Do you have certain standards?

[Matt68]

Do you have certain standards but make exceptions on certain Watches?

Although I'm not perticular about what brand I buy and more about what the Watch looks like I still have certain standards like type of crystal, bracelet quality (solid end links ect) and strength of Lume!

This is one of those exceptions I made, but changed the bracelet to a strapcode super engineer, but the Lume is terrible and has a mineral crystal, but I just love this Watch!

[beechcustom]

I haven't been into watches for all that long but the first thing I noticed was how stupidly MASSIVE most modern watches are. Most are way too big for my apparently average 7 inch wrists. So in terms of standards, I cap any potential purchases at 38mm as this is the largest case size I'm comfortable with. The only other 'standard' is that if a watch is on a bracelet, the bracelet does not taper to less than 16mm as anything smaller looks feminine to me. Unfortunately this rules out many of the more affordable Rolex models.

I would make an exception to either of these standards if a watch feels and looked right when trying it on in the flesh (the 40" Submariner actually works for me).

[Papa Hotel]

I would make an exception to either of these standards if a watch feels and looked right when trying it on in the flesh (the 40" Submariner actually works for me).

Bloody hell, that'd look big on a church!

[beechcustom]

Bloody hell, that'd look big on a church!

Ha ha!! Sorry, I meant 40mm obvs :-)

PS - I can't afford a Sub anyway!

[Rocket Man]

Well, my standards (and tastes) might change over time. So far I have avoided any of the big brands and any watches with a case bigger than 41mm or over 50mm lugs. However, I now have an itch to try an omega or a JLC, maybe even a Speedie. So I guess I follow certain guidelines rather than rules, because you can't break a guideline!

As the great Groucho Marx once said "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them...well, I have others."

[beechcustom]

However, I now have an itch to try an omega or a JLC, maybe even a Speedie."

I've been looking at Speedmasters lately. In the unlikely event that you didn't know, the 'reduced' Speedmaster is 38mm case size. I tried one on recently and it looked perfect on my 7 inch wrists.

[TaketheCannoli]

I've been looking at Speedmasters lately. In the unlikely event that you didn't know, the 'reduced' Speedmaster is 38mm case size. I tried one on recently and it looked perfect on my 7 inch wrists.

I had a Reduced Speedy and it was perfect on my 6.75 incher. The modern Speedies make me feel like Flavor Flave ( I'm testing your 90's knowledge).

David

[CVByrne]

I read standards to mean current preferences.

Size is one, my 42mm Vacheron Overseas is the max size I want in a sports watch, it would be too big if on bracelet. But on Rubber it can fit tight to my 6.75 wrist.

Dress watch cannot have a bracelet, these non sports Pateks look so so wrong to me on bracelet. Also 40mm dress watch would be max size imo, maybe too big depending on case thickness.

I also like the watch to be a historic name. In general I don't like the new brands that have sprung up in the past 25 years. There is a plethora of 500-1500 stuff that all looks the same with a founder who's only turning 40.

I also am not a fan of Seiko's that cost more than 200 quid and also don't have a taste for Panerai.

That's where my current taste and preferences are.

[Matt68]

When I bought my Seiko Monster there was only one thing that I would have liked different and that would be a sapphire crystal, don't get me wrong I'm not putting down a fantastic iconic watch like the Seiko clearly is, I just wondered if other people has certain qualities they prefer in a Watch? I think for me poor Lume and none solid end links are bigger issues though!

[beechcustom]

I had a Reduced Speedy and it was perfect on my 6.75 incher. The modern Speedies make me feel like Flavor Flave ( I'm testing your 90's knowledge).

David

I agree. I wouldn't go anywhere near the full size ones! I'm wearing my 35mm cased 1971 Omega Geneve just now and I have to say it's a great size - certainly not too small for me so the idea of 40mm plus cases just seems rediculous.

[Matt68]

Good point about the size of a Watch, for me I like 42mm to 44mm, I do have a couple of 41mm watches that I get away with, but I once bought a Tag Aquaracer that was only 38.4mm and to small for my Wrist at over 7 1/12"

[Rocket Man]

I agree. I wouldn't go anywhere near the full size ones! I'm wearing my 35mm cased 1971 Omega Geneve just now and I have to say it's a great size - certainly not too small for me so the idea of 40mm plus cases just seems rediculous.

I am really quite heartened to find out that so many of you seem to prefer smaller watches. I thought I was in a minority!

[Neil.C]

No standards, I buy stuff that interests me whether I wear it or not.

[Eamon]

42mm seems to be the new "normal", and 38mm or less seems to be "mid-sized".
My old watch was only 35mm, so before spending big money, I've bought a Seiko 5 sports 42mm.
I found I got used to the size and weight difference relatively quickly, but I think it is my limit size wise.

My incoming is 40mm...

[Captainhowdy]

I need sapphire glass on a watch, a bracelet with screws not pins and most of the time an automatic movement.

[Josh B]

On watches, yes.

women, less so...

[paul.in.kendal]

Interesting opinions on size. I've found that, while size matters (of course!), I'd never dismiss a watch purely on the measured diameter. Watches sit on my wrist very differently - some larger watches sit snug and close, while some smaller ones are angular with lugs that jut out. Unless I've actually tried a watch for size, I'd never dismiss it. And I've got 6.75" wrists.

My only standards are that I won't have a diver or a digital. Don't like them, don't think I ever will.

[Gruntfuttock]

My only standard as such is a purely practical one; I do not buy any watches (anymore) that approach or exceed 50mm across the lugs (lug to lug not strap width). Simply too big for my wrist and I have sold everyone I've bought so far so no more. Unfortunately this excludes some of Eddies recent watches.

[Inspector71]

The only thing I tend to make sure I've got in a watch is sensible water resistance (by which I usually mean 5ATM). I'm too lazy/forgetful to remove a watch in the gym/bath/shower. Otherwise - anything goes.

[Aquavit]

Well the size issue is easily misunderstood, I started out buying/considering watches based on the diameter, only to find that the lug to lug has much more of a bearing on what looks right for me.

If I stuck to my "standards", I'd struggle to find a watch:

No date (this rules out so much)

Max. lug to lug of 47mm

Preferably under 40mm

Prefer handwound

Prefer acrylic crystal

Prefer arabics (even if only 3, 6, 9)

[Velorum]

I am really quite heartened to find out that so many of you seem to prefer smaller watches. I thought I was in a minority!

38mm maximum on my 6.75" manly wrist

needs to look good on leather

[miguelh34]

I Never buy fashion watches...

[gray]

I don't buy watches I don't like and I don't buy watches I can't afford

[StuartGR]

No digital, no quartz, no bi-metal, no fashion brands, no upper or lower limits on price, no brand prejudice.

SGR

[RAJEN]

The only standard is- I have to like it.
Couldn't care less about brand, material, cost ,category etc.
Am not opposed to ANY brands. That is one reason I am always amused to see some get their knickers in a twist over certain brands.
From PP to RM all the way down to Invicta, and everything inbetween, I would buy and wear with pleasure. In other words, I am a man with negligible standards when it comes to watches!

[Andyg]

Not sure about other people here, but I wear suits, shirts, watches, shoes, jeans, tee shirts, and underpants etc that I like. Never to impress others.

Life's to short to worry what other people think.


(BTW - currently wearing my 1978 Rolex 1665 (rail dial) - impressed?? - thought not )

[Matt68]

Not sure about other people here, but I wear suits, shirts, watches, shoes, jeans, tee shirts, and underpants etc that I like. Never to impress others.

Life's to short to worry what other people think.


(BTW - currently wearing my 1978 Rolex 1665 (rail dial) - impressed?? - thought not )

Andy, when i said standards i meant personal standards, I'm like yourself i wouldn't give a Monkeys what other people thought about my Watch, as long as i liked it! 😜

[AllyWheels]

Not sure about other people here, but I wear suits, shirts, watches, shoes, jeans, tee shirts, and underpants etc that I like. Never to impress others.

Life's to short to worry what other people think.

And yet this forum is full of people asking other watch enthusiasts what they think about X, Y, Z choice of watch. We all seek approval after all. Nothing wrong with that in my book.

[Wolfie]

I don't buy watches I don't like and I don't buy watches I can't afford

Yep... Pretty much sums up my thoughts on the matter!!!

[opop]

Has to be automatic for me. Swiss or Japan movement. German movements are okay too but can't afford any Glasshütte Original's in-house movements at the moment and I don't much like Nomos. Not smaller than 40mm unless it's a dress watch.

[scarto]

The only standard is- I have to like it.
Couldn't care less about brand, material, cost ,category etc.
Am not opposed to ANY brands. That is one reason I am always amused to see some get their knickers in a twist over certain brands.
From PP to RM all the way down to Invicta, and everything inbetween, I would buy and wear with pleasure. In other words, I am a man with negligible standards when it comes to watches!

I'm exactly the same. As my old signature used to say "I like watches and not brands".

[seikomatic]

1) the look;
2) my pocket;
3) functionality;
4) brand

[thenikjones]

I want the main Hour hand to be the quickset on a GMT watch, not the 24hr hand.

I really want the minute hand to touch the markers (unless on the rehaut) - there would need to be a good reason why they didn't.

Screw heads on the FRONT of the watch must align. This means they must be "false" like AP - that is fine, do it that way, it looks great! Otherwise they look very very messy.

The more expensive the watch, the more little details need to be perfect. Otherwise, I am pretty flexible.

[StuartGR]

Screw heads on the FRONT of the watch must align. This means they must be "false" like AP - that is fine, do it that way, it looks great! Otherwise they look very very messy.

As I've mentioned before, I got talking a while back to someone who works for a Swiss watch company whose best known model features screw heads prominently on the front of the case. This company deliberately does not line up the screw heads because, to quote the gentleman in question, "it looks too perfect so doesn't look like they are real screws". Which, of course, they are.

Interesting that you call it messy but they see it as a sign of authenticity.

SGR

[watchmad]

The modern Speedies make me feel like Flavor Flave ( I'm testing your 90's knowledge).

David

you wear it around your neck ;)

[chester]

I'm pretty easy going when it comes to watch choice but it has to have a date complication. There are, of course, exceptions to this - the Daytona is one and the Orient Speedtech is another.

[snowman]

No, I have no standards at all.

I buy what I like and eschew what I don't.

If I like a brand new quartz Sekonda or Rotary for £30, I'll buy it, but I'll probably never own a Rolex, because they've yet to make something that appeals to me enough (I do like some of their designs, but not enough to spend the money they require).

M.

[thenikjones]

Interesting that you call it messy but they see it as a sign of authenticity.

SGR

That is news to me, thank you. I wonder if they really COULD line them up though?

Still, my thought is to put them in from the back so the front face is clean. Genta made a deliberate style choice with the Royal Oak, firms such as those making square faced watches just look, well, messy. I guess they have four large corners to fill, though.

[mart broad]

No standards, I buy stuff that interests me whether I wear it or not.

+1 but would add whether I can afford it or not!

[forpetesake]

Yes - I simply won't entertain anything remotely 'derivative', Darling.

[NJHawkins]

I have a strong preference for manual wound, without a date: simpler to just pick up and wear, a nice watch showing the wrong date is embarrassing.
Quartz is acceptable so long as the hands look like they fit the dial.

I think GMT/time zones are a useful complication, moonphase is 'mostly harmless' but I wouldn't pay extra for it on a (pre-owned) watch.

[jchlu]

I will never own a watch with either:
Screw down chrono pushers
A date window at 4:30
A date window with more than one date showing
A moon phase complication
A power reserve
A fluted bezel

I shall expect someone to refer back to this list and chastise me should I ever break my promise.
Johnny

[James K]

No Chronographs
No fakes (ever)
No fake military markings on the dial or case back
No military unit markings on that I have not served in or with.
No digital
Prefer no quartz (not an absolute rule not even a rule really more of a guideline)
Prefer no watches that need work (I have a waiting list of watches to fix)
Prefer nothing with a loose bezel
Prefer no gold plate.
Prefer a watch with seconds hands

- - - Updated - - -

No Chronographs
No fakes (ever)
No fake military markings on the dial or case back
No military unit markings on that I have not served in or with.
No digital
Prefer no quartz (not an absolute rule not even a rule really more of a guideline)
Prefer no watches that need work (I have a waiting list of watches to fix)
Prefer nothing with a loose bezel
Prefer no gold plate.
Prefer a watch with seconds hands

[kungfugerbil]

• Mineral crystal is a no-no for me, Sapphire or acrylic only please.
• No plated, pvd, rubber coatings or other stuff that can wear off and is hard or impossible to replace.

That's it really.