Which would you keep and why??

I normally dont like the "which watch should I buy" threads cos I think likes and dislikes are so personal. However, I am in a dilemma (nothing strange for me...) about these two. One has to go for financial reasons, but which one should I let go?? I love them both and whichever one goes I'll pine for it. I am interested in your opinions here :?

Not my Pic Steinhart Ocean One Ceramic Bezel Auto
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y23...ck_ceramic.jpg

or
My Pic Famed PRS3 Original Quartz (10 year Battery Life, Sapphire Crystal) Virtually Mint
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y23...onaco/PRS3.jpg

I'd keep the PRS-3, because it's a brilliant watch that would be hard to replace.

Definitely the PRS-3. Looks in great condition too.

The Steinhart will be easy to replace once funds permit, the PRS-3 won't, so keep the latter.

Cheers,
Gary

Yup, no brainer to me too. Keep the PRS. Much more special.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omegary

The Steinhart will be easy to replace once funds permit, the PRS-3 won't, so keep the latter.

Cheers,
Gary

---

+1 :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anonimouse

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omegary

The Steinhart will be easy to replace once funds permit, the PRS-3 won't, so keep the latter.

Cheers,
Gary

---

+1 :)

---

+2 (and i prefer the looks of the PRS3)

Andy

I'd keep them both because I can afford it, but if you decide to sell the Steinhart drop me apm. :mrgreen:

I'd keep the auto, because it's an auto.

The PRS3 is quite a looker, but if I was only going to have one watch (not sure if that's the case for you), it would have to be a mechanical.

The first one, because it is a "professional", as noted on the dial.

Best wishes,
Bob

Get rid of the uppermost.............

Most people will get a quick glance of it and say "Ooh - a Rolex! is it real?" :?

(of course, if Rolex copied them - then it is worth keeping)

A

As said,sell the Steinhart and keep the PRS as it's harder to replace (and the Steinhart has a cyclops :evil: )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by andy tims

I'd keep the PRS-3, because it's a brilliant watch that would be hard to replace.

---

+1 How easy it is to replace a watch is a good thing to take into account.

Steinhart to go, no contest.

Keep the PRS-3! http://planetsmilies.net/happy-smiley-541.gif

:D Keep the PRS3, its would be hard to get another if you wanted to replace it, and its fantastic.

Prs-3, for the same reasons as above. Lovely watch!

Don't like the Steinhart. Trying to be something it's not. The PRS-3 is honest and slightly lovely

Well, that seems pretty straight forward!!! :lol:

Another nail in the coffin for the wannabe Rolex, from me...

The Prs because it is more original not like these Sublikes

If you decide on selling the PRS-3 please drop me a PM.

I suppose for that reason I'd have to say keep the Steinhart :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by andy tims

I'd keep the PRS-3, because it's a brilliant watch that would be hard to replace.

---

+1, the Steinhart isn't as great IMHO.

PRS3 would be a keeper - I don't like the other one ;)

Sell the steinhart defiantly

Keep the PRS sell the Steinhart but that is as I am not a fan of them.

Yeah, sell the Steinhart.

(To me) :o :lol:

It pains me to say it (as I've been looking for one for over two years) but keep the PRS3. The Steinhart is easily replaceable, the PRS3 is irreplaceable. However, if you do decide to sell the PRS3, please add me to the list of potential buyers

definitley keep the precista, much nicer watch imo

PRS3 for me. Certainly a more individual looking timepiece with a charm that isn't so derivative.

I'd keep the PRS because the Steinhart sucks (you did ask)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gray

I'd keep the PRS because the Steinhart sucks (you did ask)

---

:lol: :lol:

Nothing like a bit of honesty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tricktock

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gray

I'd keep the PRS because the Steinhart sucks (you did ask)

---

:lol: :lol:

Nothing like a bit of honesty.

---

And that was nothing like it. :mrgreen:

On a serious note though, why all the Steinhart bashing? :roll:

I own a Steinhart Ocean One GMT and the quality is up there with my 16610 . :)

The timekeeping is as well. :blackeye:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by luddite

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tricktock

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gray

I'd keep the PRS because the Steinhart sucks (you did ask)

---

:lol: :lol:

Nothing like a bit of honesty.

---

And that was nothing like it. :mrgreen:

On a serious note though, why all the Steinhart bashing? :roll:

I own a Steinhart Ocean One GMT and the quality is up there with my 16610 . :)

The timekeeping is as well. :blackeye:

---

I have nothing against them - I would still take the prs-3 though. The word honesty was used, not saying I agree with the honesty ;)

I'd be lying if I said I wasn't surprise by your statement on quality though. Begs the question, why do you own the Rolex if the quality and timekeeping are "up there" on the steinhart?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pluseditor

PRS3 for me.

---

I don't disagree but........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pluseditor

Certainly a more individual looking timepiece with a charm that isn't so derivative.

---

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y99...e/IMG_5019.jpg

Strikes me that, for similar money, an issued CWC offers the something extra that the excellent Steinhart and Broadarrow suggest, but can't deliver.

I'd get rid of the micky mouse Rolex look-a-likey and keep the other one :)

I'd probably get rid of the Steinhart for the reasons already given but I do think it's a nicer looking watch than the PRS3 IMHO.

dave

Because I want to. :mrgreen:

I own around 80 wrist watches and the 16610 just happens to be one of them. :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tricktock

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by luddite

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tricktock

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gray

I'd keep the PRS because the Steinhart sucks (you did ask)

---

:lol: :lol:

Nothing like a bit of honesty.

---

And that was nothing like it. :mrgreen:

On a serious note though, why all the Steinhart bashing? :roll:

I own a Steinhart Ocean One GMT and the quality is up there with my 16610 . :)

The timekeeping is as well. :blackeye:

---

I have nothing against them - I would still take the prs-3 though. The word honesty was used, not saying I agree with the honesty ;)

I'd be lying if I said I wasn't surprise by your statement on quality though. Begs the question, why do you own the Rolex if the quality and timekeeping are "up there" on the steinhart?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by luddite

Because I want to. :mrgreen:

---

:lol: I can't argue with that

:D

PRS-3 as the Steinhart to me just screams "HOMMAGE" and therefore isn't very original to me.

Homage is a show or demonstration of respect or dedication to someone or something. Nothing wrong with that.

I personally love Steinhart watches and have three of them at present. Outstanding build quality and outstanding value for money. You don't have to like them but to knock them...?

Bottom line is if the PRS3 is harder to replace then that is the one to keep. I would find my Ocean One hard to let go though.

Just because a particular watch may be more difficult to replace, doesn't mean you'd ever actually WANT to replace it.

I think the Steinhart is the nicer watch. If you think the same, sell the other one.

Dont keep the prs, sell it to me :mrgreen: :D

PRS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomah

Just because a particular watch may be more difficult to replace, doesn't mean you'd ever actually WANT to replace it.

I think the Steinhart is the nicer watch. If you think the same, sell the other one.

---

A Mickey Mouse Timex would be more difficult to replace as well. :mrgreen: