# Expensive Watches V Cheap



## king2b (Apr 6, 2005)

The more I look at this forum, the more I wonder at what the advantages of having an expensive watch really are, apart from the kudos.

What do other peolple think ?


----------



## jasonm (Nov 22, 2003)

There must be a price point that can be reached that means the difference between 'cheap and nasty, unreliable break it in a year watches' and good honest quality product with decent seals movement and materials etc, as you say anything more expensive means you want a specific 'thing' ie depth rating etc everything else is styling and kudos









And also you could view some expensive watches as 'assets'

IMVO


----------



## marius (Mar 11, 2005)

king2b said:


> The more I look at this forum, the more I wonder at what the advantages of having an expensive watch really are, apart from the kudos.
> 
> What do other peolple think ?
> 
> ...


Everyone should have something that serves more than the bare requirement. It helps to turn the hot jet flame in the rear end into a nice cozy glow...


----------



## DavidH (Feb 24, 2003)

I havn't quite nailed this down yet, my most worn watchs are the cheapest, or in the case of my CWC , free thanks to Roy and the last comp









The expensive ones are more of a way of taping of funds before its wasted on house stuff


----------



## rhaythorne (Jan 12, 2004)

From my point of view there are no advantages in having an expensive watch. I rarely pay much attention to the price. If I like a watch and can afford it, I buy it. If I don't like it I don't buy it.


----------



## Guest (Apr 8, 2005)

Depends what you mean.

Vintage high quality watches can be bought cheaper than nondescript new models.

Taking it broadly, modern cheaper watches are often just parts bin jobs.

Same case, basic movement, the only thing that changes is the name on the dial.

So what you have are lots of watches that look slightly different but are in reality the same.

Higher end makes will have an individually styled case, in -house or modified movement and other refinements like better bracelets.

The only differences to this are Seiko and Citizen which being huge conglomerates can have their own cases made and use their own movements which places them on another level to other inexpensive makes.


----------



## MartinAtton (Mar 14, 2005)

It seems to be the law of diminishing returns. I would say that my two Glycines are a little better finished than my Seikos and Zeno Diver. For example, they were both regulated pretty well bang on out of the box and both had hands which were aligned spot on. They cost about between two and three times as much as the Seikos and Zeno depending on the watch. However, I can't see how some of the much more expensive watches can justify their prices. I think that the watches I have mentioned represent an otimum compromise, in that they are good quality, but not drastically overpriced. By overpriced I mean things like. Rolex: Great watches but you sure have to pay for the status and advertising costs. Gucci, Tag, Boss etc. Way overpriced, again because of being some kind of weird status symbol, Tag, or with a designer name on them like Gucci or Boss

Martin


----------



## jasonm (Nov 22, 2003)

Im with you Martin, my Orange monster Seiko is amazing quality for the price, however 'overpriced' is a subjective term, in terms of margin/profit for any item what is the point where it becomes too much?

Rolex and others clearly arnt over priced as they sell all they make. Good value? the buyers seem to think so









They probably make massive margins / profit for each watch but they have worked hard to get there,

In my company we try to sell our 'stuff' with a minimum 40% margin , I would love to know what retailers have in their prices,


----------



## pcn1 (Jul 10, 2004)

I have my new Omega Seamaster as the most expensive watch and a Kahuna fashion watch that cost Â£15 as the cheapest.

I wear and enjoy them both for what they offer. At the end of the day buy what "floats your boat" so to speak


----------



## Gunscrossed (Mar 20, 2005)

I agree with most of what's been said already, once you go beyond a certain price point Kudos and 'the name' comes into it a lot, I remember how underwelmed I felt after I handled my first Rolex, that's not to knock Rolex


----------



## jasonm (Nov 22, 2003)

I expect thats why we like (some of us anyway







) 'hommage' watches or whatever you want to call them, same style but without the price tag, I have a poljot aviator 1 chrono like Roys got up for sale in the new item section that is a 'copy' of the Fortis for a fraction of the price of the Fortis, I expect the Fortis is better made but the Poljot works and is accurate and reliable so I have the one I can afford, BUT...I bet if anyone was offered a Rolex vrs a 'clone' or Fortis vrs Poljot free of charge they would take the 'original' because of the name and kudos









I am kind of in this situation, I have a modest bonus coming from work, do I go for a second hand top brand or several cheaper watches? My thinking is, I can save up for the 'lesser' cost watches anytime but a wedge doesnt come along often,


----------



## Griff (Feb 23, 2003)

It's what makes you happy!!..............simple as that


----------



## jasonm (Nov 22, 2003)

> It's what makes you happy!!..............simple as that


Perfectly sumed up Griff....


----------



## Mrcrowley (Apr 23, 2003)

I'll keep fairly quiet on this one, those who know me









I have the Rolex because I like the design.

Same for IWC & others. Yes there are others which look almost the same. However I like to be sure of the quality.

Plus i'm mad.......................


----------



## jasonm (Nov 22, 2003)

> I have the Rolex because I like the design


There more to it than that Paul


----------



## AlexR (May 11, 2003)

Yes there is Jase,he's mad


----------



## jasonm (Nov 22, 2003)

Oh thats right, he did say diddnt he


----------



## AlexR (May 11, 2003)

He says a lot of things though





















But he's right


----------



## mach 0.0013137 (Jan 10, 2005)

jasonm said:


> I am kind of in this situation, I have a modest bonus coming from work, do I go for a second hand top brand or several cheaper watches? My thinking is, I can save up for the 'lesser' cost watches anytime but a wedge doesnt come along often,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I understand how you feel Jason regarding this dilema and agree "wedges" don`t come often so in your place I`d go for something a bit special, I`m not sure what mind you


----------



## Nalu (Nov 28, 2003)

I have favorite inexpensive and expensive watches that I wear regularly. I'll readily admit that any watch that I get for a good price will always have a lug up on any of it's brothers for wrist time







While I love my DN, if I had bought it new I'd be even more enamored.

Like Neil, while I've paid 4 figures for watches, I've never paid that for a new one







My most expensive new watch probably would be one of Roy's classy bargains









The name on the dial only goes so far, IMO. I would never buy a watch solely for the name. For example, while I would like to own a SD since a classic in the diver pantheon, I have little interest in owning any other Rolex. The next RLT holds much more interest for me.

As for the value of sporting a flash timepiece, I could wear a Breguet Tourbillon without it being 'recognized' at all by the knuckledraggers I associate with







(present company excluded). Having said that, I've had the experience of having an incognito WIS recognize my watch. I get a thrill out of unexpected WIS encounters, all kudos aside. I think it's more the bonding of fellow madmen than a game of one upmanship.


----------



## king2b (Apr 6, 2005)

That is interesting.

It begs the question, what do you actually get for your money with a top brand over something a lot cheaper.

I aspire to owning a Zenith, and untill I started warming to this forum, was nearly ready to buy one but now I'm not sure.

What am I actually getting over something like a Seiko.

After all they all just tell the time.


----------



## JoT (Aug 12, 2003)

king2b said:


> After all they all just tell the time.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I would like to bet there are not many of us here who get a watch because they just tell the time







if that was the case we would all have red Rekord's









I am fortunate to have a trio of expensive(ish) watches .... I get a great deal of pleasure from them .. they are beautifully made, very accurate and great to look at. Value for money? ... its a question that doesnt have an answer.

I will say this though I believe that the Pareto Principle is valid for watches i.e. you can get 80% of the result with 20% of the effort ... but if you want to get the other 20% of the result you will have to put in another 80% of effort. So a Rolex might only be 20% better than a Seiko .... but it has taken a lot more effort to get it there!


----------



## Nalu (Nov 28, 2003)

And a car is just for driving, so just buy a Cortina - the mileage is better than a Jaguar and they both reach the speed limit.

A stereo is just for listening to music, so just buy a table top radio - you'll get a clock built in too, unlike that Music Fidelity Class A amp that uses so much electricity you could use your mains meter as a fan.

And so on, for just about any hobby/avocation/collection you could name. People spend more on model railroads that just go in circles in their attic than they spend on their car.

I never was hot for Zeniths until I handled one in a Caribbean Duty Free shop last May. Very nice







. I am now on the hunt for a rainbow diver...


----------



## jasonm (Nov 22, 2003)

Nicely put John...


----------



## marius (Mar 11, 2005)

JoT said:


> king2b said:
> 
> 
> > After all they all just tell the time.
> ...


I agree, when you talk about "value for money", answers are tough. That is because "value" is hard to define. Are we talking about intrinsic value, sentimental value, utility value, cosmetic value..? For each of these, there is probably a realistic "price". And two people might buy the very same watch for two completely different "value reasons", so they will probably be willing to pay very different prices for it.


----------



## jasonm (Nov 22, 2003)

As John said, we dont buy wristwatches for their ability just to tell the time, so anything more elaborate than the bare minimum is frivolous, one mans 'cheap' is another mans 'expensive' and vice versa, depends on your perspective..


----------



## king2b (Apr 6, 2005)

Someone mentioned Rolex, and that is a brand I would never consider.

First choice for nightclub doorman and chauffers apparently.


----------



## JoT (Aug 12, 2003)

king2b said:


> Someone mentioned Rolex, and that is a brand I would never consider.
> 
> First choice for nightclub doorman and chauffers apparently.
> 
> ...


Typical ill informed non-Rolex owner statement


----------



## Stan (Aug 7, 2003)

JoT said:


> king2b said:
> 
> 
> > After all they all just tell the time.
> ...


Red Rekord?









Just jealous, that's all.


----------



## Gunscrossed (Mar 20, 2005)

king2b said:


> Someone mentioned Rolex, and that is a brand I would never consider.
> 
> First choice for nightclub doorman and chauffers apparently.
> 
> ...


....and astronauts, professional divers, explorers, special forcesâ€¦.


----------



## jasonm (Nov 22, 2003)

> First choice for nightclub doorman and chauffers apparently


First choice maybe, but they then buy Valentini or such like


----------



## JoT (Aug 12, 2003)

Gunscrossed said:


> king2b said:
> 
> 
> > Someone mentioned Rolex, and that is a brand I would never consider.
> ...


and pilots


----------



## king2b (Apr 6, 2005)

Whoops.

Sorry if I offended any Rolex owners.

Not meaning to be.

Maybe I should put it another way.

Rolex image has been somewhat tarnished by it's own success.


----------



## JoT (Aug 12, 2003)

king2b said:


> Rolex image has been somewhat tarnished by it's own success.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You do have a good point there; perhaps it should be fake Rolex .... first choice for doormen and chauffeurs


----------



## Gunscrossed (Mar 20, 2005)

You do have a good point there; perhaps it should be fake Rolex .... first choice for doormen and chauffeurs











←
​


----------



## JoT (Aug 12, 2003)

Stan said:


> Red Rekord?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It has a certain charm though Stan


----------



## Stan (Aug 7, 2003)

JoT said:


> Stan said:
> 
> 
> > Red Rekord?
> ...


More than its owner, most days.


----------



## MarkF (Jul 5, 2003)

OK my view. please bear in mind I have been to a wedding and am well oiled









I have often thought about this and have been through the inverse snobbery of wearing low cost but fair quality watches. There was a point when I had over 80 Russian watches







I don't want to offend anyone but I was kidding myself, I now only have 2 and yes, I feel a lot better now.







The watch drawer is pretty sparse now, well it would be, but it now has quality not quantity.









If you only have a certain amount of money to spend and you are considering a Zenith, then go for it, having considered buying a Zenith then plumping for a Seiko is IMO a big mistake I do not think you will be happy in the long term. A Zenith is special a Seiko is not.

I belatedly came to the conclusion that "names", kudos and residuals are important, it makes life so much simpler and stops watch collecting becoming the money pit that it was for me.

Off to the reception


----------



## Gunscrossed (Mar 20, 2005)

MarkF said:


> A Zenith is special a Seiko is not.


























Off to the pub myself but will address that one later. For those that can't wait gen. up here;

Tokunaga's Watch Museum


----------



## king2b (Apr 6, 2005)

Thats what I thought, but the more time I spend here, the more I start to wonder about the virtues of owning a "special" watch.

After all what defines special.

We each have our own concept of what is special.

For some it's a Zenith and for others it's the beaten up old Citizen that Grandad gave them.


----------



## pg tips (May 16, 2003)

I get to meet all sorts in my job, I prefer the summer because you get to see their wrist candy more and if it's nice I always try and bore them!









Latest Rolex (real) I saw was actually 3 nights ago, on the wrist of a bookmaker on his way back from Gt Yarmouth races. One of the, err, more blingy models!









Well he said it was real, I had to fit a part to his car and he pulled out a wad about 3 inches thick and peeled off the cash to pay so I assume he wasn't lying.

Interestingly (or probably not) I tend to find Omega seem to be more prolific in gold and on the wrist of retired gentlemen, very rarely see the speedy's or SMP's.

I still think the expensive watches are far more to do with the name than anything else. Like everything else in life.

How many people do you know bought a Dyson when in fact they knew or researched very little about them, he was just very good at getting his name known and linking it with a percieved quality.

I've not yet met a dyson owner who didn't moan about the bloody things!


----------



## JoT (Aug 12, 2003)

king2b said:


> Thats what I thought, but the more time I spend here, the more I start to wonder about the virtues of owning a "special" watch.
> 
> After all what defines special.
> 
> ...


Special means different things to different people; its essentially the same argument as what is good value etc.

I agree with Mark ..... if you have chosen a Seiko over a Zenith you will have a watch that is a good watch, a good looking watch, but a watch that isnt special (I am assuming it isnt Grandad's so has no sentimental value).

A Zenith is special ....









If you have convinced yourself that the Seiko is as special as the Zenith then you are deluding yourself ... keep the Zenith aspiration alive and enjoy the Seiko in the mean time.


----------



## JoT (Aug 12, 2003)

pg tips said:


> I still think the expensive watches are far more to do with the name than anything else. Like everything else in life.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I agree they many might not know much about watches .... but they do know that Omega for example is a prestige quality brand .... so it has to do with the name .... but it also has to do with the quality associated with the name.

Everybody likes the look of Alpha Romeo cars but who actually buys one? On the other hand not everybody likes the look of a BMW but plenty buy them ....

am I making sense?

No

I didnt think so


----------



## Stan (Aug 7, 2003)




----------



## JoT (Aug 12, 2003)

Stan said:


> ←
> ​


The Alpha Romeo of the watch world


----------



## king2b (Apr 6, 2005)

I have an Alfa Romeo


----------



## JoT (Aug 12, 2003)

king2b said:


> I have an Alfa RomeoÂ Â
> 
> 
> 
> ...



















I have an MGZT 190 at least you can get spare parts


----------



## Stan (Aug 7, 2003)

JoT said:


> Stan said:
> 
> 
> > ←
> ...


Should be more reliable than an Alpha, the movement is Swiss.























Not sure about the bodywork though.


----------



## Gunscrossed (Mar 20, 2005)

MarkF said:


> I belatedly came to the conclusion that "names", kudos and residuals are important, it makes life so much simpler and stops watch collecting becoming the money pit that it was for me.


Anyone thinking of buying a Zenith who might be worried about residuals I suggest you walk into a few dealers and ask them if theyâ€™d be interested in buying one off you.

I bought a Zenith Rainbow (El Primero movement) in the sale a Mappin and Webb in Regent Street a few years ago, 75% off list I got it for just over Â£800. It was the stainless steel and gold version with the blue dial, nice watch but I hardly ever wore it. Being the days before I was into E-bay and watch forums I thought Iâ€™d get rid of it and buy something else. Must have walked into every watch dealer in central London and not one of them was interested in giving me anywhere near Â£800. For it. I did eventually sell it later for just over Â£900. On E-bay but boy was I pleased I hadnâ€™t laid out Â£3200. For it.

Lesson learned, only people interested in Zenith are people that know about watches, Kudos from wearing Zenith only comes when you wear it around other watch people. If you pay anywhere near list for a Zenith be prepared to take a pill if you want to sell it. And when you pop your clogs you better leave a note telling your family that Zenith is a good make cause they probably wonâ€™t know.


----------



## Mrcrowley (Apr 23, 2003)

JoT said:


> Gunscrossed said:
> 
> 
> > king2b said:
> ...


And cripples


----------



## JoT (Aug 12, 2003)

Gunscrossed said:


> It was the stainless steel and gold version with the blue dial
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Not a very poular combination ... probably explains why it was in the sale and why you had trouble selling it.


----------



## pg tips (May 16, 2003)

If a high St dealer is discounting something that much there has to be a reason.

Great if it's a watch youve always been after and will keep, not so good if your not sure and maybe want to sell it on at a later date


----------



## Sargon (Feb 24, 2003)

I kick myself for not buying a Zenith sooner. When they got bought by Louis Vuitton they skyrocketed in price and even secondhand have remained out of my grasp. One day though....


----------



## Gunscrossed (Mar 20, 2005)

JoT said:


> Gunscrossed said:
> 
> 
> > It was the stainless steel and gold version with the blue dial
> ...


So which ones are popular? (wasn't the only one 75% off)

As I say anyone tried getting anywhere near what they paid for a Zenith? I have.


----------



## marius (Mar 11, 2005)

king2b said:


> I have an Alfa Romeo
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I remember when the price of a new Alfa included a two-day hitch-hiking course!!


----------



## mach 0.0013137 (Jan 10, 2005)

I have been following this thread and have a few thoughts, with Hi Fi the basic idea is to play music. However whilest you can get a better made product you can also get a distinct sound from from different manufacturers and there are different types of `quality` of sound for example from valve based or transisters. There are those who would prefer the sound of a relatively inexpensive valve system to a Hi End solid state. Some prefer the sound of records to CD`s. even if the cd is more expensive. Also a more expensive piece of equipment sounds different ( whether better is a subjective thing)

In photography the basic idea is to take photographs. However, argueably more so with film based but still valid with digital, different manufacturers have a `quality` or feel to the pictures they can take as well as physical `Quality` of the product if you understand what I mean. This is before you bring different film types into the equation. I know from experiance that even useing the same film a photo taken with a Leica camera dosen`t look the same as one taken with a Nikon or Contax for example.

Again motorvehicles are basically just a means to get from A to B and again you get different physical `quality` ie better but there are different ways to make the journey depending on if you use a car or motorcycle a sports vehicle, tourer or off road model.

In all these price does usually make a difference to the actual basic function.

With watches it seems to me things are different the basic function is to tell time,

this can be done accurately enough for most peoples needs for very little money.

Unlike my other examples whilest the a more expensive product may be better made there isn`t really a different feel to that function only to how it is presented be that the look of the dial, if it is digital or analogue or the design of the case.

Even though you can have different features such as chrongraphs or watches suited to a particular purpose eg a Divers watch the basic function doesn`t really have the same variety as my other examples IMVHO.

The point I`m trying to make is with other products there is more of a difference to how the basic function is physically experienced compared to watches. It can be argued that when you pay more your buying a better made product that that will last longer. Well I have a couple of very cheaply made unjeweled pin-lever watches from the approx 1940`s or 50`s which are still going (OK time keepings only fair but still) I also a similar vintage Rotary which after a recent servce keeps very good time would a Rolex or Omega of the same age be so much better as a time keeper or more reliable. Does a Omega or Rolex Chronometer keep better time then a Mido or Zeno equivalent?

For myself whilest I could afford to buy something expensive and do like the look of some `Quality` watches I`m quite happy buying lots of less prestigious models. I`ve a friend with two SMP`s and I prefer my RLT-11, and I`ve not seen anything more expensive using the same movement as my RLT-8 chronograph that I want. I don`t think theres anything wrong with buying famous makes I just chose not to.

Sorry for this long and I hope not too garbled post, I`m now going to hide behind some sandbags whilest I wait for the flak


----------



## rodiow (Nov 6, 2004)

...Interesting topic , Its quite funny that whenever I buy another watch or am looking forward to one turning up, I tell my hommies at work about it boring the pants off them I'm sure , thing is I like to take it into work and show the latest "had to have purchase" its not to flash it off but its more like a continual battle to try and get some sort of positive reaction with one of them or to try and get them to see what I see I guess, a " Cor I like that ! "would be good ...but all I get is " how much did that one cost?",

Im sure it wouldnt make any difference if I took in a Ricardo or a Rado !,

Anyway thats my work mates for ya,

I think it doesn't matter how much you spend on a watch as long as it makes you happy , I don't buy watches in an attempt to try and impress anyone , if the watch impresses me and I can afford it il buy it,

Heres a thought- if money was no object I bet you would not just ask for the most expensive watch in the shop ?.....would you...?


----------



## marius (Mar 11, 2005)

mach 0.0013137 said:


> I have been following this thread and have a few thoughts, with Hi Fi the basic idea is to play music. However whilest you can get a better made product you can also get a distinct sound from from different manufacturers and there are different types of `quality` of sound for example from valve based or transisters. There are those who would prefer the sound of a relatively inexpensive valve system to a Hi End solid state. Some prefer the sound of records to CD`s. even if the cd is more expensive. Also a more expensive piece of equipment sounds different ( whether better is a subjective thing)
> 
> In photography the basic idea is to take photographs. However, argueably more so with film based but still valid with digital, different manufacturers have a `quality` or feel to the pictures they can take as well as physical `Quality` of the product if you understand what I mean. This is before you bring different film types into the equation. I know from experiance that even useing the same film a photo taken with a Leica camera dosen`t look the same as one taken with a Nikon or Contax for example.
> 
> ...


I think that the nut of mystery might never be bitten open. The tryth really is that people buy watches, and most other things, for very different reasons. (Possibly because they attach different values to it) There is another reason though, why some people buy the expensive brands. To some people, the price is the only way to guage the quality. They believe if it is expensive, it must be good. And those who can best afford to buy expensive, can also best afford to "get ripped because they did not do their homework." In the long run though, I do not think you can sell bad quality at expensive prices and keep getting away with it..


----------



## jasonm (Nov 22, 2003)

> see what I see I guess, a " Cor I like that ! "would be good ...but all I get is " how much did that one cost?",


I do that







Its interesting that I get more reaction when I show off my latest 'cheapy' I get more reaction, they find it hard to belive that there are mechanical watches with style available for so little....









My 'converts' to date are mates with 1 poljot alarm, 1 Vostok Amphibia, 1 Poljot SS18 (soon to be 2 ) 1 Poljot Aviator Chrono.


----------



## mach 0.0013137 (Jan 10, 2005)

rodiow said:


> Heres a thought-Â if money was no object I bet you would not just ask for the most expensive watch in the shop ?.....would you...?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Very good point Rod and I`d still want to keep buying Poljots and Vostoks and Slavas


----------



## Nalu (Nov 28, 2003)

Mach, while I see what you're saying, I disagree. So, at the risk of carrying analogy too far:

In audio and photography there _is_ a standard by which to judge your equipment (live music and the actual event pictured, respectively). Of course, there are always impressionists (e.g. Harvey Rosenberg and Andy Warhol) with their intentional distortions as a goal, but those artists make no bones about not pursuing reality, so we'll ignore their ilk for the purposes of this discussion.

Given that the absolute standard cannot be reached, everyone makes compromises in their equipment. Specifically WRT audio, some people value imaging, some soundstaging, some bass response, etc. With sufficient funds, you are forced into fewer compromises as you approach the absolute sound. In photography, as in driving, the skill of the operator does come into play. But given equal skill, the 'better' car will be more easier to drive, hold the road better, have a more ergonomic cockpit, brake/accelerate faster, have better road feel, etc.

Having said that, a higher price does not guarantee better performance (I think we have seen or owned kit that bears that out). But there is a rough correlation of price and quality.

In light of the above, I purport that a watch does *more* than just display the time. As well as being *accurate*, it must be *comfortable* to wear, *durable* and *legible*. Operation should be *comprehensible* and it should have *aesthetic appeal*. I'm sure someone out there can think of other essential criteria.

We all can think of watches that fail in one or more of these areas. Silberstein comes to mind as an example of failure in most every area







. Specifically, if a watch is uncomfortable to wear, I submit that it is a poor watch regardless of how accurate it's time-telling. In an inexpensive watch, I might forgive some faults. An expensive watch that has poor legibility or goes TU at the slightest bump is a heinous crime against WISdom







, IMVVVVHO









So, in my world, there _is_ an absolute standard for watches: tells time like an atomic, eminently legible, runs forever, durable as a diamond, etc.

In other words, the latest gem that Neil or Foggy has dug up
















There is a caveat to this absolute standard. At a certain level, watches take on a jewelry-like aspect. As such, they can be made as expensive as the maker thinks the market will support through exquisite craftsmanship and the use of precious stones and metals. What you like in jewelry (my girlfriend prefers silver to gold, god love her), is therefore going to direct your taste in watches. Thus, an element of subjectiveness is introduced back into the equation.

Some folks use live quartets as their absolute audio standard; some a full orchestra or a jazz ensemble.









Some use kaya-infused, skankin-as-if-they-had-never-known, when-it-hits-ya-feel-no-pain, roots music!


----------



## mach 0.0013137 (Jan 10, 2005)

Nalu said:


> I purport that a watch does *more* than just display the time. As well as being *accurate*, it must be *comfortable* to wear, *durable* and *legible*. Operation should be *comprehensible* and it should have *aesthetic appeal*. I'm sure someone out there can think of other essential criteria.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


A far point Colin, however for myself at least, I still feel that watches are different.

I have saved up and spent loads of money (far too much







) on HiFi, photographic equipment and motorcycles.

Somehow whilest there are comparatively expensive watches I like eg Omega Speedmaster or Zenith El Primo amongst others and while I would not turn them down if given one, I don`t desire one enough to save up for it nor would do without my present collection to own one









This is of course a personal view and I would not wish to imply that I feel there is anything wrong with people spending their hard earned money how they want.

To paraphrase_ " You makes your choice you pays your money"_


----------



## mach 0.0013137 (Jan 10, 2005)

OOPS !! just realised its called the Zenith El Primero not El Primo









Well I am in the "No Really, I Haven`t A Clue Club"


----------



## Nalu (Nov 28, 2003)

Mach, you just don't have the disease bad enough yet
















As a former engineering student and a semi-pro mech/bio engineer, automatic watches fascinate me. Add in my obsession with time and collections and what do you get? Exactly









In a post on the Far Side, I read a comment on a watch which has a gyrotourbillon. The writer reports that it appeared as if the watch had a tiny mechanical insect powering it. Apparently this is a 6 figure timepiece







. I must find a way to never see this watch or I'll not rest







As much as I appreciate tool watches and love dive watches, a jewel like this may be my ultimate.


----------



## mach 0.0013137 (Jan 10, 2005)

Nalu said:


> Mach, you just don't have the disease bad enough yet
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 I think maybe my qther _obsessions_ over the last thirty years have curbed my worst excesses.
















For example during the _worst _ days of my Hi Fi phase I had a system which had 8 mono and one stereo valve amps driving three sets of speakers














and I still own 10 Leica`s


----------



## Nalu (Nov 28, 2003)

My audio disease is worse than my WIS disease. I've got 7 pairs of Apogees - and just bought a pair of "The Apogee" (aka Full Range) last month. Plus two pair of Martin-Logans and a pair of Soundlabs. All of my amps are either Class A monoblocs or bridgeable (Muse, Atma-Sphere, Gryphon, Plinius, PS Audio, LLano, Melos, Classe, etc.). And I've got more invested in software than in hardware







The Army hates it when I move














Then again, so do I









There will be a reckoning when I get home. 2-3 pair of Apogees are going and after a final listen-off, some of the amps are going on the block. It's either that or Kelli is going to leave...

Gosh I'm going to miss her


----------



## mach 0.0013137 (Jan 10, 2005)

Nalu said:


> My audio disease is worse than my WIS disease. I've got 7 pairs of Apogees - and just bought a pair of "The Apogee" (aka Full Range) last month. Plus two pair of Martin-Logans and a pair of Soundlabs. All of my amps are either Class A monoblocs or bridgeable (Muse, Atma-Sphere, Gryphon, Plinius, PS Audio, LLano, Melos, Classe, etc.). And I've got more invested in software than in hardware
> 
> 
> 
> ...


My HiFi obseession started in 1972 and went on for 30 years.









What made it worse was a friend of mine in the mid 90`s started a HiFi business.

He ran it from his home and kept getting these really cool pieces of equipment.

Also at one point I was in contact with the designer of one of Audio Note amplifiers and managed to get one with upgraded components and that was for my bedroom system









Then I found RLT and got interested in watches


----------



## Mrcrowley (Apr 23, 2003)

I have a problem that I have a disease long enough to blow a wedge of cash but not to justify sometimes.

I nearly spent 6k on a hi fi. Luckily at the time I wanted Minidisc, which the really top guys didn't do. So I only paid Â£1200...............

At present I am juggling between another watch - ultimate disease - and a new camera. I want to try sell a couple of watches first to justify that. As for the camera - the jury is out at the moment.


----------



## Stan (Aug 7, 2003)

Are Krell still going?

The "Forbiden Planet" has a lot to answer for, if so.









Sondek is the one deck.









Quad is God.









JR149's are round.


----------



## mach 0.0013137 (Jan 10, 2005)

Stan said:


> Are Krell still going?
> 
> The "Forbiden Planet" has a lot to answer for, if so.Â
> 
> ...


I`m sorry I`ve never got on with the LP12







and such a pig to set up properly









I`ve had a chance to hear a few that my friend had in but we both prefered the sound of properly mounted idler wheel Thorens TD124`s Garrard 301 or 401`s or even the underrated Lenco G88 or G99`s. My present 124 is mounted on a piece of slate in a huge wooden plinth (weighs a ton







) with a SME 309 and Kiseki Blue Silver spot









However almost any Quad
















BTW JR149`s are _tubular_ man
















"Forbiden Planet "


----------



## Stan (Aug 7, 2003)

Tubular









I thought that was only bells?









Ariston's were worse to set up than Sondeks, from memory.









TD150 was nice but the hadcock arm (unipivot) was crap. The A&R P77 was a gem, though.









A&R Cambridge = Arcam.
















That's a bit more trendy.









We have almost lost more British audio brands than the Swiss have lost watch brands.

Is Laskeys still going.









Mordaunt Short, B&W, Perpetuum Ebner.

I'm off before your brain starts to dissolve.


----------



## mach 0.0013137 (Jan 10, 2005)

Stan said:


> Tubular
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hadcock arms are still made, Laskeys died years ago i think









Its interesting to note that after decks like the Pioneer PL12D effectively killed off Garrard the Japanese were buying Garrard 301 & 401`s by the ship load so to speak and they continued to buy British whilest we bought Japanese


----------



## Stan (Aug 7, 2003)

I wrote letters to George Hadcock and got replies to my stupid questions.







You don't want to know.























Fine man.







Very honest.









I'm glad the company is still working.

I suppose we both, then, had enthusiasm for something fine in those days?

British inovation and ability.







But that was sadly overshadowed by greed and the need to make a fast quid?

Whilst there are enthusiats and good engineers in our counrty we may have a chance of making an industry that our people can work in and show what they are capable of.


----------



## Nalu (Nov 28, 2003)

Krell are still going strong, having strategically made the transition to HT/multi-channel.

Richard Walker has passed, but Quad continue to put out superb elesctrostats and they remain a standard against which other speakers are judged.

Musical Fidelity are still pumping along with hi-end and budget components, and B&W still make highly regarded speakers.

Ivor is making multi-disc players and hard drive based music systems









Many great British audio designers have moved to the US or Oz (Perigee).


----------



## ODP (Apr 3, 2005)

My current watch collection (Omega SMP, Omega Speedmaster 'Moonwatch', Breitling Seawolf Avenger, CWC Auto divers watch, CWC W10 mechanical watch, Sewills Swiss mechanical dress watch and Seiko SKX007 divers watch represents a fair medium between cheap and relatively expensive watches. I like them all and have bought them all brand new. I think that if a watch does its job and is made well price is irrelevant. Its the quality that counts, not the name and I think my bunch represents what is good value for money. I have in the past owned a Rolex Submariner and Daytona and regard them as inferior to Omega in terms of quality.


----------



## rhaythorne (Jan 12, 2004)

A timely post ODP if you'll pardon the pun







Welcome to the forum. Thought I'd stumbled into the hi-fi forum for a minute


----------



## mach 0.0013137 (Jan 10, 2005)

Welcome ODP









Sorry but sometimes threads do go ever so _slightly_







off on a tangent here









So anyway back to `Train Spotting for Beginners`


----------



## Guest (Apr 11, 2005)

ODP said:


> I have in the past owned a Rolex Submariner and Daytona and regard them as inferior to Omega in terms of quality.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Why?

And please don't bang on about the bracelets.


----------



## cujimmy (Aug 27, 2003)

JoT said:


> I have an MGZT 190 at least you can get spare parts
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Maybe not for much longer, better stock up while you can.


----------



## JoT (Aug 12, 2003)

cujimmy said:


> JoT said:
> 
> 
> > I have an MGZT 190 at least you can get spare parts
> ...










I didn't mean me I meant you as in king2b

the value of my car has dropped about 40% since the weekend


----------



## cujimmy (Aug 27, 2003)

JoT said:


> I didn't mean me I meant you as in king2b
> 
> the value of my car has dropped about 40% since the weekend
> 
> ...


Sorry, my mistake, can't be much fun just now for anyone associated in any way with MG Rover.


----------



## marius (Mar 11, 2005)

Morning. Just looked a Rolex on e-bay again. I am not sure if this little gem validates some views on value for money, functionality etc, or if it completely throws it all out of wack again. The seller describes himself as a watch lover, not a watchmaker. Selling a special Rolex for $169 990 - 00!! Fair explanation of the diamonds etc, not a single word about the movement.

I guess the name says all about the movement and technical specs?

(No, I am not exactly in a position to bid on it...)

marius


----------

