This thread is about the appreciation of horology, as well as the micro-engineering and materials engineering that are required to make a fine watch, clock, Casio aq230, or other timepiece.
>Required viewing for new people(unironically):
youtube.com
>Thread theme (very unironically):
youtube.com
>Used watch guide:
pastebin.com
>Strap guide:
pastebin.com
>Watch essentials 102:
pastebin.com
previous thread;
Other urls found in this thread:
forums.watchuseek.com
sputniknews.com
forums.watchuseek.com
google.ca
twitter.com
>that finishing
> bought this for 80 bucks
> it's really heavy and higher quality than my $120 Rodina
Genuinely a good watch for a Chinese automatic
>3 languages on dial
>35 stunden
Why didn't they just use english or chinese.
This is the AK47 of wristwatches.
That's not a Vostok Amphibia.
The Vostok is mechanical though, it's been obsolete for half a century.
There's nothing obsolete about a gas piston-powered rotating-bolt assault rifle firing a primed intermediate cartridge.
The AK47 of wristwatches has to be quartz, like this
Then some g-shock or f91w. MM's too expensive to be ak-47.
The AK isn't obsolete, but it's also not "modern" like a digital watch is.
The Tuna makes perfect sense.
I already said it's too expensive for that. Digital watches aren't exactly new either.
Found a stainless digital watch on AliExpress.
95% chance it's chrome plated.
gross
A tuna isn't expensive.
And digital watches are too new to be comparable to AKs.
A better comparison for digital watches is any rifle with plastic furniture.
Any thoughts on Timex watches? I saw this one the other day and really like how it looks. It's really simple, but I'm not familiar with Timex. Worth a shot or are there similar watches from other brands?
>1k isn't expensive
It is. Maybe not compared to luxury watches but it is expensive.
Well have you checked the prices for AK variants lately?
It'll be plated brass, the seller said my Skmei was steel but it's not.
TICK TOCK motherfucker.
My first real watch. Did i do gud? I am clueless and i dont feel like i got chinked, but it's my first watch so i need opinions if i did o-k. Was a digital casio boy my whole life before i pulled the trigger on this one.
timex is pretty decent
It's kinda ugly.
NOT UGLY
Fake.
Alpina doesn't even have that model on their website.
Kickstarter senpai. Just ended.
>Kickstarter
Should've just kept wearing the Casio.
I dont know. I felt the same way for a while, but it carries quite a bit of functionality. Im a sporty guy and i think this looks okayish to me.
How big is it? Post a wrist shot.
>This is the AK47 of wristwatches.
An AK47 has wooden furniture and is from the 40s.
G-Shocks are more like Glocks.
£700 digital watch.
Thoughts? Rotary Aquaspeed automatic
Strap obviously interchangeable
ugly
Is there a model without the open heart? Too tacky
snake oil.
>G-Shocks are more like Glocks.
Well you're right
No. The Vostok Amphibia is.
In parts of the world without regular reliable access to batteries, a mechanical watch is more practical. Vostoks are made with an identical philosophy to AKs.
Quite like it but, and I assume it’s meant for this, I would only wear it in very casual settings or during light sports etc. People saying it’s ugly are probably the same people who think Seiko divers watches are attractive
Amphibias... take a while to ship, huh?
See >parts of the world without regular reliable access to batteries
bro...
The Vostok is mechanical though, it's been obsolete for half a century.
There's nothing obsolete about a gas piston-powered rotating-bolt assault rifle firing a primed intermediate cartridge.
The AK47 of wristwatches has to be quartz, like this
(You)
Stop saying this, you don't make sense.
A mechanical watch still works just fine today, just like an AK does, even though there are better technologies to fire bullets.
>A mechanical watch still works just fine today
Define "works".
The only reason anyone buys a mechanical watch today is because of emotional reasons.
As soon as timekeeping is actually important, everyone uses quartz or similar modern tech.
>even though there are better technologies to fire bullets
No.
The top of the line modern assault rifles tend to be gas-operated (even piston) and rotating bolt, just like the AK.
Not a fan of open heart watches, the rest is okay. It would probably look good on a black nato, possibly with an orange stripe.
What's the movement? I assume it's probably a Sellita SW200.
Yup. Waiting on some Russian stuff as well. Won't be here till possibly mid May
So you're pushing quartz tuna as the ak-47 because mechanical is obsolete but my suggestion of g-shock being the ak-47 isn't right because digital watches are somehow too young of a technology, despite quartz and digital watches behind about the same age?
>The only reason anyone buys a mechanical watch today is because of emotional reasons.
Yeah, let me tell you about all this people who buy shitty brass plated Vostok dirskies for $30 or less for emotional reasons.
Don't know about that particular one but timex are said to be loud ticking. Maybe try a Citizen. I think they alot of similar looking models
I disagree with pretty much all of these but the Submariner - UMP thing makes no sense to me. What was your thought process on this?
Gshocks are all plastic and modern.
Not a fit for an AK47 which is all steel and wood and from the 40s.
A quartz analog like the Tuna still has the same old-world construction as an AK47, being made out of steel and being analog.
Well outside of emotional reasons, there's no reason to buy a wildly inaccurate $30 mechanical over a very accurate $10 quartz.
You have to decide if you want it to be about looks, materials, age, usability, widespread use... You just keep moving goalposts, there's no discussion to be had.
An ETA 2824 is more "AK47" then the Seiko 7C46
The Submariner is a mechanical, meaning it's pretty much obsolete technically as even a $10 Casio will severely beat it in timekeeping.
Hence it's a submachine gun, which many today say are also (kind of) obsolete in the face of SBRs (though I admit this is up for debate).
The UMP is also a descendant of the MP5, which is one of the most iconic and seminal firearms of the 20th century (like the Submariner in the watch world).
And H&K because they charge up the ass.
It's a combination of everything, naturally.
Except mechanical watches have been obsolete for half a century.
Rotating bolt assault rifles aren't.
Like I said quartz is about as old as digital watches, being analog isn't an argument.
And you could argue the 7C46 is obsolete because of Radio Wave Control and Solar.
>Well outside of emotional reasons, there's no reason to buy a wildly inaccurate $30 mechanical over a very accurate $10 quartz.
Aside from the Russian Military still issuing mechanical watches to multiple branches of their forces for nuclear survivability, amongst other things.
Being analog is a better fit for a rifle from the 40s.
>Solar
Also quartz.
>Radio Wave Control
Also quartz when not within range (i.e. "in the field").
And while the AK isn't obsolete, it also isn't "cutting edge" like radio wave control is.
I feel like the firearm comparison is a bit weird because all firearms use the same principle as they did 100 years ago: cartridge filled with explosive powder gets set off by a primer strike and a bullet travels through a metal barrel. In a few years this will be viewed like tube amplifiers or mechanical watches, obsolete but nice for the enthusiast.
Yes guns have evolved enormously to make the process of shooting nicer but that's still a mechanical watch with a silicon hairspring and a longer power reserve.
I get the H&K comparison for the price but the submariner has been around for so long that maybe you should go with the MG3 instead.
Also I don't think the Casio terrorist watch is more accurate than a modern Submariner, they tend to be all over the place.
>The Submariner is a mechanical, meaning it's pretty much obsolete technically as even a $10 Casio will severely beat it in timekeeping.
This is incorrect. A 3135 is perfectly capable of outperforming a $10 Casio.
P good
Yeah, which one is that again?
>Being analog is a better fit for a rifle from the 40s.
There you go then, the steel g-shock is the ak-47.
>I feel like the firearm comparison is a bit weird because all firearms use the same principle as they did 100 years ago: cartridge filled with explosive powder gets set off by a primer strike and a bullet travels through a metal barrel.
Well there's more to it.
Firearms come in many different categories like repeaters, full auto, muzzle loaders, battle rifles, assault rifles, etc.
There's a lot to play with.
>but the submariner has been around for so long that maybe you should go with the MG3 instead
Well my thinking was that the UMP was a modernized MP5 like the current Submariner is a modernized early Submariner.
The G3 would kind of work too, since battle rifles are "obsolete" as well these days. But I still think the UMP fits better, since the G3 is all but gone these days, with no real high-priced modern descendant.
The steel g-shock is ana-digi.
And it's also brand spanking new.
Not really a fit.
Pretty sure that's a marketing ploy to sell their shitty watches.
>only things that I DEEM FIT are a fit
You've been proven wrong multiple times already. I don't feel like continuing with this bullshit.
And battery quartz wristwatch movements are quite new compared to the AK47. Just stop with this autism.
will you gun autists just FUCK OFF
Anything with an LCD display isn't going to cut it.
The watch needs to look "old world" while not being obsolete.
And has to be built like a tank.
And has to have relatively good history behind it (for a watch).
The Tuna fits this.
There are aspects of the AK47 that the Tuna doesn't quite fit, like ubiquity.
But over all it's a very good fit.
Firearms and wristwatch development don't perfectly align.
In firearms, the advent of primed cartridges was pretty much like the quartz revolution.
Well at least I’m true to the meme.
>In firearms, the advent of primed cartridges was pretty much like the quartz revolution.
That and the "assault rifle".
What watch is turk wearing in this pic?
>A 3135 is perfectly capable of outperforming a $10 Casio.
An fw-91 is guaranteed by Casio to be accurate to around 30 seconds per month; a modern Rolex is only guaranteed to about 60 seconds per month (plus or minus 2 seconds per day).
Either will have tons of examples that do (much) better than their spec.
>I disagree with pretty much all of these but the Submariner
Did you mean you agree with pretty much all of these but the Submariner?
He forgot a comma.
a stolen one
>Gshock - Glock:
Modern, plastic, cheap-ish, bomb-proof, quasi-revoluationary.
>Tuna - AK47:
Old-world materials and construction, extremely rugged, still functionally relevant today.
>Omega Seamaster - Remington 700:
Former glory dragged through the mud for corporate gain.
>Rolex Sub - UMP:
Modern high-priced version of seminal design (mp5); with mechanical/SMG being quasi-obsolete.
>Lange - H&H:
Upscale classic design with meticulous finishing.
Search your heart, you know it to be accurate.
>Battery powered quartz wristwatch movement
>Old-world
Shh, it's rugged metal and not a digital so it ak-47!
The exterior counts as well, and that's all steel with an analog display.
And the timelines for firearms and wristwatch development isn't perfectly aligned.
The quartz revolution equivalent for firearms is primed cartridges + self-loading systems (or the "assault rifle").
Plus see pic, the movement looks old world af.
So how come you can excuse quartz movement as superior to mechanical but it has to be analog even though quartz is about as old as led and lcd watches?
>A mechanical firearm is in line with a battery powered wristwatch movement with electronic step motors
The AK47 is a modern mechanism (rotating bolt, gas-operated) housed in old-world materials (steel & wood).
It's a no-brainer, really.
>A mechanical firearm
Lol, as opposed to an electric firearm?
A Rolex worn every day has pretty good odds of outperforming its rated mean daily variation due to subjecting the watch to less positions and less low states of wind than was tested for.
Meanwhile the module in the F91 is shit even compared to $20 Casios, and often delivers pretty mediocre timing performance.
If you'd have said a $20 Casio, I wouldn't have said anything.
the nuclear thing is literally it being mechanical and thus not affected by emp
Yes. EMP resistance is remains a selection criteria for some military applications. It's one of the reasons that several air forces continued to issue mechanical chronographs into the early 1990s.
>Meanwhile the module in the F91 is shit even compared to $20 Casios, and often delivers pretty mediocre timing performance.
Still better than a rolex tho lol
Not in my experience. My F91 is pretty shit as a timekeeper, gets demolished by my 3135 equipped Rolex.
>Not in my experience. My F91 is pretty shit as a timekeeper, gets demolished by my 3135 equipped Rolex.
nah that's bs, I set my F91 to atomic clock time and it's nearly dead on 6 months later every time.