Leica watch

[kiwi2]

Which just goes to show how much money some people will waste for nothing more than status symbol and vanity.

Hmmm...it's not exactly like that.

Just like audiophiles that buy fancy looking $10,000 speaker cables.

No, that's very different. You're describing cables with $10 of material in them and $10 worth of labor but a lot of hype and lies. A fine Swiss watch is very different from that.

They get pride of ownership with having something "high-end" and exclusive that sets them apart from the unwashed masses.

Agree with steve23

Although these high end mechanical watches cost a lot of money / are exclusive, they probably are even worth the money.

Sure there is fine craftsmanship in making them. But that's a throwback to the days when that was the only way to make an accurate timepiece.

Analogue gears are no longer the most accurate way to keep time. That's why we use atomic clocks to keep official time now. Then our digital watches and phones and other digital devices keep time very actually.

Fancy watchers like Rolex largely exists for the purpose of jewellery. That's their market.

--
https://flic.kr/s/aHskGHoofd

 

[stevo23]

Premium watches are beautifully built and will outlast their owners by a long shot. If you compare a Citizen, a Seiko and say a Rolex, you can see that each is built to a different level of quality. Sure, electronic watches are more accurate, but they aren't as well built, most of them.

Well , my Omega f300 is electronic ( it says so on the face ) although it is mostly mechanical with its ESA ‘tuning fork’ movement, and is certified as a chronometer.

Sort of like the old Accutron?

It still , after 40 odd years ownership , still keeps excellent time to within a few seconds a month , despite being worn every day for decades , occasionally dropped , bashed and scratched . It will certainly outlast me and will go to my son .

Very cool.

 

[Mackiesback]

Those Citizen watches are the bees knees. The ones with auto rime and date update are the best. I won't part with mine unless it breaks.

I love my Skyhawk A/T. I thought I wouldn't like the metal link band but it's not too bad. Beats paying $16k any day. Even if I could afford this Leica watch, the Citizen has a MUCH better value proposition than this.

What do you consider gives it value? accuracy, looks, jewelry appeal, collector valuation, brand name, logo, or what?

If you have to ask, you can't understand it.

You are correct. I don't understand why a watch that does not keep accurate time is more valuable than one that is precisely accurate. The best made set of gears and springs that is not accurate is worth less as a watch than one that does.

So you think that folk are spending thousands to buy "a watch" ?

No, I know they are buying jewelry, like a diamond ring, to show off, and are not that interested in accurate time.

No, jewelry takes little effort to make and is made from materials that are not especially of any value.

I was referring to purpose of the purchase, not how it's made. Jewelry is purchased to show off and not for a utilitarian use. Try telling someone that a 5 caret diamond has no value.

Which is exactly what I was getting at. You appear not to get the difference between a diamond ring with $40 of inherent value and a Rolex or Patek for instance.

If you want a jewelry watch, you buy the $50 specials at Macy's - they sparkle and generally look nice. Try again.

Costume jewelry is fake just like the fake Rolex for $5 I bought from a vendor while walking on the Great Wall of China. It looks so real, like a pricey Rolex that I don't dare wear it in a bad neighborhood at night.

The guys in the bad neighborhood can tell the difference - you need not worry.

They would probably take it anyway. On the bright side for them, it's probably just a misdemeanor.

I prefer to simply avoid neighborhoods like that, because I can.

 

[kiwi2]

I can see that you are missing the point entirely. I'm trying to lead you there, but you're not showing signs of the mental candlepower to get there. Is that what you lack here? How can we help you?

I have sent a complaint to the moderator for personal insults.

 

[Pontoneer]

Though you'd never do it (dive to 1500ft) the Rolex is rated for a lot of water pressure, which speaks of its environmental durability.

Certainly if you have a Rolex Submariner , as with the Omega Saemaster range , but not every Rolex , or Omega is sealed for use underwater .

 

[stevo23]

Which just goes to show how much money some people will waste for nothing more than status symbol and vanity.

Hmmm...it's not exactly like that.

Just like audiophiles that buy fancy looking $10,000 speaker cables.

No, that's very different. You're describing cables with $10 of material in them and $10 worth of labor but a lot of hype and lies. A fine Swiss watch is very different from that.

They get pride of ownership with having something "high-end" and exclusive that sets them apart from the unwashed masses.

Agree with steve23

Although these high end mechanical watches cost a lot of money / are exclusive, they probably are even worth the money.

Sure there is fine craftsmanship in making them. But that's a throwback to the days when that was the only way to make an accurate timepiece.

Analogue gears are no longer the most accurate way to keep time. That's why we use atomic clocks to keep the official time now. T

What does that have to do with anything? Are you only able to care about "official time"?

hen our digital watches and phones and other digital devices keep time very actually.

Fancy watchers like Rolex largely exists for the purpose of jewellery. That's their market.

At this point, I'm inclined to conclude that your problem is one of diminished mental candlepower. It seems you lack the ability and/or willingness to think beyond a very narrow and self imposed set of parameters.

 

[DaveOl]

Though you'd never do it (dive to 1500ft) the Rolex is rated for a lot of water pressure, which speaks of its environmental durability.

Yes, that's one of those things I was hoping would come out - it's about a lot more than keeping time or overall longevity. And not all Swiss watches are Rolex expensive. A Marathon medium is about $800 but is extremely durable and will take more beatings than any watch I've ever owned. Ball makes some watches that are incredibly tough and built to a very high shock standard.

I bought a Ball watch about 6 months ago. When I first got it, it gained 6 seconds a day. Since I have been wearing it a lot lately, it seems to be getting much more accurate. How is that possible?

I've heard that too and don't get it. Maybe it's a matter of "breaking in"? Which one did you get?

By the way, the tritium tubes are extremely bright so I have to keep my watch hand under the covers. My other watches have to be exposed to bright light and only stay luminous for a few hours.

I love tritium. I have a Luminox for that but Ball is my dream tritium watch. Either that or a Marathon.

I believe that it is an Engineer II. I bought it because I really liked the face, but the band is too shiny in my opinion.

 

[stevo23]

Though you'd never do it (dive to 1500ft) the Rolex is rated for a lot of water pressure, which speaks of its environmental durability.

Yes, that's one of those things I was hoping would come out - it's about a lot more than keeping time or overall longevity. And not all Swiss watches are Rolex expensive. A Marathon medium is about $800 but is extremely durable and will take more beatings than any watch I've ever owned. Ball makes some watches that are incredibly tough and built to a very high shock standard.

I bought a Ball watch about 6 months ago. When I first got it, it gained 6 seconds a day. Since I have been wearing it a lot lately, it seems to be getting much more accurate. How is that possible?

I've heard that too and don't get it. Maybe it's a matter of "breaking in"? Which one did you get?

By the way, the tritium tubes are extremely bright so I have to keep my watch hand under the covers. My other watches have to be exposed to bright light and only stay luminous for a few hours.

I love tritium. I have a Luminox for that but Ball is my dream tritium watch. Either that or a Marathon.

I believe that it is an Engineer II. I bought it because I really liked the face, but the band is too shiny in my opinion.

Nice. Enjoy!

 

[stevo23]

Though you'd never do it (dive to 1500ft) the Rolex is rated for a lot of water pressure, which speaks of its environmental durability.

Certainly if you have a Rolex Submariner , as with the Omega Saemaster range , but not every Rolex , or Omega is sealed for use underwater .

For diving - Doxa? Anyone?

 

[kiwi2]

At this point, I'm inclined to conclude that your problem is one of diminished mental candlepower.

Another complaint sent.

 

[stevo23]

At this point, I'm inclined to conclude that your problem is one of diminished mental candlepower.

Another complaint sent.

Okay!

 

[mamallama]

Those Citizen watches are the bees knees. The ones with auto rime and date update are the best. I won't part with mine unless it breaks.

I love my Skyhawk A/T. I thought I wouldn't like the metal link band but it's not too bad. Beats paying $16k any day. Even if I could afford this Leica watch, the Citizen has a MUCH better value proposition than this.

What do you consider gives it value? accuracy, looks, jewelry appeal, collector valuation, brand name, logo, or what?

If you have to ask, you can't understand it.

You are correct. I don't understand why a watch that does not keep accurate time is more valuable than one that is precisely accurate. The best made set of gears and springs that is not accurate is worth less as a watch than one that does.

So you think that folk are spending thousands to buy "a watch" ?

No, I know they are buying jewelry, like a diamond ring, to show off, and are not that interested in accurate time.

No, jewelry takes little effort to make and is made from materials that are not especially of any value.

I was referring to purpose of the purchase, not how it's made. Jewelry is purchased to show off and not for a utilitarian use. Try telling someone that a 5 caret diamond has no value.

Which is exactly what I was getting at. You appear not to get the difference between a diamond ring with $40 of inherent value and a Rolex or Patek for instance.

If you want a jewelry watch, you buy the $50 specials at Macy's - they sparkle and generally look nice. Try again.

Costume jewelry is fake just like the fake Rolex for $5 I bought from a vendor while walking on the Great Wall of China. It looks so real, like a pricey Rolex that I don't dare wear it in a bad neighborhood at night.

The guys in the bad neighborhood can tell the difference - you need not worry.

But only after I'm mugged with my wrist broken. :-(

 

[stevo23]

Those Citizen watches are the bees knees. The ones with auto rime and date update are the best. I won't part with mine unless it breaks.

I love my Skyhawk A/T. I thought I wouldn't like the metal link band but it's not too bad. Beats paying $16k any day. Even if I could afford this Leica watch, the Citizen has a MUCH better value proposition than this.

What do you consider gives it value? accuracy, looks, jewelry appeal, collector valuation, brand name, logo, or what?

If you have to ask, you can't understand it.

You are correct. I don't understand why a watch that does not keep accurate time is more valuable than one that is precisely accurate. The best made set of gears and springs that is not accurate is worth less as a watch than one that does.

So you think that folk are spending thousands to buy "a watch" ?

No, I know they are buying jewelry, like a diamond ring, to show off, and are not that interested in accurate time.

No, jewelry takes little effort to make and is made from materials that are not especially of any value.

I was referring to purpose of the purchase, not how it's made. Jewelry is purchased to show off and not for a utilitarian use. Try telling someone that a 5 caret diamond has no value.

Which is exactly what I was getting at. You appear not to get the difference between a diamond ring with $40 of inherent value and a Rolex or Patek for instance.

If you want a jewelry watch, you buy the $50 specials at Macy's - they sparkle and generally look nice. Try again.

Costume jewelry is fake just like the fake Rolex for $5 I bought from a vendor while walking on the Great Wall of China. It looks so real, like a pricey Rolex that I don't dare wear it in a bad neighborhood at night.

The guys in the bad neighborhood can tell the difference - you need not worry.

But only after I'm mugged with my wrist broken. :-(

But will they mug you for the watch? That's the important point.

 

[Pontoneer]

Which just goes to show how much money some people will waste for nothing more than status symbol and vanity.

Hmmm...it's not exactly like that.

Just like audiophiles that buy fancy looking $10,000 speaker cables.

No, that's very different. You're describing cables with $10 of material in them and $10 worth of labor but a lot of hype and lies. A fine Swiss watch is very different from that.

They get pride of ownership with having something "high-end" and exclusive that sets them apart from the unwashed masses.

Sometimes, people do think like that. What you're describing is the reason they buy, not the reason they cost what they do.

With diamonds - no inherent value anywhere in the supply chain. From beginning to end, there isn't more than $100 that has been put into most diamond rings (I don't know exactly, I'm just illustrating a point that I believe is valid.) And it is no more expensive to mine, cut and mount a "high quality" diamond than a "low quality one". It's pure hype.

But in the case of a Rolex, it's a very different situation.

A $10 cable will get the signal to the speaker just as well as a $10,000 speaker cable.

A $10 Casio will tell the time just as well as a $10,000 Rolex.

 

[Pontoneer]

Premium watches are beautifully built and will outlast their owners by a long shot. If you compare a Citizen, a Seiko and say a Rolex, you can see that each is built to a different level of quality. Sure, electronic watches are more accurate, but they aren't as well built, most of them.

Well , my Omega f300 is electronic ( it says so on the face ) although it is mostly mechanical with its ESA ‘tuning fork’ movement, and is certified as a chronometer.

Sort of like the old Accutron?

It still , after 40 odd years ownership , still keeps excellent time to within a few seconds a month , despite being worn every day for decades , occasionally dropped , bashed and scratched . It will certainly outlast me and will go to my son .

Very cool.

Exactly : both used the same ESA movements .

 

[stevo23]

Which just goes to show how much money some people will waste for nothing more than status symbol and vanity.

Hmmm...it's not exactly like that.

Just like audiophiles that buy fancy looking $10,000 speaker cables.

No, that's very different. You're describing cables with $10 of material in them and $10 worth of labor but a lot of hype and lies. A fine Swiss watch is very different from that.

They get pride of ownership with having something "high-end" and exclusive that sets them apart from the unwashed masses.

Sometimes, people do think like that. What you're describing is the reason they buy, not the reason they cost what they do.

With diamonds - no inherent value anywhere in the supply chain. From beginning to end, there isn't more than $100 that has been put into most diamond rings (I don't know exactly, I'm just illustrating a point that I believe is valid.) And it is no more expensive to mine, cut and mount a "high quality" diamond than a "low quality one". It's pure hype.

But in the case of a Rolex, it's a very different situation.

A $10 cable will get the signal to the speaker just as well as a $10,000 speaker cable.

A $10 Casio will tell the time just as well as a $10,000 Rolex.

With audio cables there is some science behind the hype : really cheap cables are sonically inferior to decent ones ; because I have quite long cable runs ( my loudspeakers are at the other side of the room from my equipment cabinet ) I spent a couple of hundred on decent speaker cable ( still a tiny fraction of what my kit cost ) , but I agree there comes a point of diminishing returns and beyond which it is silly to go .

High end watches , in a sense , are a bit like high end turntables and you are paying for good mechanical engineering , and sometimes looks . Even some 30 plus years on I still admire my Michell Gyrodec every time I look at it , and I enjoy playing my records on it every day . I had the Transcriptor Hydraulic Reference Turntable before the Gyrodec , until the design was updated as the dynamics of playing records became better understood. It is the sane with a Linn Sondek or any other quality turntable , an SME pickup arm ( which I had before ) or a Rega ( as I have now ) .

My turntable , arm and cartridge would probably cost somewhere between five and ten grand nowadays , I bought mine around 30 years ago , and is audibly better than much cheaper ones , but you could also spend vastly more if you wanted to , although how much of a sonic difference it would make I don’t know .

Pretty good analogy.

 

[stevo23]

Premium watches are beautifully built and will outlast their owners by a long shot. If you compare a Citizen, a Seiko and say a Rolex, you can see that each is built to a different level of quality. Sure, electronic watches are more accurate, but they aren't as well built, most of them.

Well , my Omega f300 is electronic ( it says so on the face ) although it is mostly mechanical with its ESA ‘tuning fork’ movement, and is certified as a chronometer.

Sort of like the old Accutron?

It still , after 40 odd years ownership , still keeps excellent time to within a few seconds a month , despite being worn every day for decades , occasionally dropped , bashed and scratched . It will certainly outlast me and will go to my son .

Very cool.

Exactly : both used the same ESA movements .

My dad got one of the earliest ones and I wore it religiously after he got an upgrade. Until it was stolen.

 

[kiwi2]

A $10 cable will get the signal to the speaker just as well as a $10,000 speaker cable.

A $10 Casio will tell the time just as well as a $10,000 Rolex.

With audio cables there is some science behind the hype : really cheap cables are sonically inferior to decent ones ; because I have quite long cable runs ( my loudspeakers are at the other side of the room from my equipment cabinet ) I spent a couple of hundred on decent speaker cable ( still a tiny fraction of what my kit cost ) , but I agree there comes a point of diminishing returns and beyond which it is silly to go .

That's more a matter of the appropriate gauge for the length of run and the impedance of the speakers.

Like you would want to use 12 gauge wire for longer runs as opposed to wimpy 16 gauge. There are well established tables for working that out. You are only talking of a difference of a few dollars per metre between 16 gauge and 12 gauge.

 

[Pontoneer]

A $10 cable will get the signal to the speaker just as well as a $10,000 speaker cable.

A $10 Casio will tell the time just as well as a $10,000 Rolex.

With audio cables there is some science behind the hype : really cheap cables are sonically inferior to decent ones ; because I have quite long cable runs ( my loudspeakers are at the other side of the room from my equipment cabinet ) I spent a couple of hundred on decent speaker cable ( still a tiny fraction of what my kit cost ) , but I agree there comes a point of diminishing returns and beyond which it is silly to go .

That's more a matter of the appropriate gauge for the length of run and the impedance of the speakers.

Like you would want to use 12 gauge wire for longer runs as opposed to wimpy 16 gauge. There are well established tables for working that out. You are only talking of a difference of a few dollars per metre between 16 gauge and 12 gauge.

 

[stevo23]

A $10 cable will get the signal to the speaker just as well as a $10,000 speaker cable.

A $10 Casio will tell the time just as well as a $10,000 Rolex.

With audio cables there is some science behind the hype : really cheap cables are sonically inferior to decent ones ; because I have quite long cable runs ( my loudspeakers are at the other side of the room from my equipment cabinet ) I spent a couple of hundred on decent speaker cable ( still a tiny fraction of what my kit cost ) , but I agree there comes a point of diminishing returns and beyond which it is silly to go .

That's more a matter of the appropriate gauge for the length of run and the impedance of the speakers.

Like you would want to use 12 gauge wire for longer runs as opposed to wimpy 16 gauge. There are well established tables for working that out. You are only talking of a difference of a few dollars per metre between 16 gauge and 12 gauge.

Even with the same cross sectional area , there is a little more to it than that , for example there have been many trials demonstrating the difference between common copper wire and LC-OFC cables .

This applies not only to loudspeaker cables but also to signal cables , where an audible difference can be demonstrated between the cheapest cables and something better , without going to extremes of cost .

When you have a hi-fi system costing several tens of thousands of pounds it is not out of order to spend a few hundred on cables .

Just the same as I wouldn’t put budget tyres on my Mercedes .

Yes, but back to the watches...