Reply With QuoteThat's a good call, I think I would have to toss a coin between an original Kampfshwimmer Panerai, or a 5517Originally Posted by verv
But it's not 'The ol' hypothetical-one-watch thing', that's a different question. There's a twist here, in that anyone in the world can buy any watch for the price of a Casio. Would you still want the most obvious one, the one that everyone else will be wearing too? Would you still want that rare and expensive watch, when it's no longer rare or expensive? Based on practicality alone, any Rolex will do fine. But you'd see 100 people a day with the same watch.
That's a good call, I think I would have to toss a coin between an original Kampfshwimmer Panerai, or a 5517
I'd probably go with a 5513, although it'd be conditional:
Ideally it'd be as new, guaranteed water resistant with deep black dial and bezel, bright white lume that glows, perfect hands, and a mint case and bracelet like the day it left the factory.
To me it represents the last non-luxury watch Rolex made - it's beautiful in its simplicity, where for function was more important than form. No white gold surrounds on hour markers, no additional dial text, no over engineered case, or oversized box. Everything a good sports watch needs, nothing it doesn't.
Would all the consecutive services be for 100£ also ? :> That would be quite a deciding factor for me...
Priced the same as every other watch maybe Rolex wouldn't be as popular. The average Rolex customer wants a Rolex because it's a Rolex, ie, they're expensive and everyone knows it. Level that playing field and your Rolex is no more exclusive, or expensive than Timex, so people start buying based on what appeals to them visually.
It's my assumption that a key reason to buy a Rolex is because resale is so strong. But in this hypothetical case, that no longer matters. In which case, Rolex seem pretty pedestrian given the incredible choices out
there. They are reliable and robust, but aren't they also mass produced and ordinary?
Apparently not.......
And all of the fancier watches like PP etc would also be common and pedestrian in this scenario as everyone would have one.
Exactly, now we're getting there! However I think the vast majority would still pick Rolex because they've never heard of any other expensive watch brands. I guess part the core of this is also the previously discussed question, would you still like the Nautilus if it wasn't an expensive and exclusive symbol of success? I think I would as I actually like the way it looks, but it won't be a symbol of anything.
Blancpain Fifty Fathoms for me...
Simon
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I would either pick my all time favourite watch, the Rolex SD 16600 or a Credor Minute Repeater Sonnarie
Yes, that's fine by me.
It's a top-quality watch that's tough, reliable, and looks good. And if I’m limited to one, it had better be something I can wear while doing anything.
I don’t think Rolex can be beaten when it comes to the actual wearing.
It's hard to disagree, sometimes decent micro-adjustment trumps all other considerations!
Two votes for the ff, and if I were not working I would agree, but would fear for the bezel in my work environment.
Sent from my [device_name] using TZ-UK mobile app
Indeed. Personally, I’d say they’ve perfected the mechanical wristwatch, and I respect their manufacturing integrity. It’s nice to know that a company isn’t cutting corners by sourcing cheap-labour-produced components from overseas.
That's the very reason I would pick a 5712 in this £100 game - because I like the look of it and it would happily fit in with my lifestyle. The point that everyone else could also have one for £100 would be irrelevant to me.
The reason that I wouldn't buy one under normal circumstances is because it is regarded by many as an exclusive symbol of success, albeit that I accept less recognisable to Joe Public than most Rolex.
I'd want a perpetual calendar of some kind, if it has an alarm and/or GMT that'd be a bonus
Moser Pioneer Perpetual in steel, perpetual calendar, inoffensive dial that wont get boring, 22m lugs and has 120m WR (so good enough for holidays) plus 7 days power reserve for those forgetful days.
or
Audemars Piguet Royal perpetual in Steel, just as fun but only 20m WR, and harder to source straps for to change the look.
but realistically,
I could probably just live with the 16600 Sea-dweller I've had for the past decade, tells the time, waterproof, can survive being beaten up (as it has), easily serviceable and since I already own it'll take the £100 and buy a selection of straps to change it up every now and then.
What about servicing costs? If these are equally low, I'd go for the Greubel Forsey GMT Earth: bags of interesting details, bags of depth, fantastic finishing, a practical complication - and a 3-d rotating Earth - what's not to love? On the other hand, if I had to pay GF servicing rates, I'd have to think again!
This is true' but watches like (say) Patek, ALS and AP do have a lot of extra work put into them. In that sense, of craftsmanship, they are never 'pedestrian'. That's why you would choose one, because it is simply a better watch, in horological terms. At least, I hope that is the case.....and it's not just marketing.
You still have to want one, and like the look of it though!
I'll take the Rolex 16600 over almost any other watch any day of the week. In fact I generally do!
It's just a matter of time...
Well there is no way it would be a mechanical if I could only have one watch. It would need regular servicing and could easily need a few repairs over time as well if it is on your wrist every day during all activities.
The watch, as stated, would only be worth £100 but I would be paying way more than that every time it went away and the more complicated the watch the more expense and the longer I would be without a watch completely whilst it was away.
Nope it would have to be a quartz that I can work on myself for minimal expense. it would have to be very robust if I was wearing it every day.
Something Solar and atomic, with GPS and bluetooth connection would be just dandy, perfect time always no matter where in the world you were. Add in a few other functions, stopwatch, timer. alarm and world time and I think that would cover most time related needs.
There are watches out there that can do this and if I could only have one watch that could never be worth more than £100, I would get one of these.
Mitch
Something from Roger Smith is a great call as a grail.Roger Smith Series 4
It would be a pity to bin it when I die though....
Must admit that as a one and only I would err on something a bit more rufty tufty. Just so happen's I tried this on yesterday ....... thoughtfull
Have to agree. And while some may say pedestrian others may say classic. It's all in the eye of the beholder.
I settled on the 6152 because it's already survived a lifetime so indications are good that it can do so again.
Could've picked a frosted white gold AP ROO, or a MB&F, or a Moser swiss alps or any of the spectaculars but if it's one watch for life, proven longevity is probably something to aim for. Hence the perveived pedestrian success of of Rolex.
Actually upon reflection i would go for a chrono fifty fathoms. The bezel would be at risk in my work environment, and servicing may be expensive, but at only £100 I would just buy a new one each time anything was needed. Is that allowed?
Sent from my [device_name] using TZ-UK mobile app
lange 1815 chrono, one day....
If I had this I think I could live without another watch.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
My daring choice would be a Lange Zeitwerk or if practicality was order of the day, an Explorer 36mm.
Explorer - final answer.
ALS Double Split would be my choice, absolutely stunning (to me at least)
Patek 3940 for me. Don't think I would ever get bored of looking at it
Great thread, & it has me torn on what I’d choose.
Possible the Lange 1 as why not go for something I’d probably not be able to afford in the real world. Although maybe not the best option for everyday wear.
This leads me to the Blancpain Fifty Fathoms on a bracelet. Iconic, robust, slightly against the norm, pricey enough to be a good buy at £100. Maybe the 44mm size could be an issue for every occasion.
Although I do think there was a special edition 40mm version with a display back that has the same dial as the 44mm FF. I’d mostly choose that.
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
Indeed, that’s a member of the last generation of skilfully-designed Pateks. The perpetual-calendar models that followed are an absolute mess.
I'm thinking the same.If I had this I think I could live without another watch.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That's my long-term WIS destination I believe. It's just a guess though as I'm still stuck on Omega at the moment.
My EZM1.
A watch you can wear smart and casual, wet and dry, workshop, surfing, ski slope, restaurant and bar.
It tells you time and date, has bezel and 60 min chronograph, so it does way more than a 3 hander can.
Lovely as many of the submissions to date are, they simply cannot be worn in every situation. The EZM1 can.
Dave
That's a stunning tool watch.
Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk
A easy question to answer for me...the Nautilus.
The very long wait times, the increased cost, and all the people who are buying the watch merely because they see an easy profit...they're all reasons why I will likely never own one.
If this was 2008, I'd get on the wait list. It's 2018...and no, it's impractical for me to go for it now.
C'est la vie...
Only one watch -- ergo it must be suitable for all circumstances, including everyday wear.
Gold is out then.
Must be steel and robust.
The only trinity watch I like at all is the Overseas -- and I don't even like that much. ALS is only available in precious metal, and therefore ruled out.
So, that brings us to the ubiquitous (Rolex, Omega, etc.), which I prefer to avoid -- although an honourable mention must be given to my beater which has proven extremely robust over thirty years:
And -- I'd rather have clockwork!
So, that would leave me with a watch I already own:
:love:
Or, possibly a Blancpain FF Bathyscaphe (which I admire a lot).
Sorted.
First thoughts on reading this thread is to go all out, unobtainium, tourbillion, strap made from unicorn pubes etc. On reflection if it is to be the only watch I will ever have, got to be practical, robust, classic, under the radar (a bit) yet still hit the WIS x factor. For me that says....Explorer 39mm.
J
I think I can help out here. I have a very nice bin at my place.
WG Daytona with ceramic bezel and oysterflex would be my choice.
https://www.rolex.com/watches/cosmog...19ln-0024.html
If only one watch were allowed, I doubt this hobby would hold much interest. As a result, sadly, I imagine I would get the biggest platinum thing I could find, sell the case for scrap and start asking people what time it was.
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
For me the AP RO boutique edition from a few years ago. The blue dial was just stunning.
Pinched from the net but it does look like one of Tony’s photos (learn to fly)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This one seems like a perfect choice.
Poslano sa mog SM-A510F koristeći Tapatalk
A PP Grand complication for me please!
Yes, something very satisfying - almost calming - about its “rightness”.If I had this I think I could live without another watch.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If that’s the destination, this is the sort of watch that will repay long term ownership with an ever improving look and certain standfastness (to anthropomorphise its go-anywhere nature), so it might be worth considering sooner rather than later. And, as any scholar of Prince Buster will tell you, it’s later than you think ;)
Then spend the rest on jackets from SC.
Well, since everything costs £100, I presume a custom build would cost £100, too.
So, I want a centre minute chronograph that isn't too big, too thick, and is good for travel, with a quickset hour hand. Unless the custom build extends to creating a mechanical Lemania 5100 with a quickset hour hand (in which case I'll have a Speedy Grail 376.0822), I'll assume that I can mix movements and watches.
So I'll have an Omega Seamaster America's Cup titanium chronograph, with sword hands, but with the ETA 251.232 super-quartz centre-minute chronograph movement, for superb accuracy and the regatta / countdown features, with the quickset hour hand. But I'll keep the date window at 6, as on the original SMP Chrono below, and change the 0-60 bezel for a black acrylic, 12-hour, quasi-GMT, lumed, bezel. And since the quartz movement is pretty thin, as thin a case as they can get away with, commensurate with decent water resistance.
The dial will obviously need to be recut to suit the quartz movement, but otherwise, it would offer the advantages of all my current watches and others I admire:
The super accurate movement, light weight and waterproof pushers of the Breitling M1 (this Omega also has waterproof pushers, but much improved style;
The sword hands, dial, lume, water-resistance and quickset hour hand of my Seamaster Quartz 2264, but with a very usable chrono added;
The versatility travel-friendly nature of my Rolex GMT 16710, but with much better lume;
The chronograph display and titanium of my Fortis B-42 Cosmonaut LE, but with a lower profile case.
This would incorporate all my favourite features - quickset hands, super accuracy, great lume and a Ti case, in the one watch. I can't see myself ever really needing anything else. (photo from
Last edited by HappyJack; 25th January 2018 at 08:11.
Exactly. If a new watch costs £100, servcing is a non issue!
M
Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
Breitling Cosmonaute 809 - What's not to like?
Great topic! I actually read all the others' replies, too - really interesting to see such a variety of views, needs and motivations.
I'd probably find myself choosing between a 1990s Breitling Aerospace, Omega X-33 Skywalker, and some other well specified (ana-)digital watches, maybe a Casio G-shock or an earlier stainless steel Casio or Citizen. I'd have to have my alarms and CDTs and world times, but I'd also want my only watch to be good looking, well engineered and subtle and since I'd be spoilt for choice in terms of functionality, I suspect that it would be the looks that would decide in the end.
Tudor Submariner 9401/0
Hmm. The only watch I’ve owned then missed - but wouldn’t buy another - is a Panerai diver. A PAM25 I think. Panerai are incapable of servicing them without damaging the case, and they are a bit big so get dinged. And they are massively overpriced imho. So for £100, when my Panerai goes wrong (and it will) or gets dented/broken when whacked off a door frame (which will happen) I’ll just bin it and buy another for £100. Job done!
Ps if anyone ever referred to me as a Paneristi it would have to go straight on the bin and I’d have a rethink!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
At the risk of being "flamed" I will stick my neck out and say that I find most of the accepted expensive luxury watches either too fussy for me or just plain ugly. I'm afraid that includes many of those pictured above.
A Seiko SARB033 would do me fine or a steel, plain-bezel Datejust. I'm a cheap date!
Posting Permissions
