News and Politics Forum

2.FOH. wrote:

I removed it at the drive-in theater last night to scratch
a spot of poison ivy ...

Is that what the kids call it now?

I am sporting one of these.

http://www.ambientweather.com/moramw1002.html

Ten bucks

I guess it's time was up.

I appreciate a nice timepiece. I have three watches: An invicta, a Casio G-shock (far better than timex, imo), and a gps/heart rate monitor for running. I wouldn't mind having an IWC Aquatimer, but it is far too much money. None of my watches are $, but a nice watch is a piece of art.

I still own a Timex Titanium that I bought in the Spring of 1990. I bought it from the Kroger I worked at for $45. I loved that watch. It became my faithful companion when my X and I separated and I didn't want to wear the overly expensive Tag she'd bought me back in 03. A couple of months ago it died. The watch face had twisted around clockwise a couple of degrees and the date didn't line up in the window properly anymore. I put a battery in it less than a year ago and unless the battery was bad or already old, it shouldn't have done that. The first battery from the factory lasted for over 4 years.

I get no joy from wearing this Tag. It's overwrought and ostentatious and it's a reminder of a failed marriage. She gave it to me when she was pregnant with our 2nd child and I was already anxious and nervous about the expense. I guess the dumb bitch thought that a $1200 watch would assuage my concerns.

I might eBay it and buy a new Timex.

Thundersnow wrote:

Why not a hamilton khaki?

Becuase they cost more than $30.

Thundersnow wrote:

Wearing a cheap looking watch has its costs however.

Certainly.

However, no one stated not being seen as a pretentious snob would be free.

zukiphile wrote:

Thundersnow wrote:

I would much rather have fewer quality objects than vast amounts of inferior ones.

Congratulations.  That isn't the issue here.  I don't think anyone wants a dozen watches.

I am simply referring to the vast hoarding of wealth.

I have the one linked above, and another that looks just like it but has a stainless case and sapphire crystal.  It is accurate to within 15 seconds every six months, which is when I change for daylight savings.  It cost $28, but is no longer available.  It is waterproof to 200m.

I would love to pick up a sapphire crystal watch for under 100. Preferably solar.

Thundersnow wrote:

While I agree that marginal benefits decrease dramatically with price, there are intangibles to be gained with items such as watches. To each their own, and frugality is certainly laudable. Most solar watches go for more than thirty clams, and the G-shock line is close to bombproof.

There is no real benefit to an expensive mechanical watch.  They are less accurate than decent quartz movements, require winding and maintenance, and cost more.

I was referring to solar, or those that set themselves to the atomic clock. Or those that do both.

Thundersnow wrote:

Wearing a cheap looking watch has its costs however.

It earns you the disdain of the sort who judge you by the appearance of your watch.  I like that.

I don't often wear a watch, and don't hang around with people who judge. I don't disagree, I just feel that the best value to dollar price point in watches is the 40-300 range. As with most things, we often buy more than we need. The size of houses and cars demonstrates this. Ditto our stomaches.

I was under the impression that solar watches never need a battery. A google seems to verify this.

I had been rocking one of these for a while but then muffins dropped it in the garbage disposal "accidentally"

solar watch = ?

Mine.  I like the stock quote feature.

Last edited by Veritas (07-24-2008 10:07 PM)

I can hear Maxor's rant coming now

Just purchased Breitling Superocean Steelfish X-plus. Water resitant to 2000 m. So the next time I'm hanging around the Marianas Trench, I can still get accurate time.