic and modern at the same time
>>18721023yeah, the shape of the Oris is more original, the shape of the Longines is more NPC.
>>18721042The original Oris is from 1965 or something. If anything, it was the silent gen who whore those.There's no way a Boomer wears 1960s style watches. They wear Apple watches or 80s/90s bling.
>>18721042Who i imagine wearing the Oris is Henry Fonda in On a Golden Pond, in his cabin on a lake.That's the vibe i get.
>>18721052I appreciate horologists like yourself and admittedly know relatively nothing about it beyond the basics, but all I can speak for is my thoughts and feelings. that style case just gives me the ick. in my decades of looking in peoples watch boxes my brain would gloss over that style, just makes me think of rusty watch movements and garages with broken down muscle cars and shitty beer and stained white t shirts over boomer guts and television sets permanently blasting mainstream news with the volume at full blastI mean, objectively, doesn't it look heavy as shit? like the watch weighs more than a small car
>>18721061For me, that's this one
>>18721062Hello, Saar>>18721066Hello, Saar
>>18721061I don't even know what you're talking about. It's a new reissue, no rusty movement, and it's 35mm/11mm thick, so why should it be heavy?You have the right to not like c-type shaped watches, but your arguments make zero sense, kek.
>>18721062yeah, I mean, you're not wrong. pretty gross. also I'm officially over date bubbles, such an eyesore. ruined the Rolex palm oyster for me which was my dream sleezecore summer piece
This is all you need in life.
i’ve been posting nothing but breitling, bc they’re prettier, but here are some old Omega chronographs
>>18721077i am a huge fan of the apple watch and wearables in general. i think they’re the superior choice for everyday wear. but for occasions where you don’t want to be plugged in, i think a traditional watch is great. who wants their smart watch buzzing at them or why do you need health data on your wedding day? on your week’s vacation? when you go out to the theatre? etc
>>18721061>>18721062The watch that give me the ICK, personally is the Submariner and all the clones, including the Kermit, the Batman, the Batgirl, the Pepsi, the Longines Hydroconquest (...). The Tudor Black Bay may get a pass because they lose the shiny ceramic, so it's a little less obnoxious and more tool watch.This is the watch of douchebags, scammers, indians trying to look rich. It's a huge redflag if someone is wearing it.
>>18721080this looks like shit and was improperly stored for decades. Never understood why anyone would want to own one of these duds. >muh patinaagain, It looks like shit. Not even a tropical patina just stored like shit by a retard.
that being said wearables also scare me from a big brother type of conspiracy kind of perspective. swapping one for your phone i think is great too so you don’t get sucked into scrolling sort of instinctively as we all find ourselves doing while still being connected and having your essentials like GPS, payment method, call/text etc
>>18721091not everyone appreciates that sort of aging of objects you just can’t fake. i like it from architecture to cars to antiques of all kinds.
old chronographs are just pure sexo Breitling i think has the nicest ones from the period i find especially alluring
>>18721097I can understand some patinas. it’s just that one was stored on its crown for years and that’s why all the patina is on the left side of the dial. It’s just shoddy to me, an evenly aquired tropical patina can look good though, you know it saw years of love and usage
>>18720762Are Skmei watches any good? They have a lot of Casio clones but some of them are rated for actual water resistance for a few 10s of meters, while the Casio ones are only splashwater proof.
>>18721104the asymmetry is wonky you’re right
i am the only one who wants to lowkey larp as indiana jones huh
>>18721088>why do you need health data on your wedding day? on your week’s vacation? when you go out to the theatre?why do you need any of this ever? just eat clean and work out every day. what a bunch of useless "data"
>>18721149it has the potential to dramatically increase quality of life. big data along with accurate readings can give you information about your health before it becomes otherwise apparent. for instance toward the end of the incubation period of an infection you may run a small fever and a slightly different heart rate or other biometrics might be a tad different. getting this information before displaying symptoms could lead to shorter and better outcomes from a cold.
>>18721155i’m not saying you’d personally interpret the data, but what if you got a notification you might be showing early signs of an infection? maybe take an immuno booster, maybe don’t go out drinking that night, maybe an early night to bed, maybe tell your wife to do the same etc etc this is just one example too, and wearables are at their infancy for measuring biometrics
>>18721155>>18721161do people really believe this?
>>18721167
>>18721155>>18721161
>>18721234
Kofé time.
>>18721066a man was here
>>18721088>wearablesfaggot lmao>>18721149this, retard
>>18720876unironically a sci-fi tier bracelet. i consider it to be one of the more impressive developments in watchmaking in the last 10 years.i hope the chinese are able to reproduce soon so i can purchase it for a fraction of the price.
>>18721015Which is the "homage" and why do you snobs allow for copycatting just because it's expensive? That's hypocritical.
>>18721314france made the first chronograph p cool right
>>18721015>Which one would you chose and why?The Oris. It looks better. Simple as that.>Also which one:>is the sexiestI like C-Shape cases.>is the most faithful reissueThe Longines is based off the ref. 8309 which was 34.5mm. The reissue is not obscenely large at 37mm but they still needed to upscale it for some reason. The Oris is practically 1:1 >has a better finishingTossup. Neither of these watches is known for outstanding finishing. They will both be equally well-made but one doesn't blow the other out of the water.
Opinions on a new band for my rudiger chemnitz? Picrel is the watch, the blue leather band gave out and I not sure if I want to go with a standard stainless steel, ceramic, or try to get a blue steel band. This was my first watch and it has sentimental value.https://www.nywatchstore.com/20mm-ceramic-replacement-watch-band-8006.htmlhttps://www.nywatchstore.com/stainless-steel-metal-20mm-watch-band-bracelet-double-locking-buckle-5051.html
I'm getting back into smaller pieces, fuck off with the dinner plate trend. I got my finger on the buy button for the PRX in 35mm for $600....someone talk me out of it or give me an alternative
>>18721324If you're going to get the 35mm one, you might as well get the quartz one, because it's the most faithful reproduction of the one from the 70s. The original one was quartz.
>>18721325the quartz dial is pretty shitty looking though>most faithful reproductionI don't really care for these kinda aspectsI love automatics and the dial on this one hits just right. I'm open to alternatives but nothing really does it
38mm or 40mm PRX is the only one worth a shit, if you need the 35mm (women’s size) just get another fucking watch.
>>18721334most the vinyl records I see on dude's wrists in this thread, internet, the real world, are so clownish it blows my mind. we're going to look back on this trend in a decade or two and be cringing.
>>18721328>I don't really care for these kinda aspects>I love automatics and the dial on this one hits just right. I'm open to alternatives but nothing really does itOK, that's no problem. A lot of watch nerds care about historical accuracy but if you don't that's no issue. The 35mm automatic is still great value for money.Don't listen to >>18721334 The oversized versions are cartoonishly large and wear even larger than their numbers suggest because of the case shape. IRL, no one will ever notice the size of your watch unless it's ridiculously big. Everyone agrees that you should wear a watch that fits your wrist, but you still have people with 6.5" wrists insisting that a 42mm watch fits them.
Casio time
>>18721360
>>18721134based
>>18721066respectable
So this is the famous "/wt/" huh... the one you hear about all over The Chan from /a/ to /x/. The one general that has saved /fa/ as a whole and made this gay shithole board worth a visit or two.I was promised:>Japanese Bitches with fat titties >I was promised rich lawyers with collection far exceeding millions of dollars>Good coffee talk>High quality professional images that would make anyone at /p/ reconsider if he's good at what he does>A huge collection of pristine Weekdaters>A highly knowledgeable Omega connoisseur>Lots of Gold and Silver>Drunk posts on Friday nights>Qualified watchmakers going into autistic depth>Rolexes, Grand Seikos, Mosers, Omegas, Breguets, Credors, F.P.'s-->Wristshots on top of Japanese booty, sakura trees in the background, inside expensive cars, wristhots in Dubai, in Tokyo--Hell, I was even promised Guns and people wearing their watches on their dicks. I was also promised Cat posting and even someone posting his stool next to high quality swiss made watches.What I got instead is:>Chinese watches>300 posts, 12 images>30% of the posts deleted>People calling each other poorWords can not describe how disappointed I am. I guess rumors did get the better of me, I came with zero expectations and yet I am leaving with disgust and being mad at myself for falling for those said rumors. I am not even going to waste time calling you "people" names, because you're not even worth that much.
>>18721370what does "good coffee talk" entail?
I thought about this claim for a minute and I think you're right. In all seriousness, think about it. Why does this watch specifically matter? It's the first TUDOR that pops into mind whenever the brand is mentioned. TUDOR has been known for 100 years by now of being the quite Literal entry point to Luxury watches. It's the gatekeeper, the price point-decider on what is considered Luxury. That's a huge thing, no matter how you look at it.Anything below TUDOR is considered "casual" and entry level, everything TUDOR and after is considered Luxury.-Not Longines-Not Oris-Not Nomos-Not Sinn-Not Christopher Ward-Not TAG HeuerHell, not even Grand Seiko, Omega or Breitling- THE gatekeeper to LUXURY is TUDOR, it has been established since 1926 and it will forever remain that way. If there's not Tudor, there's nothing keeping the floodgates closed and in check.Everyone (everyone) who's honest with you and knows about watches, if you ask them:>"Genuinely, what's the One ONE AND DONE watch for someone who simply wants a nice piece for Every single occasion but also wants to wear one everyday and Never have to think about watches again?"if you've been slightly into watches for more than a week, you will answer>"TUDOR"in Caps, firm and unshaken. Because it is the only answer. Not the only Correct answer, but the Only answer in general.
>>18721386It..It just dawned on me; Tudor is actually better than Rolex.Tudor is a master chronometer while Rolex is "superlative". What does that mean in practise? Rolex doesn't even do third party certification on them, instead they do their own testing and deem it "better".I'm so glad I went with my BB54, after getting it, I don't even think about Rolex. In a world where Rolex screams status, Tudor whispers taste. A Rolex is the billboard of success, but Tudor? It’s the secret handshake of those who know better. You pay less, yet get a sibling forged in the same fires—Swiss precision, timeless design, and none of the "look-at-me" hysteria. A Tudor is a poet's watch; a Rolex, a salesman’s pitch. Why spend double to impress strangers when you could spend less and impress yourself?
>>18721394i am a watch noobis there a watch tier list that’s at least generally acceptable
>>18721406this is what google pulled up first what does /fa/ think? it’s from reddit : |
Less than half the price and cooler looking IMO.
>>18721420>>18721417chonky
>>18721324>I'm getting back into smaller pieces, fuck off with the dinner plate trendDo you live in 2019 or are you really that slow?
>>18721360It's cute an all, reminds me of plastic toys.... but as a watch?You might as well buy a buttplug, a phonecase or household items in clear red if you like it. Or maybe get kids or nephews and buy them toys?
>>18720762GA-2100CC was anyone even able to buy this shit?
>>18721406>>18721407A tier list for watches is kind of a dumb idea fundamentally. There are good and bad watches from almost every brand. Some brands have very few good watches (fashion brands, invicta, Daniel Wellington, etc.), some are very consistently good (Tudor, Rolex, VC), and some have a mix of both (Tag, Seiko, Orient). I would recommend you stay away from fashion brands generally (with the exception of Cartier), but outside of that, choose something that you like and will fit your budget. Tissot and Hamilton are good places to start if you're less informed. I find they are more consistently good than the Japanese alternatives. Look for something mechanical and not quartz if you want an "enthusiast watch".
>>18721360>300$ no thanks
>>18720762Watch recommendations for wristlets? I really like speedmasters.
>>18721533Additionally, tier lists tend to delude buyers into buying the entry-level pieces of brands in a "higher" tier instead of buying the great pieces of brands in the lower tiers. Very, very few entry-level pieces are actually good and the higher you go up the tiers, the comparatively shittier the entry-level pieces get. It causes buyers to look at the name on the dial only instead of actually considering the quality of the watch itself.
>>18721541Hanhart makes a lot of good chronographs at 39mm. Also I hear speedmasters tend to wear smaller than you would expect, so maybe just get one of those if you have the money. Chronographs tend to be on the bigger side due to the increased complexity of the movement and need for legibility of the various gauges on the dial.
>>18721544>Also I hear speedmasters tend to wear smaller than you would expect,They do. They're listed at 42mm, but that includes the crown guards. If you measure across the width of the bezel it's actually just 39mm. The lug to lug is 47mm.
>>18721541>Very, very few entry-level pieces are actually goodWhat would those be?The Rolex OP.The Cartier Tank Must is pretty stylish.But, like, the Tudor 1926 is garbage, you have to move up into the Black Bay collection before you get anything decent.If you go up into the really """high tier""" watches, something like the time-only Moser Pioneer is an over-priced, under-finished piece of shit compared to its price point and the complicated watches the brand is actually known for. Like you said, people are literally just looking at the brand and clicking "Sort by Price, Low-to-High"
>>18721541>very few entry-level pieces are actually goodThis is false. There's good watches at every price point.Under $50: Casio F91Under $150: G-Shock Under $700: Hamilton Khaki Field, Seiko Prospexand so on.
>>18721561Entry-level by brand, e.g.. the cheapest Rolex, the OP, vs a Daytona; not entry-level as in watches that cost less than a thousand dollars.
>>18721566The OP and the Explorer are better watches than the Daytona.Daytonas are for douchebags, they are obnoxious. If i had that kind of money, i'd step up to JLC or Patek.
>>18721570That's literally the point anon was making.The OP is a good watch despite being the cheapest watch Rolex makes. In the majority of cases, the cheapest watch a brand makes usually isn't worth it and the value proposition gets worse the higher up the tier list of brands you go.
>>18721572>In the majority of cases, the cheapest watch a brand makes usually isn't worth itIt's only true for Tudor and the 1926 (that looks like shit on purpose because they don't want you to buy it).But it's not true for:-Rolex: OP and Explorer = great watches-IWC: Pilot = great watch-Oris: Star = great watch-Tissot: Gentleman, PRX = great watches-Longines: Hydroconquest = great watch...
>>18721578>and the value proposition gets worse the higher up the tier list of brands you go.A quartz JLC Reverso is worth it?
And it's true for Omega with the Constellation that are shitters.So, true for Tudor and Omega, and false for everyone else.
>>18721579>A quartz JLC Reverso is worth it?Yeah, they are ok watches.Everybody is fine with a quartz Cartier Tank, why not the Reverso?
>>18721578The entry-level IWC is the Portofino, not the PilotThe entry level Longines is some 900 dollar quartz shitter, not the Hydroconquest.
>>18721583>Everybody is fine with a quartz Cartier Tank, why not the Reverso?JLC is about watchmaking, Cartier is about style. No one buys a JLC because of how they look. It's always about "muh watchmaker's watchmaker".A Cartier looks cool regardless of the movement. (In fact, sometimes, the thinness of quartz makes the Cartier look better)
>>18721586>The entry-level IWC is the Portofino, not the PilotWeak contrarian, they are both their entry level, around 5.5K.But the Portofino is more for women and had more diamonds options, so overall it's a more expensive offer. Anyways, the Portofino is not a bad watch either. Just for Women.>The entry level Longines is some 900 dollar quartz shitter, not the Hydroconquest.Their cheapest model is for women again (34mm watches). Their cheapest offer for men is the quartz version of the Hydroconquest at 1500.
>>18721532scalpers and redditors who bought them from scalpers for 3x the price on ebay
>>18721589Quartz Reverso are fine.Those watches are the definition of the sport watch, as you know they were made to play polo. Quartz make sense here.
>>18721536Glycine Airman GL0370
>>18721594>NNNnnnoooo!!! Just because they cost less doesn't mean they're the entry-level models!If you're not going to debate in good faith, I'm not going to engage with you anymore.Enjoy your Casio.
>>18721594>Anyways, the Portofino is not a bad watch either. Just for Women.The Portofino is one of IWC's dress watch lines. The smallest one they make is still 34mm. It's for men.
>>18721602I didn't know we were discussing WOMENS watches, fag.Yeah, if you count womens watches, those models are the cheapest, because they are more often quartz.
>>18721598>Those watches are the definition of the sport watch, as you know they were made to play polo.Are you meme'ing or do you actually believe the "polo watch" fairytale?
>>18721606Do you see the diamond indices or what? Those are Womens watches.
The only reason anyone would get this upset about being advised not to buy entry-level watches is because they're currently counting their pennies and saving up for the cheapest, used example of [brand] on eBay.
>>18721568
>>18721618I have a few entry luxury watches, and i've already posted them here and collected many seething from it.Not posting anymore because i don't want to associate my watches with the turd guy.
>>18721407These days Breitling belongs in the Premium tier. Genuinely a strip mall tier brand. Their watches are nowhere near worth what they ask for them. And Seiko belongs squarely in the Entry level.
>>18721407>it’s from redditThat tells you all you need to know with regards to its validity
*strips down your basic bitch ETA, reconfigures it and gives it a grand complication*nothin' personnel kid
>that's a nice ETA 2824-2 you have there.. it'd be a shame if someone were to.. give it an ANNUAL CALENDAR and stick it in a tiny 36mm case!
I can't remove the default straps off my casio f91w. Yes im pushing towards the arrow direction
>>18721709you can also cut the pins and just use new ones. i had to do that once because they were completely stuck. use diagonal cutting pliers if you have any.
Reminder.
Is this legit?
>>18721408perfect
Who let the bot into this thread?
Based chrono poster
>>18721794ty fren they’re just so vibe
>>18721799Now that’s a good Rolex. Finally.
>>18721015Long Jeans. I like the case more.
>>18720868>$22K>limited to 25 pieces
What is a good price for a citizen E010-S9575?
>>18720873Behold the OG balkancore
>>18721833Perhaps add this to top it off nicely.
>>18721155>big data>accurate readings>incubation period>biometrics>>18721161>interpret the data>immuno booster>wearables>measuring biometrics
>>18721839criticising technical jargon and not substance : |
>>18721849There is no substance, it's literally all just jargon slapped together by a human mindlessly trying to larp as an LLM.Next.
>>18721760Happy Pride Month, fellow Finns!
OK guys, give it to me straight. I promise I won't be offended...but sports watches have been bullshit this whole time, right, since at least the 1980s?
>>18721149To get a external measurement of how turned on you are by heart rate.
>>18721850
>>18721850are you gonna kill your self now or later?
>>18721850L
>>18721850: P
>>18721875>>18721878>>18721880>(You)That's good. Get it all out of your system. That's healthy.
>>18721839This.>Rolex during the day>G-Shock when working outIf I can't calculate my pace when running based on the G-Shock's stopwatch, I actually should just kill myself.t. benches 225 for reps and has run 8 sub-3 hour marathons timed with nothing but a G-Shock.
>>18721896actual footage of you failing to construct an argument and then coping
>>18721900is the g shock recording body temp, and heart rate? how is that related to what i mentioned
sorry guys, i can't go out tonight, my average heart rate is down 2bpm over an average from the last 3 hours, and my body temperature fluctuated 0.01*F .... big data doesn't lie!!! gotta stay in tonight and charge my wearables
>>18721902Body temp is irrelevant. Heart rate monitors are notoriously inaccurate unless you're wearing one of those bra-type chest monitors. You wearing one of those all day? They make them in XXXL size? I thought those were just custom jobs for American football players.
>>18721907>my average heart rate is down 2bpm over an average from the last 3 hours, and my body temperature fluctuated 0.01*FOh shit. Hopefully Apple knows to alert the appropriate medical services, based on your geographical data and wireless package.Thoughts and prayers, brother!
>>18721875>>18721878>>18721880>>18721887Laughable samefagging
>>18721918wow the image limit is 1 you don’t know what same fagging is it’s not my fault trans jans don’t have ID’s on /fa/ once again nothing against the substance of my original post, bc well, i won
>>18721697>Minute Repeater>Perpetual Calendar>Tourbillon>Split-Seconds Chronograph>Astronomical DisplaysNot a grand complication
>>18721919>i wonYou sure did. I hope your metrics didn't go out of scope when celebrating, or it will throw off Garmin's data set for male users age 40-45.
@18721926Reminder that anon knows someone else owns a Tank and he's upset about it.(Post repeat 51)
@18721937Try again
>>18721967Do you deny it? You've posted the same AI image a couple dozen times now, bittercel.
>>18721994>That must have been the lamest conversation in the world.>Ack ack ack ackackackack ack ack ack>Ack ack ack ackack ackack ack ack ack>Ack ack ack ackack ack ack ack ack ackSeems like a good time
>>18721532
>>18721090Just say you're poor.
>>18722229>It wears smaller than it looks
>>18722266Might just be the camera being too close and causing a bit of fisheye, my G-Shock can look massive on me in some photos but really it's fine
>>18722272My wrist is about 6 inches in circumference
>>18722266I mean, this is like 75% of the wrist shots posted here. so tiresome.
>>18722290haters will flag this postlove the pictures brother
>>18722292Go suck a turd, scatophile.
>>18722231The average Submariner wearer is one of those:>Small dicked "bro" who made it in crypto>Pajeet engineer who wants to "look rich" but has outdated 1980s views on what looking rich is>Half dead boomer who wears it on his 5.5 inch wrist >Nigga who "found" the watchWhich one are you?
>>18722288Yeah, that was my point, it looks nothing like the second photo in reality, phone cameras have a fisheye effect when close up to the subject
>>18722266I bought a CasiOak back in 2022 or whatever. It was so big and was sticking out from my wrist that i sold it in 2 weeks.
Got a bund strap for my San Martin.
>>18722331The full- sized S2100 G-Shocks are surprisingly large. The lug to lug width is just a bit shorter than an average diver.
>>18722299>who made it in cryptoWhat exactly is wrong with this? What are the /wt/ approved ways to make money?
>>18722349>What are the /wt/ approved ways to make money?I guess crypto is one of the approved /fa/ ways to make money. the official list is:CryptoGamblingTrust fundProstitution (either yourself or as a pimp)
>>18722229>t.
why don’t they make a general with infos n stuff
>>18722379/wt/ don't need infos /wt/ don't need technical shit./wt/ are are mood, they are an idea.. a state of mind.
>>18722393i am interested in their classifications, specifications, and purpose. it all so interesting. you’d think watch appreciators would be more autistic
>>18722379The infos were outdated and nobody could be bothered to write new ones.
>>18722409Plus, the advice never actually changes.>Want a dress watch? Get a Cartier Tank Louis or try something different (results may vary)>Want a daily watch? Get a Rolex Datejust or try something different (results may vary)>Want to never have consensual sex again? Get a Grand Seiko or try something different (results may vary)
>>18722393Just a friendly reminder that /wt/ stands for whoreanon's thread. We are all friends here.
>>18721015>>18721313They are both homages to models of their own brands.The Oris star is a 1:1 of a 1960s model (acrylic included).The Longines is almost an homage but with different dimensions (37mm and 40mm instead of 35mm) and with a sapphire.It's like Ferrari remaking a 1960s Ferrari, or Sony remaking a 1995 tube tv, or Nintendo remaking a N64 or a SNES factory new. Think about it, that's something people can only dream of for other products.
>>18722414>whoreanonit's whoretadello.
We actually need Mortadello backHe was the noblest of all of us.
What's the point of this watch? If I pair the signet ring with a patek dress watch, it's ostentatious and pretentious - if I wear this Casio, it's cool because the self-aware irony diffuses the pretentiousness? All I can think is that I look like a Sopranos character, just missing the gold chain and rosary.
>>18722432Post a pic of you wearing a Patek so we can compare
>>18722435Not at home but here's the calatrava. Ignore the ring I use to for sleep tracking
>>18722439Why can't any brand make a watch like this for like $1K?
>>18722441Lost technology
>>18722439(assuming it's yours) there's no way a simple gold Calatrava that's 40+ years old can be considered ostentatious or pretentious.
>>18722439>>18722448This reminds me of an anon from a few years ago who bought a used Calatrava from the 1960s and tried to impress /wt/ but everyone immediately noticed the terrible condition it was in.
>>18722448On a retired boomer, no. A guy in his 20s walking around with a 1960s dress watch is definitely pretentious. Trying too hard to broadcast wealth
>>18722454Not really, people will think he's autistic or gay.If a guy in his 20s was wearing a Rolex Hulk, then people would think he's trying to broadcast wealth.
>>18722469And what about the casio gold?
>>18722470I'd say that he doesn't take himself seriously (in a good way) but he's probably a loser because he's satirizing wealth, success and social norms he can't abide by.
New arrival
New arrival #2Two cool quartzes for the collection
