[Closed] For those of you with automatic watches ...

I'm not saying they're an investment or not; but isn't that statement above you saying they're not an investment..?

No, it's not, actually. :-

Ok, so I'll explain as people are obviously struggling...

Watches are jewellery, beyond their basic function. IE, spensive watches are spensive jewellery. A cheapo watch is bought because it tells the time. A spensive watch is bought because it tells the time [i]and[/i][i] is nicely made, looks pretty, etc, but will offer no functional advantage over a cheapo one which is probbly just as accurate (if not, as is often the case, more so). So, a watch [i]can[/i] be bought as an 'investment', sure, but those who claim 'oh, it's an investment, I'm not buying it cos it's jewellery, are quoting the great Greek philosopher Testicles. It's an attempt to say 'oh no, I'm not vain or ostentatious and I'm secure enough not to be any more aspirational'. Just flipping admit that you've bought it cos it helps you feel good- a 'vanity' item. There's nowt wrong with that in itself. We all like nice things, it's in our nature. Hence art and creativity and stuff.

It's only really an 'investment' if you don't wear it, keep it as pristine as possible so as not to diminish it's value.

You can buy stocks and shares as an 'investment'. You don't wear them on your wrist as a piece of jewellery though, do you?

Any clearer?

Oh, and to reiterate; I have absolutely nothing against wearing watches as jewellery. Enjoy it!

Ah but, it's not mutually exclusive is it? You can buy a vanity item in the safe knowledge over time, it'll keep or increase its value. One of mine has doubled in the 20 years I've had it. I didn't buy it for that, I fall itno the CGAS category and just like em (as above).

I could probably sell most of my watches for similar to what I paid for them, maybe even make a few quid on a couple, partly because I got good discounts when I bought most of them, but mainly because the price of Swiss watches has gone through the roof and continues to rise. Rolex seem to have twice yearly increases, Panerai went up across the board another 7% on the 1st August after a 7.5% rise in January... An Omega Seamaster auto that cost £1250 3 years back now goes for £2300. The only change is a slightly different escapement, but Swatch need Omega to fill a slightly different market segment so rather than change the product, they change the price. Same with Breitling, stick in a manufacture movement and they're £7k. Crazy money.

Unless you managed to pick up a cheap Double Red Sub or an early Daytona, I'm not sure they'd class as a particularly safe investment though. Yes, you can make money but I'd suggest it's often through luck rather than judgement and if that's your motive then there are much better places to put your cash.

having done nothing more than play golf with it on

never play golf with a mechanical (or any) watch on - there is a fair amount of shock and vibration generated, even with todays 'skills compensator' clubs.

You can buy stocks and shares as an 'investment'. You don't wear them on your wrist as a piece of jewellery though, do you?

Any clearer?

So let me get this right. Buy an expensive watch as jewellry not an investment. Don't wear it when you're "doing stuff" since it might break. Keep it for special. Oh, but if you don't wear it it will eventually stop, so don't forget to wear it, but don't wear it when doing stuff 'cos you might break it. Keep it for special. Oh, and they don't keep very good time. 😆

never play golf with a mechanical (or any) watch on - there is a fair amount of shock and vibration generated, even with todays 'skills compensator' clubs.

So not only is it inaccurate, but you can't wear it if you're being overly active?

Wow, bargain. I'm starting to understand why people buy Rolexes to keep in a drawer at home.

Woody - Member
No. Sounds to me like someone was pwned and is trying to justify his error.

Unbelievable! If I was Fred I'd leave the thread in disgust and say no more....

...that's what he usually does 😛

That Hublot I bought (and took back) was a pure vanity purchase, simple. It simply didn't feel right to me wear it, simple.

However for the last 10yrs I've been wearing a rather expensive watch that I won when sailing, we all got them, they're all engraved with the boat name/date of competition/position/yacht club.. to say I'm proud to wear it is an understatement, eveytime I look at it I'm reminded of the all the training/competition/environment/club/people, I can even remember the cigar smoke and popping of champagne corks, the rumbling French acceptance that we beat them on their own stretch of water, the sun, the rain, the waves, the rocks and most of all... those gorgeoue French Girls..(hahha, ooop's) this watch brings back some mighty fine memories that only me and a couple of mates can share..priceless.

I've already agreed with my mum that I'll get her Kenwood Chef when she goes. It was a wedding present in the mid-70s and some of my most treasured memories are of making stuff with it. They certainly don't make them like that any more, the thing will probably outlast me too.

Well I have a good few £'s of watches.
Only really old ones mind - these new ones are bit too bling for me.
I like having something 50 years on my wrist..
Most accurate - casio atomic 5600 - £40..

good story bikebuoy. I do wonder if you'd have the same feeling with a less expensive watch though. I assume it is not the fact it is expensive that evokes all those memories, so a £50 engraved Seiko quartz watch would give you the same sense of pride, no? I'm not talking about a cheap looking Casio digital, but there are attractive watches out there that don't cost the price of a small car.

Ohh and Elfin - I normally reading your arguments and considering an alternative point of view.

But on this one you really are being very boring. 🙁

But on this one you really are being very boring

Reminds me of when I argue drunk. It matters not what I'm saying, all I do is disagree with everyone and change the point I'm trying to make 😆

Reminds me of when I argue drunk. It matters not what I'm saying, all I do is disagree with everyone and change the point I'm trying to make

Blimey most of the big hitters on here must be alkys then.

Seriously though do old watches go up and down in value like say classic cars?

quoting the great Greek philosopher Testicles

Lol, this thread was worth it for that - bravo 🙂

The thing that gets me is that all that money and fiddliness is simply for it's own sake. People make them and sell them for a bomb simply because that's what they can do, and people will buy them just because they are there. It's a waste of effort imo. Like diamonds - they are expensive because someone's artificially managing the price, not because they are intrinsically special, really.

I am all for aesthetics and beauty, but that doesn't have to come with justification like 'oh it's engineering' or 'it's rare and exclusive'. I feel that people's perceptions of worth are being influenced by cost and status rather than any true beauty or function.

If you met someone on the trail who talked loudly about how great a rider they were but were in fact average, you'd hate them for it. I can't see the difference here.

The thing that gets me is that all that money and fiddliness is simply for it's own sake. People make them and sell them for a bomb simply because that's what they can do, and people will buy them just because they are there

Agree

It's a waste of effort imo

Disagree

A friend of mine paints for a living. His paintings are incredible and some of them are close to indistinguishable from a photo. Why do it then? Why buy them? Why not just take a photo and save the money? A lot of people appreciate the effort and skill in painting a picture/making a watch/hand-making a bike frame and will pay a premium for that.

The daft thing with watches is that the aesthetic is at the expense of the functionality

All of this reminds me of circa. 1990 Ringle Bottle Cages. I bought one and it cost about £20. For something to simply hold a water bottle. Something costing £1 would have done the same job.

Still - they go for £30 second hand now.

[img] [/img]

Ahhh I think you are right, if the watch I wear wasn't and "expensive" one and it had the same features and engraving it most certainly would envolke the same memories..

I'm off to find some old photos of that event..

£30 !! Good god 😯 - I have a blue one of those which was last seen rolling towards the back of the garage. I'll have to rescue it later.

When I looked for that pic I saw several others on (retrobike??) website - some in a real mess and still going for £18 :-O

I sold mine a few years ago for £10 to a work colleague.

His paintings are incredible and some of them are close to indistinguishable from a photo. Why do it then?

I think only he can answer that definitively.

Some things are extremely difficult to do but that doesn't automatically make them worthy of something. Look through the Guinness Book of Records for a few ideas.

's like posh custom made rolled on the thighs of virgins etc bike frames. Nice to look at, maybe give you a warm feeling inside, make others gasp at the price. Some of them will work almost as well as a halfords special, some of them won't but hey ho spend your money on what you want.

I will still shake my head in a condescending way tho

8)

I think only he can answer that definitively.

I can answer it too, as can many people who appreciate the aesthetic of these things as well as the skill involved. If I suggested it was [i]just[/i] about the difficulty I've made my point badly.

Anyway, I REFUSE to go down the usual STW route of arguing over semantics, since it feels a bit pointless without TJ 😆

The daft thing with watches is that the aesthetic is at the expense of the functionality

Not sure how you've arrived at that conclusion - a COSC certified chronometer operates within margins most people wouldn't notice; good enough to get a stricken space ship back to earth, and most automatics can run not far off COSC standards if they're properly regulated. They are also much more sturdy than some people are suggesting - I have a Seiko Monster which gets worn for mountain biking, DIY, chopping wood and so on and still works absolutely fine. I have also worn my Seamaster to do the same things, although I tend not to use it for biking as I don't want to keep changing the bracelet for a nato strap.

I find it strange that people tend to polarise the argument into a function/vanity dichotomy as if they were the only factors at work - most of the stuff I own that I've spent significant money on has been picked for its aesthetic value, which includes the watches I own. I could say the same thing for my bikes - I bought a horst link Turner 5 Spot years back because it was highly rated by existing owners, but it was also visually appealing. I still own it and ride it regularly, and I still love the look of it. Other folks have come on here coo-ing over stuff like Nicolais, which I find unattractive, but I'm happy for them if they're pleased with their purchase. In terms of watches, I don't like the styling of G-Shocks, but lots of folk on here love the look, so what's the problem?

At the end of the day, I'm not sure celebrating "ugly" because it's cheap is any less perverse than spending £7,000 on a vanity project watch.

Not sure how you've arrived at that conclusion

Really? Have you not read this thread? Many people have posted about how their "fancy" watch loses/gains time at levels far greater than a cheaper quartz one. That was how it all started.

I get the aesthetic appeal of a nice watch, I really do. I get that some people are wowed by the skill and precision of the movements. Read my posts. If I had that kind of money I'd love a posh watch. However, this thread has opened my eyes in that I assumed these watches were as accurate as a quartz watch when many people are saying that is not the case. Do I feel a bit disillusioned? Yes. Is that aesthetic at the expense of functionality? Yes

Anyway, I REFUSE to go down the usual STW route of arguing over semantics, since it feels a bit pointless without TJ

Anyway, I REFUSE to go down the usual STW route of arguing over semantics, since it feels a bit pointless without TJ

Hiya !

I'm on your side stilltortoise

Buy expensive watches if you want but accept they are status symbols/ jewellery / nice toys. Don't try to make an arguemtn for them on either functional or investment grounds. Its only an investment if your money ahas grown faster than if you invested it elsewhere

Wahey! I was waiting for you TJ 🙂

Well Elfin was telling me that if I bought one it would still be an investment even if I wasn't expecting to make money out of it and simply wanting it as a heirloom.

As is so often the case, the thread has just descended into silly arguments.

I see where you're coming from, MF, but I think the sticking point for me is the notion that you can [i]buy [/i]heirlooms. To my mind, things [i]become [/i]heirlooms over time by nature of the sentimental investments that get poured into them. I doubt that many housewives bought a Kenwood Chef for anything other than wholly practical reasons, yet they're lovely things to hand down not because of their intrinsic value (other than longevity) but because of the happy memories associated with it.

Now, if you're going to buy an expensive watch, wear it every day, love it and treasure it and value it, [i]then [/i]when you hand it down to your kids it's "dad's watch" and something for them to remember you by, rather than just an expensive folly that lived at the back of your sock drawer for 20 years.

No. Sounds to me like someone was pwned and is trying to justify his error.

Oh, you're another 'I won't bother to actually try to understand what the person is saying, I'll just react to what I think I've read' one, aren't you? 😉

Ohh and Elfin - I normally reading your arguments and considering an alternative point of view.

But on this one you really are being very boring.

Why? Cos you din't agree with my point of view? Or because I am, after all, right?

TBH I seldom read as much toss as I do on these watch threads. If some of you could listen to yourselfs banging on about 'engineering' or 'certified chronometers' ffs... As for COSC; it's a Swiss organisation (funnily enough) which is basically part of an industry that likes to present itself as producing the finest timepieces in the World. They don't like the Japanese companies much for some reason, I'd imagine...

Blokes buy spensive watches because it's not custom (in the West at least) for men to wear lots of spensive jewellery. It's still about status and wealth ultimately though. If it were custom for men to wear symbols of wealth and status, then they would. Interesting to note some of the snobbish attitudes towards blokes who wear big gold chains and stuff, from some folk on here. And the suggestion that the only 'acceptable' jewellery (sic) that should be worn by a man is a nice watch...

If it really were about telling the time accurately, you'd all be wearing some quartz jobby.

The thing that gets me is that all that money and fiddliness is simply for it's own sake. People make them and sell them for a bomb simply because that's what they can do, and people will buy them just because they are there. It's a waste of effort imo. Like diamonds - they are expensive because someone's artificially managing the price, not because they are intrinsically special, really.

I am all for aesthetics and beauty, but that doesn't have to come with justification like 'oh it's engineering' or 'it's rare and exclusive'. I feel that people's perceptions of worth are being influenced by cost and status rather than any true beauty or function.

That, basically.

Ahh Cougar - that is where I am being misunderstood then - I am NOT buying it to keep locked away in the hope it will be worth more when I pass it down - it would be 100% something I would wear every day and something (I would hope) my children would remember me by (with the added consideration that I would be getting it initially for ME to remember MY mum and dad by (hence the engraving, which would definitely make it inherently less valuable second-hand anyway) and make a link between my children and their grand parents who they will never know.

Sorry, I kinda segued there - I wasn't suggest you would or wouldn't use it / lock it away particularly, I was just rolling by that point (-: As you were.

Why? Cos you din't agree with my point of view? Or because I am, after all, right?

Suck it up - it isn't often (if ever) I have accused you of being boring but I simply found you were on this occasion - making an argument out of nothing.

As an aside,

I've always wondered why people buy expensive things 'for best' and never use them. A mate of mine has a TAG, and in all the time I've known him I've nver actually seen him wear it. If I spent four figures on a watch, I'd want it surgically grafting to my arm. Better to have it scratched and battered (and used and loved) than kept pristine in a box, shirley?

There's a (Northern?) notion of 'sunday best'; save your best suits for events, roll out the good china twice a year and so on. I never understood that either. Or rather, I guess I do understand, but I don't agree with it.

Oh, and just to help the Hard Of Thinking a little bit; here's a couple of watches I really like for their aesthetic appeal:

Rado Sintra:

[img] [/img]

I have small wrists, and can't stand huge chunky 'divers' watches as they just look silly on me. And I don't need a 'depth guage' or a 'tackymeter'. Rado do simple, elegant discrete watches and I like them cos they're made from similar stuff to the heat shield tiles on the space Shuttle. 😀

Mondaine; maybe not über posh, but I love it for it's simplicity again, and it's ubiquitous iconic style:

[img] [/img]

Cougar - I have a friend who is in exactly that position - bought a really nice watch and won't wear it for fear of losing it or scratching it or something.

Bloody daft.

We do have 'best' crockery though - wedding gift stuff that comes out twice a year* 🙂

*Mainly because it is right at the back of the cupboard and we can never be arsed to drag it all out/put it away.

I'm not convinced by the "investment" argument. A local jeweller is selling 1950s Omega watches from £350. Far cheaper than a new one, and IMO far nicer looking too.

I don't think there's anything wrong with buying an expensive watch just because you want one, so why the spurious justifications?

Elfin - they are very beautiful watches I agree. Well the Mondaine one is, not so keen on the first one.

The first one reminds me of B&O hifi stuff - great to look at but not necessarily the best sound/vision for the money (or considerably less).

Well Elfin was telling me that if I bought one it would still be an investment even if I wasn't expecting to make money out of it and simply wanting it as a heirloom.

Was I?

[img] [/img]

There's a (Northern?) notion of 'sunday best'; save your best suits for events, roll out the good china twice a year and so on

I'm from Buxton originally and I "get" this. Is that northern enough? 😆

I got married in a very inexpensive suit and then wore it over and over again for other events and even work. It's now falling apart. An expensive one may have been no better made, but I would not have worn it as much for fear of wearing out an expensive suit. Daft, eh? 😆

Oh, and just to help the Hard Of Thinking a little bit

Cougar - I agree with that to an extent and I don't like the thought of things not being used as intended. For instance, I went to a vintage car owners club twice. The second time it was raining and most of them turned up in family saloons because they wouldn't take their precious 'collectors items' out in the rain. I also sold a very bling Breitling for that very reason, as I didn't feel comfortable wearing it most of the time and thought it was a waste.

I can also fully appreciate that people just like to have things, even if they sit in a drawer 99% of the time and only get taken out to look at occasionally. Stamp collecting anyone?

Elfinsafety - Member
Well Elfin was telling me that if I bought one it would still be an investment even if I wasn't expecting to make money out of it and simply wanting it as a heirloom.
Was I?

....and we must all bow down to your superiority complex

Well, it's not my fault you're so inferior...

I can also fully appreciate that people just like to have things, even if they sit in a [s]drawer [/s] shed 99% of the time and only get taken out to look at occasionally. [s]Stamp collecting[/s]Mountain biking anyone?

FTFY

I went to a vintage car owners club

I think that's a slightly different situation though. They're not 'expensive' cars, they're irreplaceable antiques. If I had a 2011 Mustang I'd be driving it every day; if I had a '67 Mustang it'd be wrapped in Vaseline and Visquine and hermetically sealed in a humidity-controlled room.

It's like comparing a large new build in the country to a listed building; they might have the same material value on paper, but there's a vast difference when it comes to whether or not you'd want to knock down the east wall and build a conservatory.

I think whether you use something, or wrap it in cotton wool can largely depend on how much money you have. This guy seems quite happy to thrash his cars round a race track as he has the money to rebuild them should they have a prang. If I was lucky enough to own any of them, I'd have to sleep with them to make sure they were safe 😉
[img] [/img]

Yeah that and the fact the manufacturers often GIVE him cars the lucky ****er.

Whoah this thread has stirred up some strong feelings in a few people eh? A betting man might wager the same people who don't "get" expensive watches are by and large the same people who don't (pretend not to?) get why others buy big expensive ego chariot skills compensator bikes, drive flash cars or wear expensive clothes. A cynic might say there's a whiff of the green eyed monster. Just sayin' is all 🙂

I like those Motul stools and table sets.

I simply found you were on this occasion - making an argument out of nothing.

The first one reminds me of B&O hifi stuff - great to look at but not necessarily the best sound/vision for the money

Oh I'm also a northerner who has to fight against the "keep that for best" mindset everyday. Grrrr

if I had a '67 Mustang it'd be wrapped in Vaseline and Visquine and hermetically sealed in a humidity-controlled room.

A betting man might wager the same people who don't "get" expensive watches are by and large the same people who don't (pretend not to?) get why others buy big expensive ego chariot skills compensator bikes, drive flash cars or wear expensive clothes.

Umm, I think it's more about the pointless self-justification. We know that expensive watches don't tell the time any more accurately (and may be worse), and they may or may not hold their value so don't make much sense as an investment.

I'm surprised by this thread; I always assumed that spending lots of money on an expensive watch would get you something that fulfilled its basic function at least as well as something cheap.

Interesting..

buy a £20 casio

Eh? We're talking about 'function', not 'bling'! 😆

@ransos I'm not sure anyone here is trying to justify why they buy expensive watches (nor should they need to). They buy them because they want them, same reason as they might buy an expensive car (why not get a second hand corolla? perfectly fine) or clothes (nothing wrong with tesco value is there?)

It's pretty humorous seeing all these people frothing at the gash with righteous indignation over choices other people make, that don't affect them in the slightest, and are none of their business 🙂

Random your mixing thing up a bit there, expensive cars and bike skills compensators quite often (to some extent) are functionally better so not just an aesthetics/status symbol thing. I actually have a 2nd hand corolla, as a wheeled box to get me where I want to go it's fine, it does lack some elements tho, comfortable seats and a decent MPG for starters, cruise control would be nice too. If extra money gets you extra/better functionality I'll save up (where possible/reasonable), if extra money gets you "ooooh you paid a LOT for that didnt you?" comments/looks, as I said I'll shake my head.

I'm hardly frothing at the mouth tho.

good enough to get a stricken space ship back to earth, and most automatics can run not far off COSC standards if they're properly regulated

the watch nasa endorse is neither automatic or COSC standard.

I own a 2000 Series TAG Automatic. It's midsized, has a simple white face & stainless steel strap and tells me the time & date. It's not 'bling' or flash just a nice plain watch that does a good job. Bought it in 1992 & it's been worn most days since including whilst mtbing, skiing, diving, football, DIY etc - it's even survived a day hydrospeeding and an unpleasant motorcycle accident.

I'm kinda confused as to which category this puts me in?

It's pretty humorous seeing all these people frothing at the gash with righteous indignation over choices other people make, that don't affect them in the slightest, and are none of their business

Eh? Where's that happening then? I don't see it.

There you go with that imagination of yours again... 😉

good enough to get a stricken space ship back to earth

Of course, I, and I'd suspect most people, really need a watch with this function.

I'm kinda confused as to which category this puts me in?

(only kidding)

😆

All is clear now MF 🙂

It's funny that expensive watches get refered to a 'bling' watches. FWIW, I tend to think of 'bling' watches as either shiny cheap tat with masses of sparkly stuff stuck on, or the expensive version where only the materials change.
The other sort of bling, the 'I have more money than you will ever see and I show it by wearing a watch that cost more than your house, but is so complicated it's virtually unusable', like this one:
[img] [/img]

For myself, even if I had millions available, this would be my watch of choice:
[img] [/img]

Why? Because it's a robustly built watch that appeals by it's sheer simplicity. It does one thing. It tells the time clearly and unambiguously. One second's glance will tell you what time it is, which is why I've got the B&R replica, and I'll probably get a £50 replica of one of these too, as the £5000 it costs is out of my reach. Doesn't matter, I love the face, it's just perfection to my aesthetic senses, and it's all I require a watch to be. Even G-Shock watches shout 'HEY, LOOK AT ME, I'M A REAL ADVENTURE KINDA GUY, AND I WANT EVERYONE TO KNOW IT!!!'
And most of them are far too complicated too. I even dislike those cheap Casio's, they're to difficult to read quickly, especially in the dark. Yes, they have a backlight, but you have to press a button to get that.

the watch nasa endorse is neither automatic or COSC standard.

True - the Speedie pro is a manual wind, but it's still not a quartz, and I think the point I was making still stands. A properly regulated mechanical movement, whether it's automatic or manual wind is going to be plenty accurate enough for most people's real world needs.

I only really want a watch to perform one function, which is telling me the time. My life doesn't require me to know the time so precisely that I need greater accuracy than either my Seiko or Omega provide. I've owned Casios in the past, and part of what I don't like about them is the additional faff that comes with most of them, and what to me appears the ridiculously over-engineered look of G-Shocks. I much prefer the neat and tidy look of an analogue faced watch in a neat case, but that's entirely a matter of preference.

@ransos I'm not sure anyone here is trying to justify why they buy expensive watches (nor should they need to). They buy them because they want them, same reason as they might buy an expensive car (why not get a second hand corolla? perfectly fine) or clothes (nothing wrong with tesco value is there?)

Actually, that's exactly what they're doing. Your analogy is spurious - an expensive car is (usually) measurably better than a cheap car. This isn't the case with a watch.

As I said earlier, I completely understand why people might want an expensive watch, a point you seem to have missed.

I'd suspect most people, really need a watch with this function

A second hand seems a reasonable enough function for people to have on a watch?

Do automatic* wearers remove theirs at night?
.
.
.
.
the watch kind, not the 7.62 kind...

For myself, even if I had millions available, this would be my watch of choice:

Why? Because it's a robustly built watch that appeals by it's sheer simplicity. It does one thing. It tells the time clearly and unambiguously. One second's glance will tell you what time it is, which is why I've got the B&R replica, and I'll probably get a £50 replica of one of these too, as the £5000 it costs is out of my reach.

Given that there are hundreds of watches with that clear a face and similar stylings costing a few hundred quid or less... why would you buy a fake?

tend to take my watch off at night when I'm at home - if I'm on a residential, or camping out, I tend to keep it on all the time.

FWIW, their is a lot to be said for s simple, aethetically pleasing face.

The case and bracelet of my watch is highly polished stainless steel, but the face is simple black with luminous numbers. The only clutter is the date display

That Paneri Luminor is gorgeous.. Bloomin loverly, such a simple and effective design, clear, concise, chunky..

You say you've a replica.. Not one of those funky "egyptian" market ones is it..

I much prefer the neat and tidy look of an analogue faced watch in a neat case

Me too. I love that Luminor one above. I really hate those watches with so many dials and hands that it's like looking at a "Magic Eye" picture to tell the time. Mine cost me £80. Black leather strap, stainless steel case, white face and black arms. I think I've had it 8 years or so and have replaced the battery and strap twice. It keeps great time and - if it wasn't for the scratches made when my 2 year old "borrowed" it I would be happy with it for the rest of my life.

Mondaine; maybe not über posh, but I love it for it's simplicity again, and it's ubiquitous iconic style

Most beautiful thing on this thread so far.

Mondaine = Mundane IMO

But then I like swatches...

Panerais are great, I have a 177 model in titanium as my girly reed-like wrists found the steel ones too heavy. Beware though, they wear very big on the wrist; I find mine a little too big to wear as a formal watch, and too nice to wear as a beater. Such is life I guess.

Are we still on this?

Anyone want to buy one? You don't need to justify it to anyone or convince anyone of the rationale behind the purchase. JFDI. Your money, your life, your choice.

The old buy cheap/functional vs dearer/same function debate will go on a slong as time. Make your choice for you and **** the naysayers. That's all. 🙂

"if I had a '67 Mustang it'd be wrapped in Vaseline and Visquine and hermetically sealed in a humidity-controlled room."

I've got a '68 fastback, and it gets driven,probably only once or twice every month but it does get driven.Bloody utterly pointless owning it otherwise.

"if I had a '67 Mustang it'd be wrapped in Vaseline and Visquine and hermetically sealed in a humidity-controlled room."

I've got a '68 fastback, and it gets driven,probably only once or twice every month but it does get driven.Bloody utterly pointless owning it otherwise.

whoops, sorry double post.I also own a cheapish automatic watch, that's 40 odd years old and still keeps time reasonably well.