User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/27/2004 7:48:54 PM EDT
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2004 8:59:57 PM EDT
[#1]
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. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2004 9:05:25 PM EDT
[#2]
Tissot Touch
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2004 9:23:24 PM EDT
[#3]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2004 9:28:15 PM EDT
[#4]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2004 9:28:36 PM EDT
[#5]
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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2004 9:29:23 PM EDT
[#6]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2004 9:53:00 PM EDT
[#7]
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). |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2004 9:57:18 PM EDT
[#8]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2004 10:52:55 PM EDT
[#9]
Digtial...
Uh.. yea. ok. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2004 11:01:55 PM EDT
[#10]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2004 11:05:33 PM EDT
[#11]
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. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2004 11:06:32 PM EDT
[#12]
Quality digital..
I can sure tell you've never even held a Rolex before. ETA: I'm not even remotely wealthy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2004 11:13:39 PM EDT
[#13]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2004 11:14:59 PM EDT
[#14]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2004 11:17:16 PM EDT
[#15]
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. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2004 11:19:55 PM EDT
[#16]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2004 11:24:00 PM EDT
[#17]
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... |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2004 6:43:16 AM EDT
[#18]
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
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2004 7:03:53 AM EDT
[#19]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2004 7:28:17 AM EDT
[#20]
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.
 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2004 7:37:26 AM EDT
[#21]
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..
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2004 7:39:31 AM EDT
[#22]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2004 10:55:39 AM EDT
[#23]
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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2004 3:21:59 PM EDT
[#24]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2004 3:26:39 PM EDT
[#25]
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. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2004 3:29:09 PM EDT
[#26]
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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2004 3:39:28 PM EDT
[#27]
Analog watches have the big advantage of being able to be used as emergency compasses-can't do this with a digital display.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2004 3:42:47 PM EDT
[#28]
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: Hamilton MIB: http://www.antiqueangel.com/c580.jpg Seiko Nooka: http://i19.ebayimg.com/03/i/02/5b/39/7c_3.JPG |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2004 3:43:54 PM EDT
[#29]
Oh really?  
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2004 3:45:24 PM EDT
[#30]
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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2004 3:48:37 PM EDT
[#31]
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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2004 3:59:24 PM EDT
[#32]
Sorry-I meant digital display ONLY |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2004 4:09:19 PM EDT
[#33]
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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2004 5:40:47 PM EDT
[#34]
You ain't shit if you can't go down 4000ft!  
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2004 5:44:41 PM EDT
[#35]
There's a watch now (I think it's called Hydromax - made by Bell & Ross) that can go to 35,000 feet !! 
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2004 5:47:10 PM EDT
[#36]
35000ft! I gots to get it!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2004 6:05:16 PM EDT
[#37]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2004 6:39:46 PM EDT
[#38]
4,000 feet
35,000 feet I'm just happy when I can go swimming without killing my watch. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2004 6:49:29 PM EDT
[#39]
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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2004 6:57:01 PM EDT
[#40]
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  |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2004 7:04:43 PM EDT
[#41]
Breitling makes one like this also. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2004 7:07:29 PM EDT
[#42]
I'm waring one now...It's big and heavy ya know. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2004 7:13:21 PM EDT
[#43]
I did a google search - says it's pressure tested to 11,100M (117,235ft) 
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2004 7:34:48 PM EDT
[#44]
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  ). |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2004 7:44:05 PM EDT
[#45]
5280 feet per mile X 7 |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2004 7:44:13 PM EDT
[#46]
7 x 5,280ft = 36,960ft
5,280ft = 1mile |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2004 7:46:28 PM EDT
[#47]
Yeah, 3.28084. So 11,000 meters is 36,089 feet.
Still a scary depth to be at.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2004 7:48:42 PM EDT
[#48]
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.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
