Why on earth would you even want to police a watch forum and notice how many posts each individual has made and for what reasons , gosh ....
If I stop posting would that make you happy . Why don't you enjoy the forum and participate in the discussions that interest you instead of posting negative comments on other people's threads .
Seikoboy
Nick I'm surprised you're not wearing your SD4K.
AFAIK even 3rd party insurance is not a requirement in ANZAC countries.
Sent from my SM-G920F using TZ-UK mobile app
Last edited by Robsmck; 30th May 2017 at 14:12. Reason: Typo
That's one of the weirdest posts I've ever read on here! I don't really understand the logic of the statement, unless you're boasting that losing the "value of a half decent used car" is of no significance to you. If that's the case, I congratulate you on your vast wealth.
The subsequent posts from 'ped' and 'verv' are spot on, in my view.
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
Just the one. Nice bright 'happy' watch. Cheap too so if I lose it I won't lose any sleep.
Back on topic. Most people are going to say it would have to be something that has decent waterproof levels, perhaps 100m. It is then going to be down to personal choice over the value in your collection. For me, Seiko Alpinist. Can handle casual and smart equally as well.
Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk
I don't wear a watch , no need to look at the time on holiday , I'm there for avoiding all I come away from
Last edited by mjgerrard; 30th May 2017 at 15:53.
Well, one last try:
I insure myself against "fat tails", events which are rare in occurrence but have a catastrophic outcome financially - like doing something stupid and somebody's house burns down. Those are the events for which insurance was initially conceived. But then insurance companies realised, that people felt more secure when they have insurance cover on this and that; and started offering insurance contracts on this and that.
On the extreme side are those insurance contracts, which are covering predictable losses, like insurances against mobile phone or spectacle loss or damage: if you are an adult who uses spectacles and a mobile phone, it is to be expected that you either lose or damage one of them in the next couple of years. Statisticly, this is bound to happen; and funnily enough it is more likely to happen if you have taken insurance against it (bear with me). In the end of the day, you will be paying the price of your replacement plus the insurance company's margin of profit through your insurance premia. And don't get fooled, if you think those insurances are cheap - they aren't as they are peddled to you instead of a discount (just like interest-free finance). Many customers use those insurances (fraudulently) as a cheap replacement option for outdated mobile phones or out-of-style spectacles - that is why the expected rate of damage is much higher with customers who buy insurance than those who don't buy insurance. In the end of the day, insurance companies have huge profit margins, and the insurance buyers pay for those.
Finally, there are the insurances which are covering incidents between catastrophic and predictable. Suppose insuring a car or a watch fall into that bracket. Here is how I think: If I am having two medium-valued cars and will drive them responsibly and alternately over a period of xx years, I am bound to have a couple of minor incidents and maybe even a complete loss. On the other hand, I am saving close to 1,000 EUR of insurance premium per year (if I wanted to insure them, I would have to pay two insurance contracts). Easy calculation for me, no need for an insurance. This goes even more so for my watches. I got somewhere between 10 and 15 watches, they are kept in a solid safe at home. If I'd take insurance, I would have to insure against the very unlikely scenario that I lost all of them at the same time - while I am more than unlikely ever going to be mugged out of more than one watch at a time. Again, easy calculation for me, absolutely no need for insurance.
If I had a watch falling into the "catastrophic loss" scenario, my rule would dictate to take out insurance - but that will never happen as I think it would be irresponsible to spend more money on a watch than I could afford to lose. But that is my credo, I know that others are buying watches on credit and maybe they should insure them.
Makes sense?
Beach holiday - Rolex 16800 - because I don't have to take it off, can dive in it, I can turn it in to cash if I run out of money and its really cool
Touring Holiday - Rolex 16750 - as above plus it has a GMT function.
City Break - Rolex 16550 - see touring holiday.
Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
Friedrich Nietzsche
So you have sort of answered your own question.
Take and enjoy your GMT perfection all round. No leaving in hotel room just wear 24/7
Job done
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
Sure - it makes sense.
Raffe is playing the odds, and is satisfied that he has estimated the costs/savings/risks correctly.
The argument comes up on motorcycle forums where some people are all for spending £350/yr for mechanical breakdown and remedy insurance. Others advise to put the money into a sinking fund - in case of repair requirement.
Where it may fall down - is if the failure occurs in year 1. But - that is the case with all probabilisitc risk assessment (on which insurance policies are calculated).
Your credo is your credo but when you start to imply that people who insure their watches do so because they can't afford to lose them so shouldn't be owning them in the first place, then it becomes obnoxious.
You can afford to lose a watch. Smashing.
I can afford to lose a finger. I still have health insurance.
I can afford to lose a watch. I still have watch insurance.
I wouldve assumed that the insure camp could coexist with the don't bother camp without the need to start some sort of weird peeing contest over who should or shouldn't be owning what in light of their decisions regarding protecting their possessions. Gods sake.
picture share
Useful GMT nice Isofrane that drys off in an instant and a robust watch that can take a plunge. Need I say more
Another vote for the SMP 2254.50 here. It's been my go anywhere watch for 8 years, but even now that it is back to super condition following a refurbishment service; It is still the one I chose to take with me on Honeymoon.
It's a solid hitter in most categories of use and not so showy that you feel at risk wearing it on a night out.
Here it is lume shining bright. Picture about as blurred as my vision was at the time following many a glass of Rum
I had my watch stolen - I was insured - I got the £5K paid up by the insurance company. Sensible case for insurance. If I hadn't been insured on home insurance probably only would have got couple quid back from travel insurance.
To the OP.
POC for pool duties
And 5146J for the evening
Last edited by MartynJC (UK); 30th May 2017 at 20:23.
Does it?, my bi metal sub cost 10k to buy, the insurance on it is 8 per month so by your reasoning this way it's better to lose 10 grand than insure it for the sake of 8 p/m. In 10 years time when it gets nicked it's only cost me 1k to get replaced so even then I'm 9k up rather than 10k down or is that not correct?
Your argument is flawed slightly I think
Sorry about my boring comments.
Holiday watches........well, the most popular watch I saw during a recent holiday was an Omega SMP.
Sent from my Moto G (4) using TZ-UK mobile app
Last edited by j111dja; 30th May 2017 at 20:27.
Insurance paid me out for my Panerai when I was hit over the head in my home (pretty safe) city so I was glad I was insured and goes to show you can be robbed anywhere.
Providing I am not going somewhere incredibly dodgy which is unlikely for a holiday I take what I fancy.
DSSD in Thailand in the rain last week!
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
I would never take 2 watches on holiday and I'd never take something expensive, certainly not to leave in a hotel safe! Crazy idea,whst do you actually gain by taking an expensive watch to pose around in? Take the Seiko,you know it makes sense.
Holidays are for telaxation, I can do without the hassle of worrying about an expensive watch!
No brainer IMO. Thete's also the security aspect of wearing something expensive in many areas of the world.........if someone decides to give you a slap and nick it that'll definitely spoil your day.
Paul
I wouldn't dream paying 100 quid a year in insurance. Let's say I got 12 watches, puts me down more than 1,000 pounds a year. I cannot see why I would ever lose a watch - I either wear it or it's in the safe. In the more than unlikely event that somebody steals it off my wrist (say, it happens once in 50 years?), I would have paid more in insurance than I would recover from the insurance.
But I am happy to accept that we disagree. After all, the insurance companies have to make a living, too.
Given that I am a cynical mistrusting fellow, I am happy to go on holiday with a cheap beater and if I lose it by whatever means, hey ho!
Of course I could hide it, but I could also hide it somewhere in a hotel room. But then I didn't buy it to play hide and seek, I wear it.
I'm not a worrier, when away the watch is of least concern. My children's safety is my main priority (and wide), then my camera, then my phone, then my wallet then the watch as it's the thing that could be replaced with the least hassle.
2 pics , one focused on my beach watch , my trusty Seiko sumo on the super bracelet and another focusing on one of my favourite beaches in Greece , Anthony Quinn bay in rhodes
Seikoboy
I'm not a worrier, when away the watch is of least concern. My children's safety is my main priority (and wide), then my camera, then my phone, then my wallet then the watch as it's the thing that could be replaced with the least hassle.[/QUOTE]
Good point , if you can't enjoy your watch whilst on holiday then what's the point of owning it , I used leave my watch at home when on holiday and watched others enjoy the fruits of their hard labour on a hard earn't holiday . Nothing feels better than walking out of the pool with your favourite watch strapped to your wrist
Seikoboy
> Quote Originally Posted by TF23
If it's an expensive watch it will not be covered under most policies without paying an extra premium.
Actually I was commenting on the suggestion that a valuable watch can just be added to your home policy at no extra cost, which I don't think is generally true. Sounds like you agree with me.
Back to the question of holiday watches.
I agree with those who've said you should only take one watch with you. If you do that, you want something which will cover all bases. A G Shock is one obvious answer - unless you'll be going anywhere at all smart, in which case I don't think that'll do, not for me anyway. In that case, and if I'd be swimming during the holiday, I'd go for any reasonably stylish sports watch pressure rated at 100m+. Must be inexpensive if visiting Rome / Barcelona / etc - you don't want to spoil your holiday worrying about your watch on those sorts of holiday.
The sky racer looks like a good bet. Going to look at one this weekend