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
Omega midsize Seamaster quartz:
1960 Omega Seamaster:
Rolex Submariner:
Rolex GMT Master:
Rolex Milgauss:
1960 Omega Seamaster:
Rolex Submariner:
Rolex GMT Master:
Rolex Milgauss:
Love it! Just curious, do you work in a field where the milgauss is necessary or do you just like the watch?
Not necessary. I'd been wanting a white faced watch for a while and it was a toss up between the Milguass or Explorer II. When I saw the lume on the Milgauss I just had to have it.
That looks fantastic. I have to say, that's probably one of the first rolex's that I've really really liked. Otherwise, I think I prefer Omega more
My next watch might be a GMT and I thought about the Explorer II after seeing photos of it. But then I went to a boutique to see it in person and try it on, but it seriously looked 'cheap'. There's just something about the Explorer dial and hands that looks very 'plastic' like in person. That, and the bezel just doesn't do it for me.
Given the choice between the Explorer and GMT Master, I'd opt for the GMT Master.
I'm currently considering the Jaeger-LeCoultre Master Hometime. Much more dressier GMT, but it's very clean (no extraneous numerals) and what I want out of a GMT.
no we can't have nice watch's on this thread we're busy talking Rolex's and Omega's
Omega is owned by swatch, and Rolex has very much tuned into look at me.
Mid 5 figure Rolex's don't compare in taste and class to Patek, and at mid 5 figures you're at the bottom rung of Patek.
Having said all that my wife said I could buy a new watch when I turn 40 that'll mean my Seiko thats been everywhere will be retired and turned into a vacation watch. I will never have the money to have the Patek Celestial so I'll get one of these two
Attachments
First of all a watch is not determined to be "nice" because it has the requisite number of digits in its price tag. Yes, there are watches with hefty price tags that have amazing features but that does not determine the criteria of "nice."
Second, Omega being owned by Swatch doesn't mean that it is all the sudden they are no longer a nice watches. So you are saying because Omega is owned by Swatch Group it can no longer be a luxury watch brand. How illogical is that? To my knowledge they do not share movements at all. Also just because the Swatch Group has the name of their bottom brand doesn't mean it is at all representative of the quality of their entire group. It is like saying a Lamborghini is not a super car because its part of the Volkswagen group. With your logic the same can be said about Fiat and Ferrari.
Second, Omega being owned by Swatch doesn't mean that it is all the sudden they are no longer a nice watches. So you are saying because Omega is owned by Swatch Group it can no longer be a luxury watch brand. How illogical is that? To my knowledge they do not share movements at all. Also just because the Swatch Group has the name of their bottom brand doesn't mean it is at all representative of the quality of their entire group. It is like saying a Lamborghini is not a super car because its part of the Volkswagen group. With your logic the same can be said about Fiat and Ferrari.
Right taste and class define a nice watch neither Rolex nor Omega have these traits anymore.
I haven't liked Ferraris since the mid 90's and Lamborghini made some nice tractors back in the day, but there cars are quite ugly and tasteless. Just like Rolex and Omega they are look at me purchases.
Although they may tend to give off that image (these days), they are mechanically pretty good time pieces. Some people will buy it for the brand, but others also will buy it for its craftsmanship.
Pretty much all movements are great today from my cheap Seiko, to the most expensive. No the differentiators are case design, materials, and heritage. Rolex killed their heritage for a buck when the stated making ugly and outlandish customs. When Omega/Tissot was an entity unto it self both brands were interesting and beautiful now they are part of a large corporation and it shows.
*Side note* I have an older Tissot seastar manual, it's not expensive but it was made while Omega/Tissot was going broke so the quality isn't there I've spent more keeping it wearable than it's value solely because it's interesting.
As far as "look at me purchases", I think a "look at me" watch is more defined by characteristics than brand. Anything rose/pink/etc gold (as opposed to white gold, platinum, titanium, or stainless), with diamonds, or big (e.g. greater than 44mm) is what I would consider a "look at me" watch. Is there anything wrong with it? That's subjective. Lots of people wear watches for fashion and depending on how they want the watch accessories to standout is going to dictate that attitude.
You cited that you are probably going to get a Breitling due to the costs of a Patek. I understand how you feel about obtaining a Patek. I'd 'settle' for the new Calatrava.
But as far as Breitling, I think they make some of the busiest dials and humongous looking watches, which is why I've always stayed away from Breitling.
But to each his own. Everyone has their own 'tastes'.
The polarization amongst watch enthusiasts makes the industry very interesting. There are lots of people like myself who think Omega is very overlooked by 99% of the people out there. I meet a lot of people who claim to like watches, but have no idea what Omega is.
I like the busy dials and faces but the size does concern me I have reasonably small wrists so if the watch overwhelms it I likely won't get it unfortunately there's no backup plan I've wanted that silly cosmonaut for quite a long time. My other issue with it is appears fragile, maybe I should stick with a traditional dive watch. I have three years to figure it out.
Say what you will about Rolex, but they make around a million watches a year and sell darn near every one of them. Sadly, they've subscribed to the larger is better formula which has a lot of purists disgusted but have attracted the younger crowd.
Omega makes fantastic movements, but again their watches are becoming monstrosities. My next Omega will probably be a vintage Speedy.
I've also thought that the Breitling dials, as someone mentioned, were too busy, but the Super Ocean you posted is a great looking watch and I could see myself wearing that! Sort of looks like a JLC diver, which look like a Submariner.
I have a bunch of watches including Timex and Citizen and each has their place in my collection. Are there people that buy a Rolex just to be noticed? Sure. But some people like me like the style or function and could give a rats ass about what anyone else thinks.
Last edited:
For a long time I said I'd never get a Submariner, but now I kind of want one. But I'm probably going to go vintage.
I'm still looking for a clean, dressy GMT. Right now the only one that fits the bill for what I want is the Jaeger-LeCoultre Master Hometime.
Anything JLC is going to be nice. I have a vintage Memovox that is trashed now because it went through the washer and dryer.
Do you know who invented the GMT? Yep, Rolex: http://www.gmtmasterhistory.com/.
Unless you travel multiple time zones you should be able to remember +1 or -2.
Ha ha, having said that, I don't travel more than one time zone east or west from me and I bought a Rolex GMT. Why? I always loved the look of a "Pepsi" GMT on a jubilee bracelet.
Want to see some "nice" watches? Look no further than here: http://watch-anish.com/watchanish-x-seddiqi-sons-vip-collectors-event-duabi/.
Tim...
Last edited:
