zlacker

[parent] [thread] 34 comments
1. sakex+(OP)[view] [source] 2023-10-03 13:48:35
Whenever I show my mechanical watches to my colleagues, they ask what's the point. Well, my Rolex and my Hublot are NEVER going to be Obsolete.
replies(14): >>Sketch+k3 >>Dudest+m3 >>invers+A3 >>Firmwa+G3 >>gunthe+f4 >>hotpot+d6 >>maltal+r7 >>eloisa+x7 >>otikik+z8 >>tibors+89 >>rsynno+aa >>stetra+sa >>graype+wa >>tzs+Ne
2. Sketch+k3[view] [source] 2023-10-03 14:02:59
>>sakex+(OP)
Different tools with different uses. Sure, your Rolex won't ever be obsolete in what it does but given that no one needs a watch to tell time anymore it's really a symbol of your preferences and where you like to spend your money. It's wrist art.
replies(2): >>gregor+A7 >>tzs+Ba
3. Dudest+m3[view] [source] 2023-10-03 14:03:09
>>sakex+(OP)
Vacuum tube amplifiers and germanium fuzz pedals are simultaneously obsolete and timeless.
4. invers+A3[view] [source] 2023-10-03 14:04:31
>>sakex+(OP)
I've been looking into mechanical watches. Not quite Rolex level, but Égard watches look interesting.

Maybe I'm just becoming a graybeard, but I'm tired of software updates, constantly charging devices, and throwing away good hardware because it's not supported by software anymore.

replies(1): >>1-more+f6
5. Firmwa+G3[view] [source] 2023-10-03 14:04:43
>>sakex+(OP)
>Well, my Rolex and my Hublot

Nice flex, but you don't need to spend Wolf of Wallstreet money to enjoy the fun and diversity of traditional analog and digital watches.

You can build an entire watch collection for every occasion, of high quality Casios, that will last ~forever, for the price of one new Apple watch who's lifespan will be less than the CR2016 battery on those Casios, while having more features that a Rolex.

Casio even had the audacity to build an analog knock-off of the Apple watch and IMHO they nailed the design better than Apple (the moon phase indicator is a functioning complication, not a design element): https://down-th.img.susercontent.com/file/th-11134207-23030-...

replies(3): >>1-more+r5 >>gregor+17 >>sakex+PW2
6. gunthe+f4[view] [source] 2023-10-03 14:06:24
>>sakex+(OP)
Neither will my cheapo casio watch :)
◧◩
7. 1-more+r5[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-10-03 14:10:54
>>Firmwa+G3
Hands that tick? They give me the ick. Hands that sweep? On watches I'll keep.
8. hotpot+d6[view] [source] 2023-10-03 14:14:55
>>sakex+(OP)
In another sense, they're long obsolete, but that doesn't mean they weren't impressive technical achievements of their day.
◧◩
9. 1-more+f6[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-10-03 14:15:05
>>invers+A3
> Égard watches look interesting

They knock off famous watch designs. Their whole Patriot line is meant to look like Richard Mille. I'm showing my bias but if you want a mechanical go right to Seiko instead of this company putting Seiko cases that are meant to make you look like a soccer player who just got his signing bonus.

◧◩
10. gregor+17[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-10-03 14:19:05
>>Firmwa+G3
Swatch watches for about 100€ last a lifetime
replies(1): >>Firmwa+G7
11. maltal+r7[view] [source] 2023-10-03 14:20:39
>>sakex+(OP)
You’re comparing apples with oranges. Just because both products are called “a watch” doesn’t mean they’re interchangeable.

It’s like comparing a wired phone to a smartphone because they’re both “phones”.

replies(1): >>gregor+38
12. eloisa+x7[view] [source] 2023-10-03 14:20:52
>>sakex+(OP)
Sure, just like a necklace or a ring. Because that's what those expensive watches are: pieces of jewelry.

Yes, they can tell the time but there are better ways of knowing the time nowadays. Especially if you care about accuracy, a smartwatch connected to a smartphone connected to an atomic clock is more accurate than your Rolex.

So what's the point of jewelry? Fashion, and signaling your wealth mostly.

replies(3): >>graype+ob >>alexjp+Fb >>gunthe+xg
◧◩
13. gregor+A7[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-10-03 14:21:11
>>Sketch+k3
Do you have statistics of usage for Apple or Android watches? do people really use more than time on them? 10% ? 50% more? It would be interesting to have some data because even if people have plenty of other ways to get the time, I believe we still haven't invented a more efficient way that a watch with physical handles.
replies(2): >>Sketch+I9 >>EricE+3b
◧◩◪
14. Firmwa+G7[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-10-03 14:21:37
>>gregor+17
True, I forgot about Swatch which has many eye-catching designs, though to me, they're a bit "expensive" compared to how cheap Casios can get.
◧◩
15. gregor+38[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-10-03 14:23:03
>>maltal+r7
They’re interchangeable in the sense that you can't wear both at the same time.
replies(1): >>manuel+C9
16. otikik+z8[view] [source] 2023-10-03 14:26:15
>>sakex+(OP)
Ok but what is the point, though? Surely obsolescence resistance was not high on the list when you got them.
17. tibors+89[view] [source] 2023-10-03 14:29:40
>>sakex+(OP)
I don't show my watches unless I'm asked, so I'm not sure what people think about them, but I do see smartwatches everywhere. It's becoming an obvious choice nowadays, I think that they are an easy way not to make a choice in the ocean of mechanical watches. A glass screen that can display anything has an apparent appeal.
◧◩◪
18. manuel+C9[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-10-03 14:31:47
>>gregor+38
You can, unless you have only one arm.
replies(1): >>gregor+1c
◧◩◪
19. Sketch+I9[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-10-03 14:32:19
>>gregor+A7
You're right, I have no idea. But there are also far more cost effective ways to check the time than a rolex. That was the point I was trying to get across - the rolex won't become obsolete because it's not there to be a watch, it's there to make a statement as a rolex.
20. rsynno+aa[view] [source] 2023-10-03 14:34:55
>>sakex+(OP)
Well, I mean, you could argue that those became obsolete in the 1970s with the introduction of practical quartz watches, which worked better by all reasonable performance metrics.
21. stetra+sa[view] [source] 2023-10-03 14:36:17
>>sakex+(OP)
An absence of device on the wrist is also never obsolete. Or a polished stone on a bracelet.

So it's a question of what utility or value you derive from it.

Personally if I didn't have a smart watch that tracked activity, showed me the weather forecast, let me glance at a notification without taking my phone out of my pocket etc. I would have no watch. That's what I had before my first Apple Watch.

If you find value and enjoyment from your mechanical watches, then that is the point, and they don't need to do anything else to justify it.

22. graype+wa[view] [source] 2023-10-03 14:36:43
>>sakex+(OP)
Doesn't have to be expensive! You can find a Bulova Hack [0] (the modern remake) for ~400$ usually. (Well under 400 on sale) I love mine: looks different with it's military styling, durable, repairable (by a jeweller, the watch glass is special but that's it), and accurate enough. A casio is going to last a lifetime too (with battery changes) if you want something under 100$.

[0] https://www.bulova.com/us/en/product/98A255.html

◧◩
23. tzs+Ba[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-10-03 14:36:59
>>Sketch+k3
Yes and no.

Yes, almost no one needs a watch to tell time. I counted the clocks in my house a few years ago, counting anything that displays the time as a "clock" including things such as my microwave oven, my stove, computers, phones, tablets, DVCR, thermostat, TV, etc, and found something like 20.

But no, there are still functional reasons to have a watch. I do not want to deal with keeping all the aforementioned clocks actually set to the correct time. Some aren't a problem, such as computers and phones, because they automatically sync to time servers over the net.

With a watch I can reduce my clocks to those on my computer, phone, and tablet, and my watch for when I'm not using those, plus any clocks on things that actually need the correct time.

replies(2): >>Sketch+ub >>Initia+5d
◧◩◪
24. EricE+3b[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-10-03 14:39:05
>>gregor+A7
I have one that was completely unexpected. My mother loves her apple watch - for apple pay! She doesn't have to fish anything out of her purse. She just double squeezes the watch, taps and pays. If five years ago you would have told me my 70+ year old mother would be a touch less pay enthusiast I would have said you were crazy - yet here we are.
◧◩
25. graype+ob[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-10-03 14:40:53
>>eloisa+x7
Just because my phone can tell the time, doesn't mean a watch is obsolete.

It gives me an ambient sense of the time because I end up glancing at it randomly. I lose track of how far along I am in the hour if I forget my watch.

◧◩◪
26. Sketch+ub[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-10-03 14:41:14
>>tzs+Ba
My personal anecdote is that I stopped wearing a watch once I got a smartphone. I only recently picked one up because I was interested in the biometric data and tracking my running.

That all said the fact that they are wearing a rolex isn't to tell time, it's to wear a rolex.

◧◩
27. alexjp+Fb[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-10-03 14:42:15
>>eloisa+x7
> Sure, just like a necklace or a ring. Because that's what those expensive watches are: pieces of jewelry.

> So what's the point of jewelry? Fashion, and signaling your wealth mostly.

That's a sweeping generalization, pun intended... I guess "expensive" is relative but I own a few four-figure watches and appreciate them for their aesthetic and the engineering that went into creating them. Being able to tell the time mechanically without cellular service or an Electron app is a welcome reprieve in today's world. I suppose my Casio F-91W is more accurate but it's also much less whimsical and doesn't really feel like "my" watch the way that my Damasko does. Ditto for the Rolex that I inherited from my Grandpa - the German watch that's worth 15% (but still 50 times the cost of the Casio, i.e. "luxury") and has zero brand recognition gets worn way more often because it's my jam.

My next purchase will likely be a Seamaster Professional not because I want to signal that I can afford a $4000 watch but because I like the aesthetics and the movement. Obnoxious Rolex bros are certainly a thing (I see them in public fairly regularly) but that doesn't mean that everybody that enjoys nice watches does so for the sake of conspicuous consumption :-).

◧◩◪◨
28. gregor+1c[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-10-03 14:44:03
>>manuel+C9
You can doesn't mean you should though
replies(1): >>manuel+Pm
◧◩◪
29. Initia+5d[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-10-03 14:49:29
>>tzs+Ba
I have a watch so that I can tell time without needing to access a device that is carefully tuned to draw my attention (especially if I'm in a situation where pulling out my phone would be rude or intrusive).
30. tzs+Ne[view] [source] 2023-10-03 14:57:50
>>sakex+(OP)
Electronic watches can last a long time too. My 40+ year old Casio scientific calculator watch still works.

The biggest problem with longevity of modern portable electronics (watches, phones, etc) is that they usually use the internet. That generally means they need security updates when bugs are found, protocol updates as the net evolves, and sometimes they depend on specific network services that the provider drops.

Sometimes the electronics themselves fail. For example I've got a Casio MG-510 guitar [1] that I bought in the late '80s. It still works great as an electric guitar, but its MIDI functionality no longer works.

From what I've read this is almost certainly due to a bunch of bad electrolytic capacitors. Someday I'll have a go at replacing the capacitors, which other people have reported fixed theirs.

[1] https://spinditty.com/instruments-gear/The-Casio-Midi-Guitar...

◧◩
31. gunthe+xg[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-10-03 15:07:34
>>eloisa+x7
> Yes, they can tell the time but there are better ways of knowing the time nowadays. Especially if you care about accuracy, a smartwatch connected to a smartphone connected to an atomic clock is more accurate than your Rolex.

I agree that expensive watches are mostly status symbols, but a quartz watch is accurate to about 15 seconds a month, which unless you're in the military is good enough accuracy, may I ask what you do day-to-day that requires you to have atomic-clock levels of time accuracy?

replies(1): >>eloisa+wx
◧◩◪◨⬒
32. manuel+Pm[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-10-03 15:37:54
>>gregor+1c
But you said that one "cannot" do it.

Oddly enough, I think this - wearing both a smart and an analog watch - is actually a trend [0], which I think makes sense, since analog watches could nowadays be considered purely attire complements.

[0] https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/double-wristing-a-guide-fo...

◧◩◪
33. eloisa+wx[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-10-03 16:21:44
>>gunthe+xg
15 seconds a month is 3 minutes per year, and I don't want to bother having to fix my watch every few month.

Simply to catch a train it's important to have a precise watch.

replies(1): >>gunthe+0D1
◧◩◪◨
34. gunthe+0D1[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-10-03 21:57:32
>>eloisa+wx
In my country, 3 minutes is not enough difference to miss a train (it's probably been cancelled already ;)), if you live in Japan, I can understand. Comparing your watch to another timepiece is a fairly common occurence imo.
◧◩
35. sakex+PW2[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-10-04 10:38:42
>>Firmwa+G3
I'm swiss
[go to top]