Are Watches An Endangered Species?
Dennis Marks
was excited by the technology in addition to having a fine watch. I showed
it to my millionaire relatives (no exaggeration). My sister couldn't care
less. If a watch is within 5 minutes of the actual time it is fine with her.
My nieces don't wear a watch and it is the last thing on their minds. My
brother-in-law has a black plastic Casio that tells the temperature that I
gave to him 10 years ago. He has replaced the black band with a silver
colored metal one (imagine what that looks like). He bought a cheap watch on
a cruise that lasted about 6 months (the watch that is).
Is this normal for the majority of people? Does anyone care about a fine
watch anymore?
--
Dennis
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Bob Lee
> Is this normal for the majority of people? Does anyone care about a fine
> watch anymore?
>
must admit, I haven't seen one on any of their friends with a watch.
In some cases cell phones are used as timepieces and it seems everyone
has one of those.
I admire highly accurate stuff, including watches, whatever the
brand, etc. I am a watch wearer most of the time, although I take mine
off within seconds of entering my house. In my work life I take care
of computer servers and often have them keep time with an atomic
source -- something that I marvel at, but usually is brushed off by
most others when I tell them about that function.
A few months ago I found a clock software program that kept "fuzzy
time" meaning that it read 'quarter past' 'ten of' within about a 5
minute window. I really enjoyed that clock and it told me something
about keeping time in the real world.
A fine watch plays, not only to our own vanity, but to an appreciation
of nice things. Nothing wrong with it at all, although people are
impressed with different things. Of course, fine watch doesn't exactly
translate to highly accurate with the advent of low cost and highly
accurate quartz movements that may run circles around some of the most
expensive watches in the world. What makes these 'fine watches' fine
will be argued by all sides. A highly intricate manually winding
mechanical watch is a wonder, but comparing to even a low cost quartz
for accuracy is a losing proposition. Enjoy your fine watch for
whatever reason floats your boat -- just don't expect universal
agreement from others.
Bob
--
Robert Lee PGP: D3EE2268 pgp.mit.edu
I prefer email in plain text
Jack Denver
of NY that is worth a couple of million in the current real estate market.
He recently showed me his watch. It was a plastic Casio wristwatch but one
of the lugs had broken off so he neatly filed off the stub (did a good job,
I must admit) and now carries it as a pocket watch. Literally in his pants
pocket, with the change and the keys.
So yes, many people don't care about fine watches anymore. Wearing a good
watch is not forbidden or considered gauche (the NY Times is filled with
page after page of watch ads, some of them full page in this gift giving
season, at $100k a pop) unless maybe it has a few too many diamonds on it.
But neither is it absolutely obligatory or expected of a successful man or
a rich man's wife as it might have been in the past when expectations were
more rigid. I think people have bigger status symbols - Mercedes sedans and
2nd homes, etc. so a watch is a pretty minor status symbol in comparison and
can even be skipped altogether without loss of status. I understand that in
China a gold Rolex is still the absolute requirement to show that you are a
successful businessman & so China is turning into one of Rolex's biggest
markets. BTW, Rolex's biggest selling model is not a man's watch but a
ladies model - the datejust IIRC. A ladies model is also the one that does
best on the COSC tests.
"Dennis Marks" <denm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:11344307...@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
Bob Fry
We live in an age of disposable goods of all kinds, from fast-food
utensils to electronics and computers to our houses (in America)--we
don't throw them out, but do routinely move about.
Anything built to last will cost a lot, and it's often a disadvantage
because as the item ages it becomes obsolete, but you can't chuck it
because you paid a lot for it.
Paul Raposo
> I just bought a new Swiss watch that is accurate within 1/10 second a day. I
> was excited by the technology in addition to having a fine watch. I showed
> it to my millionaire relatives (no exaggeration). My sister couldn't care
> less. If a watch is within 5 minutes of the actual time it is fine with her.
> My nieces don't wear a watch and it is the last thing on their minds. My
> brother-in-law has a black plastic Casio that tells the temperature that I
> gave to him 10 years ago. He has replaced the black band with a silver
> colored metal one (imagine what that looks like). He bought a cheap watch on
> a cruise that lasted about 6 months (the watch that is).
>
> Is this normal for the majority of people? Does anyone care about a fine
> watch anymore?
>
> --
> Dennis
I've noticed that the people who are the most obsessed with what time it is, usually
care the least about watches. One of my bosses years ago was constantly yelling for
the time. One day he called me over from across the yard just to ask the time. I
asked why he didn't stick a crowbar in his wallet and pry out a few bucks and buy a
damned watch. He asked why he needed one, if he always has people standing around to
tell him what time it is.
As I've written before, I'd rather have a really nice watch, than a really nice car--or
a McMansion.
dAz
> A few months ago I found a clock software program that kept "fuzzy
> time" meaning that it read 'quarter past' 'ten of' within about a 5
> minute window. I really enjoyed that clock and it told me something
> about keeping time in the real world.
>
yes I liked that program, you can adjust the "fuzzyness" too, cranked
right up, it just says "afternoon" for anytime between 12 and 6pm :)
I want one in a digital watch that just says Morning, breakfast, lunch
(aussie long lunch 12 to 3pm), afternoon, tea, beer, dinner, night,
sleep, not even have words, just little icons that fade in then out when
being replaced with the next icon.
Mij Adyaw
of the bling watches are really in fashion with the younger crowd.
"dAz" <dazb@zipDOTcomDOTau> wrote in message
news:439e39a5$0$18202$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
Frank Adam
<denm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I just bought a new Swiss watch that is accurate within 1/10 second a day. I
>was excited by the technology in addition to having a fine watch. I showed
>it to my millionaire relatives (no exaggeration). My sister couldn't care
>less. If a watch is within 5 minutes of the actual time it is fine with her.
>My nieces don't wear a watch and it is the last thing on their minds. My
>brother-in-law has a black plastic Casio that tells the temperature that I
>gave to him 10 years ago. He has replaced the black band with a silver
>colored metal one (imagine what that looks like). He bought a cheap watch on
>a cruise that lasted about 6 months (the watch that is).
>
>Is this normal for the majority of people? Does anyone care about a fine
>watch anymore?
>
Certainly not the youth. In time they will grow and become poor,
middle class or filthy rich and then they will look at getting decent
jewellery depending on their income and status, but to be honest if i
wasn't a watchmaker i'd have one watch and a couple of quartz wall
clocks. Wife, child and i all use our mobiles as alarm clocks and just
like every phone should, hers can be even tuned to our favorite radio
station to wake up to. I'm guessing we're not alone in that.
I'm afraid most watch companies and mechanical clocks will dwindle
away in the next century or three and frankly, the day i'll see a
grandfather clock on the Enterprise with Scotty in panic because he
kinna apply full power to the winder or she'll blow, is when i will
change my opinion on that. :)
--
Regards, Frank
Longfellow
> On 2005-12-12, Dennis Marks <denm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Is this normal for the majority of people? Does anyone care about a fine
>> watch anymore?
>>
> Although each of my teenage kids have watches, neither wears one and I
> must admit, I haven't seen one on any of their friends with a watch.
> In some cases cell phones are used as timepieces and it seems everyone
> has one of those.
>
> I admire highly accurate stuff, including watches, whatever the
> brand, etc. I am a watch wearer most of the time, although I take mine
> off within seconds of entering my house. In my work life I take care
> of computer servers and often have them keep time with an atomic
> source -- something that I marvel at, but usually is brushed off by
> most others when I tell them about that function.
NTP?
> A few months ago I found a clock software program that kept "fuzzy
> time" meaning that it read 'quarter past' 'ten of' within about a 5
> minute window. I really enjoyed that clock and it told me something
> about keeping time in the real world.
>
> A fine watch plays, not only to our own vanity, but to an appreciation
> of nice things. Nothing wrong with it at all, although people are
> impressed with different things. Of course, fine watch doesn't exactly
> translate to highly accurate with the advent of low cost and highly
> accurate quartz movements that may run circles around some of the most
> expensive watches in the world. What makes these 'fine watches' fine
> will be argued by all sides. A highly intricate manually winding
> mechanical watch is a wonder, but comparing to even a low cost quartz
> for accuracy is a losing proposition. Enjoy your fine watch for
> whatever reason floats your boat -- just don't expect universal
> agreement from others.
>
> Bob
This raises a question for me. Given a very well regulated and cared
for top quality mechanical watch, what sort of accuracy can one expect?
Watches as jewelry are probably still being worn but in a different
guise now. The cell phone is a teenagers accessory, and where glitter
and all that were the coin for earlier generations, packed/stacked
functionality is the current coin. Doing net transactions, such as
email and webbrowsing, and doing photography of amazing quality with the
very latest phones, is the current thing. Time is just one of a whole
raft of "necessities" for the latest generation.
Eventually, cyber-ergonomics will become a very major issue: all the
computing power of not all that long ago stuffed into wearable
accessories, perhaps even body accessories (and no I haven't been
reading too much Gibson. I like Neal Stephenson.), will become the
future personal jewelry medium.
At every stage, it has been the latest technology that has been pursued,
and that will continue for some very deep reasons, I think. It's just
that our generation knew the time when time-keeping equated with
expensive quality mechanical watches. So we appreciate them as later
generations never can and never will.
Longfellow
Falky foo
> Watches are not endangered. Because fashion follows the music industry,
all
> of the bling watches are really in fashion with the younger crowd.
True, but they're more about the bling and less about the watch.
ticktock
>My sister couldn't care
>less. If a watch is within 5 minutes of the actual time it is fine with her.
I'm afraid I am in your sisters camp (and I have been 'in this game'
for 30+ years).
I read all the posts to this group, and always find them interesting,
but everytime I see the discussions about
such-and-such-a-brand/movement giving such-and-such-accuracy my eyes
glaze over and I get a numbing sensation which spreads throughout the
grey-cells.
The discussions on the split-second-per-month-accuracy are akin to the
discussions about whether or not a watch winder is necessary to keep an
automatic watch in working order ... i.e. superfluous and redundant.
I don't care if my watch is entirely accurate, I live in a world where
Meetings that I attend generally start 'on the hour' (plus or minus 5
minutes) and where others arrive spread over a 10-15 minute period. I
live in a world where there are so many external influences upon my
travels that I can never guarantee being at a certain place for a
certain time... so why should I get hung-up over whether or not my
watch is accurate to the split-second.
Sorry if I am talking heresy to those in the group to whom ultimate
horological accuracy is some sort of Holy Grail... but ... I really
don't 'get' why there should be the drive for this ultimate in
'achieved/perceived' accuracy... are we all competing in some sort of
race towards the heavenly finishing post? I must have missed out on
that Gene
;-)
I only own 3 watches... a gold cased 'Rotary' (ETA955) quartz that is
my everyday watch, and a couple of Longines. Provided they are within a
minute or two of the 'real' time I don't care, and over the years I
have found that the vast majority of our clients don't either.
In 30'ish years I have had no more than about 2 or 3 dozen folks who
have expressed a desire to see the results of the Vibrograf timing of
their watches. (We always supply the trace as part of the
service/repair documentation) ... but the majority of folks simply
don't care so long as the watch is ..
a) reliable (keeps going)
b) relatively accurate (they don't have to reset the thing every week)
c) is within a minute or so of the 'pips' (for those not in the UK ..
the 'pips' are the time signal transmitted by BBC radio at the hour).
Really, this almost comes back to the earlier discussion about "why do
people buy watches", ... the majority buy a watch because, for whatever
reasons, they associate with all the visual/aesthetic/sociological
conditions perceived to be attached to the watch or brand.
If it looks 'right' to them, and satisfies one of their 'Heirarchy of
Needs' categories, then actual timekeeping accuracy becomes
seconfd-place and is not that important.
That the watch should be 'capable' of accuracy is one thing... whether
their own watch is entirely accurate is another.
You ask "Are watches an endangered species?" ... my answer is 'no'
just as long as we have manufacturers making them, marketing people
creating 'the need' for them, and our own tribal desire for personal
adornment (jewellery).
Just my twa'appence worth, as per usual.
Ian B
P.S. as for the separate discussion of the 'need' for automatic watch
winders .... of course we don't need these things... they are solving
no problem, they add nothing to the value/quality/accuracy/longevity of
the timepieces attached to them; ... they were originally designed for
the trade to 'test' watches ... there is no need whatsoever other than
that created by the marketing people for watch owners to keep their
watches on one of these things. They are the horological equivalent of
the 'Emperors New Clothes'.
..........Asbestos undies firmly in place :-)
Ian B
St. John Smythe
> P.S. as for the separate discussion of the 'need' for automatic watch
> winders .... of course we don't need these things... they are solving
> no problem, they add nothing to the value/quality/accuracy/longevity of
> the timepieces attached to them; ... they were originally designed for
> the trade to 'test' watches ... there is no need whatsoever other than
> that created by the marketing people for watch owners to keep their
> watches on one of these things. They are the horological equivalent of
> the 'Emperors New Clothes'.
...right up until the point that you get a watch with multiple
complications, and takes 10 minutes or more to set everything.
--
St. John
Leibowitz's Rule:
When hammering a nail, you will never hit your finger if you
hold the hammer with both hands.
Jack Denver
displays the time to the second in the toolbar and periodically synchs to a
time server, plus an RC clock elsewhere in the house. There are lots of
things that operate on fairly precise time schedules - the start of TV
programs, train departures, etc. There's also an "Everest" aspect to having
the right time - just because it's there.
"ticktock" <i...@klokwurx.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1134470772.7...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Mooron
Dennis Marks wrote:
> I just bought a new Swiss watch that is accurate within 1/10 second a day. I
> was excited by the technology in addition to having a fine watch. I showed
> it to my millionaire relatives (no exaggeration). My sister couldn't care
> less. If a watch is within 5 minutes of the actual time it is fine with her.
> My nieces don't wear a watch and it is the last thing on their minds. My
> brother-in-law has a black plastic Casio that tells the temperature that I
> gave to him 10 years ago. He has replaced the black band with a silver
> colored metal one (imagine what that looks like). He bought a cheap watch on
> a cruise that lasted about 6 months (the watch that is).
>
> Is this normal for the majority of people? Does anyone care about a fine
> watch anymore?
>
> --
> Dennis
Most people nowadays don't appreciate an accurate watch.
It's probably because quartz watches are so cheap and there
are so many accurate time sources readily available to set a
watch by (GPS, cell phone, computer...). I've been wearing
a Seiko 5 lately which is not a very accurate watch and
certainly not the most accurate watch I own. I'm logged into
a computer most of the day that is NTP synched within
10ms NIST. A couple of times a day I type "date" and adjust
my watch as needed. I don't care about accuracy.
Years ago an accurate watch was more appreciated
because it was such a pain to keep it set.
- Mooron
pl...@csus_abcdefghij.edu
> Bob Lee wrote:
>
>> A few months ago I found a clock software program that kept "fuzzy
>> time" meaning that it read 'quarter past' 'ten of' within about a 5
>> minute window. I really enjoyed that clock and it told me something
>> about keeping time in the real world.
>>
>
> right up, it just says "afternoon" for anytime between 12 and 6pm :)
>
> I want one in a digital watch that just says Morning, breakfast, lunch
> (aussie long lunch 12 to 3pm), afternoon, tea, beer, dinner, night,
> sleep, not even have words, just little icons that fade in then out when
> being replaced with the next icon.
Not too good if one is a student! I've had classes where the instructor
says one is absent when one is 5 min late "unless they checkin with
the instructor after class".
Most instructors start the class "on the dot" & keep the students in
the class until the official time end of class.
I do notice that the above started to happen after the budgetry
restrictions/crisis demanded by the state govenor. :-)
One very important item overlooked is that not many people actually
"punch the clock" to clock-in or clock-out for work; not sure if
even factory workers are doing that anymore. This would aid in not
needing to know the exact time for many happenings.
John S.
Dennis Marks wrote:
> I just bought a new Swiss watch that is accurate within 1/10 second a day. I
> was excited by the technology in addition to having a fine watch. I showed
> it to my millionaire relatives (no exaggeration). My sister couldn't care
> less. If a watch is within 5 minutes of the actual time it is fine with her.
> My nieces don't wear a watch and it is the last thing on their minds. My
> brother-in-law has a black plastic Casio that tells the temperature that I
> gave to him 10 years ago. He has replaced the black band with a silver
> colored metal one (imagine what that looks like). He bought a cheap watch on
> a cruise that lasted about 6 months (the watch that is).
>
> Is this normal for the majority of people? Does anyone care about a fine
> watch anymore?
>
Are watches an endangered species - no, not in my experience. Just
look at the shelves of watches for sale at almost every conceivable
retailer. Many women have several watches of coordinating colors, etc.
Guys engage in similar collecting, but they dress it up in the name of
horology because some of them have an understanding of what goes on
underneath the dial.
The number of people that really care about a fine watch now is
probably about the same as it always has been. Most people don't
(knowingly anyway) own a fine watch. Look back 50 or 75 years at the
vast numbers of entry-level watches (Big Ben, Timex, Ingersoll, etc)
that were run until they stopped with little attention given to their
accuracy. I think that today's tendency to ignore maintenance and use
'em until they are dead is maybe not so different.
Falky foo
dorky and tell more or less the right time.
Bob Fry
plew> Not too good if one is a student! I've had classes where
plew> the instructor says one is absent when one is 5 min late
plew> "unless they checkin with the instructor after class".
<cut>
plew> One very important item overlooked is that not many people
plew> actually "punch the clock" to clock-in or clock-out for
plew> work; not sure if even factory workers are doing that
plew> anymore. This would aid in not needing to know the exact
plew> time for many happenings.
Quite right, all this timeliness is a hangover from the bad old
manufacturing days. Even mass classroom instruction is obsolete but
old habits die hard.
10-30 years from now, as the current set of 20-somethings get into
power, they will largely do away with artificial crap like showing up
"on time", and showing up at all. Why not do your work, or learning,
from your home? What counts is product, dammit, not how many hours you
put in and when you put it in. The horrible commutes, freeways, and
so on we think are normal will be seen as what they really are,
horrible abberations for a time to move society to the next level.
Watches and other timepieces will still be around but much more for
quaint memories and old habits.
Bo Williams
> Are watches an endangered species - no, not in my experience. Just
> look at the shelves of watches for sale at almost every conceivable
> retailer. Many women have several watches of coordinating colors, etc.
> Guys engage in similar collecting, but they dress it up in the name of
> horology because some of them have an understanding of what goes on
> underneath the dial.
I grabbed all the Sunday paper circulars that I thought would contain
watches for some, um, "errand" reading recently, and I was appalled at
the homogeny. Everybody's selling all the same stuff. Anyone reading
this knows that a potential watch consumer who gets all s/he knows about
what's available from department and jewelry store selections in the
U.S. has NO idea.
One of the things I really enjoy about being "in the know" is having
something on my wrist I know I won't see on someone else's wrist in the
course of my day. But it's almost too easy.
[...]
--
Bo Williams - will...@hiwaay.net
http://hiwaay.net/~williams/
Frank Adam
wrote:
>One of the things I really enjoy about being "in the know" is having
>something on my wrist I know I won't see on someone else's wrist in the
>course of my day. But it's almost too easy.
>
I guess walking into a room and not finding a curtain which matches
your watch band's pattern is a bonus. <singing> you're soo vain,
lalalallala. ;-p
For the last ten years or so, i've increasingly find that the watches
i like are all the plain looking, simple dial ones and even the
seconds hand is an overkill. Luckily, it's very hard to find something
like that in the average shop nowdays. Bling is in.
--
Regards, Frank
Bo Williams
> I guess walking into a room and not finding a curtain which matches
> your watch band's pattern is a bonus. <singing> you're soo vain,
> lalalallala. ;-p
Vanity of a sort, perhaps. But vanilla, garden-variety vanity would be
all about having your watch recognized as expensive, right? That rarely
happens to me, nor do I have any great affection for such. I own a
$1000 watch and a $2000 watch, but I get more comments on a Seiko
Monster or 5, or occasionally on my Poljot Arctic.
> For the last ten years or so, i've increasingly find that the watches
> i like are all the plain looking, simple dial ones and even the
> seconds hand is an overkill. Luckily, it's very hard to find something
> like that in the average shop nowdays. Bling is in.
I have a lovely 1962 Wittnauer handwind that belonged to my grandfather
that should be coming back from a full restoration in another few weeks.
Very understated; pearlish dial with gold indices and hands, gold
case. I'm leaning black lizard strap when I get it back, and it shall
become my dress watch.
Fraser Johnston
"Jack Denver" <nunu...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:XaGdneMntvHIcwPe...@comcast.com...
>I like a watch that is accurate. I have a program in my computer that
>displays the time to the second in the toolbar and periodically synchs to a
>time server, plus an RC clock elsewhere in the house. There are lots of
>things that operate on fairly precise time schedules - the start of TV
>programs, train departures, etc. There's also an "Everest" aspect to
>having the right time - just because it's there.
Over here tv never starts on time and trains are always early or late. But
I agree with the Everest thing.
Fraser
John S.
But hasn't homogeneity always been part of the watch scene? Watch
makers are like lemmings when it comes to style. Just look back at the
Elgin/Hamilton/Waltham pocket watches so popular from the turn of the
previous century. Those round timekeepers with a stem at 12:00 or 3:00
are a ball to collect and enjoy. But they are notable for how similar
they really are: White porcelain dial with roman or arabic numerals,
spade hands, carved case, etc. Are there small differences - sure,just
as there are small differences in todays watches.
St. John Smythe
> Watches and other timepieces will still be around but much more for
> quaint memories and old habits.
But folks young and old will still demand that their MTV programs and
trains adhere to a rigid schedule.
--
St. John
"You can't have everything. Where would you put it?"
-Steven Wright
Jack Denver
understand a lot of these boundaries were fixed by the technologies
available to them - enameled dials were the best available, shaped movements
didn't exist, a pocket watch with sharp corners will snag in your pocket so
it can't be rectangular, etc.) there was tremendous variation in the
decoration of the cases, the movements, etc. I've seen old catalogs and
there were dozens of models to choose from in different grades, etc. They
may all look the same to you, but they didn't to the people at the time.
Everyone works within the idiom of their time when it comes to style - look
at the men's business suit with its notched lapels and necktie - this has
been the more or less fixed theme for a century now, but there is a fair bit
of variation within that theme. Really the essence of great art, whether it
is haiku poems or fresco paintings, is to start out with a constrainted
medium and see what you can do within its boundaries. "Anything goes"
rarely achieves greatness.
But you are right that the boundaries of what was acceptable until the end
of WWI were much more constrained, as Victorian society was fairly rigid in
its expectations. People, especially those who were less than wealthy, were
not expected to express their individuality thru consumer goods - everyone
who could afford a car at all drove a black Model T and that was acceptable
(and a lot better than a horse or taking the trolley). Railroad watches
had to adhere to a certain specification, so it's no coincidence that they
look similar regardless of who made them. The early "trench" wristwatches
are also remarkably similar to each other, and again there may have been
military specifications that influenced this. I would point to a different
period - the great post WWI wristwatch explosion of the 20s and 30s, where
there were all kinds of shapes and styles. It seems like wristwatch design,
like the rest of fashion, goes in waves - you have periods of great
creativity and even excess (the '20s, the '70s) followed by decades of
conformity and recycling of previous historical designs . We are in one of
the down periods.
It's true though that what you see at the mall or department store has a
depressing sameness and represents only a small slice of what is out there.
You see the same quartz Movados and Seikos, over and over (I do note though
that I have been seeing ads for automatic Movados and they take pains to
show the display back and the movement, so there seems to be a break thru
where the mechanical movement is seeping back into mass culture). Plus tons
and tons of junque - "fashion" watches with cheap quartz movements that will
be out of style next year if they don't break first. This is true not just
with watches but with a lot of items. More and more I (and many other
people) do their shopping on the internet, where literally the whole world
is available to you. I recently ordered a case on ebay for my son's
non-iPod (Creative Zen) MP3 player. I could have a spent half a day and a
half of tank of gas visiting 100 stores and not found this item in stock
anywhere, or at best found a low grade item at a high price. Instead, with a
few keystrokes, a very nice leather case arrived from Hong Kong by airmail
only a couple of days after it was ordered. Based on the return address,
the vendor was running this business out of her apartment, so she has no
overhead to pay expensive mall rents. How can you beat that? Last weekend I
needed something in the neighborhood of my regional mall (I enter the mall
itself as rarely as possible - I am not agoraphobic, but I find that
environments like casinos and malls expressly designed to separate me from
as much money as possible produce extreme negative feelings in me) and I had
to turn back because the traffic was impossible. I don't know who is going
there, cause it sure ain't me.
"John S." <hjs...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:1134570360.0...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
John S.
It is indeed possible to notice many changes in style if you pick a
wide enough range of time.
I think however if you take a spot observation of popular watches
available for sale today vs a spot observation of popular watches
available for sale in say 1925, I think you will see popular themes
copied over and over within each time frame. Silvered decorated dials
became popular, as did the deco style numerals in the late 1920's and
every watch company made 17 jewel 12 size pocket watches with some
variation on those themes. Although the design themes of todays
watches are certainly different from those of 75 years ago, there is a
remarkable similarity within the offerings of today's watch makers.
Bo Williams
[...]
> It's true though that what you see at the mall or department store has a
> depressing sameness and represents only a small slice of what is out there.
> You see the same quartz Movados and Seikos, over and over (I do note though
> that I have been seeing ads for automatic Movados and they take pains to
> show the display back and the movement, so there seems to be a break thru
> where the mechanical movement is seeping back into mass culture). Plus tons
> and tons of junque - "fashion" watches with cheap quartz movements that will
> be out of style next year if they don't break first.
Exactly right. This is what I was reacting to with the comment about
the circulars. You see a small slice of the offerings of reputable
names as maybe a third of the watch section in a circular or display,
and the rest is backfilled with "junque."
I certainly don't see homogeny when I look down into my watch cases, but
then I know about SGIS, PMWF, and the like--largely because I keep up
with this group. I have three or four watches that can easily be bought
OTC in the US, but I have at least twice as many that can't.
Mrs. Williams is warming to the idea of a nice automatic, and I'm
excited. There are lots of women's watches Out There too that just
aren't in our stores.
Tony Stanford
<will...@hiwaay.net> writes
>
>I certainly don't see homogeny when I look down into my watch cases,
>but then I know about SGIS, PMWF, and the like--largely because I keep
>up with this group. I have three or four watches that can easily be
>bought OTC in the US, but I have at least twice as many that can't.
I've not heard of SGIS. I googled it but couldn't find it. Could you
post the URL, please - and 'the like'?
--
Tony Stanford
Vincenzoni Attilio, Esq.
> Most people nowadays don't appreciate an accurate watch.
They don't particularly appreciate, cause they take it for granted.
Lend them an inaccurate watch, and they sure will take notice and throw it
away.
> Years ago an accurate watch was more appreciated
> because it was such a pain to keep it set.
Years ago an accurate watch was more appreciated, because you had to rely on
it, to assess the time.
You had not the choice of reliable and most accurate sources you have today:
computers, cell phones, gps, car clocks, RC home clocks and even dedicated
quartz watches.
A typical commuter who, when he's not driving, is sticked to a PC screen,
will already have all the timetelling he needs, in front of his eyes. I
maintain that throwing a glance to my wrist is still a quicker way than
pulling out a cell phone, but when i am driving, i look at my car's clock.
John S.
Vincenzoni Attilio, Esq. wrote:
> "Mooron" <moo...@mooron.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
>
>
> > Most people nowadays don't appreciate an accurate watch.
>
> They don't particularly appreciate, cause they take it for granted.
> Lend them an inaccurate watch, and they sure will take notice and throw it
> away.
I agree. Today I think most people assume a watch will be highly
accurate and will not need to be reset other than twice a year for the
DST changeover. And rightfully so. A mechanical watch that runs to
within 10 seconds per day is truly inaccurate in the eyes of many watch
buyers. The quartz watch is an electro-mechanical marvel that
permanently increased the cutoff for an accurate timekeeper.
>
> > Years ago an accurate watch was more appreciated
> > because it was such a pain to keep it set.
>
> Years ago an accurate watch was more appreciated, because you had to rely on
> it, to assess the time.
A watch is still used by most of us to quickly gauge the approximate
current time.
Bo Williams
SGIS = Some Guy In Singapore. Generic term for eBay sellers like
pokemonyu who ship new, genuine watches at good prices. Good source for
7S26-powered Seiko automatics, Seiko chronos, and Casio geekfests, as
well as an occasional smattering of Citizen, Swatch, and Raymond Weil.
Tony Stanford
<will...@hiwaay.net> writes
>SGIS = Some Guy In Singapore.
Haha! Thanks. It's my UK English again. It always seems to be about 15
years behind. Took me ages to identify Sumgai. Thought it was a
Japanese competitor to Seiko.
--
Tony Stanford
Juuitchan
> >
> > You had not the choice of reliable and most accurate sources you have today:
> > computers, cell phones, gps, car clocks, RC home clocks and even dedicated
> > quartz watches.
> >
> > A typical commuter who, when he's not driving, is sticked to a PC screen,
> > will already have all the timetelling he needs, in front of his eyes. I
> > maintain that throwing a glance to my wrist is still a quicker way than
> > pulling out a cell phone, but when i am driving, i look at my car's clock.
That depends on how accurate your car's clock is. I have had too many
probalems with those.
As for me, myself, I am wearing a very simple, digital ladies' watch
that I bought at Wal-Mart for about US$7. It shows the date, hour (in
24-hour format), minute, and second. The only thing I really don't like
about it is it doesn't show the day of the week (but I know the system
of dominical letters so that is not hard to figure out).
Why is accuracy not important? Am I the only one here who is jarred by
clocks not matching? Am I the only one here who measuers time intervals
by subtracting two readings of a clock, and would prefer it not matter
which clock I am using?
During one summer vacation, I wore a watch... not because I needed it
for the time, or even much cared about the time, but because I needed
the date and day of the week for recreational activities.
Juuitchan
> I've noticed that the people who are the most obsessed with what time it is, usually
> care the least about watches. One of my bosses years ago was constantly yelling for
> the time. One day he called me over from across the yard just to ask the time. I
> asked why he didn't stick a crowbar in his wallet and pry out a few bucks and buy a
> damned watch. He asked why he needed one, if he always has people standing around to
> tell him what time it is.
>
Thus, his "no watch" was a bigger status symbol than a watch would have
been.