This thread is about the appreciation of watches, as well as the micro-engineering and materials engineering that are required to make a fine watch, clock, or other timepiece.
>Required viewing for new people (unironically):
youtube.com
>Thread theme (also unironically):
youtube.com
>Used watch guide:
pastebin.com
>Strap guide:
pastebin.com
>Watch essentials 102:
pastebin.com
previous thread:
So which brand is the best in the "chinese factory affordable luxury scam"?
Vincero, DW, Fifth, MVMT or Brathwait?
Am I forgetting some social media meme brands?
Fourth for consciousness is as real as god is.
>consciousness is as real as god is.
mow
Fuck these look good.
Should I get one because of that and the fact that I want to "test drive" a analog chrono?
>mow
mfw
What am I looking at?
Could be come a daily driver! Wear it in good health friend!
This is a prototype of a tuning fork watch without electricity. Most tuning fork watches use electromagnets to provide power to the fork. This one works just like a traditional mechanical watch; it has a mainspring that provides power to the gear train, and the escapement provides impulses to the tuning fork.
seems like that would be hell to keep wound
>Wear it in good health friend!
Thank you friend :)
Intredasting...
That is far and away the most autistic thing I have ever seen in my life. I can't imagine that working well on the wrist
So why does watch thread love Rolex so much?
GS literally beats Rolex in every department.
-Better finishing and quality overall
-Better movements
-Wider range of designs and models, basically more options
Why would anyone get a Rolex over a GS?
>inb4 brainlet reasons like:
"Rolex heritage"
"Rolex brand"
"It's Swiss so it's good, am I right g-guys?"
The idea was to develop a silent pocketwatch to be used on submarines. It really has no real reason to exist apart from one very niche use.
Rolex looks better
>What watch is that?
>It's a gee-es.
>A What?
>A gee-es. Two letters G and S. Stands for Grand Seiko, and the workmanship is abso...
>A SEIKO??? You paid how much for a Seiko? Should've gotten a Rolex like me!
>*chuckle* That is exactly why I didn't buy a Rolex. *glare from the shadow cast by the rim of my trilby* Because people like YOU buy them. You see, the horological merits of Rolex are beyond reproach, and their vertical integration is commendable in the Swiss watchmaking landscape. However, their production methods are skewed towards mass machine production rather than horological excellence. You don't buy a mechanical watch because it's a good, functional tool; you buy one because of the old-world craftsmanship that goes into them. And with modern tooling and resources, there is no excuse for having finishing as pedestrian as a Rolex. Gee-es on the other hand is on a perpetual quest towards achieving the finest possible end result as a natural continuation of watchmaking heritage. In this day and age there is no reason for a luxury mechanical watch to have unfinished hand edges, something which is overlooked even by the pinnacle of Swiss watchmaking: Patek Philippe, but not by the industrious monocultural Japanese. So keep your stinking Rolex, I'm sure the salesman for your next car will commend you for having the exact same timepiece as him. Maybe he'll bump you up a few places on the waiting list for whatever objectively inferior status symbol shitbox you're craving in the mistaken belief that it will fill that gaping hole in your soul whence sprout your social anxieties and insecurities. Fulfillment comes from within, not your wrist. And if you really want to continue this pissing match, let's break out the loupes and we'll settle this once and for all. Didn't think so.
How about brainlet reasons like I liked a Rolex better than I liked any other watch in the same price range and I don't give a shit what you think. Maybe I'll buy a GS eventually, but I just didn't really want any of the ones I considered.
>no lume
I love the idea that if you want to have a GS as your only watch you still need to buy two Seikos. A GS for daily wear and a Sapphire 100 for your nightstand.
>Rolex looks better
I mean yes, Rolex does make great looking watches, but it's basically the same thing over and over again, rinse and repeat.
Just look at this beauty
that second hand is making me dizzy
I think this is acceptable as long as you admit using subjective reasoning behind your purchases.
>I mean yes, Rolex does make great looking watches, but it's basically the same thing over and over again, rinse and repeat.
Are you saying you claim to use objective reasoning?
GS is objectively better.
Prove me otherwise.
>go out to the Bildenberg bonfire party
>having fun sacrificing naked children for Satan
>remember you promised your uninitiated trophy wife you'd be home by eleven
>can't see the time because you're wearing a Grand Seiko with no lume
>phones weren't allowed for obvious reason
Yeah, real practical.
Using ones own ignorance as a argument against something else.
Why do people do this, you have zero authority to be a god to judge what's relevant and what is not.
"U-uh I have never heard of a co-axial movement, therefore it must be shit"
You are like a scaled up fat canadian.
It objectively doesn't make any sense to spend thousands of dollars on a wristwatch, so I don't see much point in arguing on those lines. If I was being logical and objective about buying a watch I would not buy any watch and I would spend that money on something useful instead.
>far fewer places and people capable of servicing a GS
>far fewer if any bracelets and customs straps available.
>unknown availability of parts in the future such as crystals etc
>cost of ownership possibly higher than Rolex over the course of 10 years because lower resale value
>paying $5000+ for watch that says Seiko on the dial just like a 200 watch
>You are like a scaled up fat canadian.
;_;
This is transparently obvious bait. I'm generally one of the biggest Seiko fanboys on this thread and even I wouldn't attempt to argue that GS is better than Rolex in every department.
Rolex movements are more shock resistant, both in terms of maintaining accuracy and in terms of physical damage.
Rolex movements have a tighter guaranteed mean daily variation guarantee.
Rolex movements can be worked on by many skilled independent watchmakers.
Rolex watches have much tighter bracelet-end link to lug fitment.
Rolex bracelets have much less side to side flex (though that's a matter of preference) and unarguably better clasps.
Rolex offers many more models in 36mm size.
Rolex has many iconic designs while GS often struggles with designs that deviate at all from their traditional grammar of design styling language.
And while it is true that Grand Seiko has better external finishing, Rolex case and bracelet designs are less intricate and don't require as intricate finishing to look good.
Anyone trying to argue that one is unambiguously better than the other is just baiting for (You)s basically.
I legitimately love this pasta.
>This is transparently obvious bait.
>Anyone trying to argue that one is unambiguously better than the other is just baiting for (You)s basically.
> gives a (You)
I almost literally can't even
>paying $5000+ for watch that says Seiko on the dial just like a 200 watch
Brainlet reasoning right there.
>far fewer places and people capable of servicing a GS
True, but you can send it to GS themselves
>far fewer if any bracelets and customs straps available.
Stock bracelets are top tier and you can fit any quality leather band to it.
>unknown availability of parts in the future such as crystals etc
You think GS will go bankrupt? The availability of parts and the spread of GS over the world will just increase.
>cost of ownership possibly higher than Rolex over the course of 10 years because lower resale value
Valid, but because brainlets appreciate Rolex. You should be more reasonable. Just make it your heritage piece.
Then why don't you just buy DW, you can get a new "popular" watch every day if you want.
this
>This is transparently obvious bait. I'm generally one of the biggest Seiko fanboys on this thread and even I wouldn't attempt to argue that GS is better than Rolex in every department.
Nice attempt at false flagging.
I didn't reply with the aim of convincing him of anything, but just took it as an opportunity to discuss some of the relative strengths and weaknesses between two brands.
>Rolex case and bracelet designs are less intricate and don't require as intricate finishing to look good.
Sounds like rationalizing to me.
>You think GS will go bankrupt? The availability of parts and the spread of GS over the world will just increase.
No, I think they might not provide parts though. I am 100% sure that in 30-50 years I can get a new crystal for my Rolex. Grand Seiko puts out designs and only makes them for a year or two sometimes, will I be able to get a new link for my bracelet years from now? A new crystal? unknown, they can stop making parts for any of their small production small year run GSs but not go bankrupt
Yeah, wanted to swap the bezel first. Here's memephibia on my basedwrist.
Overall servicing and cost of ownership is higher for GS and you have to send it to fucking Japan to be cleaned. It is functionally less robust than a Rolex as well. And there are 0 aftermarket parts and accessories.
And if you want to sell a Rolex you can sell without having to find a watch autist to buy it
those are valid reasons for not choosing a GS
Plus Rolex is more precise.
>X is better than Y and anyone who likes Y is an idiot
>Impulsively power ranking everything by arbitrary criteria even if it's too complex to be objectively and quantifiably ranked
>Unable to consider differing opinions
>Repetitive compulsive shitposting
I'm diagnosing this entire thread with autism.
more
Alright then /wt/, recommend me a big-Tuna style aftermarket bezel. Either black or in the style of the Golden Tuna.
The watch is the SRP641.
>It is functionally less robust than a Rolex as well.
Like you're ever going to test the limits of your mechanical watch's robustness.
You would be surprised. You have to be careful with expensive mechanicals. I would not be surprised at all to hear that someone without thinking wore their GS while driving a motorcycle and fucked it up enough to need a service
I recommend returning it and getting a SBBN035.
>reminder this watch is actually 45mm
May I remind you that Rolex rotors turn on jewel bushings, while GS rotors have ball bearings?
Bushings are much more prone to shock damage and wear than ball bearings, meaning structural damage, while the only shock-related issue with GS is deregulation because of the regulated balance.
Bro, I'm 6'3" just like you, and my wrist is only 6.7" at the narrowest part.
>the 6'1" with 6.3" wrist
Technically that is fine, but in theory technically co-axile omegas don't need service for 10 years and are better from a design point of view. And we all know how that worked out in practice.
A watch mechanical movement becomes physically robust not though fast technical innovation (normally) but by making the movement millions of times over many many years and refining it slightly to see what the real world did to your on paper ideas.
Look I like GS, I am the guy who posted the diver GS up there, I plan to buy a GS as my every day watch. However the reason for that is I have a hard on for spring drive and I am willing to accept not having accessories to pick from and having to send the damn thing to japan if something fucks up and that no private watchmaker in my whole country will service it. There are pros and cons, and in reality it would be no doubt be easier and cheaper in the long run to just buy a nice used subby and be done with it. I need that spring drive though. The idea that people who buy GS are smarter buyers and that GS is better in every way is just not true
>Bro, I'm 6'3" just like you, and my wrist is only 6.7" at the narrowest part.
I don't know what to tell you about that. I just have a huge skeleton I guess. My knee joints are massive too and I wear a size 16 shoe and can palm a basket ball with ease also I am 6'5
Im pretty sure any watchmaker can order a crystal with a specific diameter and thickness.
Do you have like a large nose and lips and chin too?
kind of but not really, I mean objectively compared to a guy's nose who is 5'4 yeah, proportionally no though
but yeah if there were any kind of thing people wore on their noses it would probably be hard for me to find my size like it is for shoes and gloves
Are there any movies with lots of cool watches?
>Im pretty sure any watchmaker can order a crystal with a specific diameter and thickness.
Yeah if you want a generic watch crystal made in china. For a $6000 watch it would be nice to know you can get one from the factory where it was made and that when installed you could hold it up to a brand new original watch of the same make and it would be exactly the same.
>but in theory technically co-axile omegas don't need service for 10 years and are better from a design point of view. And we all know how that worked out in practice.
Same thing with regulated vs free-spring balance, then.
afaik there are no objective studies into this, so it's all speculation.
Well with the movement in a Submariner we have 50 years of continuous production and refinement and over a million made per year and it's not really speculation to say we know about how robust they are and how much services cost
But there is no empirical data on whether a Rolex movement is more shock-resistant than a GS movement though.
You can assume Rolex' free-sprung balance resists shock better than GS' regulated balance, and Rolex' rotor bushing resists shock worse than GS' ball bearing rotor; but in the end it's all speculation.
This was your point, wasn't it? With the co-ax thing you brought up?
Post watch complications that haven't been made
> A watch with a power reserve measurement coupled to the regulator, so the watch automatically adjusts itself for isochronism
>You can assume Rolex' free-sprung balance resists shock better than GS' regulated balance
the advantage of a free-sprung balance has less to do with shock resistance and more to do with positional variance. In a regulated balance the effective spring length varies more significantly with position because of the way it touches the regulating pins.
>But there is no empirical data on whether a Rolex movement is more shock-resistant than a GS movement though.
Only because we have so little data on the GS
the GS is more of an unknown quantity than the Rolex is. So with rolex we have "Known robustness, known places to service the watch, known prices for repairs" with GS we have "Unknown robustness, unknown costs to repair, unknown prices for repairs"
that's all I am saying, for someone buying a $10,000 knowing might be something they value
A watch that uses a tiny RTG for power.
We were talking about robustness against shock; riding motorcycles etc.
And the positional variance is countered by meticulous adjustment at GS.
>Only because we have so little data on the GS
Pretty sure we have no hard data on Rolex either.
>with rolex we have "Known robustness"
No we don't.
All we have are more anecdotes, which are on the whole meaningless.
>Pretty sure we have no hard data on Rolex either.
oook
Well do we?
A watch that keeps time by a tiny super-precise gyroscope that measures the rotation of the Earth for timekeeping, be comparing the gyro's orientation to the planet's gravitational pull.
A roter in a normal mechanical used to compress air into a tiny reserve and running the watch on compressed air for a longer reserve
fuck that's a good idea
>Well do we?
Not hard data in the sense of spreadsheets at my fingertips but in the sense of functional every day wear of millions of watches for decades and what problems people have with them when they do have problems and where and how much those cost and where to get them fixed, yes absolutely
Probably easier to do with a fixed clock though. Also I think I've read somewhere no kind of gyro has that much of a long-term accuracy.
Still there must be some scientific instruments that measure the Earths rotation directly, just use those for timekeeping! Not something like the Foucault pendulum though, that's kinda impractical.
Sure because unlike their cases the sapphire crystal is made in Swiss. And obviously out of another material than Al2O3, because there are no good aftermarket sapphire crystals available.
>But there is no empirical data on whether a Rolex movement is more shock-resistant than a GS movement though.
It's logically obvious that a free sprung balance resists shocks better than a regulated balance from an accuracy perspective as it will be almost impossible for a shock to turn the eccentric screws on the balance wheel while it's well known to have a risk of moving the regulating arm on a regulated balance, and if the regulating pins are uncaged there is also the risk of the hairspring slipping the pins.
A balance bridge also logically will self-evidently resist movement of the escapement relative to the rest of the movement better than a balance-cock as it is anchored in two places rather than one.
An autowinder mechanism that's a tiny gas turbine that gets turned on when the mainspring has a low power reserve. Or a tiny two-stroke cylinder if it's a Vostok.
>can only wear nicer watches on days off because they'll get scratched to shit at work
;_;
Right, so theory is all we have.
And in theory, jewel bushings are more prone to shock damage than ball bearings.
>It's logically obvious that a free sprung balance resists shocks better than a regulated balance from an accuracy perspective
I agree.
Just like it's logically obvious that a jewel rotor bushing will be more prone to structural wear and damage than ball bearings.
The poster I was talking with said that Rolexes are more robust than GS movements, and when I brought up the pretty glaring Achilles heel in the form of the Rolex rotor bushing, he said that was only true in theory.
>Right, so theory is all we have.
bro millions of people and thousands of watchmakers service the same kind of watch for decades is not "in theory" you are being obtuse
>The poster I was talking with said that Rolexes are more robust than GS movements,
No, he said the robustness of Rolex movements in daily wear situations over the course of decades is well known, and that GS is unknown especially when trying to factor in costs of repairs.
>can only wear your grandfather's slavshit in the summer, and only on dry days because they're absolutely not water-resistant
Doesn't look scratched though.
Not a high risk for that happening with me at work, but I don't take the chance.
>bro millions of people and thousands of watchmakers service the same kind of watch for decades is not "in theory" you are being obtuse
No, that's "anecdotal", which is meaningless.
>he said the robustness of Rolex movements in daily wear situations over the course of decades is well known
Only anecdotally. Also, so is the robustness of regulated Seiko movements.
>and that GS is unknown
Meaning a GS movement could be even more robust even.
what is the difference between anecdote and evidence
>No, that's "anecdotal", which is meaningless.
you are retarded
Some A Lange watches have a mechanism that applies the same amount of force all the time to the balance wheel until the watch stops.
>Meaning a GS movement could be even more robust even.
yes it could be, we literally don't know
for the would be buyer they are facing "known durability and cost of repairs" and "unknown durability and cost of repairs"
how can you not understand this?
Hypothetical:
>you can buy a $30k, ultra-rare, vintage watch with a sought-after movement, from a prestigious company, and the watch happens to have a great history behind it
>you can buy a $200 microbrand, Quartz shitter that looks exactly the same on the outside
What do you do, /wt/?
mostly true, although the power delivered by a fusee does vary slightly because of the non-zero size of the chain links. Something like a GP constant force escapement is what you need for a true lack of isochronism.