The (Less intimidating) Watch Thread
-
maybe this might be helpful for folks trying to figure out what size watch they are comfortable with
it helped me and confirm I am a girly man who likes smaller watches to match my small donald trump hands
-
Like others have said it's all going to depend on personal comfort and wrist size, but I prefer 42-48mm range. Too small is too feminine IMO and too large is just…too large lol. There's been a trend in the past several years of huge watch faces on men and it gets a little ridiculous sometimes.
-
I'm still at a loss to understand what a dive watch really is. I dive with my Pinion. It's waterproof to the depths I dive (65 Meters - 210' max), I can read it easily and have no need for a bezel (not sure what to do with one and I have dived seriously for 20 years)….
I suspect you say that tongue-in-cheek. As we all know, no one needs a watch to dive anymore, with the modern computers. Dive watches are the watches that have functions that were required of them when watches were an indispensable part of a diver's equipment, before computers. I learned to dive in 86 or so, and for the ~10 years after that dive computers (and BCDs by the way) were first inexistent and then very expensive and very rare. The divemasters had to rely on tables and time their dive at depth as precisely as possible, and for that a 1-way rotating bezel is very effective.
As for the waterproof rating, it's a fairly abstract number. It's completely possible to flood a watch at a lower depth than it's rated for, depending on circumstances. Hopefully it's less likely to happen for a 300m rated watch than a 100m watch.
I agree that nowadays, no diver needs a diving watch. Similarly, pilots don't need pilots' watches, athletes don't need a racing watch, yachtmen don't need yachting watches, doctors don't need doctors' watches, etc. All those cover sets of features that are not needed anymore for their intended use.
-
Fair enough.
Personally I like diving watches because I have that connection with diving (although I don't rely on a watch for this) but also because I like the design and the fact that they're typically fairly rugged watches. They fit my tastes and lifestyle better than dress watch, chronos, and the like.
With this said, many of the "dive watches" are poorly designed for their original use. The bezel on my Seamaster (the blue James Bond model) has no sharp knurling, just a very smooth scalloping. It is hard to rotate when dry and would be impossible to do when wet, nevermind with gloves.
Dedicated watches are really an anachronism nowadays, ironically enough.
-
maybe this might be helpful for folks trying to figure out what size watch they are comfortable with
Thanks for that Mike. Helpful.
-
I really don't feel like watches are an anachronism. It's not always convenient or wise to yank out your smartphone to check the time. 1. it can be seen as being rude 2. you can't always reach into your pocket 3. it gives you a chance to drop your phone 4. it's not always wise to light up your surroundings (I'm thinking the movie theatre)
Re: sizes. One thing most people don't realize about dive watches is the face and legibility is not as good as compared to a field watch of the same size. A field watch of the same size has a much larger face and is easier to read on the fly than a dive watch with the same diameter.
-
I think dive watches are pretty good at a whole bunch of things, but really the master of nothing.
They're better looking than a watch built for pure function. They're more durable than a dress watch. They have been around long enough and popular enough that plenty of companies have put work and thought into making them unique. If I wanted the absolute in those categories:
Beauty: pretty much anything from A. Lange and Sohne, but I wouldn't be caught dead gardening with one on.
Toughness: G-Shock. If anything were tougher, the Bureau of Prisons Search and Rescue Team would use them. You are not tougher than them.
Artistic experimentation: pretty much half the stuff Graeme posts up.With all that being said, my Seamasters are my most worn watches, but I know their limitations.
-
This Seiko 5 changed my life
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Heddels have a piece made for this thread:
Automatic Diving Watches under $350
@waveoffaze nice Seiko!
-
I feel like I'm moving closer to my first purchase. I want it to be relatively inexpensive, relatively simple and an "all round" watch. I don't need anything dressy just yet. The idea is to have something decent as a place to start.
I was seriously considering the Pinion Atom, but the more advanced models are nicer so this is something I might save for an eventual watch number two, if I feel I want to develop a collection. Hamilton, mentioned earlier by @Untucked seem to have watches that fit the bill in their Field Khaki collection. Here are a couple I like a lot:
http://www.hamiltonwatch.com/collection/khaki/field/auto-40mm/h70595963-khaki-field-auto-40mm
I can only find this in a 42mm size in Norway, but that suits me better…
http://www.hamiltonwatch.com/collection/khaki/field/auto-44mm/h70625533
This one is an outside option and slightly dressier… I like the face colour/metal combo, but on the whole I'd prefer a leather/textile strap at this point.
http://www.urverket.no/hamilton-khaki-field-gra-stal-o42-mm-p-305151.html
-
I always recommend buying a watch with a bracelet. The increase in initial cost isn't as expensive as buying one later, and the market for straps is much more robust. Hamilton makes pretty quality bracelets, too.
