Watch ThreadPrevious >>18746601
>>18749213Gay. Let me guess; it's like over a thousand dollars?
2nd for Omega
>>18749213I'm not sure this is the right thread to ask, but is it true that zoomers can't read analog clocks?
>>18749266Only if they were raised by morons. Who the fuck isn't around a nice clock?
>>18749213Time for coffee.
Kofé time.
>>18749213>>18749216Let me guess, it's another shitty 1970s brand that got "ressurected" in 2010 as a ZOMBIE brand, banking on an history it has nothing to do with.Let me add it to the list:>Nivada>Vulcain>Yema>Alpina>Angelus>Airain>(...)>Aquastar
>>18749266Black people can't.
>>18749213Coffee time? Dial says WR 200. Better be CR 200 too.
>>18749292Anon got a little too excited.
Why has nobody invented a good quick adjust yet? They're all bulky systems.
Is the land dweller officially a flop? After the initial mixed reactions and then the release leaving people on "eh, I guess it's alright actually," absolutely nobody is talking about it anymore in any context. Like literally nobody cares. I see more people bring up the 1908 than the land dweller now.
>>18749310No they aren't?
>>18749310>Why has nobody invented a good quick adjust yet?GO's system on the SeaQ is the least bulky that I know of. It's also got the advantage of being adjustable while the clasp is closed and on the wrist.Unfortunately, it's not attached to a very nice-looking watch.
>>18749313You seem unsure if you're asking.
>>18749313You say this because your watch is probably a brick. >>18749314I had a look, it's at least small, but you can tell that's a lot of weight to add to a clasp. I prefer the comically overpriced stuff I've seen from steelreef that at least fits inside a link, maybe I'll copy their shit.I wonder how well the old spring based auto-adjust stuff worked. Seems to add a bit too much length to the clasp, though.
>>18749312>Is the land dweller officially a flop?I will answer this question assuming you asked in good faith. (I don't particularly like the LD, myself, so don't accuse me of just reflexively defending Rolex because it's Rolex.)No. It's not a flop. It's unavailable anywhere and secondary prices are still above retail. It is not a super-hype piece like a Daytona, GMT, or even DD. It was not meant to be "This is what the future of all Rolexes looks like!!!" It was meant to show off the new movement technology.(You may not remember that when Rolex debuted Syloxi hairspring, it was in the Pearlmaster. Rolex does strange things like that.)Eventually, the new movement technology will spread throughout the range and, as the integrated bracelet thing slowly dies, it will be discontinued. In the meantime, Rolex gets more data on actual user experiences with the new technology so they can further refine it and make it bulletproof before it goes into the bread-and-butter Datejust. I'm sure they don't want a repeat of the 32xx issues.
>>18749316>I had a look, it's at least small, but you can tell that's a lot of weight to add to a clasp.If you're adding a mechanism like that to the clasp, you cannot possibly keep it the same size without making the metal so thin it would break, be prohibitively expensive to machine, or make the mechanism unreliable. If you want a really thin, light clasp, get a vintage Rolex with a stamped sheet metal clasp.
>>18749319We have shit like cheap titanium now, it's embarrassing that the non-forward facing parts of a clasp are still made of steel. I went looking for a "milled" titanium clasp the other day, had a hell of a time finding one.Here's the most interesting looking expanding clasp I saw, so easy to make that I might just knock it off and apply it to a proper tri-fold instead.
>>18749321To be fair, titanium is not some magic super-metal. It has advantages and disadvantages, just like any material.
Is the 35mm Nomos Orion the size to go? I heard the long lugs exaggerate the wrist presence and the primarily white dial can look like a dinner plate in 38mm.
>>18749322No, it has objective advantages over steel whenever it isn't forward facing. Obviously I wouldn't want a watch made of it, but the lower portion of a clasp? There's no reason to use steel there.
>>18749321If you're going to go for a solution like that, why not just stick to the classic Rolex style springbars. That will be more reliable than a solution that relies on tension within a non-replaceable part.
>>18749324>There's no reason to use steel there.Yes, there is. Cost and durability.
>>18749325If I'm going to have to make my own clasp because nobody makes them properly, why not add in a more useful adjustment feature? And the part becomes readily replaceable when you have the CAD file for it.>>18749326>Cost and durability.The cost is barely worth talking about, at scale you're looking at 2x. Durability wise, titanium is better, being more prone to scratches doesn't matter for something you can't see.
>>18749327OK, then you clearly have all the answers. This conversation is over.
>>18749323>Is the 35mm Nomos Orion the size to go? I heard the long lugs exaggerate the wrist presence and the primarily white dial can look like a dinner plate in 38mm.You have it exactly right.(Another factor that makes the dial look huge, beyond being white, is that it's largely empty. Add to that the very thin bezel and 38mm will look very large.)
>>18749323The real problem is not the long lugs like people say but the fact that it's all dial.A 35mm NOMOS Orion is like a 42mm normal design.
Casio time
>>18749321Seiko uses iron pins in titanium bracelets, at least it says so in the manual for my watch.
>>18749345Casio time! F-105w mod with pitted olive holder.
>>18749349Yeah, I don't see much point using titanium pins because titanium on titanium isn't a good interface, and they're so small that the weight difference is negligible.
>>18749350Olive time
>>18749351>the weight difference is negligible.Honestly, the weight difference is still negligible unless you're talking about a total case replacement at least or, more likely, a case and bracelet combination.i.e. the difference between the Octo Finissimo in steel vs the one in titanium feels huge, like a 30% drop in weight, while the titanium caseback in the new Planet Ocean will not work out to more than a few grams difference.
>>18749358I consider a gram to be a reasonable weight saving for a part, if you swapped out every pin in a bracelet you're looking at maybe half a gram at best. A "modern" clasp is anywhere from 15-50g. My current clasp is 7.5g, and I'd like to reduce that down to 6.
>>18749345I bought a cheap $20 Casio for work so I don't damage my nice watches and I love it way too much for what it is
>>18749362It's only real on a spec sheet. You cannot personally feel a one gram difference unless your watch is so unrealistically designed that it's already wildly unbalanced.
>>18749384One gram here, one gram there, it all adds up.
>>18749213I like this watch, what does /fa/ think? Should I buy it?
>>18749390It's the entry point for Tudor, not a bad watch, not a great watch. No real personality.It's the graduation gift or the gift for grandpa.
>>18749318But is it unavailable because everyone wants one, or is it unavailable because they didn't make many?
>>18749351>because titanium on titanium isn't a good interfaceAccording to Seiko it's for strength.
>>18749397it's unavailable because the supply is lower than the demand.
>>18749323A classically designed watch with a tiny almost nonexistent bezel like that is made to be worn small. If you figure you should wear a 40mm nomos because you normally wear a 40mm dive watch you're going to look like a massive dipshit.
>>18749399Doesn't answer the question or even the spirit of the question.
>>18749395To my eye, it's one of the few Tudor models that aren't copying a Rolex. And the waffle dial is more interesting than most white dial watches.
>>18749402Rolex is known for creating scarcity artificially.Even the Daytona wouldn't be unavailable if they wanted to. So your question is moot.
>>18749399Are you a salesman? That's exactly the type of language a greasy number fudger would use.
>>18749397>But is it unavailable because everyone wants one, or is it unavailable because they didn't make many?Like the other anon said, there are more people who want one than there are quantities Rolex can make.Considering that there are so many unique parts in the watch, it's likely that they simply do not produce that many. It's no different than >Why don't they just make more Daytonas?>Because building another Daytona means they can't make three Datejusts. They only have so much manufacturing space and time to allocate to their products.As someone else said, this probably was never intended to be a pillar of the collection like the Submariner or the Datejust. This is a weird little thing they put out to showcase a new movement. If they'd put the new movement in the silver stick dial, Jubilee bracelet, fluted bezel Datejust, no one would talk about it as much.
>>18749407It's not moot, because the point I'm getting at is how many people want the thing. Almost everyone talks about the daytona and says they want one and they can't get it. Very few people are doing that with the land dweller.My point is if there are 200 people who want a land dweller, and they make 200 to serve those people, is that really a successful line just because they sold all of them? Would that be more successful than if 2 million people wanted a daytona but they only sold 1 million?
>>18749408Just saying that unavailability is NEVER a problem of too much demand, it's always a problem of supply.Articifial limited supply is the basics of luxury marketing, that's what Hermes does, and Chanel, and Ferrari, and every brand of niche luxury fragrances too.
>>18749327I'm sure you'll do a better job than the dozens of professional r&d departments with huge budgets and orders of magnitude greater manpower than you alone, lmao. Looking forward to your breakthrough anon
>>18749410>It's not moot, because the point I'm getting at is how many people want the thing. Almost everyone talks about the daytona and says they want one and they can't get it. Very few people are doing that with the land dweller.Unfortunately, we can't know how many people actually want the watch because of how social media works.The algorithms know that Daytona/GMT-Master/Royal Oak/Nautilus content gets the most engagement, so those are the videos that they push to the top. The content creators know that Daytona/GMT-Master/Royal Oak/Nautilus content gets the most engagement, so that's the content they create.Regular people assume no one else cares about the watch so they don't bother talking about it, regardless of whether they personally do or do not like the watch.
>>18749410There's enough demand for the land-dweller for Rolex to play this game.IWC/JLC/Breitling can't play this game.I believe that Rolex adapts its supply so it never outweighs the demand. If there was zero demand for the land-dweller, Rolex would have stopped the production of this model. They see the demand and probably make 30% the number of watches that would sell.
>>18749417>Regular people assume no one else cares about the watch so they don't bother talking about it, regardless of whether they personally do or do not like the watch.This. It's not just Rolex either. I'd like to talk about Zenith, but they're unpopular. If I try posting about them, the posts get ignored, so I don't bother.
>>18749323>NomosLooks like a 250 euro Tommy Hillfiger watch or smtn
>>18749410>if there are 200 people who want a land dweller, and they make 200 to serve those peopleThat's not how Rolex works, kek.
>>18749421Because lots of fashion brands copied the original look, dummy.
>>18749423the original is Daniel Wellington
>>18749418>I believe that Rolex adapts its supply so it never outweighs the demand.The other factor you need to consider is manufacturing capacity. This is very simplified, but assume a watch factory can make a million simple watches total. Assume a GMT takes the resources of two simple watches and a chronograph takes the resources of three simple watches.They could make 333k chronographs...could they sell that many? Maybe, maybe not. But a chronograph sells for 16k, while a simple Datejust costs 8k. In this case, every chronograph they make represents not a 16k gain, but it actually represents an 8k loss.The calculation of how and where to allocate manufacturing resources is actually pretty complex.
>>18749416>I'm sure you'll do a better job than the dozens of professional r&d departments with huge budgets and orders of magnitude greater manpower than you aloneYeah, I will. The reason is very simple, I make what I want, which is something none of these companies are interested in providing, especially in the modern day.Clasps are "solved" according to these retards. Heavy and thick, that's what the market wants, because weight=quality.
>>18749418>>18749412The question remains - what is the demand? Again, how you meet demand says nothing about how many people want it or care.Okay, so there are people on waiting lists for it.... But how many? Because when you go looking for videos and podcasts and articles and whatever on what people are buying or what the hypest watches are, nobody is saying land dweller. Once in a ehile on the rolex subreddit someone posts that they got a landdweller, but otherwise it's just a stream of OPs and GMTs and the usual classic stuff. All the forums are going on aboit how they've been waiting for a sub or GMT or Daytona for years, never landdwellers. Landdweller is a punchline for youtubers in general. None of the sweaty boomerd with seemingly unlimited money for watches buying paid watch reviews from Archie is showing him a land dweller. Who the fuck is buying this shit? Where are they? You don't even see the usual celebrities wearing them, I think it was just federer and maybe the far over the hill Leonardo DiCaprio wearing them? And they're both Rolex shills.
>>18749427>The question remains - what is the demand?Rolex doesn't publish their internal marketing data. We can't know what the demand is simply by scouring our own social media company-controlled feeds.This is what at least four different posters have been trying to tell you.Do you just want someone to agree with you and say it's been a terrible flop and Rolex is bad? If so, just ask. No need to be so circumspect.
>>18749427>Because when you go looking for videos and podcasts and articles and whateverSee >>18749417
>>18749427>All the forums are going on aboit how they've been waiting for a sub or GMT or Daytona for years, never landdwellers. Landdweller is a punchline for youtubers in general.Don't be fooled by forums and youtube, they are not the people who buy the watches.For years every youtuber was all about Tudor and Black Bays, but when you look at the numbers, Tudor sells 10 TIMES less units than Tissot, 5 TIMES less units than Longines.Internet doesn't mean shit.
>>18749431>Don't be fooled by forums and youtube, they are not the people who buy the watches.I remember when I found out that the Constellation was Omega's biggest-selling product line. I thought "How could that be? I've never heard of anyone wanting one." Then I started looking for them IRL, not online, and turns out, people like its unique design.
>>18749426>aaaarrrggghh dude my watch clasp is so freakin HEAVY I can hardly life my arm>aahhhh the weight of this clasp is so noticable, if only those 5 grams of metal weren't there my watch would be so light and comfortable
>>18749433Exactly. TAG Heuer is also very popular IRL, while youtubers all shit on it.You rarelly see youtubers shilling TAG Heuer Carreras, but people wear them.
>>18749436Yes. I'm sorry you see no value in weight reduction, you're the perfect market for dumbbell watches.
>>18749390Ugly and boring. Just get Casio Sapphire.
>>18749429I'm not looking at algorithms, I'm looking at what literal watch merchants are saying people are buying and talking about buying.
>>18749448>I'm not looking at algorithmsIf you're looking at videos and podcasts and whatever, then you're receiving whatever the algorithm decides you get.
>>18749431But people are also talking about tissot and longines though. There is known desire for those watches. And they're also a fifth or a third of the price of tudor, of course they're selling more units.
>>18749449There's no algorithm that determines what people are buying from luxury bazaar.
>>18749433I only see them on women, and they're probably only wearing it because their husband wearing a seamaster 300 bought it for them.
>>18749446Not dressy enough.
>>18749449>>18749452There's also no algorithm that determines what Jay Z is wearing.
Imagine having one movement
>>18749448>I'm looking at what literal watch merchants are sayingUnless, they actually open up their books, you can very safely assume they're lying.
Silver or gold? I already have the gold Databank, and I like gold more in general but I also don’t have a silver watch.
>>18749285you forgot smiths, thank me later.
>>18749468>smithsI never understood this brand, always sold out.The guy behind the brand was a dick and he's dead now apparently.
im autistic be nice
>>18749459I don't know why they would lie about what product is or isn't moving fast. Even for slow stuff, obviously they don't want to step on their own sales and imply a watch they've been holding for a while is bad, but they routinely tell you what watches they're having a hard time selling or that they could have got a good price of thst watch but they didn't have a client that would be interested and didn't want to be stuck with it for 18 months, stuff like that.
>>18749475If he's dead then he's putting the zombie in zombie brand
>>18749475They made good watches but they were really tight with their production numbers. Their weekly online store thing was fuckin retarded, but apparently it worked for them because that shit sold.Why was he an asshole? You shouldn't speak ill of the dead, anon.
>>18749466Gold really should be real gold. Gold tone and gold PVD shit is tacky and a waste of time, the color never looks right. Especially with casios, because they tint the screens yellow and it makes them muddy looking. The regular silver ones are generally really clear and easy to read.
>>18749366Nice, Casio's are also my 'worry free' watches.>>18749466I have the silver one. Maybe wrist test both to get the feel while you bring your gold data bank.
>>18749502Casios are the only gold plated watches that look OK because they're fucking Casios.A gold plated Invicta is something a Pakistani Uber driver would wear thinking he was going to impress his cousin in rural Sind, a gold plated Casio is a bit of self deprecating humor.
>>18749502>>18749506Yellow gold also looks really bad against white skin. It complements darker skin tones well. It makes Nordics look pink.
>>18749506The problem isn't whether or not you're going to fool someone. It's just ugly, they look like cheese.
>>18749508People always say this but it's apparently only been a problem for the last 50 years or so? Wtf were white people wearing before white and rose golds became popular? In the earlier 20th century and before if you were wearing gold it was almost definitely yellow.
>>18749508Are you Muslim? They have a hang up about men wearing gold.
>>18749484Nice watch, i thought that's a coin at first.
>>18749512>Are you Muslim? They have a hang up about men wearing gold.If I was a Muslim, I wouldn't care what white people wear.>>18749511In the old days, watches were a lot smaller. A little flash of gold in a small Tank or gold wedding band isn't so bad and doesn't distract. Huge watches, especially with bracelets, a more prominent in one's overall color scheme.
>>18749519So is that a problem with gold and skin tone, or is it a problem with wearing gaudy shit? Just because there are fat gold shitters doesn't mean you have to buy them.
lofi vibes
We, the generation, should strive for self-improvement.
>>18749274>>18749266Gen Z is that dumb bros.>only 43% of adults under 30 can do the same. The majority of younger adults need several seconds to parse it, or struggle significantly
>>18749350>>18749528Polar opposites
