Seriously, I took off my watch eight years ago. I'm not retired. I have a profession where time matters.
I took off my watch.
I will never go back.
My blood pressure dropped ten points.
Set yourself free. Really.
You can always peek at your phone if you must.
You do not need a timepiece on your wrist.
No watch is the new elite look.
Give the 5G to charity.
johnjtaylorus wrote:So Ivy diplomas have to be burned along with the Mensa membership card in order to attain reverse chic?
Hipsters in Möbius circles consuming Möbius onion rings while blowing Möbius smoke clouds...
The twist on hipster mockery, of course, is that (like all vicious satire), it comes from inside. That is, you have to recognize the subtle hipster tropes, which means that you are probably pretty much a hipster already.
One picture, of a guy in a plaid jacket listening to headphones, is captioned, "If I didn't already know I was listening to Animal Collective on these headphones, I would bet myself $100 that I was listening to Animal Collective on these headphones." Which is, of course, only funny to a hipster.
eggs wrote:I've never really bought myself anything that couldn't be justified... Except for my new watch...Ulysse Nardin Maxi-Marine Chronometer.
:roll:
Yeah, that's not quite the one
Bought the 41mm stainless steel version with the white face. The cost is more in line with this thread, and imo, its better looking than the gold version. 8)
eggs wrote:I've never really bought myself anything that couldn't be justified some how. I save all that for gift giving during holidays/birthdays.
Except for my new watch, which I just bought this weekend, at the urging of my wife.
I've only had it for a little while now of course, but I absolutely love it. Ulysse Nardin Maxi-Marine Chronometer.
If it's supposed to be a "chronometer," don't you need three of them, so that if one of them is inaccurate you can tell which one it is?
(Sailing captains in the days when longitude was determined by chronometer always carried three chronometers, for that reason)
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness; Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.
Leonard |
|
Market Timing: Do you seriously think you can predict the future? What else do the voices tell you? |
|
If employees weren't taking jobs with bad 401k's, bad 401k's wouldn't exist.
G-shock waveceptor/atomic/solar for me
better timekeeping than the fancy watches and no maintenance except getting out in the sun to charge it (not all that easy in michigan in the winter)
A more interesting question in my view is the best audio power amp for $10,000 ( looking at the McIntosh labs web site again)
An atomic watch loses a second every 100 million years.
Einstein's 1931 Longines auctioned for $596K.
The Patek Phillipe Calbre 89 auctioned for $4M in 2004. It has 1728 parts, 24 hands and can perform 33 tasks, such as modelling all the stars in the night sky.
If they make thousands of Rolexes a year, how "exclusive" are they?
Last edited by bmb on Sat May 23, 2009 2:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
nice watch, my wife insists that the "listening room" is actually a "family room" and has veto power over loudspeaker size and placement. That limitation helps me reign in my desire for better amplification :lol:
Don't give up! You should always desire a better amp. Why don't you change your perspective and not use any speakers? Consider a serious pair of headphones and headphone amp. Start your research here.
Less volume of air to push (your ears instead of a room) means smaller electronics. You could get away with under $3,500 for a really nice setup. That leaves you $1,500 for the watch. Mental accounting at its finest.
To some, the glass is half full. To others, the glass is half empty. To an engineer, it's twice the size it needs to be.
An atomic watch loses a second every 100 million years.
Einstein's 1931 Longines auctioned for $596K.
The Patek Phillipe Calbre 89 auctioned for $4M in 2004. It has 1728 parts, 24 hands and can perform 33 tasks, such as modelling all the stars in the night sky.
If they make thousands of Rolexes a year, how "exclusive" are they?
Rolex is a triumph of marketing. They probably make more than 1 million Rolex watches per year. They are not particularly high quality and are obviously NOT exclusive.
Gekko wrote:what happened? did you ever buy the watch?
No. For a number of reasons.
1. I discovered I have difficulty spending large amounts of money on myself.
2. The watches I really liked (Vacheron Constantin and Brequet) cost well more than $5,000.
3. We had a rough year at work. We did not lay-off anyone, but we did not give raises. I wondered if it would be a good time to show up with a new Rolex.
I think I am going to get a Kindle for my 50th instead.
Gekko wrote:what happened? did you ever buy the watch?
No. For a number of reasons.
1. I discovered I have difficulty spending large amounts of money on myself.
2. The watches I really liked (Vacheron Constantin and Brequet) cost well more than $5,000.
3. We had a rough year at work. We did not lay-off anyone, but we did not give raises. I wondered if it would be a good time to show up with a new Rolex.
I think I am going to get a Kindle for my 50th instead.
Petrocelli wrote:
One problem I've never quite solved is how to have a backup watch to use between the time when you notice your watch has stopped and the hours, days, or weeks until you can get around to having it repaired or having the battery replaced. I have a spare watch in a drawer, but of course all the cheap watches use batteries, so unless you make a fetish of replacing the battery in the spare watch, the chances are only about even that the spare watch is working.
I used to have the same problem - when my watch battery died I found that all my watch batteries were dead. Then I realized that all you had to do was pull out the pin (as though you were changing the time) and leave it out. The watch isn't running so you are not using up the battery. I'm sure the battery is drained somewhat by just sitting around, but this has solved the issue of having a spare watch when the main one has a dead battery.
I am not the boss so no body carries my cell phone and passes important calls to me. I always have a cell phone with me. The cell phone has its own clock that is adjusted by itself when I travel to different time zones. Years after years, I rely on the cell phone clock and do not need a watch.
cherijoh wrote:Then I realized that all you had to do was pull out the pin (as though you were changing the time) and leave it out. The watch isn't running so you are not using up the battery
I wonder if this is true? I wouldn't do it, anyway--I dread resetting my watch twice a year--because I've lost stems that way.
Yes, I do it gently! And I've only lost two stems in thirty years. But, let me put it this way: the stem never comes out when I'm not pulling on it.
Try explaining to the passenger in the next seat that you'd like to bend over and rummage between their legs and see if you can find your watch stem. It's safer just to leave the darn watch on Eastern time and adjust mentally.
I'm sure that's only because my watch is a shoddy cheapjack Seiko. Maybe I need a Rolex.
I've heard that a Patek Philippe has a little magazine full of spare stems and whenever you lose one, a springloaded mechanism triggered by the recoil automatically loads a fresh stem into place.
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness; Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.
I used to have the same problem - when my watch battery died I found that all my watch batteries were dead. Then I realized that all you had to do was pull out the pin (as though you were changing the time) and leave it out.
I figured out the same thing a couple of years ago. It seems to work well, though I haven't been doing it long enough to know for sure.
Holy mackeral, this thread never seems to die! I used to collect vintage watches, and still think they're cool as a piece of men's jewelry (IMO the only jewelry a man should wear is a watch and a wedding ring).
A watch really has no useful function in this day and age.
I like the classic look of the 30's to 50's, especially in art-deco styles...
"A wise man should have money in his head, but not in his heart." - Jonathan Swift
I bought a Swiss army watch about 10 years ago for under $100. I still use daily. Great time keeper and looks good at the same time. Why do you want to spend $5000 for a watch?
I have a Tag Heuer that I bought on sale for $900. I love it. Stainless steel, looks nice, keeps time very well. Had it for 8 years now.
I used to want a Rolex when I was young and didn't have money. Now that I have a decent amount of money, I couldn't care less, and in fact, probably would have reservations about buying another Tag Heuer now if I were in the market for a watch again (despite the fact I love it very much).
stratton wrote:What's the least expensive watch that might have the same quality time innards as a $5K watch?
Define what you mean by "same quality time innards."
Are you making an artificial rule that they have to have the same technology--that is, it's unfair for a watch to keep good time by "stealing" it from a multimillion-dollar radio transmitter in Fort Collins rather than using its' own honest springs and escapement?
I don't know, but I just betcha that a year-2010 Rolex does not use exactly the same technology in it as a 1902 Waltham Riverside Maximus with 23 Jewels Corrected For Temperature And Five Positions. I'll bet the alloys and metallurgy and jeweled bearings and so forth in it are totally different. Where would they get the whale oil to lubricate it? They probably use some newfangled synthetic stuff.
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness; Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.
stratton wrote:What's the least expensive watch that might have the same quality time innards as a $5K watch?
Define what you mean by "same quality time innards."
Are you making an artificial rule that they have to have the same technology--that is, it's unfair for a watch to keep good time by "stealing" it from a multimillion-dollar radio transmitter in Fort Collins rather than using its' own honest springs and escapement?
I don't know, but I just betcha that a year-2010 Rolex does not use exactly the same technology in it as a 1902 Waltham Riverside Maximus with 23 Jewels Corrected For Temperature And Five Positions. I'll bet the alloys and metallurgy and jeweled bearings and so forth in it are totally different. Where would they get the whale oil to lubricate it? They probably use some newfangled synthetic stuff.
My Blackberry synced to NIST standard time, FTW.
Cost of timepiece (over nominal cost of device and service I would have anyway) - Zero.
I have a new Timex with "Indiglo" -- the light up feature. It has the date and a nice leather band that matches most of my clothes. It cost around $40. It isn't accurate to the nanosecond like the atomic clock at NIST, but so far it keeps time fine. Biggest problem is I keep forgetting to wear it! Timex was my very first watch, so I can claim that I'm sporting an American retro-look. (But if someone gifting me a $5000 Rolex I wouldn't refuse it.)
[quote="Opponent Process"][quote="satori"] I can claim that I'm sporting an American retro-look.[/quote]
any watch is an American retro-look.[/quote]
But not all watches were originally an American brand. Timex started somewhere in Connecticut. "It takes a licking and keeps on ticking." I think they are now made in China.
stratton wrote:What's the least expensive watch that might have the same quality time innards as a $5K watch?
Define what you mean by "same quality time innards."
Typically products are 40% or more discounted to get a wholesale price. This means a $5000 watch is probably $3000 or less to it's seller. Wages are huge cost and these watches have a lot of "bling" on the case exterior. High quality time piece innards might only cost $100 if they order them in bulk. A $300 mass produced, very high quality, watch might be a better time keeper than a $5000 watch.
stratton wrote:What's the least expensive watch that might have the same quality time innards as a $5K watch?
Define what you mean by "same quality time innards."
Typically products are 40% or more discounted to get a wholesale price. This means a $5000 watch is probably $3000 or less to it's seller. Wages are huge cost and these watches have a lot of "bling" on the case exterior. High quality time piece innards might only cost $100 if they order them in bulk. A $300 mass produced, very high quality, watch might be a better time keeper than a $5000 watch.
Well, yeah, and a $9.95 drugstore watch with a quartz crystal might be a better timekeeper than a $300 mass-produced watch that uses a hairspring and escapement.
I mean, that's the question. Is timekeeping the measure of "quality?" If not, what is? And if it's anything else, aren't you're playing by arbitrary rules?
If it makes you feel good to know that your watch manages to overcome the handicap of being mechanical, and tell good enough time by having precise jeweled bearings and such, it might make you feel better to know that it also manages to overcome the additional handicap of not being mass-produced, and better yet to know it was made by higher-paid workers. Being made by craftsmen might be your definition of quality.
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness; Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.