4 ms·

You are pointing to an outlier that is not expensive due to its beauty but historical significance. Typical expensive watches look normal and beautiful: https:

You are pointing to an outlier that is not expensive due to its beauty but historical significance. Typical expensive watches look normal and beautiful: https://www.iwc.com/gb-en/watches/pilot-watches/iw388106-pilots-watch-chronograph-41-top-gun-ceratanium https://www.iwc.com/gb-en/watches/pilot-watches/iw388106-pil... https://www.omegawatches.com/en-gb/watch-omega-speedmaster-moonwatch-professional-co-axial-master-chronometer-chronograph-42-mm-31030425001001 https://www.omegawatches.com/en-gb/watch-omega-speedmaster-m... https://www.rolex.com/watches/submariner/m124060-0001 https://www.rolex.com/watches/submariner/m124060-0001

spyckie2 7mo ago
dang why did I click, they are gorgeous...
next_xibalba 7mo ago
Is this trolling or are you serious? Those are all, imo, hideous! They are blocky and unrefined and like they’re uncomfortable to wear.
- BeetleB 7mo ago
  While I wouldn't call them ugly, I agree that they look just like, well, watches to me. I wouldn't pay a premium for any of them. Since I'm not into luxury watches, a common occurrence is: Me to a stranger: "Wow, cool watch! Which one is it?" Stranger: "Random cheap brand I found on Amazon." If you've never heard of Omega, Rolex, etc, chances are you won't be able to distinguish a cheap watch from an expensive watch. It's just the brand. (OK, OK, chances are the material is a lot better - scratchproof, etc - but probably still costs less than 10% to make than what they sell for).
  - elevatortrim 7mo ago
    Of course, they look like normal watches, that’s the point. However, if you paid for, you would get an extremely polished watch, rares/high-quality materials, hand-checked for every imperfection etc. as opposed to an almost the same looking watch for a brand, say Orient, which you would be able to find minor imperfections even as a non-enthusiast.
    - BeetleB 7mo ago
      I dunno. Having looked at cheaper watches, I don't see imperfections. I'll grant that over time they'll show up (quicker wear and tear). Here's the thing: Ever since I was a kid, the following features were basic: 1. Tells time 2. Tells date 3. Stopwatch 4. Alarm 5. Chrono (yes, I used that a lot for years). All this for $50 or less. I'm assuming the >$100 watches have all this? If not, IMO, the watch is simply failing at the very basics. It shouldn't even be called a watch. Then Tier 2: - Timer - Multiple alarms - World time I pay extra for these (and use all of them). The next tier (Tier 3): - No batteries and/or solar. Definitely no manual winding. The next tier: - Stuff like GPS, sunrise/sunset, etc. Personally, only after Tier 3 would I consider paying extra for all the things you mentioned. But paying $300+ for a watch without a timer or world time? You've been scammed. How much have you paid for a pen? Montblanc ball point pens can exceed $1000. Apply everything you said to a (ballpoint) pen - one that most likely will write poorer than a good $50 fountain pen - and you'll see how people view what you are saying.
- elevatortrim 7mo ago
  These particular watches are not my taste as well (I do not find them ugly though) but these are some of the most popular examples watch community find very pretty.

spyckie2 7mo ago

dang why did I click, they are gorgeous...

next_xibalba 7mo ago

Is this trolling or are you serious? Those are all, imo, hideous! They are blocky and unrefined and like they’re uncomfortable to wear.

BeetleB 7mo ago
While I wouldn't call them ugly, I agree that they look just like, well, watches to me. I wouldn't pay a premium for any of them. Since I'm not into luxury watches, a common occurrence is: Me to a stranger: "Wow, cool watch! Which one is it?" Stranger: "Random cheap brand I found on Amazon." If you've never heard of Omega, Rolex, etc, chances are you won't be able to distinguish a cheap watch from an expensive watch. It's just the brand. (OK, OK, chances are the material is a lot better - scratchproof, etc - but probably still costs less than 10% to make than what they sell for).
- elevatortrim 7mo ago
  Of course, they look like normal watches, that’s the point. However, if you paid for, you would get an extremely polished watch, rares/high-quality materials, hand-checked for every imperfection etc. as opposed to an almost the same looking watch for a brand, say Orient, which you would be able to find minor imperfections even as a non-enthusiast.
  - BeetleB 7mo ago
    I dunno. Having looked at cheaper watches, I don't see imperfections. I'll grant that over time they'll show up (quicker wear and tear). Here's the thing: Ever since I was a kid, the following features were basic: 1. Tells time 2. Tells date 3. Stopwatch 4. Alarm 5. Chrono (yes, I used that a lot for years). All this for $50 or less. I'm assuming the >$100 watches have all this? If not, IMO, the watch is simply failing at the very basics. It shouldn't even be called a watch. Then Tier 2: - Timer - Multiple alarms - World time I pay extra for these (and use all of them). The next tier (Tier 3): - No batteries and/or solar. Definitely no manual winding. The next tier: - Stuff like GPS, sunrise/sunset, etc. Personally, only after Tier 3 would I consider paying extra for all the things you mentioned. But paying $300+ for a watch without a timer or world time? You've been scammed. How much have you paid for a pen? Montblanc ball point pens can exceed $1000. Apply everything you said to a (ballpoint) pen - one that most likely will write poorer than a good $50 fountain pen - and you'll see how people view what you are saying.
elevatortrim 7mo ago
These particular watches are not my taste as well (I do not find them ugly though) but these are some of the most popular examples watch community find very pretty.