Jump to content

Duncan U.

Gallery Member
  • Posts

    746
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    100%

Everything posted by Duncan U.

  1. Good advice, particularly for expensive watches, trying it on is essential, because some watches just don't fit some wrists and the appearance of a watch can be very different when viewed on wrist. Your point about postage is valid, and I'd hate to have to sort out the mess if it didn't return to the seller in good condition.
  2. I agree, the thickness of a watch is second in importance only to the lug to lug dimension for how the watch wears. The thickness of a watch is not entirely dependent on the movement thickness however. That Accurist no doubt has a very thin acrylic crystal without any seal and the back plate will be pressed thin stainless sheet as it is effectively just a dust cover. Almost all modern watches have some sort of water resistance, 30m minimum but often 100m. The increased thickness of crystal and caseback (especially if it is a display back) will add at least 3mm but more likely 5-6mm to the height of the watch. So a 100m water resistant watch is likely to be a minimum of 11mm thick with the same movement thickness as your Accurist, but more likely 13mm. Of course some manufacturers really don't care about movement thickness the NH 35 is apparently rather thick, and don't mention the Vostok autos (so bad when added to a 3mm crystal, that I have swapped most ofine to hand winding!).
  3. I've dug out that Longines and measured it, 30mm case width. Here's a photo:
  4. Have a good Monday I'm wearing this only briefly to take a photo for the watch size thread. The time is wrong as it hasn't been wound for 26 years and all the oil will be dry. The question is, too small? Now I would say yes, but I wore this until I was 30, and didn't think twice about it.
  5. Until my mid twenties I wore a 1920s gold Longines cushion cased watch, I can't measure it at the moment, but a similar one on the net is said to be 32mm. I did have a friend at college say it was a lovely watch, but he wouldn't wear it because it was too small, but otherwise it was fine, I just wore it 24/7. In the 90s I forgot I was wearing it and dived in a pool (it survived, I got it dried out by removing the caseback and leaving it in the sun ), so I decided to retire it and swap to a Datejust 36 which for a few months felt huge and really heavy. I now tend to think it would look better on my daughter's than me, so my tastes have changed.
  6. It is possible you will be disappointed. The tritium glow isn't as bright as freshly charged lume, but obviously through the night it stays just the same. My 25 year old Datejust tritium is completely invisible now, but it was good for 15+ years.
  7. Back on track, sort of I had a quick look and I like this Orient Star diver RE-AU0307E00B green dial, but it is a bit pricey, the only one I found in stock is £600 At the other extreme, Vostok have some new models, this one 710 02A has a nice green dial, a polished case and is only £89 in stock at Meranom, but it has a date
  8. A watch doesn't have to be expensive to be enjoyable to wear. If you buy a new watch, and then sell it, 95% of the time you will lose money, so try to buy only watches you want to keep for a long time new. Mechanical watches require expensive servicing and don't like sitting unused, so it isn't a good idea to buy more watches than you can sensibly wear. This is where most of us go wrong! I can wear each of mine for five days at a go and still rotate all the mechanical ones each month, so I've just about managed so far
  9. I really like that, it looks in amazing condition for the age.
  10. Inspired by a great photo on Facebook, I was playing with my camera last night. Here we have "Chistopol Tartarstan meets Masham Yorkshire" Have a great weekend
  11. That's better It's funny, I really liked them both before, but I definitely think they are both improved by the swap.
  12. Nice sun this morning, I hope you all have a good Friday
  13. I like the Hamilton you linked too There is nothing like trying a watch on to gauge the size, so if possible, I would visit a dealer. If that isn't possible, maybe search YouTube and see how it looks on reviewers with similar size wrists to you. I also like the Hamilton Murph from Interstellar, but 42mm is rather large for that style. The watch Bricey posted really is beautiful, and is unlikely to look too large on anyone.
  14. I completely agree, watches without a date look better, and it really isn't hard to remember the date. Being a Vostok owner made me avoid dates like the plague as without quickset they really are a pain! Here are a couple of my favourites:
  15. Great, it would certainly put a smile on my face But will you last until your birthday?
  16. For what it is worth, I would go with option 2 it is 2mm thinner as it has the high beat 9039 no date Miyota movement, and 6mm smaller in diameter. I'm not sure about the hands or bezel though. The other watch is pretty hefty at 42mm and 14mm thick and the NH35 will have a ghost date position, it is cheaper though. Not sure about the hands on that either.
  17. I think I would choose the watch I preferred, and wouldn't be too worried about the box and papers.
  18. A working watch for 75p, wow! Some Swatches are very collectable, maybe you've really got a bargain My wife bought a packet of Poundland alkaline batteries a few years back. Unfortunately I don't know how long ago, but I can confirm they do leak with time even if unused as all of them seemed to be leaking when I found them at the back of the cupboard.
×
×
  • Create New...