Post pics of your watches ***Please NO QUOTING PHOTOS***

893bet

Lovely. I would probably have bought it if you hadn’t.

Not sure on the gold indicies? What do you think of them as a fresh pair of eyes on the watch?

dakar

893bet wrote: »

Lovely. I would probably have bought it if you hadn’t.

Not sure on the gold indicies? What do you think of them as a fresh pair of eyes on the watch?

If I were buying new, I think I'd have gone for the Orion 38 Date White. My taste in general would run to the simple and minimal.

But I really liked the blued hands and I figured I could live with the gold indices, and worse come to the worst, I'd probably be able to flip it handy enough. I did watch a few reviews and liked what I saw.

What has surprised me is the warmth of the silver plating on the dial. I can't figure out if this is an inherent property of the material, or is partly an illusion aided by the little flashes of gold off the faceted indices, but it really works well. It adds a little luxury, I can't help feeling the white version might feel a little sterile in comparison now. Either way, having owned the watch for about 12 hours, I'm happy.

Fitz II

Dakar, if there are fine scratches in the case just try a Cape Cod cloth on it, usually comes right up. All polished cases are easy to fix...its where there is a mix of polished and brushed that there is a issue. Lovely watch BTW.

893bet

Been wearing this most of this week.

cnocbui

1957 Omega Automatic.

Fitz II

Nice great photo, We really need to start a thread on how to take a decent photos of a watch, I find it really hard.

893bet

Fitz II wrote: »

Nice great photo, We really need to start a thread on how to take a decent photos of a watch, I find it really hard.

Haha. I actually thought you were talking about my picture. The the picture below mine was so good I thought it was an advert and skipped passed it first!

Cyclingtourist

Fitz II wrote: »

Nice great photo, We really need to start a thread on how to take a decent photos of a watch, I find it really hard.

Good idea. There are obviously a couple of experts here who could share a few tips.

cnocbui

Fitz II wrote: »

Nice great photo, We really need to start a thread on how to take a decent photos of a watch, I find it really hard.

Thanks. I used a camera with a manual lens on it with a focal length equivalent to 100mm and an aperture of around f4. The flying helmet I placed on a black card on a windowsil facing the setting sun - the window being to the top of the frame. I then had a sheet of white polystyrene at the bottom of the frame, standing vertically to reflect some light back from the other direction to fill in the shadows a bit and more evenly light the watch face. I was leaning over the ps sheet and holding it with my forearms while looking through the viewfinder and focusing.

I underexposed by about one f stop so as not to blow out the dial and lose details in it. This resulted in a rather dark image thus:



I used photoshop on that image to crop the top and bottom a bit and then adjusted the exposure to bring up detail in the shadows while adjusting the Green and blue channel shadows to try and keep the gold looking like gold.

I probably could have done a better job if I had spent more time shopping the curves.

The props like the helmet, Dunhill lighter and half soverign I used to try and get a period appropriate feel with colours that complimented the strap and case.

A longer focal length like that, reduces geometric distortions and gives a more natural look in terms of perspective than the wide angles you find on phones. At that aperture the medium tele focal length provides enough depth of field to keep the subject in focus, while being shallow enough to subtly blur to to the back, thus emphasising the main subject.

It has become common to call that bokeh, but it's incorrect. It's blur - bokeh is a Japanese word that originally referenced the 'qualities' of the blur.

Cyclingtourist

I just take lots of photos and pick the best. :-)

unkel

I just take one shot with my phone. And if you don't like it, you can fock off

Homer

cnocbui wrote: »

1957 Omega Automatic.

Great pic. Looks like Indiana Jones emptied his pockets onto the night stand

Deep Thought

893bet wrote: »

Been wearing this most of this week.

Had a go of that.. yummy

893bet

Deep Thought wrote: »

Had a go of that.. yummy

You ain’t the first man to feel my PP in a hotel car park and won’t be the last....

cnocbui

Homer wrote: »

Great pic. Looks like Indiana Jones emptied his pockets onto the night stand

Thank you, that is a great compliment coming from someone who takes such excellent photos themselves.

dinorebel

cnocbui wrote: »

Thank you, that is a great compliment coming from someone who takes such excellent photos themselves.

Said nobody to unkel ever:D

scwazrh

I’ve been playing around with a macro lens on my watches, need more practice but interesting to see the fine details

Cyclingtourist

Been raiding the drinks cupboard again.

dakar

Another photo of the Nomos. Shot on my phone (just for Unkel!)

Part of the problem is that uploading at 800px wide (not sure if that's still a thing, I know it was the limit when I hung out on the photography forum) compresses the crap out of a lot of photos and loses detail. Most of the finishing of the small seconds hand disappeared on the last one I posted. So I shot this much the same way. LED light well back from the watch at the 11 positon, and a white card below the phone to bounce a bit of light back to fill the shadows.

I shot the full face, then cropped down to the bit I wanted til it was about 800px wide, to be able to upload full size here and still keep the detail. I tidied it up a bit with the Photoshop app on my phone, minor adjustments to contrast and clarity, and voilà!

cnocbui

Oooo - did someone mention macro?

Fitz II

Mother of god, lovely JLC....I really need to up my photography game. Please please please more photos of the watch.

Birneybau

Just wearing this beater while doing some stuff around the house.

cnocbui

This is a pocket chronometer used in WW2 for aerial navigation.

I am sure this will sound like heresy, but I am not a fan of the aged antique look. I rather fancy having it restored to bright, shiny, clear new condition. Judging by the glass, checking with a geiger counter might be in order

Fitz II

cnocbui wrote: »

SNIP[/IMG]

This is a pocket chronometer used in WW2 for aerial navigation.

I am sure this will sound like heresy, but I am not a fan of the aged antique look. I rather fancy having it restored to bright, shiny, clear new condition. Judging by the glass, checking with a geiger counter might be in order

Imagine that all those components were cast and hand finished with basic tools. No cad, no cam, just mechanical lathes and turning machines. You can see the texture of the casting investment mould in the gold. JLC is totally underrated.

o1s1n

cnocbui wrote: »

[]

This is a pocket chronometer used in WW2 for aerial navigation.

I am sure this will sound like heresy, but I am not a fan of the aged antique look. I rather fancy having it restored to bright, shiny, clear new condition. Judging by the glass, checking with a geiger counter might be in order

That is absolutely gorgeous! Does seem like a shame to restore it as it's currently in great condition and the patina is lovely. Especially the lume on the hands.

I'd say you'd get quite a few ticks from a Geiger counter alright.

Cyclingtourist

cnocbui wrote: »

This is a pocket chronometer used in WW2 for aerial navigation.

I am sure this will sound like heresy, but I am not a fan of the aged antique look. I rather fancy having it restored to bright, shiny, clear new condition. Judging by the glass, checking with a geiger counter might be in order

That would be like french-polishing an original Georgian mahogany table.

Fitz II

Cyclingtourist wrote: »

That would be like french-polishing an original Georgian mahogany table.

I dont find the whole patina thing as cut and dried. With classic cars usually a restoration makes it look factory fresh, and while those cars that are on factory paint are prized, a fully restored one is almost as good. There is a subset of "totally original, barn find" cars with rust and crap paint that some people are into, but in general people want them shiny.

With watches its almost a crime to return a watch for factory finish, and patina is prized as its totally individual to the watch, but mostly its dials and hands people are interested in. If the rest of the watch was repolished and finished, and the movement overhauled I doubt it would loose anything, replacement crystals are not so bad either. Its hard for a watch that old to be totally original anyway.

cnocbui

Cyclingtourist wrote: »

That would be like french-polishing an original Georgian mahogany table.

I have some georgian silver - think I should stop polishing that? The old Omega I posted some pages back has so much 'patina' and character it no longer works. I'd rather it looked as the maker intended. Same for cars.

893bet

In 30-40 years time will watches from 2010 be in such demand and command a huge premium?

I don’t think so. I think there will be very few “rare” watches in the future, or perhaps the ones that will be rare are probably the ones we are not thinking of now. For all the Current popular watches there will be a **** load of them around and lots of full sets. They will ages much better and in general look newer and not vintage like (could be a good thing or a bad thing for demand actually) due to more modern materials (ceramic bezels, superluminova, solid bracelets etc).

Wibbs

cnocbui wrote: »

This is a pocket chronometer used in WW2 for aerial navigation.

I am sure this will sound like heresy, but I am not a fan of the aged antique look. I rather fancy having it restored to bright, shiny, clear new condition. Judging by the glass, checking with a geiger counter might be in order

Oh it's most certainly radium lume under there C. The glass is likely original an acrylic that discolours over time lume or not. That's handy enough to replace. You could get the radium removed and replaced with modern lume, maybe tinted to get that vintage look, though radium lume would have been originally white or cream for the most part(though lime green was another colour too). The case is plated brass and I've never seen a decent replating job that didn't look like obvious and not great. The new stuff is too shiny. To be fair your example has little enough wear, they're usually much worse.

As for its original military purpose: On the back chances are you'll see a broadarrow stamp(UK military issue) a serial number and GS/TP which stands for General Service Temporary(or Trade) Pattern. That is watches that were bought "off the shelf" rather than as a direct military contract to ramp up supply in preparation for war. Usually issued to army personnel like artillery types, though navy and air force also received them(I dunno if they would have been used officially for navigation though?). There were a few brands in the mix but JLC are the pick of the bunch IMHO.

Fitz II wrote: »

Imagine that all those components were cast and hand finished with basic tools. No cad, no cam, just mechanical lathes and turning machines. You can see the texture of the casting investment mould in the gold. JLC is totally underrated.

+1 JLC were a very good maker indeed and were considered so back in the day. The watchmaker's watch was one accolade as it was a fave of watchmakers because of how well and simple and sturdy they were. They also did well at the annual chronometer trials in the 20th century. Very nice indeed.

893bet wrote: »

They will ages much better and in general look newer and not vintage like (could be a good thing or a bad thing for demand actually) due to more modern materials (ceramic bezels, superluminova, solid bracelets etc).

And will likely be worn less too. Most men in the past had one "good watch" that was their daily wearer throughout their lifetime, there were far fewer "safe queens".

OldBean

dakar wrote: »

Another photo of the Nomos. Shot on my phone (just for Unkel!)

Part of the problem is that uploading at 800px wide (not sure if that's still a thing, I know it was the limit when I hung out on the photography forum) compresses the crap out of a lot of photos and loses detail. Most of the finishing of the small seconds hand disappeared on the last one I posted. So I shot this much the same way. LED light well back from the watch at the 11 positon, and a white card below the phone to bounce a bit of light back to fill the shadows.

I shot the full face, then cropped down to the bit I wanted til it was about 800px wide, to be able to upload full size here and still keep the detail. I tidied it up a bit with the Photoshop app on my phone, minor adjustments to contrast and clarity, and voilà!

That's a beaut, D!

blue5000

893bet wrote: »

In 30-40 years time will watches from 2010 be in such demand and command a huge premium?

I don’t think so. I think there will be very few “rare” watches in the future, or perhaps the ones that will be rare are probably the ones we are not thinking of now. For all the Current popular watches there will be a **** load of them around and lots of full sets. They will ages much better and in general look newer and not vintage like (could be a good thing or a bad thing for demand actually) due to more modern materials (ceramic bezels, superluminova, solid bracelets etc).

We just don't know. Take this one for example, did Col. Pogue know what he was starting when he sneaked this on board to time engine burns in the early 1970s? I think it took 20 years before it was spotted. https://www.dreamchrono.com/2013/11/seiko-6139-pogue/

Sunday, Seiko and a Salami salad sandwich:pac:

cnocbui

Wibbs wrote: »

As for its original military purpose: On the back chances are you'll see a broadarrow stamp(UK military issue) a serial number and GS/TP which stands for General Service Temporary(or Trade) Pattern. That is watches that were bought "off the shelf" rather than as a direct military contract to ramp up supply in preparation for war. Usually issued to army personnel like artillery types, though navy and air force also received them(I dunno if they would have been used officially for navigation though?). There were a few brands in the mix but JLC are the pick of the bunch IMHO.

...

As you can see, there also seems to be a broadarrow imprinted on the inside of the case by the maker, so I'm not convinced it's off the shelf. I think it more likely they were provisioned under specific contract.

My father was Fleet Air Arm. Since he told me he got it for aerial navigation and used it thus, I think you can take that for fact.

The chrome looks OK from the front. but has essentially been completely worn away on the waist.

You might be interested in the re-chroming this guy does:

dakar

OldBean wrote: »

That's a beaut, D!

Thanks. I’m very pleased with it.

I’m doing that thing where every time I get something a little nicer, I convince myself (and Mrs D) that this one finally is a *proper* watch, and that’s it now. Done buying more watches. Completely. Except maybe for...

Wibbs

cnocbui wrote: »

As you can see, there also seems to be a broadarrow imprinted on the inside of the case by the maker, so I'm not convinced it's off the shelf. I think it more likely they were provisioned under specific contract.

IIRC it was a contract but not the usual one, more rushed as it were and the brief was less specific than was usual as they were in a mad rush to tool up for war. It couldn't be a more issued watch though.

My father was Fleet Air Arm. Since he told me he got it for aerial navigation and used it thus, I think you can take that for fact.

That kinda seals it alright C. Interesting too as the literature and campfire talk on these is that they were for general military mostly army and when other branches are mentioned it's claimed they had different markings specific to the branch and clearly yours doesn't and clearly it was officially issued to your dad for a specific purpose. Your story adds to the knowledge on such things which is brilliant.

The chrome looks OK from the front. but has essentially been completely worn away on the waist.

You might be interested in the re-chroming this guy does:

Oh it defo looks better than when it started out. :eek: Though even with the best will in the world the process loses detail on edges and the like and your rear stampings would be hard to keep as clean and crisp as they are.

Wibbs

For the Faaaall season... or rather my rotation this week have been these three.


1943, 1916 and 1974. Daycent spread of years. The Wagner on the left is running truest to time, pretty much bang on. The Omega quartz needs tweaking as it loses ten odd seconds per month, but the trimmer adjustment is finicky, a gee hair one way or the other can mean OK, or ahh jaysus now there's 25 hours in a day.

scwazrh

New to me this evening, bit of a spur of the moment purchase as I wasn’t particularly looking for this but it’s my first Rolex and I don’t have a dress watch in my collection

Fitz II

Nice....was that the OP on adverts. Love the dial colour and the little blue accents.

893bet

scwazrh wrote: »

New to me this evening, bit of a spur of the moment purchase as I wasn’t particularly looking for this but it’s my first Rolex and I don’t have a dress watch in my collection

[url=https:/-F50.jpg[/img][/url]

Lovely. I had that model and sold it! Tried to buy it back two weeks ago even but buyer is holding on to it!

I wouldn’t consider that a dress watch! Fairly versatile watch!

scwazrh

Fitz II wrote: »

Nice....was that the OP on adverts. Love the dial colour and the little blue accents.

Yes , my 3rd watch from him , nice guy .
The dial and the blue is what caught me.

Fitz II

scwazrh wrote: »

Yes , my 3rd watch from him , nice guy .
The dial and the blue is what caught me.

It caught my eye too, thomaskuddy is a gent to deal with. I think thats a fairly utility watch, can do everyrhing.

Cyclingtourist

Been wearing this Poljot hand-wind since I started on the vodka. Really light on the wrist and keeps good time, one of my better buys.

Lorddrakul

I love a nice Poljot.

Very nice.

unkel

Nice Poljot, I have a wish for a Buran (chrono or not) ever since someone posted one here. I guess very similar to your one, same size, same fluted bezel?

Cyclingtourist

Paying homage to my Steinhart.

Pablo_Flox

Cyclingtourist wrote: »

Paying homage to my Steinhart.

On the vodka again?!

unkel

Nah. Steinhart is German. Perhaps a Riesling?

banie01

unkel wrote: »

Nah. Steinhart is German. Perhaps a Riesling?

As long as its not liebefraumilch :P

redlead

You know you spend too much time on this forum when you start recognising other mens wrists before you look at their names haha

Lorddrakul

unkel wrote: »

Nah. Steinhart is German. Perhaps a Riesling?

Then maybe a Dunkel?