Reply With QuoteI love the spring drive but not that one in that company.
Ok, we have candidates and all of them are what could be described as serious tool watch divers.
First is the only steel watch, the iconic no-date sub 14060M (could do with a Mīless also). Second is the now de-continued SMP 300m in titanium; a very light and comfortable watch on the wrist; maybe not as iconic as the no-date sub but who cares about how iconic a watch is if it doesn't feel right. Third and the last, but not in any way least, contestant is the beast from the east, Seiko 600, Spring Drive Marinemaster. - A monster of a watch in size (45x17mm) but not in weight (175g with bracelet).
Sooooo... lets hear it - which would make a good company to the IWC Aquatimer and Anonimo Militare?
14060M Steel
2231.50 Titanium
SBDB001 Titanium
I love the spring drive but not that one in that company.
SBDB001 Titanium
Best,
Gustav
If it were a money no issue thing, pick one and live with it, I would choose the Sub.
The reason being I dont have a Rolex and would like one but dont like the cost. Not a big fan of the SMP and although the Spring Drive MM is very good looking its too much like my 300m MM.
The other reason is that if bought second hand the return on the Sub would be better than the others.
Just my 2p worth.
Cheers,
Ben
..... for I have become the Jedi of flippers
" an extravagance is anything you buy that is of no earthly use to your wife "
Originally Posted by Gustav
Why?
I would go for the sub, its a great looking watch that really holds its value well.
I cant decide :? but probably the spring drive, never knew the springdrive was titanium :shock:
karl
this is a hard pick...all three are well regarded watches. if you had picked the cyclops sub, it would have dropped out of consideration. :wink:
personally, i would buy the omega, but weighing the fact that you own the AT and Anonimo, for your purposes it would be either the rolex or the omega.
the SD 600M is an excellent watch but it's big at 45mm, thick, and you already own two thick-ish watches. both the Sub and the seamaster are low-profile, smaller divers which makes them very flexible for wrist wear.
I'd go with the SMP, but in steel for me. I like the SMP look more than the Sub, and that's all! It would have to be the 2254.50, though, because I prefer the weight of steel and the black bezel.
How much of a WIS response is this, mind you (and others have done the same)? :lol:
The question was, which one of these 3, and my answer is, none of them, but instead this similar but different model...
Dave E
Skating away on the thin ice of a new day
Cool watch, go for it! Or donīt and save som cash: MarineMaster 300m!!Why?
All the best,
Gustav
Why does it have to be between those 3 Jussi ?
karl
The Sub wins hands-down for me. All three are great watches in their own right(s), but the Sub is the only classic, iconic design there. Too much dosh for me though.
Because those are the three of which I am most likely going to choose my next watch.
If you've never had a sub or a sea-dweller, I would suggest you give the sub a try. It's a great watch and if for any reason you don't like it, it will be very easy to flip.Because those are the three of which I am most likely going to choose my next watch.
Out of those three Jussi, it would have to be the 14060. A classic.
I tried on the 2231.50 several times when they first came out, very tempting it was, but went for the 2254.50 instead.
My suspicions regarding the titanium have since been confirmed. They look knackered in a hurry!
I sometimes seriously doubt you chaps actually wear all these photogenic beauties because NONE of mine look as good.
I just can't warm up to the MM600 springdrive whatsoever.
a. too blingy
b. too chunky, though I like chunky watches! go figure, WIS madness
c. too busy a dial, with none of the elements coming together. I think there's disharmony between the hour/minute hands and the GMT hand in particular.
Now the MM300... that's entirely different!
..if it weren't for the fauxsapphire, 20mm lugs, monocoque chassis....
J.
Without doubt I would choose the Sub - but i would get one without the superfluous COSC script and "Rolex, Rolex" rehaut. It is an absolute classic that has slowly evolved over its lifetime. Thus it still remains in touch with the zeitgeist of the original over 50yrs ago.
There is a certain something that makes an object an icon. This can only be discovered by owning one. IMHO the no date sub is the purest of Rolexes. I will never flip mine!
Regards
Tim
That must be the basis of a golden rule: If you are stuck between a Rolex and something else get the Rolex. You will loose little or nothing when you come to sell and you can throw the change at a Stowa Marine Original :wink:
Rolex for me. Personally I'm not big on titanium watches and I couldn't care less for anything that Seiko doesn't sell where I live, and will never entertain anything they make as long no matter how brilliant it is as (a) I can't buy it here and (b) can't get it serviced easily. Also I an unfussed what it says on the dial - things like movement performance, bracelet, price, readability/lume, resale potential, fit, finish, reliability and ease of servicing come before the importance of whether or not there are four extra tiny 0.6mm high words on the dial.
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
14060 for me too. It's the only really classic watch of those you've shown.
It's simply history.
I'm not as think as you drunk I am.
Actually, to follow on from my earlier post, if you're a flipper ( :D ), get the Rolex, you'll lose little or no cash on it when it goes. It is also a classic, which probably counts for something!
Dave E
Skating away on the thin ice of a new day
there's the thought...buy the omega and flip it my way if you get bored with it, Jussi. :D
Hi
I would have to say the Sub, as it's the ultimate classic, and certainly the most classic out of the three you are contemplating. I can't imagine you would regret it.
I feel that the Seiko is far to big even though it might be light due to the Ti and having owned a Seawolf, it gets rather tiresome after a while. The Omega is nice but nothing special, to me anyway, and I prefer the newer versions of the SMP, although I am not sure if they are available in Ti. And as always, pick the one that makes you smile the most!
All the best with your choice. :)
I felt the other two were a tad dressier whilst the Seiko was more functional.Why?
Of those 3, the Rolex because it's the best looking of the 3.
The SMP TI looks a tad to dull IMO.
The Springdrive MM face looks to crammed with a relatively small dial and a lot on the dial.
Just my opinion of course.
Thomas
The Seiko looks good but those god awful hex drive heads on the endlinks must have been approved while the designer team was on acid.
Rolex Submariner: elegance, harmony, balance, simplicity. A real timeless watch :D
Hi Jussi, some thoughts....
The Sub is always, always cited as the icon - and to be fair it is an 'iconic' watch, however - and it's a big however.....
Some issues (albeit personal ones...).
Clasp is not the best - many threads on here relating to this so no old ground please :wink:
The real icon is not this model it's the early ones - this is a much later version = good, however not not (IMVHO) as good as the 5512/5513 versions.
If one goes for the latest version then you have to suffer the latest glam/anti faker measures employed by Rolex with the embosed rehaut etc....... :(
Have had and moved on loads of Rolex - do not have one at the mo....
As regards the money issue - most if not all (Cosmograph excepted) are available at good discounts if one knows where to look
Moving on to the Omega - No icon here TBH - not a Speedmaster , but one could argue pedegree etc....
Better bracelet and Ti to boot - better use of materials technology than 904l in my book... :wink:
Seiko - well, what a jump in terms of movement.....
Never handled one - read loads about it - depends if one is bothered by the fact that it is a Seiko.
For me - the choice would be down to Omega/Seiko - with a lean towards the Seiko without having both to compare........
(but then I am a freak who did not covet the Ocean Bund 2000 3H.... :shock: )
When you look long into an abyss, the abyss looks long into you.........
The Seiko is the best watch in that company by a country mile. No one can straight-facedly argue otherwise.
But I'd pic the Sub. It's an icon.
I don't know about that. What sort of retarded monkey puts the luminous material for the seconds hand on the wrong end.............? :lol: :lol: :lol:
Makes you wonder what other 'joyous' surprises are in store.
I might change my mind if it was a sub date 8)
karl
just flip a coin/roll a dice whatever Jussi you'l probably have them all at some point anyway wont you ? :twisted:
don't be so quick to laugh this off as a 'mistake'...
while we're used to seeing lume on the 'proper' end of the seconds hand, as i understand it the ISO standard does not define the purpose of the seconds hand.
the true purpose of lume on the seconds hand is to readily indicate the hand is moving, thus showing the movement has power and is consequently thus keeping proper minutes time for the elapsed bezel. for this reason, it is immaterial which end it gets applied to and seiko has put the lume on different ends with different models.
I don't know about that. What sort of retarded monkey puts the luminous material for the seconds hand on the wrong end.............? :lol: :lol: :lol:
Makes you wonder what other 'joyous' surprises are in store.
For me it's between the MM and the Omega - I'd go with the MM if it didn't have that stupid hex screw on the top side of the endpiece.
Ming
Sorry, I'm remaining with it taking 2 seconds.....
Whereas in the real world it's to allow you to see which part of the minute you're in, preferably to the second.as i understand it the ISO standard does not define the purpose of the seconds hand.
How long did it take you to make up that load of codswallop?the true purpose of lume on the seconds hand is to readily indicate the hand is moving, thus showing the movement has power and is consequently thus keeping proper minutes time for the elapsed bezel.
....because Seiko is dumb; or a slave to perceived fashion. :roll:[s]eiko has put the lume on different ends with different models.
it's not codswallop at all. (btw, the ISO standard i was referring to is ISO 6425.)
in diving, precision timekeeping of the seconds hand is not used. while it is customary for the lume dot to be positioned nearer to the long end of the seconds hand, the purpose of the *lume dot* is not to identify the time to the seconds but is used as a visual add to the diver that the watch is running, eg. keeping time.
if you look at the rolex 5514 comex you will see the lume dot is positioned slighly past the midway mark of the seconds hand itself. it is not that far off position relative to the dial as the lume dot on the short end of the SD 600M.
Yes, it's codswallop. In the real world we use the seconds hand to count seconds.
Patent garbage; and I've been a diver for a living.in diving, precision timekeeping of the seconds hand is not used. while it is customary for the lume dot to be positioned nearer to the long end of the seconds hand, the purpose of the *lume dot* is not to identify the time to the seconds but is used as a visual add to the diver that the watch is running, eg. keeping time.
Please, spin it to someone whom doesn't have a clue. The 5514, 5513 and 5512 use exactly the same seconds hand as .............. a 1016, which is not a dive watch and has no rotating bezel. Then, in accordance with your 'creative' theory, explain the seconds hand on a 5517 (or any milsub with gladiator hands). You know, the Rolex sub issued to SBS divers in the 70s.............................if you look at the rolex 5514 comex you will see the lume dot is positioned slighly past the midway mark of the seconds hand itself. it is not that far off position relative to the dial as the lume dot on the short end of the SD 600M.
One of the time maybe but not all at the same time. The budget is limited and Iīve gone over it too far allready :roll:
Regarding my feeling at the moment... the sub is an icon yes, but I still dislike the brand, so maybe I am not yet ready for it :twisted: The MM is really a great watch that Iīd love to have except I am afraid of its size - 45x17mm aint exactly a walk in the park if you know what I mean. Then there is the ti SMP which to me looks like a solid user with lots of bang but no flash. - Something that the MM is not (bang WITH flash).
Please, spin it to someone whom doesn't have a clue. The 5514, 5513 and 5512 use exactly the same seconds hand as .............. a 1016, which is not a dive watch and has no rotating bezel. Then, in accordance with your 'creative' theory, explain the seconds hand on a 5517 (or any milsub with gladiator hands). You know, the Rolex sub issued to SBS divers in the 70s.............................[/quote:1ahqlb55]Yes, it's codswallop. In the real world we use the seconds hand to count seconds.
Patent garbage; and I've been a diver for a living.in diving, precision timekeeping of the seconds hand is not used. while it is customary for the lume dot to be positioned nearer to the long end of the seconds hand, the purpose of the *lume dot* is not to identify the time to the seconds but is used as a visual add to the diver that the watch is running, eg. keeping time.
[quote:1ahqlb55]if you look at the rolex 5514 comex you will see the lume dot is positioned slighly past the midway mark of the seconds hand itself. it is not that far off position relative to the dial as the lume dot on the short end of the SD 600M.
DeusIrae, why be so aggressive? :roll: Seiko is not Rolex. It could be as well said that "what kind of retarded monkey" has designed the Millgausses second hand? - Hell, that guy must have been really stoned to make something like that on a tool watch.
If you guys (and not targeting anyone in particular) cant play with the rules of this thread - which you will pick and why - please play elsewhere. I dont want this to turn onto another Rolex nightmare thread :evil:
We have enough of those already :wink:
Either one of them would make me happy! The 14060 is my favourite Rolex, whereas both Omega and Seiko make watches I prefer to those. I'd prefer the "ordinary" stainless SMP for e.g. I love those sword hands though, and the Seamaster remains a sublime timepiece despite the all nauseating marketing Omega go in for these days. Out goes the heroism of its military history, in comes Pierse Bronson and some other Hollywood person whose name escapes me, poncing around in flashy watches.
Still, of the three watches shown, I'd still probably go for the Omega. There is something a wee bit "wrong" about the Seiko, and I can't help feeling the current batch of Submariners are all faintly bling.
EW
morning jussi :) out the three above i would go the seamaster good solid watch great bracelet, great lume , does everything thats asked :P and the price is fair, they also look very good on a rubber strap. btw why not go PO.
i like the look of the sub but IMO its to small dont like the merc hands and the clasp it not for me
the seiko is a totally different watch but i have a love hate thing with them :evil: there big , but the dial is small :? the hex bolts WHY :? the MM 300 is a better watch to go for jussi and i dont think you have tried one yet how about a SBDX003 :wink: these are very nice 8)
end of the day its your money jussi and all the ones mentioned are easy to flip so try all three and then go and buy the PO :D
Sub. :)
I like Seikos but hate the look of the watch in question. Dial far too cluttered and I am supicious of spring drives longetivity.
SMP is good for price but runner up IMO.
Cheers,
Neil.
I love the horological leap in technology and would take a punt on Springdrive myself, but agree on the aesthetics. Last time I came close to buying one, I went for the plain old MM300 instead and trousered the difference. Much more handsome piece, IMO. I think watches like the Springdrive and the Planet Ocean with their trendy chunky detailing will date badly.
Given the choices... I'd go for the Sub.
The shown SMP is IMHO ugly as hell and the Spring Drive doesn't do it for me either.
Buy a Sea-Dweller.....
I'm not being aggressive. I'm simply identifying vacuous statements.
Quite right. I agree.It could be as well said that "what kind of retarded monkey" has designed the Millgausses second hand? - Hell, that guy must have been really stoned to make something like that on a tool watch.
Oh, you were expecting a different reaction because I own a Rolex or two, including a Milgauss? Not getting what you were looking for? Damn.
People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. I take it you're now claiming innocence on this point throughout those 2700+ posts.If you guys (and not targeting anyone in particular) cant play with the rules of this thread - which you will pick and why - please play elsewhere.
If we were all practical people buying value for money, we'd all be driving the new Skodas. WISs aren't practical though, so I would say buy the one you like best, you're not buying it to please anyone else.
If I were to be really practical, I'd say "It's only a f*****g watch, FFS".
Eddie
Whole chunks of my life come under the heading "it seemed like a good idea at the time".
either a ss omega smp which would be my prefernce, or of the ones which you show the sub.
I would either go for the Rolex (this one and the Seadweller are the only Rolex I would even consider) or the Seiko - the Omega somehow leaves me cold :?
I see what you mean, but there's value for money within certain parameters isn't there? Plus, I would say that watches for certain applications MUST be fairly low cost. What's the point of making a dive watch that costs Ģ2,500? Who the hell is going to jump in the sea wearing a watch that costs so much, unless they're a pop star or a footballer?!
The best military-type watches show that one can have style, utility and value at the same time.
EW
>> In the real world we use the seconds hand to count seconds.
and i use the seconds hand to count seconds too. you're drifting off the subject...we were talking about the position of lume dot on the seconds hand as used under diving conditions.
>>Please, spin it to someone whom doesn't have a clue. The 5514, 5513 and 5512 use exactly the same seconds hand as .............. a 1016, which is not a dive watch and has no rotating bezel. Then, in accordance with your 'creative' theory, explain the seconds hand on a 5517 (or any milsub with gladiator hands). You know, the Rolex sub issued to SBS divers in the 70s
i'm not sure what your point is since it doesn't invalidate what i'm saying.
the point that i'm trying to make is that the position of the lume dot for a diver's watch isn't dictated beyond anything other than the whims of the brand's designers. across brands, most of the time it's on the long end and rolex follws this custom.
rolex chooses to place the lume dot in the common place on their subs and other divers, and yes on the explorer which technically isn't a dive watch. i think on the 5517, the lume triangle was at the lond end of the seconds hand. i don't know why this is even relevant to the discussion as we were discussing the position of the lume and the 5517's isn't in an unusual place.
yes, seiko took some creative liberty in putting the lume on the short end and it's not something i prefer myself but that's how they choose to do it, it's no skin off my back. if you have a problem with it, write a note to them.
again, the main purpose of the lume on the seconds hand on a watch used for diving purposes, is as a readily visual indicator to the diver in low light cinditions that the watch is running. as a diver, i think you would agree that a non-running watch during an actual dive, when the watch was his only timing device, would present a big problem.
in any event, we're drifting off the topic on this thread and we're beating a dead horse at this point...
Ummmm...lets think about this one Jussi :lol:
.
Neither. They are the two most well known brands, so why bother? You are just paying for the name. I like Omega because it's Greek.
IMHO
john
Every watch a story.
Posting Permissions
