>costs a tiny fraction of mechanical/automatic movements>is far more accurate than even the very high endHow did Mountain Jews get away with it?
People like sweeping second hands.
>>108964688its branding
>>108964688because automatic movements are neat. nobody pretends to buy expensive watches because they're more accurate than quartz
>>108964688>>is far more accurate than even the very high endlmfao, a 10 euro casio quartz watch is way more accurate than the best of mechanical watches. mechanical watches lose a couple seconds each week
>>108964688No one gives the tiniest of shits about a drift of few seconds every year.Handwatches are fashion items and nothing else.
>>108965549They'd be perfect for a smart home too. Too bad those are nearly impossible to get with no spyware out of the box.
>>108964688>far more accuratenobody cares that you can have a clock with a *relative* accuracy of 100ppm or 1ppm or whatever when everybody already has a clock with an *absolute* accuracy of a couple seconds in their pocket. watches are fashion items and nothing else
>>108964688>Mountain jew>Posts island chink device as example>Stamp literally reads: Island Chink
>>108965984hrm maybe think a little harder about it
>>108965527>lmfao, a 10 euro casio quartz watch is way more accurate than the best of mechanical watches. mechanical watches lose a couple seconds each weekMy old casio quartz lost 1-2 minutes a month.
>>108965288You can have sweeping seconds hands on quartz movements too.
>>108966070mine hasn't lost more than 5 seconds since I changed to DST. also, I committed an error: talking about mechanical time loss I meant per day, not per week
>>108966070that's much less than the variation between LST (which your watch should actually be set to) and your local time zone
>>108964688JEWellery for men
>>108965288The 9F movements have a very controlled "tick" though, which you will not see on other quartz movements. First of all it's two half-second ticks in a microsecond, noticeable if you record it on slo-mo high frame rate on your phone. Second, there's a hairspring on the seconds hand keeping it in tension, which absorbs all the backlash that would cause the tip of the seconds hand to quiver subtly on a cheaper quartz movement.It seems like a trivial thing but once you've gotten used to it, all other quartz movements look infuriatingly cheap from the way the seconds hand just flops around casually like a cheap toy.There are other quartz designs that make for a different user experience, like the UHF movements from Bulova/Citizen, which tick in such tiny increments it looks like a smooth sweep (smoother than a typical mech watch), but in my opinion nothing quite matches the GS style quartz seconds hand.
>>108964688>costs a tiny fraction of mechanical/automatic movementsThe really crap ones do. There are high accuracy quartz watches that are at least $2K and go way above that. That slant jews came up with that.>is far more accurate than even the very high endThe low end quartz are more accurate than low end mechanicals, especially the Japanese mechanicals. Modern, high end swiss movements are very accurate and durable. My Rolex explorer finally reached 1 minute slow after setting it 9 months ago>>108965527>lmfao, a 10 euro casio quartz watch is way more accurate than the best of mechanical watches.This is objectively false but I guess that's what you get when you read the box and are trying to cope with being poor.Personally, referring to the Rolex described above, it keeps better time than I need, which is to say very accurate and looks good while doing it. That is to say I don't look like a child wearing a plastic light up watch nor am I being data farmed by a smart watch. I also just like to remove electronics from my life where I can or want to. It's nice to have something that doesn't run on a battery.
>>108967330You're conflating accuracy and precision as is often the case with Rolex fans
>>108964688>>108965527the 33-year-old digital clock in my toyota has lost a grand total of 1 minute since I last set the time 3 years agoif it had been set once in 1997 and never reset, it would be about half an hour off todayanalogue clocks are obsolete and have been obsolete for the last 30-40 years, literally just consoomer tech toys for rich people
>>108964688Certan sects of the actual Jews buy exclusively mechanical watches because something something shabbos laws something.
>>108967403Possibly, since I wouldn't know the difference in this context. Generally people would just use the term accuracy but you can be gay and hair split. We are all just jerking off here anyway.
>>108967498>literally just consoomer tech toys for rich peopleIt also allows me to visually inform the poors that I am their better.
what do you guys even need watches for? i havent had one since i was like 13. if i want to know what time it is i look at pic related
>>108966916>>108966162maybe more recent quartz clocks are better then? the one I used was a late 80s/early 90s model. I used it up to the 2010s, when it started becoming difficult to source good straps for it.
>>108968176>>108967330I've never met an actual wealthy person with this attitude. You sound like you crave approval and recognition, which would like up with your choice to get the most basic Rolex model. Poors, at best, will think "fancy watch" but couldn't tell it apart from a much cheaper Omega, Hamilton or Tudor. The rich can smell your insecurity. The only people who may care are other performative fags, wishing they got a submariner instead of leasing the latest entry level Audi.
