Who's got a nice watch? Traditional watches only, no smartwatches please.

[Scepticalscribe]

I've yet to see one in the wild and they are my "grail watch". Beautiful design and not too large (even in the gents version). One day......I will see one . There would need to be a significant upturn in fortune for me to own one.

Having only ever seen them photographed - or pictured - here, I wasn't sure about them.

Now that I have seen one in the wild, I must say that it was stunning.

Personally, I tend to prefer the plainer, less ostentatious watches and deplore the current fashion for monstrosities, and for loud, garish watches. Above all, I loathe bling bling styles.

This watch was stunning - understated, yet clear; reassuringly solid, but not too heavy. And yes, you are perfectly right - it was not too large, indeed, it was beautifully proportioned, both as a timepiece, and on a wrist.

A gorgeous piece.

 

[MacRy]

I also loathe modern monstrosities in the watch world. I wish that the fashion for oversized blingy men's watches would die off so that manufacturers had a smaller range. My sweet spot is a 38mm but I'm also partial to a 36mm. Unfortunately these days 40mm appears to be what is considered on the smaller side of things.

 

[OllyW]

I also loathe modern monstrosities in the watch world. I wish that the fashion for oversized blingy men's watches would die off so that manufacturers had a smaller range. My sweet spot is a 38mm but I'm also partial to a 36mm. Unfortunately these days 40mm appears to be what is considered on the smaller side of things.

I would say that 40mm is probably my sweet spot but bizarrely none of my current watches are that size. They all seem to fall in the 37-38mm and 42-43mm ranges.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

I also loathe modern monstrosities in the watch world. I wish that the fashion for oversized blingy men's watches would die off so that manufacturers had a smaller range. My sweet spot is a 38mm but I'm also partial to a 36mm. Unfortunately these days 40mm appears to be what is considered on the smaller side of things.

Well, I'm female, and I like clean, clear uncluttered classic style watch faces. What used to be considered a medium style for men is perfect on my wrist. My Omega - a men's mid size - 34mm - is lovely, reminiscent of those elegant classic watches from the 60s, and 50s.

Having tried one or two on, I have noticed that a 36mm can also look attractive and elegantly proportional on my wrist.

And I agree with you: I, too, cannot wait for that fashion for blingy bloated monstrosities to die off.

 

[Vogue Harper]

But the Nautilus was something else.

I had seen pictures of it, and - as an understand modern design, it is simply stunning.

This was the plain rose gold, with a cream face; personally, I prefer the stainless steel model with a blue face. happily, both are so far out of reach as for my preference to be almost irrelevant. But it was a beautiful, and elegantly chunky, solidly made, most attractive timepiece.

That was a very nice write up of your PP experience.

I would agree with everything you say about the Nautilus. A stainless steel blue face PP Nautilus with a date complication would be the watch I would one day consider trading in every single one of my current collection for.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

That was a very nice write up of your PP experience.

I would agree with everything you say about the Nautilus. A stainless steel blue face PP Nautilus with a date complication would be the watch I would one day consider trading in every single one of my current collection for.

Well, sigh. I cannot but agree.

My preference is still for that classic style of the 50s, and 60s, the sort of watch that sports a clean watch face, dauphine hands, sweep seconds, preferably a date function, and yes, understated Arabic numerals either at the four quadrants, or, as with my current Deville, positioned at the 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 points.

But, but and - yet again - but: Somewhat to my surprise, I thought the Nautilus absolutely gorgeous; it was a modern, yet muted design - the proportions were simply perfect, chunky without being clunky, solid without being too heavy, (some reviews have complained that it is too light), beautifully made and quite magnificent on the wrist.

Now, I do not care for most modern Rolexes - they are too 'loud', and some modern monstrosities I cannot abide (most TagHeuer watches, for example, although good luck to those who enjoy them).

But, yes: If I had the means, yes, I would have that blue-visaged stainless steel PP Nautilus in a heartbeat.

 

[OllyW]

Somewhat to my surprise, I thought the Nautilus absolutely gorgeous; it was a modern, yet muted design

It's not that modern, it was first released 40 years ago and the basic design hasn't changed too much since then.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

It's not that modern, it was first released 40 years ago and the basic design hasn't changed too much since then.

No, but in common with some of the best designs, the changes have been subtle and incremental, as they are the sort of design changes that preserve the attractive aesthetic appearance of the original, while simultaneously transforming - or incorporating - horological advances and technologies behind a seemingly almost unchanged facade.

To my eye, it is fairly 'modern' in appearance; but, it is also timeless, in the way that the very best designs are.

 

[OllyW]

No, but in common with some of the best designs, the changes have been subtle and incremental, as they are the sort of design changes that preserve the attractive aesthetic appearance of the original, while simultaneously transforming - or incorporating - horological advances and technologies behind a seemingly almost unchanged facade.

To my eye, it is fairly 'modern' in appearance; but, it is also timeless, in the way that the very best designs are.

Thankfully Patek Philippe have treated Gerald Genta's original design with the respect it deserves. Unlike Audemars Piguet, who have subjected his earlier classic Royal Oak design to some frankly horrific variations.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Thankfully Patek Philippe have treated Gerald Genta's original design with the respect it deserves. Unlike Audemars Piguet, who have subjected his earlier classic Royal Oak design to some frankly horrific variations.

A sight for sore eyes, indeed, and an excellent illustration of the wanton vandalism that can be wreaked upon a design classic in the name of 'fashion' or ill conceived definitions of what is thought to be 'modernity'.

Needless to say, the first watch is beautiful; the second is a visual horror.

 

[gadgetgirl85]

 

[Dowjohnny]

Ordered two watch winders for my automatic watches. Modular system, so no problem with future purchases boxy fancy brick (not my pic, has not arrived yet)

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Ordered two watch winders for my automatic watches. Modular system, so no problem with future purchases boxy fancy brick (not my pic, has not arrived yet)

Crikey. Wow.

Thanks for sharing - must say that I find this fascinating.

Why do you need two watch winders?

 

[OllyW]

Why do you need two watch winders?

To keep two watches wound.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

To keep two watches wound.

Indeed.

Yes, well, each to their own.

I am just a little surprised as I would have thought one such piece of equipment quite sufficient, but, who am I to make such a judgement on what someone else chooses and considers appropriate for their needs?

 

[OllyW]

Indeed.

Yes, well, each to their own.

I am just a little surprised as I would have thought one such piece of equipment quite sufficient, but, who am I to make such a judgement on what someone else chooses and considers appropriate for their needs?

If you have 3 automatic watches, one is on your wrist being kept wound by your movement while the other two are looked after by the winders.

Going to wear a watch and finding it's stopped is one of the pitfalls of collecting mechanical watches. Winding and resetting the time is a minor inconvenience but it can be a bit more complicated and time consuming when the watch has several complications.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

If you have 3 automatic watches, one is on your wrist being kept wound by your movement while the other two are looked after by the winders.

Going to wear a watch and finding it's stopped is one of the pitfalls of collecting mechanical watches. Winding and resetting the time is a minor inconvenience but it can be a bit more complicated and time consuming when the watch has several complications.

I see. I hadn't considered watches with 'complications' when thinking about the possible usefulness of (a few) winders. That makes sense.

 

[MacRy]

Plus it's best to keep watches wound so that the grease is moving around and keeping everything nicely lubricated.

 

[Dowjohnny]

If you have 3 automatic watches, one is on your wrist being kept wound by your movement while the other two are looked after by the winders

This

 

[Vogue Harper]

Plus it's best to keep watches wound so that the grease is moving around and keeping everything nicely lubricated.

I don't really have a view on this as I never give it too much thought - I keep all of my automatics in watch boxes and wind them and reset the time whenever it is the turn of that watch in my rotation. That said, OllyW makes a good point with watches with complications. The GMT II Master is a bit of a pig to set up each time it is worn and it has stopped.

What I do not understand is that if it was that important to keep automatic watches wound so everything is moving and grease is keeping things lubricated - why is it that I have never been to a Patek, Audemars or Rolex AD where any of their watches are kept in winders?

I would be interested to know what other people in this thread with automatic watches do? Watch winders or just let them stop when not worn?

 

[fhall1]

I only have two automatics...but I do have a two-watch winder and when they aren't on my wrist, they are in the winder.

 

[MacRy]

I have over a dozen mechanical watches and they all sit waiting patiently for their turn to be worn in an unwound state.

 

[Dandi]

Extremely happy with my latest watch: the Rolex Datejust II.

 

[needfx]

well, my recent find of my grandfather's seiko 6138-0011 ufo is no comparison to some of the watches, if not most, around this thread, but here it is after being taken care of at local seiko service



ps
I have recently fallen in love with the Heuer Camaro 7743, very hard to find at a reasonable price. Any ideas?

 

[MacRy]

well, my recent find of my grandfather's seiko 6138-0011 ufo is no comparison to some of the watches, if not most, around this thread, but here it is after being taken care of at local seiko service

View attachment 657450

ps
I have recently fallen in love with the Heuer Camaro 7743, very hard to find at a reasonable price. Any ideas?

Nonsense, that's a great looking watch. As is the 7743. Good luck getting one of those at a reasonable price.