I have a little nicer watch. Accurate to the second and water-resistant to 100 m. My OCD is smiling, inside.
this post was submitted on 03 Apr 2024
825 points (97.9% liked)
Memes
45548 readers
1373 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
A while ago I came to the conclusion that a Casio G-Shock is the best watch. They don't have to be expensive, a good one will sync the time multiple times a day, so it's always accurate. A good one also has small solar panels in the watch face, so the battery will never be empty, and all of them are really build to last.
From a pure functional perspective I think it's the best watch ever made. It basically tells you the correct time, always.
I keep one until the battery dies. Then I replace the battery with a second rechargeable lithium and a new watch band. By the next time the next battery goes dead, the case is shot, too. Make absolutely sure that you follow the battery replacement directions carefully, reading the directions fully BEFORE attempting it. There are very tiny parts that can drop out and easily lost.
I save money by asking people for the time. It's totally free.
Lemmy Poster: flexing their $40 waterproof watch
Me with a $30AUD (~$15-20 USD): it tells the same time
Its been a while since I bought a watch but I recall them being under $10 even if they had calculator features
This was an ALDI special buys smart watch, but it doesn't have calculator features : (
My is from LIDL (Auriol). Watches (Made in Germany) have a good quality, nice design and are very precise, apart also cheap (€10 - 40). The other one I've bought for €10 last year
Your Australian watch can't even tell the right day. It thinks it's tomorrow!
No I believe your watch is wrong thinking it is yesterday!
I personally can get down for a purely mechanical watch just for the sheer engineering involved
Stop buying the marketing hype. An LED display alone is significantly more complex and engineered than any mechanical watch. Every smart watch on the planet is literally full orders of magnitude more complex than any mechanical watch.
If you said, "it's a small, simple, cool machine" that would be completely true. But they are not more engineered than nearly every other device you possess in your home, including the nearest set of $20 bluetooth earbuds.
Not to mention they're worse at keeping time.
You know, like the whole point of a watch.
My €25 radio controled watch even better.
Someone please tell me what the difference is between this sentiment and "I'll get an AI-generated PFP because it's cheaper". As far as I'm concerned either way it's " expensive traditional art" vs "mass-manufactured knockoff".
Do people have no respect for jewelers or not understand the work that goes into a good timepiece? Or is it that art is contempt-worthy when is used as a status symbol (in which case what about a $500 timepiece?)
Do people have no respect for jewelers
Yes? I mean, what for? Nowadays, stones with impurities are more worth, because they are proof that the stone wasn't just created in a microwave (but mined under life-threatening conditions by poor people). It's all just artifically inflated money-making nonsense.
It's the cuestion who needs a watch for $100.000 and why. Even for an billonair, even if he personally appreciate these technical marvels of a Pattek Phillipp (which the same craftsman who created it could never afford), everyone else doesn't give a shit if the guy is wearing a $100,000 or $100 watch, if it's not directly a plastic Casio. The status symbol continues to be a very ugly disease, teaching others: I am someone important, commoners. The same ones in those days with the first mobile phones, they stood in the middle of the road looking ostentatiously around while they communicated loudly so that everyone knew they could afford this luxury, with the prices that still had this bricks at that time. The evil of capitalism and savage consumerism.
Like you said, 99.9 % of people wouldn't recognize a Patek Philippe if it hit them upside the head. By definition it's not ostentatious. Rolexes are ostentatious (it's the only luxury brand most people know), but also incredibly cheap as far as mechanical watches go.
A Patek Philippe is a status symbol, but only to those very select few already in-the-know. And that is not mutually exclusive with those movements being incredible art. Is a Van Gogh ugly or evil just because some asshole bought the painting for $100.000.000? Art doesn't have to be collateral damage to your class consciousness just because rich people have more access to it.
Rolex isn't incredibly cheap lmao. It's mid to high price for luxury watches. The cheapest thing they sell is like $3k. Incredibly cheap for mechanical watches would be around the $100 mark for a Seiko 5 series or something.
Same with an van Gogh, I like to see his paintings in a Museum, where everybody can enjoy the work of great artists. I like to see the art of an Patek Philipp, but same as any other work which combine ingeniering with art. But I never would buy it, even if I had the money for it. Even if it made with wood instead of platin or gold with diamonds.
Some of us just want to know what time it is without pulling out our cell phones.
I used to have an employer that would give me a 15 minute break at random ass times like 9:07am and tell me to return 15 minutes after and I'd be pulling out my phone every 5 seconds and doing math. So I just got a cheap watch and sent my time to the same time as their clock and voila, I was a great employee.
9:07am and tell me to return 15 minutes after and I'd be pulling out my phone every 5 seconds and doing math.
Is it really so hard to add 15?
Digital watch with chronometer: easy
This sentiment is more of "I want a 30.000$ NFT pfp even though good artists can go way cheaper for art commissions.". Equivilent of an AI generated PFPs in watches are those 10$ watches you see some street vendor is selling. They could look appealing for those without a clock and want to try one, but for someone that wants a quality watch, they lack quality.
There exists good quality watches for 100-500$ range that'll never die on you, and can last multiple next generations after you. Hell, even cheaper if you don't care that much about aesthetics. It's dumb af to drop above 4 digit numbers on a watch where you're not getting any reasonable difference from any perspective whatsoever. Similar thing goes with PFPs.
If all you care about is functionality, a $50 casio with a resin casing will have more complications than most expensive watches, be hundreds of times more precise, will last you decades and you will spend less time and money in maintenance over your lifetime than you would for one revision of a mechanical watch. They're practically superior in literally every way to a $30,000 watch.
But that's not my point, I'm specifically talking about art. $200+ watches are art for its own sake, arguing on the basis of quality/reliability is nonsensical. The only things that matter is esthetics and even more importantly for mechanical watches, the appreciation for the incredible history and intricacy of a well-built movement. There is a lot of craftsmanship to be appreciated there.
And it's fine if you don't care or can't justify the expense (I don't own a mechanical watch myself though I probably will at some point), but the original meme completely disregards the artistry and craftsmanship going into expensive watches and I am trying to expose the glaring cognitive dissonance of the consensus that "quartz watches better" but "AI PFP evil". Both are responsible for the collapse of an industry, so if you think there is a meaningful moral difference there please tell me.
Here's my take: the mechanical watch industry already collapsed, and the "small commission PFP art" hasn't fully yet. We should preserve as much of these artists' livelihoods as we can to soften the blow until a new equilibrium is reached where – just like with mechanical watches – only those with a real appreciation for art or a want for a status symbol will commission a real artist for their PFP. But that's a very different discourse from what I hear which is typically "AI PFP poopoo evil, if you get one you're worse than Hitler".
Which watches are in that 100-500$ range? I'm without a watch and would be interested in getting something that'll last me a lifetime.
Mechanical: You're looking for a Seiko. Bulletproof, affordable mechanical watches. They need service every 5 years or so and you will need to adjust the time regularly as mechanical watches are basically shitty at their jobs. I have a Seiko Monster and it rules. Also check out the Cocktail Time line, really cool but maybe 500+. The Seiko Alpinist is also awesome.
Quartz: If you are interested in keeping precise time, then you want a quartz movement. Cheaper, keep better time, but you will need to feed them batteries occasionally, which is annoying every decade or so. Lots of brands make decent quartz movements. Watch snobs talk shit, but they've been brainwashed by the Swiss marketing.
Maybe the best option: solar-powered, radio-adjusted movements. Casio makes a number of good options (g-shocks and others) and Citizen's Eco-Drive is also well-regarded.
Any option you choose will eventually need service over a lifetime, but mechanical watches have by far the highest maintenance costs for obvious reasons.
Casio is my default for cheap and durable. I have a HDD-600 still running on its original battery for at least 15 years (it outlived the original strap which had rubber rot). And when I do change the battery it will be 4 screws and a gasket.
Solar-powered as far as I understand is a gimmick since the solar cell won't necessarily even work well after 10-15 years. Not worth avoiding such a small amount of maintenance.
Yeah, I forgot to mention that the longevity of the solar models is indeterminate due to new technologies. I imagine they will get better and better, though, as solar tech is constantly improving.
Excuse me sir I think you dropped your monocle. (╭ರ_•́)
view more: next ›