Watches

I don't think anyone nowadays is buying a mechanical watch primarily for its technical performance specs. I think it is primarily for aesthetics and history, also happens to be very practical jewelry.

Now that said, when someone has decided they want a mechanical watch because of the reasons above, then specs do come in to play. It is pretty cool that a machine powered by gears and springs can tell time pretty accurately, and more accuracy is better although accuracy is not the only (or even primary) criteria. Same with other specs like water resistance, antimagnetism etc. None of those are reasons to buy a mechanical watch, but once someone has decided to buy a mechanical watch, those do come in to play. Still for me the looks and history are the most important factors.

Ice cold take my man. A hotter take would be water is wet.

And if my grandma had wheels she'd been a bike. What the fuck are you on about

If medieval knights had access to AK-47s they definitely would have used them over swords just saying

I’m curating a value stack of basic watches.

Basically, field, sport, dress, and workout.

I have the field but more and more I look at it and think “this should be a G shock”

If I ever go camping/skiing/whatever else, I want a g shock.

was that lvl of technology even capable back then?

thats like saying, if flying cars exists today everyone would be using them. no shit sherlock. more like a braindead take.

Made yourself look a bit silly here

What you've just posted is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent post were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this subreddit is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Yeah, and they would’ve used machine guns at the Alamo if they were available. What’s your point exactly besides an unoriginal cold take?

People forget that the quartz crisis was called a crisis in the swiss watch industry for a reason. They had to go into overdrive with marketing to keep these watches relevant.

Not even a lukewarm take.

They would wear the watch that they are given to promote. Same as today.

So many people are missing the point here

i think people that boast about spec on their automatic watch, talk about it and compare them with another mechanical watches. No sane person would compare their mechanical watch to a quartz/solar/smartwatch (unless about history or aesthetic)

If lighters existed 5000 years ago people wouldn't have had to rub sticks together.

I mean there are more Casios on the ISS than Omegas.

If running water existed in Medieval times, everyone would have used it... If cars existed in the 1800s, no one would have used horses... If gun powder had existed, no one would have used arrows... Thanks Sherlock!!!

I thought they preferred automatic mechanical watches so that there was no potential for a dead battery, and would work under more conditions.

Yeah right 🤦‍♂️

“Nice” watches are jewelry and hobby

duh?

They definitely would yeah. It's a bit like with guitars, people pay over the top amounts for electric guitars built to be exactly like the originals in the 50s-60s.

An example of this is the paint. The more expensive guitars today have the same type of paint as.these older era guitars. The irony is that this paint is arguably weaker and more prone to cracking than the newer paints. People like the paint for the cracking that will come in time, and arguably for the greater tone it provides (which I personally don't buy into.)

You can get a newer cheaper guitar with arguably superior wiring, paint, frets etc than an original, but the cheaper guitar wasn't the exact type played by Jimi Hendrix.

(For the record I do like both modern and old guitars, and G shock and mechanical watches)

I just want to say that people who are over 40 grew up when everyone wore a watch. And, you know, in the 80s, everyone wore a digital Timex or Casio or Seiko or whatever. There is a LOT of revisionist history from Rolex fanboys of all ages and a lot of younger people who simply did not experience the watch world pre-mobile phones. Sure, there was always people wearing super high end dress watches, but that's ALL that high end watches have been for a LONG time. Those divers, sports watches, GMTs, whatever are all dress watches and have been just dress watches since the 90s, probably the 80s for most people too.

​

I don't care what the overweight Rolex fanboy that dives 2 times a year in Cancun with his Sea Dweller. Serious divers use dive computers. Hikers, rock climbers, explorers use Garmins, Apple watches, etc. People exploring caves have watches with backlighting, etc.

​

It's all dress watches, all just dress watches.

Commercial Pilots would still use Rolex, its effectively an office job where you sit all day and then use your watch to impress the stewardesses.

Stupid fucking take.

The watches of yesteryears were that time’s G-shocks etc.

Getting a tool that is 100 years from the future?

Yea I’ll take it.

If G-Shocks had existed at that time, the technology inside would probably have revolutionized computing. Such early advances in miniaturization and LCD technology would probably have led to an earlier development of microcomputers and ultimately personal computers in consumer homes.

The Apollo mission computer had a 32 kb hard disk. It weighed 30 kg and was ungodly expensive. A Casio PF-3000 calculator released in 83 (same year as the G-Shock) had a 2.9 kb storage capacity in a unit that weighed a few grams and was powered by a little battery. And it probably had a lot of processing power in comparison. I tried to find specs for the Databank watches, but I couldn't find it spelled out in kb. It's safe to say that G-Shock level electronics could have had a huge impact on computing at the time.

Hot take: People who post about G Shocks being more practical than Speedmasters are really just salty that they can't afford a Speedmaster.

Hot take: the speedmaster is the most overrated watch of all time.

Of course. What is even your point frankly?

Why do so many people here not understand OPs principle?

Basically: on paper GShocks are better in every possible way for keeping time - these boundary pushing people would have wanted that over any mechanical watch.

Yeah, but what if your battery ran out in space?

'hot take: people use the best technology reasonably available to them.'

I love my bulova astronauts. Both for the design and history.

facts!! no need fir any deeper analysis and or discussions 🤷🏼‍♂️

There's actually a good chance they wouldn't have. Concerns about electromagnetic radiation, actual radiation, battery life, and the general size/shape of G-Shocks (i.e. difficulties with suits/gloves and uniforms, getting caught on untamed undergrowth) would be legitimate reasons for many people in high-intensity employment (e.g. divers, astronauts, pilots, military personnel) to choose smaller watches.

With regards to your "extension" of your argument (i.e. if people today wanted to be like the astronauts of the past, they'd use the pinnacle of the technology available to them, i.e. G-Shocks), that makes a number of assumptions that in some cases are factually incorrect or neglect field-specific considerations, some of which I pointed out in the previous paragraph.

Divers, for instance, do use the pinnacle of technology available to them - dive computers. Astronauts probably have suit concerns when considering watch size/bulk. Modern-day commercial pilots also use the pinnacle of technology available to them, which is the computers built into their aircraft.

As for G-Shocks and quartz watches in general being the pinnacle of horological technology, that's a majorly subjective position, and one open to all kinds of debate. Your argument also assumes that people in the present day, especially in high-intensity fields, wear watches for mostly practical reasons (hint: they do not; the watch is a convenient timekeeping device and a piece of functional jewelry, but in the practice of many fields, not just the high-intensity ones we discuss here, they are not an essential piece of equipment).

And a DW-5600 would now cost about £8000 and retail and £12-15k on the used market like a Rolex Submariner. On the plus side, I'd be able to pick up a Submariner for cheap. Sad that I do not live in your alternative universe.

But it would it be the full metal G-Shock, yeah? Asking for a friend...

Hot take: If G shocks existed 2075+ years ago, all the Romans, Egyptians, and Persians would have used them instead of sun clocks, hour glasses and crowing roosters

This is mostly in jest, but if people really wanted to emulate those Apollo astronaut icons, they would choose the most practical options which would be quartz watches, not mechanical watches

But emulating them would mean that they should get exactly/as close to what they actually used though right? That would be the Speedmaster.

Its not emulating them if you choose something they didn't use.

"This is a 16th century Lithuanian saber carried by their cavalry officers at the time."

"Yeah but they'd definitely use an assault rifle if they had those. Why not get an assault rifle?"

They would have and they do now.

I don't blame you for the shower thought but you're stating the obvious. In my opinion, the G-Shock 5600 and 9052 - speaking strictly in terms of utility - are the best watches on the planet. I'm wearing a Seiko SNJ029 "Safarnie" right now and still think my 9052 and 6900's beat it in terms of utility. Luckily it's just that little bit cooler to look at.

I mean yeah

Well ... Duh. 🤦 That's like saying if computers existed a hundred years ago, I bet they totally would have used them!

Yawn

I guess all you really need is a G-Shock and a dress watch.

People spend thousands of dollars to achieve validation and find somewhere to spend excess money. Get over it. There is no logic.

Gshock is the watch of the ADF.

Hot take: If Google maps existed 600+ years ago, explorers would have used it instead of relying on the stars and dead reckoning.