This thread is about the appreciation of horology, as well as the micro-engineering and materials engineering that are required to make a fine watch, clock, or other timepiece.
>Required viewing for newbies:
youtu.be
>Strap Guide:
pastebin.com
>Watch essentials 102:
pastebin.com
Previous Thread:
Other urls found in this thread:
justwatchingwithjamesdowling.blogspot.be
meranom.com
meranom.com
meranom.com
tapatalk.com
imdb.com
twitter.com
Rolex doesn't Rhodium plate its hands.
Rolex does Rhodium plate certain dials though, like the dial in pic related. Which is brushed.
And there's also the fact that you can clearly see the lack of finishing in this pic:
>Rolex doesn't Rhodium plate its hands
What did he mean by this?
I want a mechanical chronograph with a $300 budget
What can I get?
My next writeup might be about testing standards - cosc, observatory, marine, master chronometer, superlative chronomaster, GS standards, etc. Any ones I'm missing? Anyone have technical testing standards for Rolex and GS? Believe I have the rest.
I think you can probably get a seagull for a bit more than that and literally nothing else unless you buy used.
Probably that Rolex doesn't rhodium plate its hands.
ISO testing?
I can't find a single official source saying anything about rolex hands.
rolex doesnt rhodium plate their hands lol. Theyre just white gold you idiot.
>white gold
>not rhodium plated
Ok we're done here.
...
I meant timing testing, so if you meant cosc standards (which is an iso standard), then yes, including that. If you meant iso diver watch crtieria, fair idea, but not what I'm interested in.
>for example the white gold used in Rolex watches is not rhodium plated
>it retains its colour without this additional treatment
>this is due to the fact that Rolex add a high proportion of palladium to their alloy
justwatchingwithjamesdowling.blogspot.be
Two seconds of googling.
How exactly do you guys build Vostoks?
>justwatchingwithjamesdowling.blogspot.be
Rolex has their own foundry where they make their own white gold that does not require rhodium plating. Rolex does not make their own hands. The website says nothing about hands.
I am losing 25 seconds per year,
What do?
meranom. You select parts and add "change spare parts" to your cart and they assemble it for you. Or you can just put it together yourself. Throwing hands and a dial on a movement and putting it in a case takes only a few tools and maybe 20 minutes.
...
wish this dial came in black
Think it would be quite fun, a couple threads ago someone posted a rather nice custom Amphibia.
Yeah some guys on here have nice ones, mine is pretty simple but i like it.
...
Alright all this Vostok posting is making me jealous
What's the best stock Amphibia to buy? I want something nice without modding
That one is rather nice.
But yeah modified Vostoks have this potential to be very charming.
What's today's watch?
Zissou Vostok.
This one caught my eye the most.
Maybe they supply the gold?
Anyway, Rolex does make its own markers, which have similar unfinished surfaces, see pic.
And there's the fact that Rolex botches its printing: And there's the fact that the sides of the hands show clearly visible striations: I have no idea what you're trying to do, but you're going to have to cope with the simple fact that Rolex finishing is not all it's cracked up to be.
Recommend me a cheap ($20 or under) watch I can take to the gym. Waterproof is a bonus.
meranom.com
meranom.com
meranom.com
Any one you like really. Also making a custom one is not that much more expensive.
I was not the one arguing with you i was just interested so i was looking for actual information on weather or not the hands were plated.
Any of the new models with steel bezel and crown.
Whether they're plated or not is irrelevant.
The edges of Rolex hands (and markers) are unfinished. The pics clearly show this.
which models are those?
does the 120 have it?
I was just on about diving standards
I will still read your write up either way
What the fuck is wrong with you? I literally never defended anything or said anything about rolex. I was just curious about fucking plating.
Those are my comments. Where the fuck am i saying anything to you about finishing?
...
Could 3 vostoks last longer than one of the citizen divers?
No, they do not supply the gold, and no, their hands and markers do not have unfinished surfaces. (You)'ll have to find someone else's time to waste with your shitposting, however.
He's shitposting. Just ignore him.
>What the fuck is wrong with you?
Why do you ask this?
And why are you upset?
>No, they do not supply the gold
Source?
>and no, their hands and markers do not have unfinished surfaces
They do. See pic.
captcha ate the pic
What an ugly movement. You may as well use quartz at this point.
>What the fuck is wrong with you?
It's a Seiko male.
They have to take 10x loupes and go scouring google for the handful of defects Rolex has in their 1,000,000+ watches they make every year to prove how apparently everyone else but them is a retard for not wanting their boring Weeb shit.
It's like an /o/ retard screeching about the level of intake manifold polishing on his ricer to show how much more enlightened he is for blowing all of his money on that than the guys with their "inferior" Gran Torinos, Challengers, and Mustangs.
There's no helping them. The best thing is to just ignore them and let them zealously defend their little corner of ebay auctions that no normally functioning watch collector seems to want.
All watches are fashion watches.
If you don't buy a quartz watch then you are wasting money on a watch that can't tell the time correctly.
>It's a Seiko male.
No, it isn't. That's the guy who shitposts about the Omega Seamaster 300. I'd prefer if you didn't tarnish the name of Seiko males by associating us with this idiocy, thanks.
He's defending Omega. No one defends Omega. Literally no one. It's a false flagging shitposter who comes here to stir up trouble.
Damn i could break your wrist with two fingers
What's the ref.?
Go on wt on /fa/
>no shitposting
too bad 90 percent of them don't know shit about watches and have horrible fucking taste. The only people that do know anything post here too.
Coping hard, I see.
Do you think the windy knob guy, and the rolex guy are the same?
All the shitposter got me to look at my Explorer II. The sides of the hands are polished and all the text is perfect.
People must be buying defect models and posting them online because of how cheesed they are, because its not present on my ref. 16570.
The Seiko that arrived today.
Opinions fellow waztch enthusiasts?
>Do you think the windy knob guy, and the rolex guy are the same?
No, windy knob guy seems newer. the Omega/Rolex person might actually be the people he's arguing with too. I am starting to think it's one guy arguing with himself.
Not the vintage LCD quartz that I would have bought, but the condition looks decent.
I can't find a defect in any real rolex photo.
Just like the guy who keeps posting that seiko shitter?
I received my first Hirsch strap today. I'm really impressed with the quality, think I'll never buy another brand leather strap.
Maybe i'm too much of a sucker for thinness and the "casio look".
Which one would you have got?
>Just like the guy who keeps posting that seiko shitter?
Well I think there's at least two of them, minimum. They seem to have distinct posting styles.
Aesthetically my favorite vintage LCD quartz models are the old Casio Marlins, especially the W-36 and W-750, such as pic related.
Actually I was originally looking for a lcd marlin, but I couldn't find one with a reasonable price.
>hurr durr it's not a real Rolex
This pic was taken by Jake Ehrlich: It's Eduardo Raffaelli's Rolex Daytona.
The pic bottom right here: is from ablogtowatch.
And this: is from the Watchfinder YT channel.
Post macro shot, with focus and lighting on the edge of the hand.
m8 my camera is chink dogshit. I can barely get the text to focus on a normal shot.
Believe whatever you want, but all you're posting is defective ones (or mine is somehow extraordinarily good for some reason).
Maybe it's because your hands are painted black.
The examples I posted were from three very reputable sources.
I seriously doubt this troll trying to hate on Rolex has even seen on in real life. Let alone being in a position to buy one.
It'd be like me going to a /o/ and posting how that Ferrari spoiler looks 1mm out of line in a cherry picked photo.
Here's a detailed list of the standards used by Grand Seiko today taken from a manual, and linked below is a source on their old standards: tapatalk.com
Thanks, only took a brief glance but looks pretty good.
Cope.
I'm simply saying Rolex finishing isn't all it's cracked up to be. With proof.
>Mechanical
>Chronograph
>Less than $300
Pick two.
need a cheap digital watch with programmable alarm (repeat on first three days of the week and not on the others). bonus points if I can put it on my non-existent wrist
Casio a500
Vostok watches don't last that long despite being good at taking hits, it would probably take 7
The net is full of Vostok watches from soviet times.
>Vostok watches don't last that long.
For anyone interested in getting a better understanding of how demanding the testing standards at the Swiss Observatory Chronometer Trials held in the late pre-quartz era were, I created pic related to try and conveniently collect some relevant information into a single image.
Firstly, you can see that the minimum standards for the Chronometer Trials were much more stringent than those used for COSC chronometer testing today, and, secondly, you have to realize that the difficulty of making a mechanical watch movement increasingly more accurate grows exponentially as you get closer to 0 deviation.
With that in mind, realize that the minimum standards listed for the chronometer trials would produce an N-score of 42.45 if they were only just barely met, and that COSC standards would produce an N-score much larger than that. Now, compare that to the 500th best score at Neuchatel in 1967, which was 14.92(!), and the 100th best score, which was 3.93(!!). This should give some context to understand that the score sheet on the right was for the 13th place finisher in 1967 at a 2.23 N-score. The 1967 Neuchatel winner was an Omega with an N-score of 1.73(!!!) which 20% better than the results achieved by the measurements pictured at right. This gives you an idea of the kind of mind boggling performances that were being achieved in the late 1960s by Omega, Zenith, Girard Perregaux and Seiko at these trials and why people remain fascinated with their history and the watchmakers that did well at these competitions even today.
Any guides on how to build your ideal russkie shitter?
How much should I pay for this?
Nothing, because what the fuck.
Someone should pay you for wearing it.
dig hole in ground and put a board over it with a hole in it.
Watch Hard to be a God: imdb.com
Neat thanks
No problem. Always happy to share what I learn with others.
>I am losing 25 seconds per year,
PER YEAR??!?!
and you are bitching? even an Omega can't do that!
...
What do you guys think about these? I like the black metal look
Thoughts?
I think it'll be scratched up and shitty looking in a month. There's a reason gold plated watches look like shit after a while.
Nasty, looks like chinkshit.
Nice Sea-Gull dude.
Wearing one right now. It's one of my favorite watches.
found a A500WA-1D new for like 23€. is it any good?
It's Swiss and it's an ETA movement.
That's true. But I think they still look good with those marks
Really? Yours is the one with the dark screen?
Link?
Don't reply to him or his samefagging please. Even when he is incredibly wrong.
...
...
...
>Don't reply to him or his samefagging please. Even when he is incredibly wrong.
You think Omegas can be more accurate than 25 seconds per year?!