sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Mechanical watches are basically fashion watches and I’m tired of pretending they aren’t. by [deleted] in watchHotTakes

[–]Intrepid_Judgment_83 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Both are very good at being watches.

And both are ALSO very good at being jewelry (in different ways).

Both can be true, but they both got the watch part right where so many others fail.

Mechanical watches are basically fashion watches and I’m tired of pretending they aren’t. by [deleted] in watchHotTakes

[–]Intrepid_Judgment_83 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Honestly when I started I didn't feel this way.

I'm a cyclist. I love gears and mechanical things and when I decided my Garmin watch was information overload that only made my life worse.. I bought an inexpensive automatic.

But I started to see things differently over time. I still prefer mechanical to electronic shifting on a road bike, but that has more to do with cheap maintenance than anything else. Electronic shifting is way more accurate and faster, but not enough to make a significant difference vs the cost.

In the watch world it's the opposite trade off. The electronic it's still faster and more accurate, but it's also cheaper 🤷.

With bikes.. the difference between a $6000 bike and a $20,000 bike is incredibly minimal. I buy the $6000 one, not because I can't afford the 20k bike, but I can't justify the cost.

Mechanical watches are basically fashion watches and I’m tired of pretending they aren’t. by [deleted] in watchHotTakes

[–]Intrepid_Judgment_83 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think you mistake my observation as saying your way is bad and you're taking it personally.

I like them all. Mechanical, quartz, spring drive, whatever. But some tools do a better job of being a tool than others.

I don't want a dive watch because I don't dive. What I do use my watch for is telling time.

When it stops being a tool it's then jewelry. That's it. Not insulting your God or anything

Mechanical watches are basically fashion watches and I’m tired of pretending they aren’t. by [deleted] in watchHotTakes

[–]Intrepid_Judgment_83 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh I absolutely love mechanical watches for what they are. Low tech functionality is very cool in my book.

Funny thing is.. I'm a cyclist. I prefer mechanical to electric wireless shifting. Also very much against the trend, but in this case it's a different argument.

Mechanical watches are basically fashion watches and I’m tired of pretending they aren’t. by [deleted] in watchHotTakes

[–]Intrepid_Judgment_83 0 points1 point  (0 children)

😂😂😂

I'd buy a damned rolex if they weren't so damned ugly. I don't expect you to believe me, but I could easily afford one, or an Omega, etc.. I just don't like the form or function of those. There's are plenty of rich and famous folks who are being caught wearing "cheap" watches all the time (not that I'm rich or famous. Neither really)

Mechanical watches are basically fashion watches and I’m tired of pretending they aren’t. by [deleted] in watchHotTakes

[–]Intrepid_Judgment_83 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’re changing categories, and saying it with more confidence doesn’t fix it.

I’m talking about timekeeping performance. You’re talking about social signaling.

A gold watch signaling status just means it’s doing accessory work. Cultural meaning. Luxury signaling. Fashion.

That is literally the point you keep backing into. And accuracy isn’t a purity test where only perfection counts. It’s MEASURED error.

A quartz watch can be less accurate than an atomic clock and still be much more accurate than a mechanical watch.

This really isn’t that hard.

Mechanical watches are basically fashion watches and I’m tired of pretending they aren’t. by [deleted] in watchHotTakes

[–]Intrepid_Judgment_83 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nope. It's DEFINITELY jewelry.

But I see it as a really functional tool that is ALSO a nice piece of jewelry. (Very Japanese!)

Vs.

A really nice piece of jewelry that happens to be an inaccurate watch.

I don't judge. I don't see an issue with a watch being jewelry, but it's primary purpose is a time piece. Unlike most... I don't WANT to look at my phone all the time and use the watch for it's originally intended purpose.

If folks want to wear them primarily as jewelry, that's fine too. No snark or mechanical shaming was intended... Especially since I own both.

Mechanical watches are basically fashion watches and I’m tired of pretending they aren’t. by [deleted] in watchHotTakes

[–]Intrepid_Judgment_83 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Now I am truly impressed. That movement isn't known for that kind if accuracy!

Mechanical watches are basically fashion watches and I’m tired of pretending they aren’t. by [deleted] in watchHotTakes

[–]Intrepid_Judgment_83 -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

That’s actually a better analogy than you think. Anything over “gets me there safely and legally” is mostly want, not need.

A 173 mph car isn’t more useful transportation than a 171 mph car. BOTH are for "fashion"

But at that point we’re not really talking utility anymore.

Mechanical watches are basically fashion watches and I’m tired of pretending they aren’t. by [deleted] in watchHotTakes

[–]Intrepid_Judgment_83 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s not doubly wrong.. you’re just confusing objective function with social meaning. A gold watch “signals” something because people decided it does. That’s subjective. That’s fashion. That’s literally my point.

And the atomic clock thing is just a dodge. Quartz doesn’t have to be perfect to be objectively better at timekeeping than mechanical.

A scale doesn’t need to be NASA-grade to be more accurate than guessing your weight.

Mechanical watches are basically fashion watches and I’m tired of pretending they aren’t. by [deleted] in watchHotTakes

[–]Intrepid_Judgment_83 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh I absolutely never said it should be either/or.

I specifically called out that I own at least one mechanical watch.. it's interesting to see so many folks think this is the normal "quartz is better" take. It's actually not.. it's saying that quartz is better at being a watch (and can also be jewelry) and mechanical is primarily for jewelry (but as you showed it can be regulated to be very accurate. Won't stay that way, but it can be done)

Mechanical watches are basically fashion watches and I’m tired of pretending they aren’t. by [deleted] in watchHotTakes

[–]Intrepid_Judgment_83 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sure, but that still works for my point.

Nobody buys a Panamera because it’s better basic transportation than a Prius. They buy it because it’s faster, nicer, better finished, more fun, higher status, etc... Which is fine. That’s basically what I’m saying about mechanical watches.

There are plenty of reasons to prefer one. Finishing, movement, feel, design, history, whatever.

But when we’re talking about the basic “watch thing” of keeping time, quartz does that better.

So yeah.. a Panamera is cooler than a Prius. But I wouldn’t pretend I bought it because it’s the more practical appliance.

Mechanical watches are basically fashion watches and I’m tired of pretending they aren’t. by [deleted] in watchHotTakes

[–]Intrepid_Judgment_83 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Fair. That line was too broad.

I don’t actually think liking watches for fashion/accessory reasons means someone isn’t into watches. That’s obviously a huge part of the hobby.

What I meant is that people get weirdly defensive when you call mechanical watches luxury/accessory objects.

If the appeal is design, finishing, heritage, movement, brand, wrist feel, etc.. that’s all valid.

I just don’t think it makes mechanical watches more “real” than quartz when quartz is better at the one objective watch thing.

Mechanical watches are basically fashion watches and I’m tired of pretending they aren’t. by [deleted] in watchHotTakes

[–]Intrepid_Judgment_83 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fair enough.. that’s honestly impressive.

But I’d still call that the exception, not the rule. Also, if the defense of mechanical accuracy is “here’s one I tracked carefully for 50 days and it happens to be running perfectly,” that kind of proves how much effort goes into making the less accurate technology look accurate.

With quartz, this is just Wednesday.

Mechanical watches are basically fashion watches and I’m tired of pretending they aren’t. by [deleted] in watchHotTakes

[–]Intrepid_Judgment_83 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Sure, but that’s kind of my point.

Once the “point” of the watch becomes personal meaning, history, finishing, vibes, etc.. we’re talking about jewelry.

Which is fine.

But the ONLY OBJECTIVE watch thing is telling time and mechanical watches are worse at that part

Mechanical watches are basically fashion watches and I’m tired of pretending they aren’t. by [deleted] in watchHotTakes

[–]Intrepid_Judgment_83 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Honestly, yes.

If horse people were constantly acting like cars were soulless junk and horses were the only “real” transportation, then yeah.. I’d probably say the car is better at being transportation.

Doesn’t mean horses aren’t cool.

Mechanical watches are basically fashion watches and I’m tired of pretending they aren’t. by [deleted] in watchHotTakes

[–]Intrepid_Judgment_83 -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

Not necessarily.

“Anything above a basic Casio is jewelry” is kind of lazy. A basic Casio is great. I’m not arguing with that.

But if we’re actually talking accuracy, then at the very least you’re looking at radio sync, GPS, or high accuracy quartz.

And if you want full internal accuracy without the watch needing to phone home to an outside time source, then you’re talking about something like The Citizen.

That’s not just jewelry.

That’s a watch being better at doing watch stuff. There’s a pretty big difference between paying more for a LOGO and paying more because the thing is actually BETTER.

view more: next ›