Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
11/22/2017 10:05:29 PM
Posted: 8/27/2004 6:48:54 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/27/2004 6:54:31 PM EST by R0933C]
Looking for new ideas here, guys. My favorite watch right now is the Suunto X6.



A new version of Casio's Triplesensor is out in Asia, the PRG-70. Looks promising - solar powered, a bit smaller than the previous models.

world.casio.com/pacific/wat/protrek/triple_sensor/prg-70.html

Looking for opinions on the pros / cons of GPS, heartrate monitors, etc., on the best digitals on the market.
Link Posted: 8/27/2004 7:59:57 PM EST
Ah, what the hell – It's Friday night, so I'm going to let the dog off the leash...

Anyone who pays more than $50 for a watch these days is F'in insane. The extra money buys you an insignificant improvement accuracy and ruggedness, although some models also throw in one or two near-useless features.

In short, they are the bottled water of timepieces.

There, I said it.
Link Posted: 8/27/2004 8:05:25 PM EST
Tissot Touch

Link Posted: 8/27/2004 8:23:24 PM EST
Skibane,

You're right. It's crazy to spend as much money on a watch as I have. It's a sickness, and I can't stop.

Red_5,

Yeah, that's what I'm talking about! I've never seen that watch before. Very bad ass.

Please - keep 'em coming.
Link Posted: 8/27/2004 8:28:15 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/27/2004 8:30:14 PM EST by Alien]
No significant improvement over $50? $125 bought me a TITANIUM watch. That's a huge improvement in cool factor! It's even got a carbon fiber dial. Really though, I love my Titanium Fossil watch. It's lighter than a stainless steel equivilant, has 0 chance to rust, and is rated at water resistance to 200 meters. I even got an American Flag tin with it when I bought it, which was about 4 years ago. I know you said digital, but well I dunno. I just prefer the timeless (was that a pun?) analog dial these days. I preferred digital when I was a little kid however.
Link Posted: 8/27/2004 8:28:36 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/27/2004 8:31:54 PM EST by twonami]
I love my Luminox and Heuer,
As much as I like watches I would never buy a gold Rolex, stainless steel maybe but a gold watch at those prices are insane plus I would scratch the crap out of it
Link Posted: 8/27/2004 8:29:23 PM EST
Link Posted: 8/27/2004 8:53:00 PM EST
I love Heuers as well. My preference for digitals is just based on the multi function aspect. Accuracy is important too. My Suunto is accurate to within 2 seconds a month. I still have trouble believing it myself.

The ultimate watch to me would be a solar powered Casio Triplesensor with atomic clock radio signal time setting.

It's only a matter of time (pun intended).
Link Posted: 8/27/2004 8:57:18 PM EST
Link Posted: 8/27/2004 9:52:55 PM EST
Digtial...
Uh.. yea. ok.

Link Posted: 8/27/2004 10:01:55 PM EST
Rolex? Yeah, ok.

Where's the date window? Does it do anything else besides point to the hour and minute? What about reading the display in the dark (cheap painted hands DON'T count)?

Nope.

Accurate?

Less so than cheaper alternatives like TAG Heuer, Seiko, etc. And quality digital blows it away.

It says "Look at me, I'm wealthy," but that's about it.
Link Posted: 8/27/2004 10:05:33 PM EST
Its a no-date.
For people who don't want a date window.
I have a Rolex Submariner from 1964.
It has never failed me.
Never.

Here's your date window.
Link Posted: 8/27/2004 10:06:32 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/27/2004 10:11:08 PM EST by ARDunstan]
Quality digital..

I can sure tell you've never even held a Rolex before.


ETA: I'm not even remotely wealthy.
Link Posted: 8/27/2004 10:13:39 PM EST
I bought a Rolex Oyster Perpetual Date at a PX in Nam in 1968 for $300.00. I have since sold it and been kicking my ass ever since.
Link Posted: 8/27/2004 10:14:59 PM EST
I have held one, and I do understand their appeal. I prefer Omegas and TAG Heuers, and I have a vintage Heuer I would never part with.

Analog watches were the greatest mystery of the world to me when I was a kid. Then I saw my first digital watch. You know, the old kind that only displayed the time and the famous flashing colon between the hours and minutes.

Nothing against your Rolex, but I wanted this thread to just be dedicated to digital.
Link Posted: 8/27/2004 10:17:16 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/27/2004 10:18:15 PM EST by ARDunstan]
Ok if you like Omegas, you're extra cool.
I have a 1971 Omega Speedmaster that my dad bought, then later gave to me.
I alternate wearing it.




I will respect your thread topic.
I apologize for hijacking it.

Link Posted: 8/27/2004 10:19:55 PM EST
Sorry, I withdraw my comment about my Rolex. I now wear the Casio G-Shock watch that is really rugged and I can wear it swimming.

Ooppps! Sorry it's not high end digital. I withdraw my comment about the G-Shock.
Link Posted: 8/27/2004 10:24:00 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/27/2004 10:25:40 PM EST by R0933C]
Not a problem at all, ARDunstan. That is a beautiful Omega. A buddy of mine at work has a plain one, and I find myself looking at it quite often. But your watch kicks the poopoo out of it.

Well, off to eBay to dream of the possibilities...
Link Posted: 8/28/2004 5:43:16 AM EST
I'm looking at the G-shock with the solar cell.. very rugged. If I get deployed to the 'box', I won't have to worry about my luminox dieing
Link Posted: 8/28/2004 6:03:53 AM EST
Never had problems here with G-Shocks. My dad has a plain one he bought in 91 and it's never failed. He's Scuba dived with it, worked with it, hunted, fished, painted, generaly beat the shit out of it and it keeps on going. Never had a battery go out. I have the G-Shock Solar powered atomic watch and it is SWEET. Lots of features. Never had a problem with the battery on this one either. Has a nice big, VERY crisp display. Oh, on my dad's he's only had to replace the band once because of a chainsaw accident.
Link Posted: 8/28/2004 6:28:17 AM EST
My friend gets me Nixon's at cost so I have 6 or 7 different ones, Funny how the ladies notice the bling ones. For you I present The Dork.
Link Posted: 8/28/2004 6:37:26 AM EST
Shit, I don't even wear a watch. I have two computers, my desk phone and my cell phone to tell me the time. When I'm out, there's a clock on my car's dash and on the stereo head unit. When I'm home, there's the VCR, the clock on the wall and the microwave in the kitchen all visible from where I sit on the couch. I do have a couple watches... my grandmother gave me a few watches my grandfather had. None all that special. He'd switch the bands around, he liked having the face on the inside of the wrist instead of the outside. I might have to pull out the bundle and see if any are any good. He also had small wrists, so some of the bands are even too short for me! The one watch I bought that I do wear from time to time is a Timex Expedition. Just the time and the date. That's all I need. I'd love a Victorinox watch, but that's just too damn much to spend on one..
Link Posted: 8/28/2004 6:39:31 AM EST
Link Posted: 8/28/2004 9:55:39 AM EST
When looking for a new watch a year ago, my requirements were simple:

1) No velcro.

2) Analogue face, with digital insert.

3) Dark colour.

4) Night illumination.

5) Must tell the time.

There were several Casio G-shocks in the case, for quite a lot more than the Timex I used to have. I asked what was so special about the thing to make it cost so much more. Apparently it's got greater shock resistance.

But it does tell the time.

I said 'sod it'. If my Timex could sustain military operations including tank vibrations and still tell the time, I'd stick with it. (I ended up replacing it with a Casio Illuminator, however, due to the strap on the Timex being an odd size. The strap broke before the watch did)

NTM
Link Posted: 8/28/2004 2:21:59 PM EST

Originally Posted By Skibane:
Ah, what the hell – It's Friday night, so I'm going to let the dog off the leash...

Anyone who pays more than $50 for a watch these days is F'in insane. The extra money buys you an insignificant improvement accuracy and ruggedness, although some models also throw in one or two near-useless features.

In short, they are the bottled water of timepieces.

There, I said it.

I agree completely. How many people can actually remember how to use all those worthless add-on functions, anyway? The only thing I want a watch for, is to accurately tell the time. I don't give a shit how "cool" it is, of if it impresses anybody or not...it's a freakin' WATCH, jeez.......
Link Posted: 8/28/2004 2:26:39 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/28/2004 2:29:19 PM EST by DK-Prof]

Originally Posted By Zardoz:

Originally Posted By Skibane:
Ah, what the hell – It's Friday night, so I'm going to let the dog off the leash...

Anyone who pays more than $50 for a watch these days is F'in insane. The extra money buys you an insignificant improvement accuracy and ruggedness, although some models also throw in one or two near-useless features.

In short, they are the bottled water of timepieces.

There, I said it.

I agree completely. How many people can actually remember how to use all those worthless add-on functions, anyway? The only thing I want a watch for, is to accurately tell the time. I don't give a shit how "cool" it is, of if it impresses anybody or not...it's a freakin' WATCH, jeez.......




the ceveat to that is UNLESS you actually use any of those features.


I wear a Citizen eco-drive diving watch. For the addtional money I get two features that I find extremley useful.

First - the entire face is a solar cell which charges an internal battery (without any light, it'll still run about 60 days). The advantage to this is that (a) it never needs batteries, and (b) the case never needs to be opened to change them (whcih I like in a diving watch). But I still get the accuracy of a quarz (I have mechanical self-winding watches, and I don't like the lack of accuracy)

Second - this watch has a built-in depth gauge. This means that (a) I have a redundant gauge when I am diving (and it is very useful for deco-stops) and (b) if my primary computer and dive gauge craps out on me, I can still dive off the tables with this watch.
Link Posted: 8/28/2004 2:29:09 PM EST

Originally Posted By AUT_BELLUM:
My friend gets me Nixon's at cost so I have 6 or 7 different ones, Funny how the ladies notice the bling ones. For you I present The Dork.www.nixonnow.com/prod_images/6340-metal_dork.jpg



That's a nice looking watch. It reminds me of the old calculators that my gramps used to have. It had a red digital display and was non LCD.
Link Posted: 8/28/2004 2:39:28 PM EST
Analog watches have the big advantage of being able to be used as emergency compasses-can't do this with a digital display.
Link Posted: 8/28/2004 2:42:47 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/28/2004 2:43:46 PM EST by b1tfiend]
So far no mention of any real high-end digital watches in this thread at all.
Most of the true "high end" digitals were made in the 70's... but here are a few modern ones that fit the bill.

Ventura Vtec Alpha:
http://www.klaus-kaufhold.de/kollektionen/Uhren/Pix/ven1.jpg
Omega x-33:
http://www.timetotime.com/pic/omegaspeedmastersplit3.jpeg
(My favorite from the 70's and still made today) Riehl Synchronar:
http://homepage.mac.com/utdesign/watch/watches/copyNG191.gif
Tag Heuer Micrograph:
http://www.worldtempus.com/images/ta_tag_03_p70a.jpg

A few low to mid digitals that are very nice (Casio's are throwaways and don't even warrant a mention in my opinion h:http://momastore.org/wcsstore/MoMATest/images/l_49284.jpg
Hamilton MIB:
http://www.antiqueangel.com/c580.jpg
Seiko Nooka:
http://i19.ebayimg.com/03/i/02/5b/39/7c_3.JPG

Link Posted: 8/28/2004 2:43:54 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/28/2004 2:45:18 PM EST by R0933C]

Originally Posted By crurifragium:
Analog watches have the big advantage of being able to be used as emergency compasses-can't do this with a digital display.



Oh really?




Link Posted: 8/28/2004 2:45:24 PM EST

Originally Posted By Alien:
No significant improvement over $50? $125 bought me a TITANIUM watch. That's a huge improvement in cool factor! It's even got a carbon fiber dial. Really though, I love my Titanium Fossil watch. It's lighter than a stainless steel equivilant, has 0 chance to rust, and is rated at water resistance to 200 meters. I even got an American Flag tin with it when I bought it, which was about 4 years ago. I know you said digital, but well I dunno. I just prefer the timeless (was that a pun?) analog dial these days. I preferred digital when I was a little kid however.



Fossil is a good watch, until the crystal needs replaced. Then the water resistance goes away and will not come back. And I am not talking 50-100 meters resistance.

The Ti is an extremely cool watch.

In pure digital watches, though, the benefits of higher end can be elusive. Not to mention that many will simply take your cash and sell you a cheap movement.

Link Posted: 8/28/2004 2:48:37 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/28/2004 3:06:33 PM EST by R0933C]

Originally Posted By b1tfiend:
So far no mention of any real high-end digital watches in this thread at all.
Most of the true "high end" digitals were made in the 70's... but here are a few modern ones that fit the bill.





Nice job. Thanks for that excellent first post.

I'd have to disagree about Casio G-Shocks. They have their place, and I think the natural progression will place them alone at the top in the next year or so with solar and atomic clock technology.
Link Posted: 8/28/2004 2:59:24 PM EST

Originally Posted By R0933C:

Originally Posted By crurifragium:
Analog watches have the big advantage of being able to be used as emergency compasses-can't do this with a digital display.



Oh really?

www.nedwid.com/casio/webshop/PRG-60-1AVER.jpg


216.25.78.123/pics/Casio/PAG40B2V.jpg



Sorry-I meant digital display ONLY
Link Posted: 8/28/2004 3:09:19 PM EST

Originally Posted By crurifragium:

Sorry-I meant digital display ONLY



Got it. That's kind of my beef with most analog watches; I want more functions, more toys to play with.

Yes, Zardoz, I know how to use every function of every watch I have. I may not need all of them every day, but they have helped me many times when hiking, biking, driving, etc.
Link Posted: 8/28/2004 4:40:47 PM EST

Originally Posted By ARDunstan:
Its a no-date.
For people who don't want a date window.
I have a Rolex Submariner from 1964.
It has never failed me.
Never.

Here's your date window.
img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-1/590331/rolex%20submariner%20steel%20and%20black%20fa­ced.JPG



You ain't shit if you can't go down 4000ft!

Link Posted: 8/28/2004 4:44:41 PM EST

Originally Posted By BigT:

Originally Posted By ARDunstan:
Its a no-date.
For people who don't want a date window.
I have a Rolex Submariner from 1964.
It has never failed me.
Never.

Here's your date window.
img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-1/590331/rolex%20submariner%20steel%20and%20black%20fa­ced.JPG



You ain't shit if you can't go down 4000ft!

home.comcast.net/~tharmon150/rolex.jpg




There's a watch now (I think it's called Hydromax - made by Bell & Ross) that can go to 35,000 feet !!
Link Posted: 8/28/2004 4:47:10 PM EST
35000ft! I gots to get it!
Link Posted: 8/28/2004 5:05:16 PM EST
I agree to a point that more than $50 is a waste. For pure functionality, I would also allow for the basic Luminox which can be had for $130 now. When I'm diving, my watch is my computer backup and I want no buttons that can be pressed accidentally, and I want to see my minutes...NOW!, without having to press yet another button.

That being said, I'm a fountain pen nut. I have pens that are "ebay worth" more than an AR plinker. I don't have them for show- at all. I like them for their art and I like the way they write. Everyday, I carry fountain pens exclusively, just less expensive ones... I say that because I would love to collect fine watches, but the means has eluded me as of yet.
Link Posted: 8/28/2004 5:39:46 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/28/2004 5:41:01 PM EST by R0933C]
4,000 feet

35,000 feet

I'm just happy when I can go swimming without killing my watch.
Link Posted: 8/28/2004 5:49:29 PM EST
Is $50 or over too much for a watch?
Depends on your needs.

If you just need to tell time period, hell yes it is.
If your a professional and you need to make an impression, hell no it isn't
Link Posted: 8/28/2004 5:57:01 PM EST

Originally Posted By BigT:
35000ft! I gots to get it!




Essentially it has a flexible back, and the entire case is filled with a lubricating fluid - so it can go ANYWHERE on the planet - down to the deepest point in the ocean.

I think it's about $2500 - but I guess it's really more of a curiosity than anything really useful - since any human will be long dead before getting to that depth


Link Posted: 8/28/2004 6:04:43 PM EST

Originally Posted By RED_5:
Tissot Touch

www.bruhin-uhren.ch/images/tissot/T-Touch_Titan.jpg




Breitling makes one like this also.
Link Posted: 8/28/2004 6:07:29 PM EST

Originally Posted By R0933C:
I love Heuers as well. My preference for digitals is just based on the multi function aspect. Accuracy is important too. My Suunto is accurate to within 2 seconds a month. I still have trouble believing it myself.

The ultimate watch to me would be a solar powered Casio Triplesensor with atomic clock radio signal time setting.

It's only a matter of time (pun intended).



I'm waring one now...It's big and heavy ya know.
Link Posted: 8/28/2004 6:13:21 PM EST

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:

Originally Posted By BigT:
35000ft! I gots to get it!




Essentially it has a flexible back, and the entire case is filled with a lubricating fluid - so it can go ANYWHERE on the planet - down to the deepest point in the ocean.

I think it's about $2500 - but I guess it's really more of a curiosity than anything really useful - since any human will be long dead before getting to that depth





I did a google search - says it's pressure tested to 11,100M (117,235ft)
Link Posted: 8/28/2004 6:34:48 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/28/2004 6:36:33 PM EST by DK-Prof]

Originally Posted By BigT:

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:

Originally Posted By BigT:
35000ft! I gots to get it!




Essentially it has a flexible back, and the entire case is filled with a lubricating fluid - so it can go ANYWHERE on the planet - down to the deepest point in the ocean.

I think it's about $2500 - but I guess it's really more of a curiosity than anything really useful - since any human will be long dead before getting to that depth






I did a google search - says it's pressure tested to 11,100M (117,235ft)




Now I'm confused at the math - aren't there just over 3 feet to each meter? I think that 117,235 ft is somehow wrong.

11,000 meters is the depth of the marianas trench (the deepest point on the planet) - which is about 7 miles deep. How many feet is 7 miles? (sorry, I'm still not good with U.S. measures ).
Link Posted: 8/28/2004 6:44:05 PM EST

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:

Originally Posted By BigT:

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:

Originally Posted By BigT:
35000ft! I gots to get it!




Essentially it has a flexible back, and the entire case is filled with a lubricating fluid - so it can go ANYWHERE on the planet - down to the deepest point in the ocean.

I think it's about $2500 - but I guess it's really more of a curiosity than anything really useful - since any human will be long dead before getting to that depth






I did a google search - says it's pressure tested to 11,100M (117,235ft)




Now I'm confused at the math - aren't there just over 3 feet to each meter? I think that 117,235 ft is somehow wrong.

11,000 meters is the depth of the marianas trench (the deepest point on the planet) - which is about 7 miles deep. How many feet is 7 miles? (sorry, I'm still not good with U.S. measures ).



5280 feet per mile X 7
Link Posted: 8/28/2004 6:44:13 PM EST
7 x 5,280ft = 36,960ft

5,280ft = 1mile
Link Posted: 8/28/2004 6:46:28 PM EST
Yeah, 3.28084. So 11,000 meters is 36,089 feet.

Still a scary depth to be at.
Link Posted: 8/28/2004 6:48:42 PM EST
That is the pressure equilivalent to that depth. Multiply atmospheres by 14.7 to get PSI. Multiply atmospheres by 33 to get equivalent depth. It is possible to simulate a virtual depth of 100000 feet in the lab.
Top Top