/fa/ - Fashion

>>15858003

That's a tough conundrum. If you know you're out of the city in 2-3 years, then you definitely shouldn't buy now, but that also means you shouldn't buy a watch now either. Put the money of a watch towards the house in 3 years time in the new city.

We don't know what will happen economically, so you should play it safe that way. Honestly, that's what I'd do...forget the watch, focus on the business aspect until you're secure. 500 can go a long way if invested instead of lost on a watch.

>>15858009
Sorry, we just finished the last thread....so I baked a new one.

>>15327193

Is there another one that is a standard production model that was made for fewer years with fewer production numbers that isn't a 'special edition'? It was allegedly a run of 2000 pieces, with 200 on straps. The production years were 1987-88. This is common knowledge in the collector's community. Have I missed something?

>let the hate flow through you..

>>14169714
There are benefits to Delrin; it's self-lubricating, and if from good stock it shouldn't really break or shatter. It's usually resistant to expansion/contraction problems you see with organic materials and even some metals, so it's great to use in watches for specific things (like chrono second brakes, which need not be metal at all.)

But then again we live in the age of watches serving the luxury purpose first and foremost ahead of practical usage. So, you'd never see a plastic part on a Patek....

>>14109579
This might be a silly perspective, but I'll say it anyway. Why would it be necessary to harden the case of a watch in the manner that Sinn and Damasko do, at least, in terms of saying that Rolex's Steel (or anyone else's like Omega, Breitling, etc.) is not sufficiently strong? What precisely are you expecting a mechanical 'tool watch' to go through that wouldn't damage your wrist/hand beyond recognition?

I can understand wanting a watch to survive a fall to a tiled floor...this has damaged many a watch. But beyond this.....? Why does it matter?

If it's just about the bragging rights of having the strongest case, then Rolex probably wouldn't bother, same with Omega. Their interest appears to be along other vectors of research. In the same way that it could be argued that Damasko has no interest in classical aesthetics; one could ask, 'why can't they produce a beautiful watch?', and the answer would obviously be, 'it doesn't matter to them, it's not their selling point.' Just a thought.

>>14109639
Do you think it's ugly? If so, and if you'd never want to ever look at it again, then get rid of it. It's not going to appreciate in value (unless it's some outrageously rare piece that some odd collector will want to buy). Just make sure it's not something that has even a hint of sentimental value.

When I moved last time, I threw away my first tobacco pipe. It was a piece of shit, bought out of the barrel, and it was in horrible condition. No matter how I treated it, no matter what I threw at it, it still smoked on. I thought to myself, 'why would I want this piece of junk in the future?'. I miss it to this very day....because it was my first pipe. So, if you have no sentimental memories about this watch, make it gone. If you have a hint of it, keep it.

>>14109648
I would agree with you that it depends heavily on the market. What we've seen however is a trend towards extremely low end and extremely high end. cont.

>>13865084
I tried one on a few days ago...I was underwhelmed, to say the least. But the small version really looked fucking good on my wrist. If only the finishing were better. I want to try a gold one on, because I really want a square/rectangular dress watch, and the reverso is the only one that really gets the art-deco thing in a modern engineered case. Plus JLC movements, which have good reputations.....

>>13671958
I think you're mistaken...the lowest price for a Speedmaster is $1632 for the first generation X-33....can you link the one you're thinking of? The lowest price is around 15,000, from Germany....

>>13671960
cont.
Then the issue becomes one of the external finishing, which I believe is definitely a quantifiable element that so many people here argue about. That's also where the price goes up, and 'value' becomes another odd issue. Is Grand Seiko 'good value' for their finishing, if the accuracy of the movement is removed from the equation? Likewise, is Omega finishing 'bad value' for the same reasons?

Then the issue you mention about 'marketing driven' considerations and manufacturing philosophy. What do you consider to be marketing driven as compared with horological? Let me put it another way. Can you (because I can't think of any at the moment) give me some examples of watches from 'respectable' houses like Grand Seiko, Zenith, JLC or Rolex (I got these from your list) that make watches purely for the marketing purposes? In my mind, the only one that even comes a little close is the Rolex DeepSea...which is entirely useless for its purpose (which the Submariner and the Sea-Dweller could accomplish for normal human beings).

Even Tudor...I don't think they've done anything that could be argued as being purely 'marketing' driven. On the other hand, Omega is notorious for having 'special' or 'limited' editions of their Speedmaster...too many to document. But that's really the only line (outside of anything in the James Bond world) that has this...

The more I try talking about this...the deeper down the rabbit hole I go, and I think the less I make sense. Does any of this make sense to you? lol