Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Buying a Watch  (Read 22218 times)
wolfnowl
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5744



WWW
« on: August 22, 2007, 01:02:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Wise words, Michael:

Seems too often people are willing to allow someone else to provide the answers for them - "Here buy this one, it's exactly what you need!" - without taking the time to figure out what exactly they DO need or for what reason.  As you said, this applies to cameras, computers, printers... even cars, houses...

As for watches, I've always been an Audemars Piguet fan.  Can't afford any at the moment, but I'm impressed by their workmanship.  Not only do they make all of the pieces in each watch by hand but in many cases they also make their own tools by hand as well.

Mike.
Logged

If your mind is attuned to beauty, you find beauty in everything.
~ Jean Cooke ~


My Flickr site / Random Thoughts and Other Meanderings at M&M's Musings
MarkKay
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 587


WWW
« Reply #1 on: August 22, 2007, 02:11:53 AM »
ReplyReply

I have to admit I was extremely amused by the article.  Well amused may not be the correct word. A few years back, I was trying to figure out what watch I wanted to buy.  I went through a similar thought process. I wanted two time Zone capabilities (I do travel a lot), alarm, and chronograph. While there are many watches that would fit the bill, there was another factor. With age, my ability to see small  numbers on the secondary dials without my reading glasses has become problematic or even impossible. This turned out to be a rate limiting factor for me.   In the end I went with a Breitling aerospace (do not remember exact model off hand).  Nonetheless, it is close to perfect. I have a few complaints as nothing is perfect but compared to some of the others I  tried, it was a great choice.
Mark
.

Quote
Wise words, Michael:

Seems too often people are willing to allow someone else to provide the answers for them - "Here buy this one, it's exactly what you need!" - without taking the time to figure out what exactly they DO need or for what reason.  As you said, this applies to cameras, computers, printers... even cars, houses...

As for watches, I've always been an Audemars Piguet fan.  Can't afford any at the moment, but I'm impressed by their workmanship.  Not only do they make all of the pieces in each watch by hand but in many cases they also make their own tools by hand as well.

Mike.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134713\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
Josh-H
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1907



WWW
« Reply #2 on: August 22, 2007, 02:36:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I have to admit I was extremely amused by the article.  Well amused may not be the correct word. A few years back, I was trying to figure out what watch I wanted to buy.  I went through a similar thought process. I wanted two time Zone capabilities (I do travel a lot), alarm, and chronograph. While there are many watches that would fit the bill, there was another factor. With age, my ability to see small  numbers on the secondary dials without my reading glasses has become problematic or even impossible. This turned out to be a rate limiting factor for me.   In the end I went with a Breitling aerospace (do not remember exact model off hand).  Nonetheless, it is close to perfect. I have a few complaints as nothing is perfect but compared to some of the others I  tried, it was a great choice.
Mark
.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134718\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I'll admit to being bemused more than amused by the 'watch article'.

Whilst I understand the point Michael is trying to make - I cant help but chuckle that its necessary to make such a point - not to put to fine a point on it.  
Logged

viewfinder
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 85


« Reply #3 on: August 22, 2007, 03:28:49 AM »
ReplyReply

I also found the watch article interesting and informative in as much as it gives insight into the mind of one of those elevated people who are so far above the earth that they can spend over a thousand pounds on a wrist watch!!!?!!

I hope to keep my new Pentax DSLR and lenses under the thousand quid mark so I won't be minding too much about the watch on my wrist, which as it happens, I find so eminently satisfactory that I never give it a thought.    None of the features of my watch get in the way of it's basic function,...which is more than can be said of the Pentax!!

So, what is the make of my wonderful timepiece?    Well, it's not so much that I can't remember as that I have never looked to see,...I only ever look at my watch to read the time.   I was WELL able to afford my watch as I paid three pounds (yes, £3) in a street market and got a completely practical time piece which, for the last two years, has keeped excellent time without intruding at all on my thoughts.    If it had not, I would have by now dropped it in the dustbin!!....try that kind of practicality with a thousand quid watch!!
« Last Edit: August 22, 2007, 03:31:11 AM by viewfinder » Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #4 on: August 22, 2007, 04:43:32 AM »
ReplyReply

Michael - if it´s not a Rolex it´s a piece of string.

I bought mine in '72 or ´73  and it is still going strong - the dial is clear (Submariner) and it doesn´t mind going out in the rain; in fact, lying at the bottom of 660 ft of ocean it would still tick whilst I´d be well beyond caring. Dual time-zones? Well, lack of that neither stopped me travelling  nor catching the ´plane back!

I fell in love with the classic design long before I bought mine; it never occured to me that it could be a staus symbol and I have often wondered if my owning one had anything to do with James Bond wanting one too.

Problems with it? Yes, people can kill you for it; but then so they might for a fake.

Rob C
Logged

Kenneth Sky
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 421


WWW
« Reply #5 on: August 22, 2007, 06:35:23 AM »
ReplyReply

I'll top you one. Istill use my 1939 Oyster (Rolex) "bubble back". But for everyday use, my Seiko Kinetic is accurate, unscratchable and works to 100 m underwater for C$300. Sorry, that's two.
Logged
michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Online Online

Posts: 4858



« Reply #6 on: August 22, 2007, 07:14:43 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I also found the watch article interesting and informative in as much as it gives insight into the mind of one of those elevated people who are so far above the earth that they can spend over a thousand pounds on a wrist watch!!!?!!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134732\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Its all a matter of perspective, isn't it? For some people a few thousand for a watch seems outrageous. To others, a thousand for a camera is a sin when a $15 point a shoot will take just fine snaps, thank you very much.

I scratch my head at people that spend hundreds a day just to knock a little white ball around on the grass. Others can't understand how someone can spend more than $10 on a bottle of wine.

It's all a matter of means and perspective.

Michael
Logged
michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Online Online

Posts: 4858



« Reply #7 on: August 22, 2007, 07:19:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Michael - if it´s not a Rolex it´s a piece of string.

Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134739\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I bought a Submariner in Nassau in 1975 for about $500, and wore it for some 10 years. I was then offered $1000, so with a lust for something new I took my 100% profit and bought a lovely used Accutron, one of the originals (which I'd owned when they first came out, and foolishly sold). BTW, I see they've now been reintroduced.

Michael
Logged
Fred Ragland
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 155


WWW
« Reply #8 on: August 22, 2007, 09:27:53 AM »
ReplyReply

Its no surprise to any of us that the watch is a technological tour de force; diamond pallets to eliminate lubrication, case hardened outer layer to 1200 Vickers, etc, etc.  

You point the way to the state of the art, whether in watches or photography.  Thank you Michael.

Fred
Logged
dilip
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 61


« Reply #9 on: August 22, 2007, 09:54:38 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Its all a matter of perspective, isn't it? For some people a few thousand for a watch seems outrageous. To others, a thousand for a camera is a sin when a $15 point a shoot will take just fine snaps, thank you very much.

I scratch my head at people that spend hundreds a day just to knock a little white ball around on the grass. Others can't understand how someone can spend more than $10 on a bottle of wine.

It's all a matter of means and perspective.

Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134763\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think that what it comes down to is that this is a luxury item.  Like all luxury items, it's a bit of an extravagence.

One quick question from someone with similar requirements in a watch (who may just use your end point as a starting point).  The GMT offers a second hour hand.  I see how that's useful for trackign the time difference between here (Toronto) and Hong Kong, or here and the UK, but what about between here and a place that's got one of those silly 1/2 hour time differentials (a la Newfoundland or India)?  I'm guessing that I'm kind of out of luck on that one aren't I.

--dilip
Logged
paulnorheim
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 51


WWW
« Reply #10 on: August 22, 2007, 11:36:11 AM »
ReplyReply

The striking difference between, say, a 5000 US$ watch, and a 5000 US$ camera or lens, is that the lens or camera may be something required for work (like certain cars for a taxi driver) OR a luxury item, while the 5000 dollar watch is a luxury item, period.

In Michael`s world, it seems like the "perspectives", preferences and choices are solely based on individual and subjective factors. Nothing extraordinary in that, given his personal "means" (upper middle class). Still surprising, coming from someone with his world experience, knowledge, and intelligence.

The fact that certain parts of the Western, and Eastern hemisphere are populated with people wealthy enough to afford having certain "perspectives", while shopping world wide on the net, has less to do with individual point of view than with other factors.

Sorry, didn`t want to spoil the shopping party. Just had to mention it.

Nota bene:
This is not meant as a personal, moralistic attack on MR as an individual, nor on the lucky Rolex owners on LL; quite the opposite! Actually, I own a (modestly priced) gold watch myself.
And it is not a polemical attack on "luxury items". The benefits of certain enterprises making excellent watches, lenses, food and other high quality products are obvious - and beside my point.
« Last Edit: August 22, 2007, 11:44:26 AM by paulnorheim » Logged

paul norheim
Hank
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 679


« Reply #11 on: August 22, 2007, 11:52:20 AM »
ReplyReply

Don't forget lifestyle.

For me a wristwatch is something to snarl on barbed wire fences and brush.  I might splurge on a $60 dollar pocket watch when my current $30 model dies.  Or perhaps go for one of those neat Timex Indiglo wristwatches for night viewing, but the wrist strap will go in the dumster and the body will ride in my pants pocket like a coin.
Logged
michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Online Online

Posts: 4858



« Reply #12 on: August 22, 2007, 12:08:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The striking difference between, say, a 5000 US$ watch, and a 5000 US$ camera or lens, is that the lens or camera may be something required for work (like certain cars for a taxi driver) OR a luxury item, while the 5000 dollar watch is a luxury item, period.

In Michael`s world, it seems like the "perspectives", preferences and choices are solely based on individual and subjective factors. Nothing extraordinary in that, given his personal "means" (upper middle class). Still surprising, coming from someone with his world experience, knowledge, and intelligence.

The fact that certain parts of the Western, and Eastern hemisphere are populated with people wealthy enough to afford having certain "perspectives", while shopping world wide on the net, has less to do with individual point of view than with other factors.

Sorry, didn`t want to spoil the shopping party. Just had to mention it.

Nota bene:
This is not meant as a personal, moralistic attack on MR as an individual, nor on the lucky Rolex owners on LL; quite the opposite! Actually, I own a (modestly priced) gold watch myself.
And it is not a polemical attack on "luxury items". The benefits of certain enterprises making excellent watches, lenses, food and other high quality products are obvious - and beside my point.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134824\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Paul,

I believe that's it's more complicated than that. A car, for example, can be both a utilitarian device and a luxury. Without personalizing it, and and I ask this rhetorically and don't need a response, unless your car is anything other than the most basic four wheels, an engine and a seat, then you own what some would call a luxury item. Similarly with your apartment or house. What more does one need that a bed and a dry roof?

I have friends who own Timexes and friends who have $50,000 watches. I have friends who live in modest walk-up flats and others in 10,000 sq/ft mansions. I don't think any the more or less of them due to their situations.

We all see the world through mental filters which provide us with certain unique perspectives. But to criticise others for their interests, good or bad fortune, or choice of life style, is inappropriate as long as their means of achieving it and manner of action is not to the detrement of others.

Michael

Ps: Having done so myself here, I would ask that this thread not become one about life style choices, wealth or its lack. Watches are fair game (in this thread only) and so is the issue of making camera equipment purchasing decisions.
Logged
Don Libby
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 726


Iron Creek Photography


WWW
« Reply #13 on: August 22, 2007, 12:59:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Great article.

I remember in my previous life standing in the duty-free shop at the Beirut Airport sometime in late 1973.  It was here that I first saw a dual-face watch.  I thought wow.  It was made of heavy gold with an equally heavy gold band.  If memory serves me, the cost of this watch was in the neighborhood of $5000.  While I remember the watch I can not remember the make.  I had returned from Southeast Asia just 18 months prior and my watch of choice then was a Seiko.  While I was on a hefty per diem I didn’t buy the watch thinking at the time that why spend $5000 on anything more than a car.

Fast forward to today.  I have a Canon 1Ds II, a Canon 300 f2.8; as well as a brand new 400 DO, a combination of which would total several such watches.  Lets not forget the Mamiya 645 w/P30+ that cost just about the same as my first house.

Since retiring from the Federal Government in 2003 my wife and I have first gone to a small 21’ travel trailer, then a couple months later a 36’ 5th wheel; then on to a 36’ Class A motorhome and now very happily to a 8’ Lance truck camper.  Yeah, we wound up spending a heck of a lot of money on our “education” but we had a heck of a lot of fun doing it.

The dollar amount of a particular item means more to the purchaser than anyone else. Anyone who is familiar with collecting (anything) knows that it only takes one person to buy and it will be that one person who will actually help set the price they are willing to pay.

I like the message from the article.  Actually there are several; have a price point you’re will it spend, do you research, and don’t be afraid to take a chance.  While it’s okay to seek the counsel of others, the bottom line is that only you know what your budget is and what you can afford; likewise what one person may like more might be that thing you like least about the (fill in the blank).  If it doesn’t hum for you it’ll never work.

Keep up the good work Michael.

Oh, since this is a response about watches, my current one is a Suunto Advizor (when I remember to wear it).  


don
Logged

Gordon Buck
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 409



WWW
« Reply #14 on: August 22, 2007, 01:20:25 PM »
ReplyReply

My dad made of hobby -- more of a game, I suppose -- of wearing the absolute cheapest watch he could find.  The rule was that he had to purchase the watch - a gift watch did not count.  His greatest find cost $0.99 and he sure enjoyed talking about it!  (OK, so it was ugly.)
Logged

DiaAzul
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 777



WWW
« Reply #15 on: August 22, 2007, 01:21:33 PM »
ReplyReply

I bought a cheap Rolex Oyster knock off in Hong Kong some years ago. Two full rotations of the hour hand takes 28 hours - I guess that is where Chinese productivity comes from  
Logged

David Plummer    http://photo.tanzo.org/
alainbriot
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 675



WWW
« Reply #16 on: August 22, 2007, 01:42:48 PM »
ReplyReply

I enjoyed reading the essay and Michael's commentary in this thread.  Making buying decisions can be difficult, while at the same time quite exciting.  Today the web has become a good venue to do research and to purchase just about anything, providing one is careful and takes the proper buying precautions.  The web has certainly extended our options in regards to buying "exotic" items and doing research.  I had never heard of the watch brands Michael mentions but by doing a google search for them I was able to extend my knowledge in yet another area.
« Last Edit: August 22, 2007, 01:44:38 PM by alainbriot » Logged

Alain Briot
Author of Mastering Landscape Photography, Mastering Composition, Creativity and Personal Style., Marketing Fine Art Photography and How Photographs are Sold.
http://www.beautiful-landscape.com
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #17 on: August 22, 2007, 01:52:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I bought a cheap Rolex Oyster knock off in Hong Kong some years ago. Two full rotations of the hour hand takes 28 hours - I guess that is where Chinese productivity comes from 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134857\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

No, not really: it comes from the lads who buy the product that fuels the fraudsters.

Rob C
Logged

kaelaria
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2227



WWW
« Reply #18 on: August 22, 2007, 02:51:05 PM »
ReplyReply

My 'daily driver' is a Tag Carrera Chrono.  A $2k Luxury?  Sure, technically.  But I wouldn't wear a cheap POS again if you paid me.  I wear it to work, even if I have to go in the factory...dive with it, hike with it, etc.  most people can't understand this, they think anything more than a Wal-Mart Timex should be special occasion-only.  Your'e right, it's all about perspective.  To some, this IS a cheap POS
Logged

paulnorheim
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 51


WWW
« Reply #19 on: August 22, 2007, 04:10:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Paul,

I believe that's it's more complicated than that. A car, for example, can be both a utilitarian device and a luxury. Without personalizing it, and and I ask this rhetorically and don't need a response, unless your car is anything other than the most basic four wheels, an engine and a seat, then you own what some would call a luxury item. Similarly with your apartment or house. What more does one need that a bed and a dry roof?

I have friends who own Timexes and friends who have $50,000 watches. I have friends who live in modest walk-up flats and others in 10,000 sq/ft mansions. I don't think any the more or less of them due to their situations.

We all see the world through mental filters which provide us with certain unique perspectives. But to criticise others for their interests, good or bad fortune, or choice of life style, is inappropriate as long as their means of achieving it and manner of action is not to the detrement of others.

Michael

Ps: Having done so myself here, I would ask that this thread not become one about life style choices, wealth or its lack. Watches are fair game (in this thread only) and so is the issue of making camera equipment purchasing decisions.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134832\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Michael,

I realize that my second sentence above was ambiguous and unclear. Let me try again:

Choosing a lens or a watch is a question of individual preferences, perspectives and priorities, right?

Yes. And no. For certain people in certain parts of the world, it is exactly that. For other people (actually the majority of the world population), this is not true. They have no real choises. And this is a fact, whether they are hard working, talented and honest people or not.
This was my simple point number 1. My 2. simple point is that for a lot of people who can afford to have individual perspectives and priorities in shopping issues, it seems like this is something of an antropological fact, and not limited to their own group. Because they can afford real choises, this is part of the normal human condition.
   But that is not true. And I didn`t intend to criticize their life style or wealth, just the way their experiences make them tend to forget that individual choices still is a privilege in this world, and not part of the human condition.

Pretentious talk? Beyond photography? Not more than your general statements about shopping choises, Michael; they imply some non-photographic issues.
   And yeah, I think it is fine that LL is a photographic website, and not a political or sosio-economical site. But your statements begged for a little reply, specially since Luminious Landscape now has a world wide audience. And also since some of your pictures from foreign countries, and your organized photo safaris to some relatively poor countries have implications far beyond photographic equipment and beautiful scenery. To make myself clear: I don´t say that this is a bad thing, I just say that the implications are cultural, economical, and some times perhaps also political, or even religious.
I understand fully that you fear the consequenses of discussing controversial non-photographic issues with the rest of the world on LL. Photographic issues would drown in a lot of noise, misunderstanding, stupidity, hard feelings and fanatical positions. But sometimes it does not hurt to mention the world that we look at through our lenses. It is all about means and perspectives, right?

And for the sake of clarity: I did not talk about your life style and personal choices per se. But if you allow me to, I will do that now, and (I promise!) never repeat it: I think you are making a remarkable contribution to the photographic community, by generously sharing your thoughts and experiences of the equipment you have been lucky enough to own or try out, your broad experience as a photographer, and the expeditions that you have arranged.

Just a small P.S. to what you said about items being useful AND at the same time luxury items (like cars). Yes, I thought about it when I wrote my first comment, but if I start arguing how complicated things REALLY are, I am afraid no one is able to stop me! How many Canon shooters with the 85 mm f/1.2 are able to look at it as a plain and simple tool, and not also as a fascinating piece of equipment? And the same goes for the proud owners of a Leica with a Summilux or Noctilux, even if they are very useful tools in the right hands.
For some people, taking pictures and collecting lenses and cameras goes hand in hand. For others, it seems like they are less fascinated with photography as an art form, and more with the equipment. Nothing wrong with that – it is just to very different things, that some times get in conflict with each other. But that is a big and different issue.

Or perhaps a central point, when we discuss how to, and why we choose a certain lens or camera?

At least I think it is an issue safely within the context of a photographic site.  
« Last Edit: August 22, 2007, 04:28:47 PM by paulnorheim » Logged

paul norheim
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad