Post pics of your watches Part II

Wibbs

fulladapipes wrote: »

I'm slowly building a collection of classic, but mainstream, watches. I try to de-mainstream them by putting them on bunds etc. There will be another classic mainstream this year, but not sure what just yet. How does one round out a very square collection?

Like Fitz says you're nailing the classics alright. My goto watches for non watch folks as a one off "good watch" have always been a Speedie, a Rolex Sub or a Seiko diver. Casio G-Shock for a beater, Cartier Tank/Santos for dress, or a JLC Reverso if someone wants to spend more. That list would work for vintage too pretty much. Though because of current daft Sub prices the Datejust has very much replaced it on the Rolex front and you surprised me how versatile it is on different straps. I never would have even considered anything but a jubilee bracelet on one. Wrongly. You've gone and done it as a collection. Kudos. I'd reckon a Cartier Tank might be an option for you? Though try one on first. They're not big. A Seiko Diver could round out the mix as they're larger and you don't have a diver and the Datejust can do dressy very well.

fulladapipes

Wibbs wrote: »

Like Fitz says you're nailing the classics alright. My goto watches for non watch folks as a one off "good watch" have always been a Speedie, a Rolex Sub or a Seiko diver. Casio G-Shock for a beater, Cartier Tank/Santos for dress, or a JLC Reverso if someone wants to spend more. That list would work for vintage too pretty much. Though because of current daft Sub prices the Datejust has very much replaced it on the Rolex front and you surprised me how versatile it is on different straps. I never would have even considered anything but a jubilee bracelet on one. Wrongly. You've gone and done it as a collection. Kudos. I'd reckon a Cartier Tank might be an option for you? Though try one on first. They're not big. A Seiko Diver could round out the mix as they're larger and you don't have a diver and the Datejust can do dressy very well.

I have a Seiko SKX007 as a beater - again, pretty much a mainstream classic by now.

I like the Cartier Tank, but I'm not much of a dressy guy and I don't think I would do it justice. Instead, I've been thinking about a slightly older Submariner date, or an Explorer 114270 (36mm). The Explorer in particular is another versatile watch that looks equally good on the bracelet as on a nato or even on my favourite, the bund.

Lorddrakul

I'm not really into dress watches either.
I'd rather use what I consider to be a tool watch that is dressy enough to count.

My Vostok Partner on a nice padded leather strap usually does the trick.


Though I reckon an old quartz could do too.

Fitz II

Wibbs

Kinda similar tbh. IMHO they do work on vintage or vintage style smaller(at or sub 38mm), military watches and it helps if you're larger of wrist. Funny enough I think they work least well on actual German Bund issued watches like the Heuer. They make an already large watch wear even larger. Grand if you've arms like tree trunks though.

athlone573

Another seiko, a bit battered but with sentimental value despite the non original bracelet.

893bet

*enters thread.....realises it peaked yesterday....leaves thread

fulladapipes

Wibbs wrote: »

Kinda similar tbh. IMHO they do work on vintage or vintage style smaller(at or sub 38mm), military watches and it helps if you're larger of wrist. Funny enough I think they work least well on actual German Bund issued watches like the Heuer. They make an already large watch wear even larger. Grand if you've arms like tree trunks though.

Definitely work better on smaller watches. But there are many variants of The Bund, some much more acceptable than others. I've found the slimmer the leather, the better the bund (and the more expensive). A lot of bunds are made from fairly thick and stiff leather, which takes a lot of breaking in and general frustration. Like a lot of these things, it takes some trial and error, but I wouldn't rule them out without giving at least one decent bund a lash.

No.



Yes #1.



Yes #2.

fulladapipes

893bet wrote: »

*enters thread.....realises it peaked yesterday....leaves thread

The thread is now climaxing around a bund discussion.

Time

893bet wrote: »

*enters thread.....realises it peaked yesterday....leaves thread

Any new Pateks going?

Fitz II

Editorial from time and tide watches sums it up for me.

02.04.2020
JAMES ROBINSON

NOT ON MY WATCH: Please stop with the Bund strap, it is just terrible
The truth is, I’m pretty easygoing. I can get along. Very few things get anywhere near grinding my gears in the watch world – I’m a fan of, and can appreciate, just about anything that’s associated with the little timekeeping marvels that we love.

That is, unless you are talking about Bund straps. Because Bund straps are terrible. I don’t use the word hate very often, but when I do, it’s in reference to the Bund strap.

Here’s a fun game. How many redeeming qualities do Bund straps have? Answer, none. The only man who could pull one off was the coolest man who ever lived, Paul Newman … and even he only barely got away with it.

For starters, the etymology of the word “bund” is troubling, as it’s an abbreviation for Bundesrepublik Deutschland or Federal Republic of Germany. That’s right, the Bund strap was first popularised by nascent Nazi pilots in the 1930s … not a great origin story. And once the National Socialist German Workers’ Party was destroyed, the Bund strap should have gone with it, forever.

Except it didn’t. The abhorrent, overtly thick and ungainly wrist-wear just went into hiding. The next time it would rear its ugly girth would be in a decade many consider to be fashion’s decade horribilis. Sorry dad, but that was the ’70s.

This was a period in time when sartorial flair abandoned its duties, and vagabond chic took hold. No jeans were too flared, no T-shirt too tie-dyed, no facial hair too disheveled. And the Bund strap thrived in this countercultural rebuke of anything and everything that was aesthetically pleasing. How could it not? When the rest of your attire looks like you’ve been sleeping rough for the past six months, what better way to tie it all off than with what looks like a thicc leather belt attached to your wrist?

Finally, let’s assess this crap strap on its actual wearability. Also, a raging fail. Bund straps are ungainly, sweaty, uncomfortable, thicc, impractical and almost impossible to pair with anything except a flared pair of stained Levi’s and a paisley shirt that’s got too many buttons undone.

Unless you want to look like you fly vintage Messerschmitts or someone who gets jacked while solving crimes with a cartoon dog, there really is no need to wear a Bund strap. So, please, just don’t. Thank you. I’m glad we had this conversation — James

banie01

Fitz II wrote: »

Editorial from time and tide watches sums it up for me.

02.04.2020
JAMES ROBINSON

For starters, the etymology of the word “bund” is troubling, as it’s an abbreviation for Bundesrepublik Deutschland or Federal Republic of Germany. That’s right, the Bund strap was first popularised by nascent Nazi pilots in the 1930s

This troubles me.
I may be wrong, but wasn't the BDR founded in '49?
As in the Bundesrepublik Deutschland.

The etymology of "bund" is more akin to the use of G.I imo.
The straps were military issue by the bundeswehr, there's no real etymological link between "bund" and Nazism.
Yes the style of strap existed but if it was Nazi link that triggered folk, it would be called an RLM strap or the Reich strappen or something similar.

I stand to be corrected, but the article above apart from nailing Paul Newman's coolness...
Is bollox.

893bet

Time wrote: »

Any new Pateks going?

The supply of the next Patek now lies on your shoulders!

Cyclingtourist

banie01 wrote: »

This troubles me.
I may be wrong, but wasn't the BDR founded in '49?
As in the Bundesrepublik Deutschland.

Yes you're right, the article is rubbish.

Edit: Bund is the German for federation or association and as far as I remember there were Nazi associations that did have 'bund' in their title but it's not a term particular to the Nazis.

Fitz II

893bet wrote: »

The supply of the next Patek now lies on your shoulders!

Indeed.

banie01 wrote: »

This troubles me.
I may be wrong, but wasn't the BDR founded in '49?
As in the Bundesrepublik Deutschland.

The etymology of "bund" is more akin to the use of G.I imo.
The straps were military issue by the bundeswehr, there's no real etymological link between "bund" and Nazism.
Yes the style of strap existed but if it was Nazi link that triggered folk, it would be called an RLM strap or the Reich strappen or something similar.

I stand to be corrected, but the article above apart from nailing Paul Newman's coolness...
Is bollox.

I think its just a editorial, fairly tongue in cheek and humorous. As for the historical accuracy, I dont know, best ask somebody who "wants to look like they fly vintage Messerschmitts" they will certainly know and care. Bund straps are still horrid irregardless.

Wibbs

fulladapipes wrote: »

Definitely work better on smaller watches. But there are many variants of The Bund, some much more acceptable than others. I've found the slimmer the leather, the better the bund (and the more expensive). A lot of bunds are made from fairly thick and stiff leather, which takes a lot of breaking in and general frustration.

Pretty much F. I've two issued bundeswehr straps and they're in a placcy bag in my pile of junk curated collection. Way too thick and beyond uncomfortable. I've no idea who they were designed for. Even on huge wrists they'd be uncomfortable. No use worn over a flightsuit either. The design - according to the interwebs - was to isolate the watch from the skin in case of a fire in the cockpit or whatever. Utter bollocks of course. Much more a fashion thing, first in the late 30's then in the 60's and 70's when "cuff" straps were in vogue.

banie01 wrote: »

This troubles me.
I may be wrong, but wasn't the BDR founded in '49?
As in the Bundesrepublik Deutschland.

The etymology of "bund" is more akin to the use of G.I imo.
The straps were military issue by the bundeswehr, there's no real etymological link between "bund" and Nazism.
Yes the style of strap existed but if it was Nazi link that triggered folk, it would be called an RLM strap or the Reich strappen or something similar.

I stand to be corrected, but the article above apart from nailing Paul Newman's coolness...
Is bollox.

It is bollox B. Though he's spot on with the 70's reference he's all adrift with the rest of the history. I wonder does he have any issue with the IWC Big Pilot or similar Fliegers from other brands? The clue being in the name. Or Zenith's reissued "Specials", or all of Panerai's output, or... You get the picture. German, must be nazis, or something. Probably gleaned his WW2 history from Indiana Jones or Dad's Army, depending on his origin.

Me. Tonight. Wearing an actual "nazi" watch.



Not on a bund.

banie01

Fitz II wrote: »

Indeed.



I think its just a editorial, fairly tongue in cheek and humorous. As for the historical accuracy, I dont know, best ask somebody who "wants to look like they fly vintage Messerschmitts" they will certainly know and care. Bund straps are still horrid irregardless.

I have a Bund strap for my Bund watch, had it on it for a couple of months and went back to a rally strap.
I don't disagree with you, they are far from the most attractive strap and IMO only suit a small range of watches and those being a subset of smaller and vintage pieces.

The article itself, the irreverent nature of it is of course an aim.
But it really is a swing and a miss IMO.

Can totally get on board with Newman cool, but linking or at least trying to link the etymology of Bund back to Nazi is in poor taste if nothing else.

Funnily enough, from an earlier chat on here somewhere, I'd be the lad that wants to fly Messerschmitts
But not with a watch on a bund

Time

893bet wrote: »

The supply of the next Patek now lies on your shoulders!

This will have to do for now

Thirdfox

Time wrote: »

This will have to do for now

What's the WR? :pac::D

Time

Thirdfox wrote: »

What's the WR? :pac::D

Technical issues have been resolved

Fitz II

Time wrote: »

This will have to do for now
]

I love the dial colour, no other dial is the same, and the hunter caseback is great....however the new pricing is a bitter pill to swallow. Always thought they were very plain until I tried one on....a lot of detail going on to make it look so simple.

Wibbs

Time wrote: »

This will have to do for now

That's so pretty T. Though I'm a complete sucker for sword hands. Fitz' Patty? Gorgeous watch, the dial exquisite, the date windows perfection, the lugs... well I could hardly keep my pants on, but the hands were my first draw. As ye know, I'm weird.

Plus not nearly enough close in movement shots Fitz. That's a paddlin'

Time

Fitz II wrote: »

I love the dial colour, no other dial is the same, and the hunter caseback is great....however the new pricing is a bitter pill to swallow. Always thought they were very plain until I tried one on....a lot of detail going on to make it look so simple.

Totally agree, beautiful watch that needs to be held to be appreciated. At 34k its a no from me too, you could pick up a 5146 annual calendar for that.

Cyrus

Fitz II wrote: »

I love the dial colour, no other dial is the same, and the hunter caseback is great....however the new pricing is a bitter pill to swallow. Always thought they were very plain until I tried one on....a lot of detail going on to make it look so simple.

I’ve nearly bought one twice now but buying new would be financial suicide and it’s not really the sort of watch you buy pre owned imo ....

Nicest dress type watch going imo .

893bet

Cyrus wrote: »

I’ve nearly bought one twice now but buying new would be financial suicide and it’s not really the sort of watch you buy pre owned imo ....

Nicest dress type watch going imo .

ThomasK has/had one available (unless time has it bought). For a lot less than 34k!

I thought hard about it. As I am after something else but that one just didn’t feel right for me. Stunning though.

Wibbs

Moved the WW2 posts into the chat thread

Cyrus

893bet wrote: »

ThomasK has/had one available (unless time has it bought). For a lot less than 34k!

I thought hard about it. As I am after something else but that one just didn’t feel right for me. Stunning though.

yes fitz let me know, its gone now though, Thomas is only sending me half the stuff it seems

i would have bought it if it checked out tbh...

C0N0R

Pretty much a year since I bought this, still enamoured by it, had plans to add another watch to the collections but decided to hold off as I don't get to wear a watch every day, and didn't want to dilute my Tudor time. Switch it from the TT bracelet to the rubber strap every couple of months and love it on both. Apologies, a photographer I am not, nor am I great at uploading them the correct way!

scwazrh

That Tudor is very nice , I’ve been trying to decide between that one and a GMT .I think I’d rather the two tone for something different but can’t find a two tone at similar price to the gmt.

C0N0R

scwazrh wrote: »

That Tudor is very nice , I’ve been trying to decide between that one and a GMT .I think I’d rather the two tone for something different but can’t find a two tone at similar price to the gmt.

Funny I had the same debate with myself, but then I felt like if I’d gone for the Tudor GMT I would be settling for it instead of the Rolex GMT, whereas I don’t feel the same about the Steel and Gold. GMT will have to wait until next year perhaps and pick up the Rolex instead.