Reply With QuoteCan I suggest the entire current Omega Constellation range?
See!!Originally Posted by rob-vicar
I will try find a film explaining it.
Found it; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5e50qn0Roc4
and chronographs are the multi piece puzzle for advanced puzzlers. That Seiko underlines it in an exemplary manner; a classic puzzle watch.
Last edited by Huertecilla; 30th December 2013 at 15:10.
Can I suggest the entire current Omega Constellation range?
Any bi metal watch by any manufacturer.
I'm yet to see a yellow gold watch I don't find hideous.
The cyclops ruins any watch it's on.
That leopard monstrosity earlier in the thread might take some beating.
URWerk's range.
Blingy APs.
Wow, I'm a big bundle of hate today.
You can - like Omega itself, they used to be classy but now they are showy and gaudy.
I'd add the PlopRof. It's feted here, but the general public thinks they look ridiculous, as their dreadful value retention suggests.
Interesting now quickly this thread started talking about Rolex, though! Interesting, also, inevitable ;).
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
So is 'Green Door' by Shakin' Stevens (allegedly) ;)
Designed in conjunction with Versace and Stevie Wonder...
You're on fire! Curried brussels sprouts last night?
Hamilton face2face, can't post an image link now though.
I like that. Sort of like a small engine bay on your wrist. I know Hublot get a bashing generally but I love the engineering that's gone into that. It appeals to my inner petrol head, although admittedly not a great design from a horology perspective.I am on the fence about this one
I agree. I could stare at it all day, although I haven't got a clue what time it's actually showing!
It's neither pointless nor ugly, imo, but one for the right wrist!
M
Breitling Cosmonaute 809 - What's not to like?
I could imagine Prince Naseem Hamed wearing that!!Well someone will post this sooner or later
Not only were the Defy Extremes amongst the nastiest looking watches Zenith ever made they were also the poorest quality. My brother had the misfortune to buy one (no accounting for taste) and 4 maybe 5 years on he is still in a legal battle for a refund from the AD that sold it to him. To cut a long story short it worked for about 6 months since when despite about 7 attempted repairs by Zenith it still does not work. A total pos for which Zenith should be utterly ashamed.Really?Zenith have had a few fugly buggers in their stable over recent years. I'll have to Google some images and add them...
*ahem*
Digger
These beauties from hublot.
Denim strap denim face, denim collection.
Lovely!
These beauties from hublot.
Denim strap denim face, denim collection.
Lovely!
Perfect for the casual oligarch !
All soooo true!
Rolex Sky Dweller, totally pointless and I wouldn't say ugly but definitely not nice looking watch.
What nonsense, but as said IMO it is one ugly piece
I for one prefer my old GMT. I have tried one of these new models and "tacky" came to mind.
Hard to beat this one IMHO.
I don't like the current trend for PVD coating perfectly good watches.
It's ugly and polintless, and probably easily regretted.
There's no 12h scale either but I can still tell the time. Likewise with GMT.
Well, even Omega themselves admitted that in the original's advertising campaign :-)
My vote go to Grand Seiko models with the asymmetric dials and spring drive models (as the PR again makes the dial asymmetric).
I assume you could also just work the time difference out in your head?
The idea of the watch is to make the second time zone instantaneous to read, a GMT with the rotating bezel should also allow a third timezone to be kept. The jewelled bezel inhibits that easiness. Do you really not see that?
Probably could work out in head but it's easier to see the hand on the dial (even without numerals).
Yes, a jewelled bezel inhibits (prevents) use of a third time zone but a third zone is pointless for most users of GMT watches anyway.
Yes you can work out any time zone difference in your head.
It is no more complicated than working out the puzzle the compound analogue hands present. Adding/subtracting a fixed number is not more complicated than reading an extra hand from an extra scale.
Ditto 24 instead of 12 hour scale.
While I feel urwerk deserve some credit for trying something a bit different, and yellow gold watches IMO can look ok on a strap - but are pretty much always ruined by a bracelet, I agree with everything else you've written.
I also agree with the recent post about watches that are too big - but, in this case, blame the owners not the manufacturers.
Why ´blame´ anyone for any watch?
I loudly applaud ALL designs as the variety makes for the wonderfull choice we have.
This makes that;
- you can find something to yoúr choice
- it can differ from the rest if you would want that
- you can feel good that your choice looks better than the rest
Basically, the ´ugly pointless´ watches are the most welcome designs we could wish for: The mountains are so high because the valleys are so deep. Hail Invicta
Even Invicta would be ashamed of releasing that!Really?
Zenith have had a few fugly buggers in their stable over recent years. I'll have to Google some images and add them...
*ahem*
Chronoquartz = classic ! Ploprof (original) has a rugged functional beauty - agreed all in the eye of the beholder though!
I'd nominate Hublot as the chief offenders, never seen one that isn't fugly. Though I like the engineering in that Ferrari Hublot - i can't help thinking, they could have done better with the case. Something more symmetrical and oblong would have been much better.
Pvd is not pointless; it is a harder, corrosion resistance coating.
You may not like it but it is not pointless.
It is much like sapphire with less drawbacks.
If anything it is odd that sapphire is perceived as a must whereas pvd is mostly rowned upon.
I must admit - although I haven't got anything with a PVD finish - I do think some watches look really good with it.
Francken Mullers
Last edited by Chinnock; 1st January 2014 at 13:39.
“Don’t look back, you’re not heading that way.”
It emulates the heck of a Ferrari.
You are looking through the rear window at the engine.
Don't like the branding but I LOVE the idea, design and tech.
Personally I would nominate the whole of the Graham range - sorry....
Harder than what?
PVD eventually wears off, making the watch, especially the bracelet look shabby. And except for having 'the look' (it's so last season) it really doesn't add anything to the structure of the watch
Pvd is harder than most surface hardened steel.
It is very hard wearing in my personal experience. Can you provide base for your statement?
Pvd is indeed all about the looks: about preserving finish and as to looking shabby that is personal taste. I have a few that imo look much better with the pvd than the sister moder without. The Seagull 1963 is an example of a watch I like a LOT better with pvd but then that is personal taste too.
As to ' last season' that refers to popularity, to fashion. Indeed wis-dom is very much about that. Still personal choice wether you go with the flow or not.
It indeed adds nothing to the structure of the watch. Much like sapphire but unlike sapphire, pvd does not add structural drawbacks either and sapphire is even the lesser solution for looking through. Still; not pointless, sapphire.
As I wrote; the odd thing is imo the must of sapphire versus frowned upon pvd.
Last edited by Huertecilla; 1st January 2014 at 12:48.
This is just plain wrong, try scratching a sapphire crystal and a pvd watch case, and see how they get on.
So sapphire is harder still than the average pvd; what does that change in my arguments?
Imo your response underlines the odd perception of the holy sapphire, nothing else.
I like my pvd 1963 with acyllic way better the the steel/sapphire and not just for the looks; the coating is harder wearing and the cristal clearer, less reflective, more resilliant.
Also WAY cheaper than ceramic coating/sapphire window and for my use functionally better.
No, I cannot see why pvd would be pointless.
As you always educated us, what one person "likes" more than something else is irrelevant, and I don't recall saying pvd is pointless.
I've had several pvd watches, and over time they all have small wear marks that a sapphire crystal would shrug off, so your claim that pvd is much the same a sapphire without the drawbacks is incorrect.
double side coated sapphire cristal: adding a soft coating to the outside in order to reduce the refraction of a material which was chosen for its hardness despite the higher refraction...
Well, not ALL pointless. For the manufacturer it means selling points for a higher profit.
I suggest you read my text again.
The PURPOSE is much the same and it does not have the same highly odd fundamental functional contradiction.
Pvd simply is a harder wearing surface whereas sapphire is primairily a window and the higher refraction a lesser spec for the primairy function of looking through it.
You're case is crumbling around you if you feel the need to change the discussion, you started off comparing pvd with sapphire crystal and you've moved on to pvd v's anti reflective coating.
Vicar Rob did and I responded to THAT captain sir
Err, no he did not, but again it's not surprising as facts have never been your strong suit.Vicar Rob did and I responded to THAT captain sir
Isn't DLC even better than PVD ?
My excuses for confusing you. I did not feel I needed an extra argument. I added the double sided AR coating to clarify
the matter, in the process also adding a pointless point of best manufacturers to the subject.
Let me comprise it for you.
Pvd is not pointless.
Neither is sapphire.
Both serve the same point, with the latter having fundamental drawbacks.
Double sided AR coating the sapphire serves the point of reducing a primairy drawback, in the process making the point of the sapphire a moot one.
I've just arrived at this thread and before posting this exact same suggestion I thought I'd read through first. I was pretty sure that within two pages of comments it would be here and you didn't let me down.
I stand corrected. I thank you for correcting me.
My point was that it was pointed out and I responded to THAT.
Yes DLC is an extremely hard coating but the other properties constitute serious drawbacks. Much like sapphire as material for the window.
So; harder yes, better no. Again much like sapphire.
Posting Permissions
