Sure, I will show them one by one.
[doublepost=1454958765][/doublepost]
[doublepost=1454958765][/doublepost]
Sure, I can do that once I will go home.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Who's got a nice watch? Traditional watches only, no smartwatches please.
- Thread starter JW8725
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Thanks - I look forward to it: Perhaps if you could just pen a left to right, top to bottom identification, like one often sees in a team photo - then, I will know which precise watches to examine more closely.
All you Omega purists may note that this is no ordinary Speedmaster.
It's an ST 105.012 'pre-moon', with the Omega cal. 321 (base Lemania 2310), which many consider to be one of the best manual-winding chronographs of all time.
I had this watch authenticated by Omega some 15 years ago, who confirmed by the serial #24'533'xxx that it was manufactured and delivered to their agents in Feb 1967, thus pre-dating the first lunar-landing by 2 years.
The Moonwatch story is a fascinating one. Armstrong, Aldrin, and Collins wore this very same Speedmaster Professional model with them aboard Apollo XI. (Ironically this model is known as the "Pre-moon" Speedmaster, since their manufacture predate the moon landings).
Contrary to logical thinking, it appears that Neil Armstrong's Speedmaster was not the first watch on the moon! It was Buzz Aldrin's, as Armstrong left his own Speedmaster with it's long black velco strap, back in the Lunar Module to act as a reserve back-up.
Eagle-eyed specialists will note one feature of my watch which is not original. (Any takers)?
In addition to the movement, a most important original feature is the dial (with yellow aged patina markers), with the distinctive, shiny, metal-applied Omega logo. (Note on my post #3411, on the later models the logo was printed on the dial).
I'm also very fortunate in having a period bracelet - an original 1039, with 516 end-links. Interestingly the bracelet is dated 4/70 which appears to fit into the scheme of things, as apparently these watches were normally shipped out to Omega agents less straps or bracelets.
The bracelet is not one of the most comfortable by today's standard, as it tends to be a 'hair-puller', nevertheless they've become very scarce and a good used example bracelet alone exceeds $1k.
As can be seen by some of the light scuff marks on the hésalite crystal and bracelet, this watch gets quite regular, albeit very careful wrist time.
Attachments
I wonder if the 36mm version is just not as popular these days and hard to move? It took Rolex a long time to embrace changing preferences in watch size. I mean, why change when the Sub, Yachty, Daytona, GMT et al are some of the most cloned watches out there? But watches nowadays make the original Sub small, and the Datejusts tiny. Just look at all the relatively recent larger Rolexes now - Day-Date 40mm, Datejust II at 41mm, Sky-Dweller at 42mm, Explorer II at 42mm, Yachtmaster II at 44mm, Deepsea at 44mm. They have to compete with the Panerai Lumina Marina at 44mm, the big Planet Ocean XL, etc.
Actually, I suspect that you may well be right - the fashion (for both men and women) is for larger watches, - in some cases for positively humongous and downright massive watches.
However, to my mind, the 36mm is lovely. It is quite exquisite.
The bezel insert looks a little "off", as far as the font and size of the numbers. Looks like it may be aftermarket, or at least not original.
[doublepost=1454972459][/doublepost]
I tend to gravitate to the 40mm/42mm size, and typically prefer "tool" watches (divers, flight, chronos, etc.). I actually love some of the older Seiko 5's - nice little fun automatic that you don't mind beating up. However, at 37mm/38mm or so they are about the lower limit in size that I prefer. I am not large (by American standards
) but a 36mm watch will start to look lost on my wrist.
The bezel insert looks a little "off", as far as the font and size of the numbers. Looks like it may be aftermarket, or at least not original.
[doublepost=1454972459][/doublepost]
I tend to gravitate to the 40mm/42mm size, and typically prefer "tool" watches (divers, flight, chronos, etc.). I actually love some of the older Seiko 5's - nice little fun automatic that you don't mind beating up. However, at 37mm/38mm or so they are about the lower limit in size that I prefer. I am not large (by American standards
Well, I suspect that a lot of this is what one's eye has become used to.
During WW2, men's (wrist) watches were extraordinarily small by today's standards, and seem to have gradually become larger - a lot larger - since then. Some of it may be fashion, and some may be what our eye is trained to view as acceptable or attractive or desirable on a wrist.
Personally, I loathe much of the bling bling monstrosity stuff that is currently available. My personal preference runs to understated. Hence, to be honest, the 'tool' watches don't do it for me. My taste runs to watches that are expressions of understated classical elegance, but each to their own.
Anyway, I am female, of short stature and bequeathed by nature (which means my parents' DNA) with long tapering fingers and a neat, small wrist. For years, I wore ordinary watches and thought nothing of it - my first watch - given to me as a gift while I was in hospital with appendicitis as a 10 year old - was my mother's own first watch from her first job in the late 40s, years before she met - and over a decade before she married my father - a watch with a blue steeled second hand which I treasured for years until it could no longer be repaired.
In any case, I recall a very stylish cousin of my mother's - an artist and art teacher by profession - returning from a holiday in Italy over a quarter of a century ago with what seemed to me to have been a large, clean - almost oversized - watch on her wrist and having been blown away by the sight of such a large watch on a woman's wrist. This was a woman blessed with exquisite and extraordinary taste, and that large, clean, elegant watch looked stunning on her.
Anyway, from then on, my mind was opened to the idea of wearing a watch with a large dial. However, as my preference admitted the idea of larger watches, so, it seems , did those of a great many men.
For years, I had doubted that large watches would flatter my wrist - after all, it isn't all that large. Instead, I found that the 30mm, or 31mm Rolexes - (the small men's ones) which I thought would look okay, look underwhelming; the 34mm or 36mm watches look impressive. However, I have been used to wearing a 34mm for years now - before my current Omega, I had a large Tissot, and - for a year or two before that - I wore a rather clunky and solidly built Skagen, which I gave to my brother who loves it.
Last edited:
As posted in the purchase thread i placed the order at my local Omega Boutique for this and the matching NATO strap
(Not my pic, will post one when it gets here)
(Not my pic, will post one when it gets here)
Personally I prefer the look of the ME3095P.
I guess you are drawn to this watch by the style (for formal wear) and the price. And that's fine.
As a watch collector for many years, these are my criteria for making a purchase:
I always now buy a watch 'inside-out'. (i) Discover a classic movement. (ii) See if the casework and dial are aesthetically pleasing to me. (iii) Will it have good resale value? (iv) Never rush a purchase. (v) Waiting to save up another $100 (if necessary) will almost always alleviate any buyers remorse.
Frankly in your shoes, I believe only (ii) applies, and potentially (v).
Don't be under the misconception that one must always spend many hundreds of dollars to purchase what I would rate as a 'classic' watch.
In a day or two I will post a few photos of one of mine which 10 years ago met all my criteria, and which cost just £105 ($150). It's a sheer joy to wear, and today I could easily sell it for double the price - but I won't because it's a living classic!
I'll be back soon..........
Candidly, I do not much care for either of them, - as personally, - among other things - I am not much of a fan of seeing movements when viewing a watch face - but, if I had to pick one of the two, for various reasons already eloquently by several other posters, I would select the second option.
Excellent, informed, thoughtful and well argued post.
And the fact that I find myself in complete agreement with it, also, is neither here nor there.
Agree also about the fact that there are good, sold, well made watches to be had at the £100 plus range; I had a Skagen watch - a hefty but lovely piece - which cost a little more than that, as well as - later on - an excellent Tissot which was under £200 when I bought it 12 years ago.
As posted in the purchase thread i placed the order at my local Omega Boutique for this and the matching NATO strap
(Not my pic, will post one when it gets here)
Very nice! Looking forward to seeing a photo of yours when it arrives.
I don't have a Seamaster. Passed on an excellent used model a few years back which I regret. Ended up buying a SeaDweller which although superb, was seldom worn for whatever reasons - maybe fear of damaging it - so I sold it. I have yet to sell any of my Omega's as I'm so attached to them.
I like the right one more. Black watches should remain rubbery G-Shocks. Unless we're talking about military-inspired watches like Bell&Ross.
In reference to my previous post, here's a watch that I would truly rate as a reasonably priced 'classic'.
The Seiko SKX779.
As you can see it's a diver's watch, rated to 200m.
Let me say without hesitation, that I'm not a diver and never will be, and had no requirement whatsoever for a watch to wear down to 200m - or even in my bathtub.
The first time I set eyes on one, it was being worn by an airline pilot that I'd met. (I worked in the same industry, and was used to seeing 95% of active flight crew wearing a quartz Breitling Aerospace). Within minutes he could see that I was far more impressed by what was on his wrist than the stripes on his epaulettes. A short moment later, he positively beamed with pleasure when I asked if I could have a close look, and try in on.
Although "Photos don't do it justice" is a well-worn cliché, with this watch it's very true. The moment I put it on, and fastened the deployant clasp on the superb, expensive-feeling s/s bracelet, I knew this was something special.
I fiddled with the rotating bezel, which clicked into each detent with a wonderfully smooth, well-engineered feel. The same was generally felt with other features of the watch. The perfectly smooth progress of the second-hand around the dial immediately identified it as not being a quartz-powered movement (they always 'skip' along). Shaking the watch I could hear that there was obviously a mechanical automatic movement inside. Mine can be hacked but apparently not hand-wound.
I'd noted the watch model reference, and the next day went about trying to find exactly what made this watch 'tick'.
I found out that it's powered by the Seiko 21-jeweled 7S26 movement - not the most prettiest, but widely known to be very rubust, and reliable. I recall reading a review which stated that it's the combination of economic and sensible engineering that makes this movement shine.
The case diameter (from memory) is about 42mm, and quite thick, although I find it very suitable for sports or formal wear. The biggest surprise of all, was the price. Talk about icing on the cake! I paid the equivalent of $150 for it complete with superb s/s bracelet 10 years ago. I believe it was the 1st gen model - frequently known as the black (or orange) monster.
I believe the current, updated (3rd gen) model is known as the SRP313, and if possible even more refined than the 1st. The SRP313K2 is the current model with s/s strap and worth every cent of saving up the extra $100.
It's an 'entry-price' classic that I would instantly recommend, even a 1st gen well looked after 'used' example from a private seller.
Unsure if the 2nd gen SRP309 is still available new, but any of these models is certainly a watch to wear and cherish.
The Seiko SKX779.
As you can see it's a diver's watch, rated to 200m.
Let me say without hesitation, that I'm not a diver and never will be, and had no requirement whatsoever for a watch to wear down to 200m - or even in my bathtub.
The first time I set eyes on one, it was being worn by an airline pilot that I'd met. (I worked in the same industry, and was used to seeing 95% of active flight crew wearing a quartz Breitling Aerospace). Within minutes he could see that I was far more impressed by what was on his wrist than the stripes on his epaulettes. A short moment later, he positively beamed with pleasure when I asked if I could have a close look, and try in on.
Although "Photos don't do it justice" is a well-worn cliché, with this watch it's very true. The moment I put it on, and fastened the deployant clasp on the superb, expensive-feeling s/s bracelet, I knew this was something special.
I fiddled with the rotating bezel, which clicked into each detent with a wonderfully smooth, well-engineered feel. The same was generally felt with other features of the watch. The perfectly smooth progress of the second-hand around the dial immediately identified it as not being a quartz-powered movement (they always 'skip' along). Shaking the watch I could hear that there was obviously a mechanical automatic movement inside. Mine can be hacked but apparently not hand-wound.
I'd noted the watch model reference, and the next day went about trying to find exactly what made this watch 'tick'.
I found out that it's powered by the Seiko 21-jeweled 7S26 movement - not the most prettiest, but widely known to be very rubust, and reliable. I recall reading a review which stated that it's the combination of economic and sensible engineering that makes this movement shine.
The case diameter (from memory) is about 42mm, and quite thick, although I find it very suitable for sports or formal wear. The biggest surprise of all, was the price. Talk about icing on the cake! I paid the equivalent of $150 for it complete with superb s/s bracelet 10 years ago. I believe it was the 1st gen model - frequently known as the black (or orange) monster.
I believe the current, updated (3rd gen) model is known as the SRP313, and if possible even more refined than the 1st. The SRP313K2 is the current model with s/s strap and worth every cent of saving up the extra $100.
It's an 'entry-price' classic that I would instantly recommend, even a 1st gen well looked after 'used' example from a private seller.
Unsure if the 2nd gen SRP309 is still available new, but any of these models is certainly a watch to wear and cherish.
I recently come to appreciate how comfortable NATO straps are on the wrist, especially since I badly fractured my left wrist last September and have been wearing my watches on my right wrist which took a surprising long time to get used to.
I caved in this week and bought a nice quality black NATO for my Junghans with matching PVD coated buckle and hoops. The previous leather strap looked great but it wasn't as comfortable as my other watches with NATOs so it hadn't been getting much wear time.
While finding out my trusty Bergeon Spring Bar Removing Tool I found the box for the Jungans and discovered the receipt had been hidden away inside the packaging. It seems the NATO is a late 18th birthday present as I purchased the watch on the 12th February 1998, I don't think the extended warranty papers are much use now though.
The product description seems pretty futuristic for the time which is probably what attracted me to the watch, though it's old hat compared to the mini-computers on a strap which the nerds of today are sporting.
I caved in this week and bought a nice quality black NATO for my Junghans with matching PVD coated buckle and hoops. The previous leather strap looked great but it wasn't as comfortable as my other watches with NATOs so it hadn't been getting much wear time.
While finding out my trusty Bergeon Spring Bar Removing Tool I found the box for the Jungans and discovered the receipt had been hidden away inside the packaging. It seems the NATO is a late 18th birthday present as I purchased the watch on the 12th February 1998, I don't think the extended warranty papers are much use now though.
The product description seems pretty futuristic for the time which is probably what attracted me to the watch, though it's old hat compared to the mini-computers on a strap which the nerds of today are sporting.
That's not a very good fake.
Not to mention the price: http://www.gemnation.com/watches/Patek-Philippe-Sky-Moon-Tourbillon-5002P-1502.htmlGoogle the real one and count the crowns.