Reply With QuoteFor me the only watch that "does it all" is the Submariner (or SeaDweller if you prefer)
Omega 120 big blue for me
For me the only watch that "does it all" is the Submariner (or SeaDweller if you prefer)
Of watches i have owned these were my PERFECT three one upon a time...
But there can only be one...
Now, if it was a free rein to choose ANY watch including one that I'd be lucky to ever see in the steel yet alone ever own it would be a cal 910 Omega Flightmaster in 18 carrot gold - dream on...
Cracking shotsOriginally Posted by robcat
It's always pretty much impossible to answer this one, and will vary over time. Previously I would have fallen back on my 16610 Sub Date, but recently I'm hard pushed to chose between my BP FF and AP RO as an only watch. The deciding factor is always durability, and the brushed finish of the RO would not hold up to vigourous daily wear, whereas it's very easy to get minor swirls out of the FF.
With the FF I've got something that is robust, but horologically interesting. The detailing is superb for a sports watch - especially the dial and ceramic bezel. You don't see too many around. It's big to wear with a suit, but not excessively so as it wears quite thin. A great allrounder. I could live with it as an only watch (if I reeeeealy had to).
Even the wildlife agree it has to be this one!
Probably FJ4, since it consists of parts acquired (mostly given) from people on TZ-UK.
Best wishes,
Bob
would have to be my sub date, perfect for just about any occasion. and no a steinhart would not do
Seiko SKX009. Got it as a wedding pressie from the Mrs, on an oyster looks the businesses too. I have more expensive watches, but I'd go for that every time.
That would probably mean that I'd given up the watch hobby altogether and/or had hit upon hard times. Nevertheless, I could well live with one plain & practical watch, that I now use as my "night" watch:
It keeps perfect time & the seconds hand stop dead right on the markings. What more could one want ?
My 16610 Sub - the one I never tire of wearing.
This is the only one which comes close...
but where's the fun in that?
Some pics:
Pics borrowed from Blowers at http://blowers-jewellers.co.uk/da_vi...r_iw376204.htm (their ref W3799 at a smidge under Ł14K if you're interested).
Speedmaster Pro. Pretty much any variant. :)
Cheers,
Steve
It can't be vintage, it has to be a chronograph, it has to put up with daily life and the myriad of activities this involves, it should be OK in suit or jeans, it should be a favourite watch...
Sinn EZM1 for me, as it pretty much has been for 3 years now.
I don't think I have that 'one' just yet..
That's quite a lot of watch for the money. (Not cheap, but not not bad for a perpetual).Some pics:
Pics borrowed from Blowers at http://blowers-jewellers.co.uk/da_vi...r_iw376204.htm (their ref W3799 at a smidge under Ł14K if you're interested).
For me, nice though some kind of complication is, anything like this is not really rugged enough to be an all-round, everyday, go anywhere watch. You're certainly not going to be able to swim regularly in a gator strap.
will have to be the patek nautilus chrono
There's a kind of terrible irony in that fact, isn't there?
Still has to be the SBGE001
As per this video (watch it with the sound off - the guy is annoying):
Cheers,
Ha Ha Ha
Hes a fanboy member here and yes, agree with your astute observations
Really? I've owned dozens of chronos and never once felt the need to use the chrono function...
1680 for me, sans cyclops
Respect the past, live the present, protect the future
This one for me. Great all rounder and suits my lifestyle. Wears well on the bracelet as well once you size it correctly. Kev.
I was speaking personally, I generally use mine (chrono function) every day.
If it's your only watch it needs to cover lots of bases. Waterproof and solidly built rules out most dress watches straight away - and probably the Speedmaster too. I think chrono pushers are a weak point - my kids often grab me by the arm, and love pressing buttons - I wear my watch on my right wrist so any chrono buttons are easily pulled/damaged. I've never used a chrono either so maybe it's just me but I do use a dive bezel every day for cooking/parking meters etc.
Leather and rubber straps rot and wear out so a bracelet is essential. They also wear comfortably whatever the weather or humidity. A date is also a sensible option if it's a 24/7 watch, as is an auto movement and sapphire crystal.
Brushed steel shows less marks than polished, and if the watch has to go with a suit and jeans it needs to be a sensible size and not too garish.
It doesn't need to be split-second accurate but a good timekeeper and ideally hold its value in case you get bored and fancy a different 'only watch'
Is it any wonder there are so many Subs around!!??
No Brainer for me...... It's the only watch I'd ever need..
I'd second that.No Brainer for me...... It's the only watch I'd ever need..
Pretty easy choice, a 16610 Sub, perfect size and weight, goes anywhere...:
Mate, awesome threesome. Seriously, if I had those three I would just log off and stare at the time all day.Of watches i have owned these were my PERFECT three one upon a time...
This Seiko 5 for me......
.......it will last forever & never needs servicing
Last edited by Dapper; 22nd October 2012 at 11:47.
This one I believe...
In an ideal world.. explorer 1655 or 16570
but my one (at the moment) is this one -
however.. this changes intermittently because i refuse to own more than 3 these days so work on an in = out basis.
^ That is nice
"If you could only have ONE watch ...... "
Nope, does not compute ...... not possible ...... at least not after becoming involved in this forum .......
There's always the method recently propounded by the even more recently departed WingTsun (he is sadly missed).
Depends on what you mean really
Only one watch, to keep from existing
my 1996 Sub-Date my first 'proper' watch (and the first one supplied / sold by a Rolex AD in 1996) making it very special to me.
Only one watch, budget no option
Patek Philippe Nautilus Chronograph in SS
The Explorer for the past two years and absolutely no regrets...
A Seadweller I think. Love my Sub ND, but think if I had only one watch I would want a date, and maybe something a little more beefy than a Sub.
Would have to this;
“Don’t look back, you’re not heading that way.”
That is bloody lovely. Really nice condition.The Explorer for the past two years and absolutely no regrets...
A year or two ago I would have struggled to answer this... and believe me I had tried many watches!
Now though it's easy. My 18k DayDate.
The perfect watch for me. It looks good with anything, and being gold has a certain rarity.
So clever my foot fell off.
I like those rather a lot, and knowing Seiko it will be robust enough to last a goodly period... not sure about never needing servicing though ;)This Seiko 5 for me......
.......it will last forever & never needs servicing
Easy one, this.............
In the context of the question it's this for me.
It's the watch my wife bought me when our first son was born. I wouldn't plump for this model if I had no watches and was buying a single watch for the future, but it's history means it's my favourite watch and one I will never sell.
If starting from a blank page I would get a diver with date (and no cyclops), probably a 16600.
He meant that the Seiko 5 can be more cheaply replaced than serviced. Or one can simply replace the entire movement for about $50 in today's money. (And without needing a single screwdriver.)
Yes, it would absolutely have to be the real thing. Even if they were identical in appearance, it isn't mere snobbery, it's that the Rolex actually is superior in most ways to a Steinhart or other lookalike, and inferior in none. In my experience, a "homage"/rip-off of the real deal is nowhere near as satisfying. Not to mention that the entire principle is pretty lame.
Instead of a lookalike, one could at least get something respectable like a Sinn. They make very good watches, and they have some distinctively original designs such as the U1, as well as more reserved fare. Among generic-movement stuff, they're far more desirable than the clone companies.
I had this Sinn as my only watch for years and I never felt truly wanting, whereas I had some Steinhart "homage" for a brief period, and I never felt comfortable with it, even though I'll admit that it was decently made for the price. I didn't even bother saving any photos of it.
I have that model of Jaeger LeCoultre and it's very difficult to imagine it as an only watch, at least for me. A one-watch solution would have to be something that can be on the wrist under all circumstances, and a Reverso would not be suited to that role.
On the other hand, the 1016 certainly could be worn for nearly any activity; it's a top contender for one-watch bliss.
Any Reverso is an absolutely ideal as a second watch, however:
Agreed; he's quite the special flower.
That's the one.
I see a lot of votes for the Submariner/Sea-Dweller, but they're more pressure-resistant than required for anyone who isn't a professional diver. Great watches, but I'm very simple-minded and require from some sort of extra feature to keep myself entertained, so a three-handed model is out as an only watch. For most people's wants, I'd say that the GMT II is the best watch out there, period.
The plexi GMT would unquestionably be my choice as an only watch — I prefer the matte dial — followed closely by the GMT II version. It has everything one could need, including enough pressure resistance for non-commercial diving. I once had the perception that it might be less suited to use in water, but I trust its watertightness it just as much as any diving-specific watch. If I find myself under more than 100 m of water, a watch will be the least of my worries.
The second-time-zone feature not only pleases the easily amused, such as myself, but it's also what I find to be the useful complication available. As a bonus, the rotating bezel makes for a great timing device. In this aspect, I find Rolex's GMT implementation superior to the JLC +/- pusher system. And the slimmer profile compared to the Sub/SD models is an unmitigated advantage in real life.
Under duress, just about any steel Rolex would do. But the GMT models are unmatched as a do-everything watch. I'm fine with the concept of either as the only watch I could own, especially with some strap and bezel options:
My quality of life would undoubtedly improve if I ditched everything but the 1675 and spent my time on more important things than watches!
Last edited by Belligero; 23rd October 2012 at 14:58. Reason: deleted "updated" doubling of post
It would be the simple PP Calatrava for me if I had the money. But out of the watches that I have, I would vote for the Rolex Datejust two-tone (I'm surprised no one mentioned the DJ at all). I don't do any intense sports, so I think it can suit any occasion thrown at me.
Two years and a lot of other watches later and it would still be my white faced Rolex Explorer II (40mm). Nothing else in my collection is so versatile in any situation, formal or casual, or has any complications that I require over time, date and GMT.
Posting Permissions
