Who Watches the Watchmen (Our Chit Chat Thread)

Cienciano

Sounds like she likes one thing and thinks the entire watch industry and womens tastes should change to suit her. If she likes bigger watches, no one is stopping her from buying one.

unkel

Plenty of women now wearing 40+ mm traditional men's watches like speedies, subs, daytonas and tudors, bit of a trend. Fair play to them. Can't be bothered to read that article though, sorry

893bet

unkel wrote: »

Plenty of women now wearing 40+ mm traditional men's watches like speedies, subs, daytonas and tudors, bit of a trend. Fair play to them. Can't be bothered to read that article though, sorry

I wouldn’t give that crap the click.

fat bloke

Aren't ladies' rolexes and the like significantly cheaper??

Wibbs

The other angle is that she's being - and all too typical for westerners, especially Americans - very local in culture. Like I was saying earlier in the thread Longines' sales of women's watches in China and the Far East in general outstrip their sales of men's watches. Women in that neck of the woods, billions of them are choosing what they're choosing. The new york feminist stuff doesn't really translate. And like has been said nobody is stopping any women from buying "men's" watches. I've noticed that among the women I've seen wearing watches(mostly "fashion" brands) they tend to go big anyway. Bigger than I usuually wear actually.

The other side of it is that women as a market never bought into the "mechanical is authentic" stuff of the Swiss watch industry marketing. It seems they want to see more value and convenience in jewellery purchases. We might be seeing the same marketing trying to bridge that gap and increase profit margins. Margins are generally higher on mechanical than they are with quartz and women are an untapped market in that.

Another thing occurred to cynical oul me, especially as they've gone all meta and have an article about her article... Maybe it's not the women's market they're pointing at, but the men's? Specifically the men's vintage market. Vintage watches are overwhelmingly smaller compared to current offerings, but they flog a load of vintage so maybe they're trying to tweak their male viewer's opinions towards smaller sizes that they might otherwise think too "girly"? Wouldn't surprise me with that lot.

Fitz II

fat bloke wrote: »

Aren't ladies' rolexes and the like significantly cheaper??

They are but mostly they are precious or simi precious and that makes stainless cheaper. My wife wears my sub and Daytona a lot, mostly the sub. Seems to be the fashion at the moment. Smaller ladies watches are not on vogue and 36mm seems to be the new ladies minimum.

Personally I think that the ladies should feck off..it hard enough get a sports Rolex with doubling the potential customers. The coloured oyster perpetual s can be seen as a move into the ladies market and the Asian market tastes.

Don't read articles like that, pretentious waffle. Nobody is stopping women buying what they want. But women don't buy watches mostly...men buy them as gifts.

Cienciano

A lot of articles are written to get clicks. Even though we dismiss it as bullshíte, they know they'll still get the clicks from people passing it around to laugh at how ridiculous it is. I'm guessing it's one of those articles. Just guessing, as like everyone else, I haven't read it

"dated gender labels"

unkel

Fitz II wrote: »

My wife wears my sub and Daytona a lot

I don't think you ever said that before. I warned you this would happen though

redlead

Jaysus, one of the last bastions of the Internet where gender nonsense can be avoided and we're at it.

No offence intended to Mrs Fitz but surely a sub would be ludicrously big on a woman? I get that they want larger sizes but I would have thought anything over 36 would just look a bit silly. Would the lugs not be completely over hanging the wrist?

banie01

I am in the "I ain't clicking" camp for that article too.

My Mrs has a couple of "fashion" watches and they are invariably quite large and blingy.
She has a Michael Kors chrono that is bigger than my IWC and is also practically illegible.

My other half is 5'5" and very slight, compared to me being 6'5" with a rugby players wrist.
Yet, she has a couple of watches that would look big on me.

Her thinking on that?
Well her watches are basically functional fat bangles.
So the bigger and blingier the better.
An antithesis to many of us and our "man" jewellery where we tell ourselves it's mechanics over form.
For her, it's form over mechanics.

It's the difference between X and Y

Fitz II

redlead wrote: »

No offence intended to Mrs Fitz but surely a sub would be ludicrously big on a woman? ?

I think they look good, the boyfriend style wear where they are worn loose, they are not big watches really. I think its a look that is meant to portray a casual but luxury vibe. She has a 31mm datejust also and it looks tiny and very dressy.

unkel

Yep, looking great. I for one welcome this trend. It seems younger people (M & F) and women are getting more into watches now anyway. Probably fashion, rap culture etc. I don't care where it's coming from but I think it's a good thing

Fitz II

unkel wrote: »

Yep, looking great. I for one welcome this trend. It seems younger people (M & F) and women are getting more into watches now anyway. Probably fashion, rap culture etc. I don't care where it's coming from but I think it's a good thing

Agree, despite my facetious comments, women are just as interested in quality and design as men and while the WIS women is a rare beast, I think that women are sick of being told they need to wear brightly coloured wristlets, and are just as interested in classic designs. I do think however women are more interested in having brand and status watches, I dont think they have much interest in what I would class as "sh1tters". Handbags are an area I know little about but just enough to know that the ammount of snobbery, expense, waiting lists and resale value in that arena would put watches in the haypenny place.

Wibbs

banie01 wrote: »

Her thinking on that?
Well her watches are basically functional fat bangles.
So the bigger and blingier the better.
An antithesis to many of us and our "man" jewellery where we tell ourselves it's mechanics over form.
For her, it's form over mechanics.

It's the difference between X and Y

I dunno B, I'd say it's just as much about form over mechanics for most men buying into watches as jewellery and status transmitters over the last decade or so. It always was to some degree as the vast majority of men's watches in the 20th century were dressy and gold, or gold plated and in many cases not particularly legible either. You really see that in the 20/30's where men's watches shrunk and even the larger art deco tank styles had tiny hands. The first Rolex Oyster cases run between 30 and 34mm. At the same time when men were in need of actual tool watches for particular purposes they were nearly always larger and far more legible. Though even here current fashion could influence things like the very first specific divers watch that was made by Omega. A tiny tank watch.

Cyrus

Fitz II wrote: »

Agree, despite my facetious comments, women are just as interested in quality and design as men and while the WIS women is a rare beast, I think that women are sick of being told they need to wear brightly coloured wristlets, and are just as interested in classic designs. I do think however women are more interested in having brand and status watches, I dont think they have much interest in what I would class as "sh1tters". Handbags are an area I know little about but just enough to know that the ammount of snobbery, expense, waiting lists and resale value in that arena would put watches in the haypenny place.

yep for rolex sub see chanel 2.55 or whatever it is :P

Fitz II

Wibbs wrote: »

I dunno B, I'd say it's just as much about form over mechanics for most men buying into watches as jewellery and status transmitters over the last decade or so. It always was to some degree as the vast majority of men's watches in the 20th century were dressy and gold, or gold plated and in many cases not particularly legible either. You really see that in the 20/30's where men's watches shrunk and even the larger art deco tank styles had tiny hands. The first Rolex Oyster cases run between 30 and 34mm. At the same time when men were in need of actual tool watches for particular purposes they were nearly always larger and far more legible. Though even here current fashion could influence things like the very first specific divers watch that was made by Omega. A tiny tank watch.

Times change wibbs, you can rage against the dying of the light all you want. Most people have no nostalgia or interest in 100 years ago, and women in particular would not look fondly back on those dark ages of gender inequality, war and infant mortality. The world was a worse place back then.

Wibbs

Fitz II wrote: »

I do think however women are more interested in having brand and status watches, I dont think they have much interest in what I would class as "sh1tters".

Depends entirely on the segment and age group involved and brand and status can be just as much to do with fashion, even cheap fashion as luxury pricing. Women's fashions change far more rapidly than mens for a start and they're also far more likely to have a mix of high end and "street" in the mix. The current "must have" from a fashion watch brand that costs a few hundred quid can be just as much if not more so in the mix than the more expensive conservative luxury brand generally more favoured by men.

Wibbs

Fitz II wrote: »

Times change wibbs, you can rage against the dying of the light all you want. Most people have no nostalgia or interest in 100 years ago, and women in particular would not look fondly back on those dark ages of gender inequality, war and infant mortality. The world was a worse place back then.

Jaysus there's a few leaps in there.

stefanovich

fulladapipes wrote: »

I've never really looked at Ali Express before. I see you can choose what country your watch gets dispatched from (although that narrows the choice of watch). Belgium was one of the options, which means no extra taxes.

I would have serious doubts about using a Chinese retailer for any high end goods.

Fitz II

stefanovich wrote: »

I would have serious doubts about using a Chinese retailer for any high end goods.

you would be grand with that watch so.....:pac:

Cyclingtourist

Fitz II wrote: »

you would be grand with that watch so.....:pac:

For some €200 is 'high-end'. We can't all be Oisín O'Malleys with our new Seadweller, showing it off alongside the date sub (Rolex not Steinhart) while drinking fine wine, 12 Y-O Redbreast Whiskey and smoking a Cuban cigar.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSPqbCRqO6c

Fitz II

Cyclingtourist wrote: »

For some €200 is 'high-end'. We can't all be Oisín O'Malleys with our new Seadweller, showing it off alongside the date sub (Rolex not Steinhart) while drinking fine wine, 12 Y-O Redbreast Whiskey and smoking a Cuban cigar.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSPqbCRqO6c

I jest of course, but its fair to say you have thousands and thousands of euro in watches...a 200 euro watch is not quality, that aspect is not decided by a persons spending power. For some the ability to afford quality is an issue, for others its a choice.

Cyclingtourist

Fitz II wrote: »

I jest of course, but its fair to say you have thousands and thousands of euro in watches.

What is fair to say is that I have a couple of thousand euro in watches, everything from an €8 Vostok to a couple in the €600 range. I could have saved my money and bought a pre-owned Speedmaster but I chose not to and have no regrets.

redlead

I wonder what the sweet spot is for a watch in terms of a quality piece. I.e no brand bullsh1t or marketing built into the price and little to no corners cut. Like most luxury goods, the more you spend on a watch, the less bang for buck you get out of each euro. That's just something you have to accept though. You can pick up a COSC certified formex for under a grand I believe. Never held in in the hand but they look very well made.

cnocbui

redlead wrote: »

I wonder what the sweet spot is for a watch in terms of a quality piece. I.e no brand bullsh1t or marketing built into the price and little to no corners cut. Like most luxury goods, the more you spend on a watch, the less bang for buck you get out of each euro. That's just something you have to accept though. You can pick up a COSC certified formex for under a grand I believe. Never held in in the hand but they look very well made.

If Samsung made a mechanical watch, it would be that one.

Wibbs

Cyclingtourist wrote: »

For some €200 is 'high-end'. We can't all be Oisín O'Malleys with our new Seadweller, showing it off alongside the date sub (Rolex not Steinhart) while drinking fine wine, 12 Y-O Redbreast Whiskey and smoking a Cuban cigar.

[Pseud]I can't believe he drank that without letting it breath. *monocle drops* Bad enough with reds in general but that's a wine that certainly needs decanting. Otherwise I'd bet the farm he wouldn't able to tell it apart from a six quid Aldi special served in the same bottle. Actually got a couple of bottles of that stuff from a client over the Christmas. Nice enough, a bit weedy in flavour, but got better with time. Or maybe that was with inebriation[/Pseud]

micks_address

Big shout out to Mr Thirdfox who sold me a link for my speedmaster bracelet. Arrived and fitted today. Thanks D

micks_address wrote: »

Hi folks,

The bracelet that came with my speedmaster is a little tight. I knew in advance and the seller gave me a discount to pick up a spare link. It’s a year 2000 speedmaster which I think is ref 1998 bracelet.

I’m trying to figure out the correct full and half link to purchase.

I don’t intend wearing it that often on the bracelet but I be nice to have the option

Would this be the correct half link? On the clasp there’s micro adjustments I can use to shorten so maybe a full link be better option?

Cyclingtourist

Wibbs wrote: »

[Pseud]I can't believe he drank that without letting it breath. *monocle drops* Bad enough with reds in general but that's a wine that certainly needs decanting. Otherwise I'd bet the farm he wouldn't able to tell it apart from a six quid Aldi special served in the same bottle. Actually got a couple of bottles of that stuff from a client over the Christmas. Nice enough, a bit weedy in flavour, but got better with time. Or maybe that was with inebriation[/Pseud]

I think he was playing up the wealthy connoisseur thing a bit, I don't take it too seriously.

The bit that struck me was where he said he'd had a few mates round the previous evening who'd scoffed his cigars, hope they hadn't given each other C-19 at the same time. Not something I'll be doing anytime soon.

Wibbs

redlead wrote: »

I wonder what the sweet spot is for a watch in terms of a quality piece. I.e no brand bullsh1t or marketing built into the price and little to no corners cut. Like most luxury goods, the more you spend on a watch, the less bang for buck you get out of each euro. That's just something you have to accept though.

Plus it very much depends what you want the watch for. If it's a transmitting status piece then that's the extra you're paying for and the more you pay to some degree the more status you transmit. Above a certain price point quality has little enough to do with it. So if Grand Seiko made a letter perfect homage to a Rolex Submariner it would blow it out of the water as far as quality and finishing goes, but the name on the dial wouldn't make up for it. That's where the fakes are becoming really bloody concerning for the industry and buyers. They illegally have the "name".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faTFFSsOJ7o

That for most of the "tells" you need either a loupe and/or the real deal for comparison to spot the differences between one watch and another that is a thousand times the price... Well, like I say bloody concerning. It doesn't disrespect the horological quality nearly as much as the brand.