Because I think the question is worded poorly, let me give my example.

For me it’s the brand name. Not its reputation or history, but just how the name sounds. For example:

Omega - association with ancient greece, and also math and physics. 10/10 would explore space with one

Cartier - sounds french and expensive, is french and expensive; perfect for if I was rich and wanted to feel rich

Baltic - reminds me of the cold Baltic sea, perfect name for a dive watch; probably one of the reasons I love the Aquascaphe so much

Names that end with “ex” - generaly sounds like you’re lazily trying to look cool (Rolex is an exception, I don’t feel strongly about it)

So yeah I know it’s dumb but the brand name is the thing that is always plastered in big letters across the dial, I feel that the name should fit the style of the watch and also myself.

  • Significant-Toe-7431@alien.topBEnglish
    1·
    11 months ago

    After collecting for 2 years, these are my non negotiables.

    1. How thin is it? Generally prefer under 13.5 if possible. I wear longer sleeves and cuffs so I prefer a thin watch, but also would prefer to not have a block on my wrist.
    2. How many HZ? As snobby as it sounds, if a watch is beating below 4hz/28,800bph - I don’t want it. Just looks too slow in comparison. I have no regard too for longer PR. I think brands like Omega and Hamilton reducing their beat rates in order to achieve tighter accuracies or longer PR is the wrong move.
    3. Does it have a complication? I think time only watches, no matter how beautiful are just pieces of metal. It’s not that I can’t appreciate a watch - I really can. But as someone who prefers to track time instead of looking at time, my collection is made up of exclusively chronos and divers. Your phone (no matter how old) likely far outperforms time only watches in terms of timekeeping. (With the exception of Grand Seiko Springdrives - that’s an engineering marvel.

    My criterias may come off as snobby but I believe that it’s allowed for me to build a beautiful collection so far.

    https://preview.redd.it/j8pmknlqsmwb1.jpeg?width=3024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c860c0f2fb7914beada8534cb2461ebe4d83a8e6

    • Chrophin@alien.topOPBEnglish
      1·
      11 months ago

      Ngl, they do come as a bit snobby, but I can mostly understand where you’re coming from, and at least you have your taste pinned down.

      I just curious about your last point about phones. Phones are not just better at keeping time, they are also better chronometers than your chronographs. So saying you don’t like time only watches because your phone does a better job (if I understood this correctly), and like chronographs instead, doesn’t hold much water.

      But it’s not like most watch collectors buy watches for their keeping abilities anyways.

      Anyways, nice collection