# My Watch Collection



## Guest (May 30, 2010)

Left to right: 2009 Suunto Core, 1979 Seiko Digital, 1996 Seiko Kinetic, 2010 Casio Pro-Trek

Swatches are (middle) a 1985 Jellyfish with rare thin hands, (back) a 1998 Jellyfish with black dial, and (front) a custom Jellyfish using a dial and hands from a 1985 Jellyfish married to a more recent automatic mechanism


----------



## Guest (May 30, 2010)

...and here it is in colour:


----------



## vokeyuk (Apr 19, 2010)

He new one looks good with the NATO, and the casio looks like a lot more than a watch?


----------



## Guest (May 30, 2010)

vokeyuk said:


> He new one looks good with the NATO, and the casio looks like a lot more than a watch?


Hey thanks. Yeah, it wasn't till I put it on the watch that I realised just how well it takes the NATO strap.

If it were water resistant then I would probably wear it a lot more.

Still, it's very good for wearing at the computer, because it's light, and the strap is exceedingly thin, so it doesn't perceivably alter the height of my wrist when its on the gel rest of a mouse pad. ...Quite important to me as a regular gamer. 

Here's a closer (larger) pic if anyone is interested:



(click thumbnail)

*As for the Casio you mentioned...* ...yeah it does a HELL of a lot! 

I didn't actually used to like the Pro-Trek series, but as the fashion for men's watches has favoured an ever bigger size, and as the Pro-Trek watches have become smaller and smaller, they've now just about met in the middle, so to speak.

Mine is the all-black edition of the 1300 model. It has a black painted titanium face with a black painted steel back and black buckle, as well as a negative display (they've really gone in for the all-black theme in a big way, lol. Personally though I would have used less gold than they did in the markings, because it slightly undermines the effect of the black everything-else).

Here's another (larger) pic of it:



(click thumbnail)

A very nice feature is the auto light, which illuminates the display when it senses that you're bringing it up to your wrist at at least a 40 degree angle. It's also solar powered, with a rechargeable battery buffering lots of spare power for when the sun is not out.

It receives a time signal from any one of six atomic signal stations around the world, so it sets itself and never drifts out.

You get a digital compass, barometer, temperature sensor, altimeter, stopwatch, hourly signal, 5 alarms, timer, log of recent altitude changes, and world time.

It's also rated to go down to 100m, and according to Casio you can use the buttons under water on this model.

Amazingly it's only 11.3mm thick, so it sits on the wrist quite discretely for a large-faced watch.

In the main I think that analogue-faced faced watches look prettier, but if you want to have a watch in your collection which is heavy on functionality for outdoor stuff, and which wears well with an all-black outfit, then this is probably just the thing. 

My Seiko Kinetic diver will always be my favourite watch though. Had it for 11 years now! 

Oh, and the Suunto Core is also a great watch, I must say. The storm alarm is cool, and so is the digital depth meter. The display is REALLY clear, and it tells you the sunrise and sunset times each day, which none of my other watches do. So, it earns its place in the collection for that.  ...Oh, and the HUGE size makes it go really nicely with chunky knit jumpers if you're going for a metrosexual look.


----------



## Watchman1985 (Jun 2, 2010)

ove the Suunto...very nice. Very nice looking, very simple but it comes out for me amongst the others


----------



## Guest (Jun 7, 2010)

Watchman1985 said:


> Love the Suunto...very nice. Very nice looking, very simple but it comes out for me amongst the others


I can understand why you would say that. I also think it's a very nice watch, and without having seen them all in the flesh (so to speak) I would probably say it was the nicest out the bunch. When you can pick them up and hold them though, and you turn them around in the light, you quickly come to the conclusion that the Seiko is the nicest, because of all the lovely detail which only really shows up with the naked eye or in a macro shot (see: http://www.thewatchforum.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=55087).


----------



## sam. (Mar 24, 2010)

Interesting swatches,and well done with your picks considering the limitations of the camera you used,mine isn't much better,i can't connect my Konica auto S2 (pre digital)to the computer! ^_^ ,so i am stuck with my Kodak 5megapixel from 2002, taking 20 pictures to get one i can use! :yes:


----------



## Chromejob (Jul 28, 2006)

DUDE. Please size your images down a bit before embedding in messages, even on a broadband connection *25MB+ of images took quite a bit of time to download*.

If you want to share the full size (1600x1000) images, embed a thumbnail (640w, 800w), wrapped with a URL link to the full-size. When I post full size images, I usually scale down to 1024w, accounting for the left side bar that limits the size of the message display area on most BBSs.

Thanks. :hi:

PG's Photography tips (including sizing concerns)


----------



## pg tips (May 16, 2003)

David Spalding said:


> DUDE. Please size your images down a bit before embedding in messages, even on a broadband connection *25MB+ of images took quite a bit of time to download*.
> 
> If you want to share the full size (1600x1000) images, embed a thumbnail (640w, 800w), wrapped with a URL link to the full-size. When I post full size images, I usually scale down to 1024w, accounting for the left side bar that limits the size of the message display area on most BBSs.
> 
> ...


Sorry Om Nom but I had to delete those images, I'm on 10 meg BB and I was hanging for ages!


----------



## Guest (Jul 1, 2010)

pg tips said:


> Sorry Om Nom but I had to delete those images, I'm on 10 meg BB and I was hanging for ages!


Oh, right'o, and sorry to anyone who had probs.

One thing though: Please keep in mind that often tinypic takes AGES to display pics when it's under heavy load, and sometimes this can give the impression that the size of the pics is a problem, when in fact it's often just that their outbound bandwidth is squeezed.


----------



## Guest (Jul 1, 2010)

sam. said:


> Interesting swatches,and well done with your picks considering the limitations of the camera you used,mine isn't much better,i can't connect my Konica auto S2 (pre digital)to the computer! ^_^ ,so i am stuck with my Kodak 5megapixel from 2002, taking 20 pictures to get one i can use! :yes:


Thanks, and yeah those Swatches are buggers to photograph, particularly indoors!!! ...The sort of plastic sheen from the translucent cases just seems to generate piles of glare.

Ever experimented with scanning in pics from your pre-digital camera? I know it would be hassle, but I also think it might end up giving the pics a distinctive tone/feel.


----------



## pg tips (May 16, 2003)

Om_nom_nom_Watches! said:


> pg tips said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry Om Nom but I had to delete those images, I'm on 10 meg BB and I was hanging for ages!
> ...


the top 2 pics which I left are 5,193.64 kB (5,318,290 bytes) and 7,700.03 kB (7,884,826 bytes)

I know times are moving fast, 6 years ago we had a 100 kB limit because a lot of people were on dial up but even now I cannot see why you need pics 1600 x 1000 and 5,000 kB + just for a forum.


----------



## Guest (Jul 1, 2010)

pg tips said:


> the top 2 pics which I left are 5,193.64 kB (5,318,290 bytes) and 7,700.03 kB (7,884,826 bytes)
> 
> I know times are moving fast, 6 years ago we had a 100 kB limit because a lot of people were on dial up but even now I cannot see why you need pics 1600 x 1000 and 5,000 kB + just for a forum.


I'm soooooooooo bad. :sadwalk:


----------



## Guest (Jul 1, 2010)

When I made the thread, my reasoning went something like this:

"The pics are from an old 4MP camera, so if I don't resize them, they'll probably end up looking about as good as those from a modern (>12MP) camera after resizing."

I should have stopped and paid more attention to the size of pics generally being posted here, but like some clumsy meat-fisted 4rse I blundered in and posted huge pics. As I say, I'm sorry about that. I'm still finding my feet, but I promise one day I'll give you a mid-air salute when I zoom off the top of the learning curve.


----------



## pg tips (May 16, 2003)

no worries Om Nom I've been here 7 years and I'm nowhere near the top of the curve yet!


----------



## sam. (Mar 24, 2010)

Om_nom_nom_Watches! said:


> sam. said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting swatches,and well done with your picks considering the limitations of the camera you used,mine isn't much better,i can't connect my Konica auto S2 (pre digital)to the computer! ^_^ ,so i am stuck with my Kodak 5megapixel from 2002, taking 20 pictures to get one i can use! :yes:
> ...


----------



## Guest (Jul 14, 2010)

It's grown a bit now. ...Two new arrivals this morning. 










(I'll take a better pic after the strap arrives for the Seiko 5)


----------



## Chromejob (Jul 28, 2006)

Last night, I tried something based on our mod's helpful DIY tutorial ... I held a black (fabric) Bose 301 speaker cover up behind the camera where the watch's crystal was reflecting ... it helped reduce glare and images on the crystal. Easy to do since I use a timer on the camera (which is tripod-mounted) anyway, to avoid shudder from my pressing the button. My results are here and here.


----------



## Guest (Jul 14, 2010)

David Spalding said:


> [snip]


Nice tip and good results! :thumbsup:

I'll see if I can get my hands on some acoustic cloth before taking the next pic.


----------



## Guest (Aug 3, 2010)

It seems that yours was great advice! It's definitely helped with cutting down glare from the Suunto.

Here's a pic of my watch box as it is. I gave away the Immersion diver as a present, added a strap to the Seiko 5, and removed the least precious Swatch.

Very very happy with my collection now. Don't plan to add to it any time soon.










(for people with fast connections, the BIG version of this pic is here)


----------

