Reply With QuoteGiven that different people have different requirements for a watch - one might say that a smartwatch is the "best" watch. Your Rolex might tell the time but it's not very good when you want to read a WhatsApp message discretely in a meeting....
Completely disagree. The best watch ever is my Hop-along Cassidy!
If I can manage to get it back from my Mother I’ll post a pic
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
Given that different people have different requirements for a watch - one might say that a smartwatch is the "best" watch. Your Rolex might tell the time but it's not very good when you want to read a WhatsApp message discretely in a meeting....
Obviously a very individual choice with no right or wrong answers.
Out of all mentioned, 16600 is an extremely good choice. For me.
I am a little amused by those who say it has to be x,y or z.
Last edited by RAJEN; 18th August 2019 at 15:21.
For me it's my SD4000C.
It ticks all my boxes - ceramic bezel, improved bracelet, maxi dial, lugs that, to my eyes, taper so much more nicely than those on the submariner, yet look more substantial than those on its predecessor. Oh, and - best of all - no cyclops.
The moment l put it on my wrist a kind of calm descended upon me and my restless search for the next watch ended.
As said though, it's just my favourite - the "best" watch doesn't exist - that's impossible.
Originally Posted by Dave O'Sullivan
The 16600.
Nothing against the Speedy or the MM300 but the vernerable Rolex takes the crown. Classic looks, sturdy, looks great in any condition and as a bonus, it'll probably worth more than your house in a decade*.
Suits a variety of different straps, and at home with a suit or a T-Shirt.
The best!
*the value of your SD may go down as well as up. But it'll probably go up. Let's be honest.
Inspired me to dig mine out to wear today
pic uploading site
One which is accurate, one you can afford, one you love, one which is robust, one that it's legible.
And finally one that doesn't make you look like a ****.
Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
Friedrich Nietzsche
There can be only one - the 16600 it is for me.The 16600.
Nothing against the Speedy or the MM300 but the vernerable Rolex takes the crown. Classic looks, sturdy, looks great in any condition and as a bonus, it'll probably worth more than your house in a decade*.
Suits a variety of different straps, and at home with a suit or a T-Shirt.
The best!
*the value of your SD may go down as well as up. But it'll probably go up. Let's be honest.
It's just a matter of time...
Best watch for me is my Breitling SOH II it’s a good watch, looks nice, good movement, great power reserve. But the thing that makes it the worlds best watch ever is that every time I look at it, it reminds me of my mum.
To me the best watch in the world is one that connects to you in a very personal way. So it’ll probably be different for everyone
That said come the zombie apocalypse I hope I’ve got that GS GMT spring drive I quite like but I also like the UN dual time. Hmmm
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Gotta be this fella surely?
Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk
Indeed. Always the one worn on my wrist gets my top vote.
Best watch ever, could be a modern steel DateJust on an Oyster bracelet. Why?
Great movement, tough case, solid bracelet and clasp, date (for those who like them), enough water resistance for almost all of us, classic design, strong residuals, goes with any outfit.
I'd have to go with the black dial Datejust 16200 ... with polished bezel and oyster strap. It just goes with everything, and is not "shouty" like the modern equivalents. It's a proper tool watch rather than "jewellery" - robust, with enough water resistance for most day-to-day purposes.
Sorry Dave, it isn't.
The SD is a derivative of the Sub.
It has an additional WR over the sub that no-one except a few undersea professionals worldwide could ever utilise.
And that extra WR comes at the expense of beffing up the sub case, which takes it away from the awesomely lovely proportions of the orignal.
So no, the SD is not the best, nor even as good as the Sub, to my eyes, which remains more flexible in use.
Dave
No such thing.
Very personal choice etc.
When you look long into an abyss, the abyss looks long into you.........
Timekeeping on the SKXs is generally horrendous so that alone keeps it of any 'best watch' list.
Fully agree one day it could be this watch...
Another day it could be this watch...
If you think a diving watch goes with a suit then I’m sure a Rolex diver is a great choice, though personally I almost never wear a suit underwater. And how it beats a ceramic Royal Oak perpetual calendar or an all platinum VC patrimony I’m not quite sure... But I’m glad you’re happy, OP.
36mm Explorer. 1016.
This is as close as I can get.
Rolex Explorer – 2002
[url=https://postimg.cc/image/g7t9dxior/]
[/url<https://s17.postimg.org/dqhi6nysf/explorer_114270.jpg%5b/img%5d%5b/url>]
IMG_0008.JPG
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What he said ^^^36mm Explorer. 1016.
This is as close as I can get.
Rolex Explorer – 2002
[url=https://postimg.cc/image/g7t9dxior/]
My 1016 ,lucky enough to get before they went out of reach.
The Best?
I didn't realise it was a competition.
My 1016 ,lucky enough to get before they went out of reach.
Swapped an SDc for mine but glad I did
Swapped an SDc for mine but glad I did
Both nice, best on an bracelet.
Okay, I've thought about this for a while and I'm going to make my case: Exhibit 1:
The first Aqua Terra with the B revision Daniels Coaxial Escapement has a rock solid case to be the best watch ever.
As the picture demonstrates, it's ridiculously good looking and catches Omega styling cues that go back as far as the first 26.5 and 30 series Omega wristwatches -as opposed to wristlets - in the late thirties. It's got an impeccable pedigree. It's adaptable: it's got 150M water resistance which means it is a perfectly competent dive watch, should it need to be. Likewise, the lume is more than sufficient without being intrusive. The dial and hands are unfussy and a model of clarity, while also managing to be discretely dressy. This is a watch that quite genuinely can be worn continuously in all conditions and social situations without ever being out of its depth, literally or metaphorically.
Then we get to the movement. Now there is a lot written about the advantages and disadvantages of in house verses more ubiquitous movements, but there are very few that would deny that the benchmark movement of the last forty odd years has been the ETA 2892. Certainly, it is ubiquitous, but that is because it is arguably the finest commercially available movement on the planet. In fact, there are those that argue that it is simply the best and certainly in the mid market mass produced luxury sector, there are no movements that are decisively better. The JLC Cal 889 and the Rolex 3135 and a few others are in the same ball park but, as I always say, every watch is a compromise and each of these watches balances their compromises slightly differently. Which is 'best' is an open question. There's a fine analysis, that used to be on TZ but seems to have gone, that is reproduced here:
https://forum.donanimhaber.com/rolex...masi--56443615
And that's all very well, but the Aqua Terra doesn't have an Omega 1120 (the Omega update on the 2892/A2) it has the Omega 2500 and that, in turn, dramatically improves the 1120 by the addition of the, literally peerless, Daniels Coaxial Escapement complemented by a free sprung balance.
Now someone on here recently stated that:
And one of the reasons that I decided to explain quite why the Aqua Terra is the best watch ever was to take the opportunity to, once again, explain quite how wrong-headed this unsupported claim is.The co-axial movement is a perfect example of marketing over matter, as this movement was turned down by other manufacturers but Biver grabbed it up, so now they have this "advancement" that is no more accurate, no more durable and far harder to make and service that a traditional Swiss escapement.
The key advantages of the escapement in the 2500 are:
* Due to a rolling rather than a sliding action the pallet stones do not need lubrication and friction is reduced by about 95%. obviously this removes two major areas of instability in one: variations in the sliding surface due to bedding in and variations in the oil consistency due to age and temperature.
* The freesprung balance is far, far nearer to the mathematical ideal as it doesn't have a regulator interfering with the spring. This helps with all forms of stability, including, of course, positional stability.
* The impulse from the pallet stones is identical in both directions, unlike the 1120 and every other watch on the planet. This gives a smoother, more regular swing to the escapement and reduces the effects of position still further.
* The escapement is in contact with the balance for a far shorter period allowing more of the balance's swing to be free of interference, once again far closer to the mathematical ideal. (this, of course, can also reduce the effect of position)
* Wear on the contact surfaces of the escapement has been almost entirely eliminated.
Now that's all very well, but there's a world of difference between theoretical differences and the practical consequences, so what we need is an expert to analyse the performance of the Cal.2500. Fortunately, one of the world's great horologists and certainly the only man in England with a resume that possibly even eclipses George Daniels' is a chap called Phillip Woodward. Not everyone has heard of him, so before carrying on, I recommend reading his Wikipedia entry to get a sense of just how massively ovequalified he is to comment on the Cal.2500.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Woodward
He tested an Omega with the Coaxial Escapement and wrote a detailed report on it which can be read here:
https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/re...k-worlds-most-
His conclusion was that the movement he tested was:
He also reports (footnote 4) that Daniels achieved performance similar to a thermocompensated quartz. In short, the Aqua Terra is powered by a movement that was, until the invention of quartz, the holy grail of watchmaking - a marine chronometer for the wrist. Now, there's a strong case that the 8500 is even better, and in chunky dive watches, I'd agree. However, the 2500 is much thinner than the 8500 and so in the Aqua Terra it allows the watch to be impressively gracile for such a robust watch. The 8500 makes the AT significantly thicker. This isn't a bad thing in itself, but when it comes to the discrete charm of a watch that really does fit under a properly tailored formal cuff, the 2500 has the edge....comparable to that of a marine chronometer in gimbals.
And that's my case: It's a superlative watch of unparalleled accuracy that balances a range of compromises near perfectly. As I stated earlier, I think that for the simplicity and reliability, the 9F movement from Seiko, with a fifty year service cycle, beats any mechanical watch hollow. However if you want the romance of mechanicals without the compromise of poor accuracy then the Aqua Terra is, quite literally and rather scientifically, proven to be without equal.
So if you want romance and accuracy, strap on the only mechanical watch on the planet that can function as a marine chronometer. You don't get much more romantic that that.
Last edited by M4tt; 21st August 2019 at 07:56.
Explorer 114270 gets my vote. Wish I never let mine go!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
...technically a g-shock. Whether you personally like them or not, I’d argue.
A watch is a horological tool. It’s meant to tell the time, as efficiently and accurately as possible.
One of the solar, multi band/gps models will do exactly that. It will power itself, always be accurate and has the durability and water resistance.
You might not like the aesthetics, but as far as I can see there’s no denying it’s a far better pure tool for telling the time than anything else.
Based on ownership and factoring in accuracy, fit and finish, versatility and looks my choice is the GS Snowflake.
Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
You can have all that and the aesthetics too...in a GS
But surely a radio controlled watch of any sort is neither horological nor efficient? It relies on the accurate timekeeping being done elsewhere and without that signal falls back on a bog standard fifteen seconds a month quartz.
Posting Permissions
