Hanged_Man_

joined 11 months ago
[–] Hanged_Man_@alien.top 1 points 9 months ago

It’s a nice watch. I see lots of plaudits for it too. I personally prefer some similar watches to it, but that takes nothing away from the Ranger. I think it’s nicer than the Explorer, certainly.

[–] Hanged_Man_@alien.top 1 points 10 months ago

I did not intend or expect this to be one of my favorite watches but it absolutely is.

[–] Hanged_Man_@alien.top 1 points 10 months ago

Hardly humble but it is nice! Some great watches in there.

 

Bulova Jet Star on a Forstner Komfit mesh bracelet. This is a really nice watch with a strong value proposition at its street price, even moreso when you catch a sale like I did. The dial is a deep red sunray that is really attractive both in and out of the light. Lume is minimalist but incredibly reactive.

I wasn’t sure about the handset and the case in photos, but in person they are outstanding. The hands have really great physical depth to them in person, and they match the vintage 70s indices very well. The case is shiny but not mirror polished and the profile of it really grabs light nicely; in photos the hexagonal case seemed too large but in the flesh the bezel dominates it from nearly every angle because it slopes away so sharply.

And the Precisionist movement, what’s to say? It’s incredibly accurate and the smooth sweep of the second hand is mesmerizing. One second a year accuracy I think? I’m not a huge quartz watch guy usually but this has demonstrated a quality quartz movement is a great option.

The original bracelet is very attractive and higher-quality than I expected, but the clasp lacks an on-the-fly micro-adjust and Bulova does not have half-links. I just have trouble wearing a bracelet all day without either of those, so the Forstner was a good solution for me. Maybe the aftermarket will eventually have half links if the Jet Star gets popular enough.

Also, for some reason, the name “Jet Star!” requires an exclamation point, to me. This is a great successor to the original.

[–] Hanged_Man_@alien.top 1 points 10 months ago

I have yes. Kinda stopped because I felt it wasn’t what i wanted to do with my money.

[–] Hanged_Man_@alien.top 1 points 10 months ago

Oh goodie, I’ll make popcorn.

[–] Hanged_Man_@alien.top 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Interesting to see several people saying chronographs here.

[–] Hanged_Man_@alien.top 1 points 10 months ago

I was joking-ish a bit, as if they belonged in the bottom row. I find Tudor to be largely Meh. To a large extent I think they are the discount Rolex, like buying a Boxster — it’s a nice car, but you’re largely advertising to the world you can’t quite afford a 911. (That’s a joke from Top Gear years ago, but I find it a useful analogy from time to time.) I also personally find Rolex dreary and repetitive if well-made, but I kinda get why people like them.

Personally I’d probably add a “You Do You” row and put a few brands there. Including Tudor.

[–] Hanged_Man_@alien.top 1 points 10 months ago (2 children)

There’s a lot to unpack here. There are so many things to argue with. And value is what you are willing to pay for it, etc.

But honestly that’s being silly. This list doesn’t matter in the least and it’s a fun thought experiment.

In the spirit of your post, I’m going to say that IWC should move down one and Chopard up at least one — personally I would put it on the FU prices row, though the fact is you should never pay list for a Chopard. Breitling I would absolutely put on the FU row, this sub is strange in its contempt for the brand, and you also should never pay list for one.

I won’t risk my neck by saying where I think Tudor should go.

Ulysse Nardin is… I think they do fascinating yet hideous mechanical things and are basically what Hublot wants to be when it grows up. And therefore should be on the bottom row unless you’re realllllly into mermaid pornography you wear on your body.

AP is almost impossible to even truly place on this list, i would almost put them in the bottom row were it not for their tradition and still being family-owned (if not for the Royal Oak they probably wouldn’t be). I also think AP doesn’t give two figs what we think of them down here in the cheap seats lol.

I respect JLC but am struggling to consider them innovative, not in 2023.

The “Super but cost too much” row should be named “I think Monsieur has mistakenly entered the wrong establishment. Shall I call security or a taxi?”

[–] Hanged_Man_@alien.top 1 points 10 months ago

I’m insulted that no one has stolen my photos, tbh. Then again I probably wouldn’t know. How did you find out?

[–] Hanged_Man_@alien.top 1 points 10 months ago

You’re such a great member of the watch community always.

[–] Hanged_Man_@alien.top 1 points 10 months ago

They do enjoy sales commensurate with the quality tho. But yes I’m learning to appreciate them more, too.

 

I've been rather focused on generally vintage styled watches — or maybe "timeless" aesthetics.

I'm trying to look at adding a few pieces over the next year with a more contemporary/modern aesthetic. The only one I can think of that I have liked so far is the Averau 39 three-hand from Echo/Neutra, however, which isn’t super modern. I also like the Vortex models from Lum-Tec, though maybe not enough to buy one.

What are some people's favorite watches that you consider “modern” looking (a pretty difficult thing to define)?

view more: next ›