Watches when cycling

artaxerxes

Actually I'm thinking about the really, really classic Casios that are back on Amazon at the moment for about £8

Do you mean the Al Qaeda watch?

Fireblade96

Having tried cycling with a (now departed) heavy, diver-style watch, I hated it ! Bumping around on my wrist and generally getting in the way, meh.

My Dad bought me one of these

which is light, understated but still waterproof, and never needs a battery.

For sport though, I rely on the Casio special:

I wreck one of these every couple of years - before the battery ever runs out. However, they're waterproof and fairly robust, and at the price (last one was about a tenner in a sale) who cares ?

DonDaddyD

Clever Pun wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

I'm a fan of chronographs but everytime I see that I watch I always have to think "Where on the dial is it actually telling me the time".

Lovely watch though, very light!

Don't take this the wrong way... if you want a watch for when you grow up don't get a chronograph

basic elegance is what it's about.

I will never be as old as you! 8)

Edit:
The Tag Link series is hardly 'basic elegance'.....

Clever Pun

DonDaddyD wrote:

I will never be as old as you! 8)

Edit:
The Tag Link series is hardly 'basic elegance'.....

true true

you don't think? it's a basic watch no flashy extras just does the business and looks nice, I'm a big fan of the strap styling

DonDaddyD

Clever Pun wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

I will never be as old as you! 8)

Edit:
The Tag Link series is hardly 'basic elegance'.....

true true

you don't think? it's a basic watch no flashy extras just does the business and looks nice, I'm a big fan of the strap styling

I actually agree with you, even about the growing up bit and wanting a simple watch.

Eventually I know there will be day when I walk into a shop and all I want is a battery or automatic leather strap watch with a clear dial no decal, no date, no facy bits and batons for numbers... I just ain't there in my life yet...

As for the Link series, those links are both genius and torture. Each link is actually four pieces of metal joined together through a series of screws and witchcraft. A nightmare to adjust. As a watch for what is essentially a sports associated model/brand (Tag) it is very elegent and I do really like them but I would say it is chunky compared to other more traditional dress watches.

The dial if you don't go for the chronograph is very uncluttered.

Clever Pun

DonDaddyD wrote:

Clever Pun wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

I will never be as old as you! 8)

Edit:
The Tag Link series is hardly 'basic elegance'.....

true true

you don't think? it's a basic watch no flashy extras just does the business and looks nice, I'm a big fan of the strap styling

I actually agree with you, even about the growing up bit and wanting a simple watch.

Eventually I know there will be day when I walk into a shop and all I want is a battery or automatic leather strap watch with a clear dial no decal, no date, no facy bits and batons for numbers... I just ain't there in my life yet...

that's cool, but think about that when you're going to drop over a grand on a watch. I had a tissot chronograph back in the day, liked it a lot and it did me proud

artaxerxes

I'm a big fan of the strap styling

To each their own! I think that bracelet is hideous
Also it looks like you can't change it for a leather strap, which is what I prefer, or a nylon one piece.

DonDaddyD

You can't change a link series bracelet to leather, well not easily, that's the whole point of the model, its Links.

Clever Pun, I don't think I'd personally drop a grand on a watch. Nothing against watches at that price point, I just wouldn't. Regardless of how much I earn.

rhext

Tag stainless-steel quartz for me. Just time and date, nothing fancy. I've had it for 13 years and never take it off. As far as damaging it in a crash is concerned, any crash capable of leaving a scratch on it would almost certainly leave me without an arm to wear it on, so not really that worried!

Clever Pun

rhext wrote:

Tag stainless-steel quartz for me. Just time and date, nothing fancy. I've had it for 13 years and never take it off. As far as damaging it in a crash is concerned, any crash capable of leaving a scratch on it would almost certainly leave me without an arm to wear it on, so not really that worried!

I mentioned earlier I scratched mine and while it saved my wrist from total annihilation the rest of me had the odd bruise and scrape

DDD it was an example nothing more.

DonDaddyD

Que?

Ok... :?

Don't beat me up, d-lock me or hit me with your beard...

rhext

Clever Pun wrote:

rhext wrote:

Tag stainless-steel quartz for me. Just time and date, nothing fancy. I've had it for 13 years and never take it off. As far as damaging it in a crash is concerned, any crash capable of leaving a scratch on it would almost certainly leave me without an arm to wear it on, so not really that worried!

I mentioned earlier I scratched mine and while it saved my wrist from total annihilation the rest of me had the odd bruise and scrape

DDD it was an example nothing more.

Yes, it did occur to me after posting that there are circumstances which might total the watch without totalling my wrist....but should one of those circumstances arise, I'd be extremely glad the watch got in the way!

Flasheart

Casio G Shock when out riding too. I feel naked without a watch on and yes I have a cycling computer. I've always go deadlines to meet and places to be so wearing a watch apart from in bed is the norm for me. :roll:

oscarbudgie

I do think a pre 1960 Rolex Oyster is a good understated choice - perhaps better still a Tudor - same watch, cheaper and only the cognoscenti know its a real watch. I think only footballers buy Rolexes now though. I 've been buying old watches off and on for years including a few Omega Seamasters as well as lots of quirky stuff like Spaceman and Lip and quite a few WW1 'trench' watches. . My day to day watch is a Junghans re-edition of the range designed by Max Bill in 1962 - about as understated and (though I say so myself) classy as they come

symo

That is a nice watch although I have to admit for £2k the Steve McQueen Monaco re-edition by TAG Is lovely and now i have thought about it I can see a potential purchase next year.

tailwindhome

Interesting thread.

However any one with kids under 2 knows that a watch doubles up as an emergency toy to keep the young un' amused until the food comes in a restaurant. My £30 Next watch is going to have to do for another couple of years.

Dunno where I'll get a decent watch from though, my better half believea in the old superstition that buying a watch for a loved one is bad luck


Finally I couldn't help drawing comparison between this thread and previous "Why buy a better bike" threads. Does a £5k watch tell the time significantly better than a £30 watch? :?

greg66_tri_v2.0

WheezyMcChubby wrote:

Does a £5k watch tell the time significantly better than a £30 watch? :?

My nice watch (which cost considerably less than £5k) is rated to be accurate to 7 seconds a year. 31.5 million odd seconds in a year: that's good going. In 10 months it's lost 6 seconds, so it's staying true to form.

My cheapy Timex has a digi and analogue readout. They don't keep track with each other, and the digi has lost just over 30 seconds in 2 months. The analogue has gained about 15 in that time.

Now if you don't mind correcting your watch once a month (which really isn't much of a burden) then who cares?

However, a nice watch has a certain niceness to it which goes a bit beyond its purely functional qualities. Much like pens.

itboffin

Greg66 wrote:

WheezyMcChubby wrote:

Does a £5k watch tell the time significantly better than a £30 watch? :?

My nice watch (which cost considerably less than £5k) is rated to be accurate to 7 seconds a year. 31.5 million odd seconds in a year: that's good going. In 10 months it's lost 6 seconds, so it's staying true to form.

My cheapy Timex has a digi and analogue readout. They don't keep track with each other, and the digi has lost just over 30 seconds in 2 months. The analogue has gained about 15 in that time.

Now if you don't mind correcting your watch once a month (which really isn't much of a burden) then who cares?

However, a nice watch has a certain niceness to it which goes a bit beyond its purely functional qualities. Much like pens.

Mont Blanc

Eau Rouge

WheezyMcChubby wrote:

Finally I couldn't help drawing comparison between this thread and previous "Why buy a better bike" threads. Does a £5k watch tell the time significantly better than a £30 watch? :?

Not really, indeed a cheap quartz watch should keep the time better than any mechanical one. (no idea how Greg66's digital loses time...)
A watch is jewellery. People like their jewellery to be nice, and nice can always cost more. For some people there is something special about a mechanical watch, the idea of all those little cogs and wheels and springs working away in a clever combination to move the hands and show the time. I guess you either find that appealing and therefore worth something or you don't. Lets not pretend that brand image and an expensive watch being a status symbol aren't also a factor here.
The mechanical watch industry almost died in the 1970's when quartz watches with printed circuit boards came along and told the time for a tiny fraction of the cost. The industry survives today because it stopped being about telling the time, and became jewellery.
I still marvel at the fact my automatic watch just works. No battery, no winding, it just works. Fascinating.

tailwindhome

Don't disagree that a watch can have value just for being a beautiful object.

It can also have great sentimental value. My dad still wears a cheap watch that my brother and I bought him when we were very young. We talked him into taking us to the local supermarket, picked a cheapo watch for him and then let him pay for it as we had no money (we were about 4 or 5 yo)

He still wears it 30 odd years later

Splasher

My watch for work/dress. Understated, doesn't get any attention, keeps very average time, but it's beautifully made I enjoy it everytime I check roughly what time it is

warthog562

must say I was given a desent citizen watch for my 18th but like DDD says the batt needed replacement every year or it stopped, yet the seiko sports 100 I inherited off my father ( not dead just can't wear a watch due to 2 broken wrists) seems to keep on going year afterf year no matter what I do to it despite it being 29 years old. hard to argue with what just works

but i would love a decent citezen that doesn't need batteries i guess for jewerly porposes

Sitka GC

Hi all,

on this watch thing. Normally don't wear one when cycling, unless just heading round town. But used to & had a bad crash (Dislocated shoulder, broken bones & teeth, lots of skin rash) which left big scrapes in the strap closing plate thing of the seiko automatic I was wearing. Always wondered if that would have been all the skin of the underside of my wrist if I hadn't been wearing it? Watch carried on working of ages afterward.

To add to the "watches I've got" - both seiko autos. One modern one, nothing special and a 70s 6139 which to my mind looks v. cool in a 70s way. As you'd expect these are not the best time keepers!

Special K

Attention Tag owners

I have owned a Tag since 1995 and have worn it ever day.

The vibration from cycling and motorbikes has literally worn away the clasp holding the bracelet to the watch body! It is going to cost £££ to fix

Obviously lasted longer than leather straps, but jsut a reminder that that nothing lasts forever...

snellgrove

DDD. Did you ever see the Seiko Springdrive ? You sound like the type of guy that appreciates a nice watch judging from your thread-starting post. Lurvely bit of kit. Wanted one until I realised they're over £2000. Oh how I laughed at the price and it's unrealistic nature, and ended up with my < £300 Citizen instead.

Short video of it

:shock: LOOK!!!! See how it doesn't tick!!!!! It's kinetic (can't remember what Seiko call their kinetic technology) - the little guage is the 'power meter' i.e. how much charge it's got in it. I guess if you shake the watch that guage will go up.

DDD, do you know if you can easily get Ernest Jones or similar to get rid of scratches on the Citizen 8700. Mine's got an awful one across the bottom of the face. The bezel is pretty mullered as well. I guess they (as in Citizen, not EJ) actually just replace the crystal / glass. Anyone know if they're fast, or will I be without my watch for months.

p.s. the new 8700 has auto-time configuration by radio too ;-) it's truly an analogue face with a digital brain behind it. excellent idea.. shame I have absolutely no excuse to upgrade & I bought my 8700 for the very reason it'll probably last longer than I will :-P

shouldbeinbed

I don't wear a watch when cycling and am not keen other times either but I've got a couple of sentimental mechanical ones that I do put on - 60-70 year old Omega at work - nothing flash and the face is quite mottled, adds character, never going to be cleaned. and a 40 year old Tissot for home.

They're both accurate to within a minute or so a month, which is fine for me, I'm not that anal about to the second timings. Also as wind up ones, resetting the time is no great hassle since its all on the same crown.

jedster

splasher - that's very nice. Not normally that keen on Tags either

rhext

WheezyMcChubby wrote:

Finally I couldn't help drawing comparison between this thread and previous "Why buy a better bike" threads. Does a £5k watch tell the time significantly better than a £30 watch? :?

Have come to the conclusion that after a certain point better bikes are jewelry too!

But there is a little more to it with watches: I used to have the £20 casio. Within a year the face was scratched and it looked battered. Within a couple of years the strap had worn out etc. I've had my Tag for over 10 years and the face is still as clear and unscratched as the day I bought it. I expect it'll last the rest of my life and beyond...so it's probably quite good value....

....unless you take account of the fact that a new battery costs as much as two new Casios.

artaxerxes

Does a £5k watch tell the time significantly better than a £30 watch?

Probably the other way round. The £30 quartz watch will be accurate to about 10 seconds a month. In that time the more expensive mecahnical watch would have lost or gained more than a minute.

It's amazing what you can get for £15 these days. Something like that should last a long time to.

CdrJake

It's strange how you become attached to an object, I have worn my Seamaster since the day it was given to me by my parents at my passing out parade, it has seen me through 18 years of Navy service and will see me through another 15 with ease and if I have children of my own it will be passed on and will see them through.

It's something of an irony that for my 40th birthday back in Janurary that I was given a new Omega as a gift by my parents and never even taken it out of the box. Somehow it just dosen't have the same feel about it, it hasn't see me through conflicts, numerous girlfriends, a marriage and subsequent divorce and every day life in general. I'm not into sentimentality, but my watch is something which has been the most reliable thing in my life for the past 18 years.