A month’s salary on your wrist (Article)

[Chester01]

Originally Posted by |404|

Then you've not looked very far, or very hard. (purposefully, I would suggest too)

Quartz watches are superior to mechanical, it is just a fact. Objevtivley in every comparison they are superior. It is well established and universally accepted even by the most ardent WIS.

Here's a fantastic video by WF:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjhvKFjp_68

Subjectively, which is what you are doing (we're all guilty of it btw) is over valuing your mechanical watch.

There's a reason the quartz crisis happened.

Don't get me wrong, I don't own a quartz watch (anymore). And that's not because of some bitter hatred of them. I just don't. I, like you, love a mechanical watch, I like the artisan craft of the hand made elements of my Pateks. I love hearing the moving parts, the winding action.

But these are not things that make a watch better, they are actually the parts that make a watch worse in reality. More moving parts = more to go wrong etc etc. Not as accurate, shocks/damage the list goes on.

Your claim about not finding a quartz watch that could time your work is anecdotal at best... the Brietling Aerospace Evo 43mm or previous versions feature a super quartz... thermally compensated. I previously owned one and it held time at a rate of 7 seconds a year... whilst featuring an annual calendar. A minute repeater, an alarm, chronograph, 2nd timezone function.

Listen, I don’t disagree with you, I’m not debating the fine points of accuracy, but find it somewhat amusing that 99% of folks here who would not dare to actually wear their Rolex even mowing the lawn and then opining that oh yeah.... gshock is far better not even close. Actually it is close, Unlike others here that wear their watch as jewelry, I have worn my sub in the same scenarios that I use my gshock for and other than scratches guess what... both running fine and no functional difference. My sub lasted 17 years in ever circumstance with no service.

I bought my wife a concord quartz back in 2002 when we were just dating. You know how many times the actual quartz movement had to be replaced...3 times. Yes the entire movement failed three times in that span. So, you can see why I am a little skeptical with the quartz always better argument. I don’t view 3 movement failures as superior, sorry. Unfortunately, my wife’s argument is she needs my Daytona now because it will hold up better!

I would venture to guess that the activities that folks on this forum wear their gshock for their Rolex would hold up just fine (though may have scratches) that’s my only point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[|404|]

Originally Posted by Chester01

Listen, I don’t disagree with you, I’m not debating the fine points of accuracy, but find it somewhat amusing that 99% of folks here who would not dare to actually wear their Rolex even mowing the lawn and then opining that oh yeah.... gshock is far better not even close. Actually it is close, Unlike others here that wear their watch as jewelry, I have worn my sub in the same scenarios that I use my gshock for and other than scratches guess what... both running fine and no functional difference. My sub lasted 17 years in ever circumstance with no service.

I bought my wife a concord quartz back in 2002 when we were just dating. You know how many times the actual quartz movement had to be replaced...3 times. Yes the entire movement failed three times in that span. So, you can see why I am a little skeptical with the quartz always better argument. I don’t view 3 movement failures as superior, sorry. Unfortunately, my wife’s argument is she needs my Daytona now because it will hold up better!

I would venture to guess that the activities that folks on this forum wear their gshock for their Rolex would hold up just fine (though may have scratches) that’s my only point.

I don't know who you are talking to? No-one has suggested you shouldn't wear your Rolex to mow the lawn or anything of the kind? There are regularly threads on this forum about "Can I wear my Rolex doing X" and the answer neigh on 99% of the time is always an overwhelming yes.

People view the first scratch as a bad one... after that it's character. Some people even go as to far as call it a patina.

Your incident with quartz is isolated and also it depends on the quality as does everything you buy. People buy brand new Rolex's and have problems... just look at Tudor GMT and the date issue now. Previous to that Rolex had issues with the DD40 movement too... (arguably their most expensive watch).

To dismiss all of quartz as untrustworthy because of your now wifes issues is anecdotal at best. You yourself even state you have a G-Shock that is holding up perfectly fine...

This thread is about military use, not normal everyday "chores" for lack of a better word. Or riding a motorbike, this is for throwing yourself to the ground, crawling with dust, dirt, sand. Swimming, going from 1 temperature to the next. Remaining stationary for long periods of time.

I don't think anyone will argue with you that your Rolex will do for your daily life... but this isn't a daily life thread for most people. It's about longevity in the toughest environments.

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by Chester01

The issue is that most on here wear and protect their rolexes as precious items. My parents wore their president and date just on the job every day for 25 years when all on this forum would have grabbed the gshock. They worked on construction sites, around heavy equipment, and working with asphalt and other hard materials. Most others here would have been scrambling to post an is it safe thread after the first 10 minutes of what they did. Both were not serviced and ran within COSC with NO Service for 25 years. Yes, they did not look pretty. I also worked with a patient that had a fall wearing an exp Ii, that fall was 40 feet, while some damage to the bracelet-guess what still ticking.

And in my line of work, where I use the chrono daily and the cell is not an option (phone locks the screen causing me to tap multiple times to actually stop the time-causing inaccurate reads) and small buttons where I have to use my finger nail to stop the timer-not an option, I have yet to see a digital watch that would have better functionality for my daily job (though I work an office job)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I do the same with my mechanical watches. I never take them off. I wear them working on cars, landscaping, swimming, showering, just about everything I can think of, outside of boxing. That still doesn't mean a G-Shock isn't a better tool for being out in the battle field. If someone wants to choose a lesser option, that's fine by me.

25 years without a service is unusual. Rolex says the average is about 10, and, if you're really testing the watch in life-risking scenarios, you'd want to have it serviced on smaller intervals and pressure test it at least yearly. Or, you know, you could just buy a few $50 G-Shocks.

Mechanical watches are a fun, life-long interest of mine, but, if the SEALs called me for a life-threatineing mission tomorrow, you can bet I'm not strapping a fun anachronism to my wrist. Something like a G-Shock is the obvious choice.

[JacksonStone]

G-Shocks were first brought up in this thread in response to the part of the article where the author claimed his Submariner could withstand rigors that literally destroyed every quartz watch he owned. Battery arguments notwithstanding, critical durability is the main premise of the article. The debate has morphed into a more general mechanical-versus-quartz argument, which overlooks what I see as the basic absurdity of the author's claim. I have yet to see someone here say, "Yes, I believe a watch with a sapphire crystal, ceramic bezel insert, and springs and moving cogs inside the case will still be sound and intact when faced with the same traumas that literally destroyed a G-Shock." If we can't accept that factual claim as true, then the article essentially devolves into either romanticisation or propaganda, depending on your perspective.

[Chester01]

Originally Posted by JacksonStone

G-Shocks were first brought up in this thread in response to the part of the article where the author claimed his Submariner could withstand rigors that literally destroyed every quartz watch he owned. Battery arguments notwithstanding, critical durability is the main premise of the article. The debate has morphed into a more general mechanical-versus-quartz argument, which overlooks what I see as the basic absurdity of the author's claim. I have yet to see someone here say, "Yes, I believe a watch with a sapphire crystal, ceramic bezel insert, and springs and moving cogs inside the case will still be sound and intact when faced with the same traumas that literally destroyed a G-Shock." If we can't accept that factual claim as true, then the article essentially devolves into either romanticisation or propaganda, depending on your perspective.

Actually the article was outlining actual folks who wore an automatic watch in actual combat situations and found it held up quite well. Given I have worked with numerous soldiers who have done likewise, the actual debate is silly; automatic and digital watches have been worn in combat and held up well. The issue is simply one of preference as both are well documented to have held up well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JacksonStone]

Originally Posted by Chester01

Actually the article was outlining actual folks who wore an automatic watch in actual combat situations and found it held up quite well. Given I have worked with numerous soldiers who have done likewise, the actual debate is silly; automatic and digital watches have been worn in combat and held up well. The issue is simply one of preference as both are well documented to have held up well.

Here is the excerpt I'm referring to:

"I’ve shattered pretty much every commercially available digital wrist watch at some point in my life. Although often touted for their toughness, empirical observation says that they simply aren’t built to last. Conversely, I am on my seventh year with my Rolex Submariner..."

That's not a statement of subjective preference, but of purported, objective fact, which is either true or false. The message of the statement isn't, "Mechanical watches hold up quite well in combat, which is why I prefer them." It is, "Mechanical watches hold up under conditions that destroy digitals, and are therefore objectively superior." Nobody here yet has defended that as true. If false, then it essentially renders the article a fluff piece, appealing to those already inclined to believe as the author does, but of no real authority in evaluating the merits of the respective technologies.

[pickettt]

Originally Posted by Chester01

I bought my wife a concord quartz back in 2002 when we were just dating. You know how many times the actual quartz movement had to be replaced...3 times. Yes the entire movement failed three times in that span. So, you can see why I am a little skeptical with the quartz always better argument. I don’t view 3 movement failures as superior, sorry.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's all chance. I'm wearing a 22 year old, $110 Citizen quartz right now. It's never failed, save for a dead battery every few years.

[Brian Page]

Originally Posted by Left_at_the_lights

"Diving is safe as long as you remember how dangerous it is..."

You don't trust an "electronic digital device" to time your dives, but presumably you use one to monitor depth, temperature and deco?

Yes yes yes... And yes...

Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk

[Brian Page]

Quite a thread gentleman... :)

Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk

[Chknight706]

Great article and topic!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Seibei]

Originally Posted by pickettt

It's all chance. I'm wearing a 22 year old, $110 Citizen quartz right now. It's never failed, save for a dead battery every few years.

No surprise, Citizen make good watches.

[Burlington]

Originally Posted by idontlike_bandwagons

Like G-Shock is the only quartz watch available out there...

Let’s say anything that carries a quartz movement in it even equal or above priced watches like Grand Seiko, Breitling, F.P. Journe is better for military use than a fucking mechanical watch.
Quartz is more accurate and much more impact resistant!

You brainwashed, braindead soldiers should stop trying to explain that a Submariner does it’s job as well as any better quartz watch as a life dependent equipment.

I don’t think the language is necessary.

And secondly - I think you’ll find it’s the actual soldiers (or those with first hand knowledge) who have been saying the exact opposite of that.

[mailman]

Originally Posted by Burlington

I don’t think the language is necessary.

And secondly - I think you’ll find it’s the actual soldiers (or those with first hand knowledge) who have been saying the exact opposite of that.

It isn’t and he’s gone.

[travisb]

Originally Posted by mailman

It isn’t and he’s gone.

[PathfinderMP]

Originally Posted by mailman

It isn’t and he’s gone.

Nice to see a proactive moderator.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Yobber76]

Wow! That was intense!
Just about knocked me out of my daisy dukes!

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by JacksonStone

Here is the excerpt I'm referring to:

"I’ve shattered pretty much every commercially available digital wrist watch at some point in my life. Although often touted for their toughness, empirical observation says that they simply aren’t built to last. Conversely, I am on my seventh year with my Rolex Submariner..."

That's not a statement of subjective preference, but of purported, objective fact, which is either true or false. The message of the statement isn't, "Mechanical watches hold up quite well in combat, which is why I prefer them." It is, "Mechanical watches hold up under conditions that destroy digitals, and are therefore objectively superior." Nobody here yet has defended that as true. If false, then it essentially renders the article a fluff piece, appealing to those already inclined to believe as the author does, but of no real authority in evaluating the merits of the respective technologies.

Exactly. Mechanical watches are essentially classic cars. We all love them, they're still somewhat useful in today's society, and they're cool and fun to talk about, but tell me I'm racing LeMans tomorrow for the win, and, you know, I'm probably not going to pick a 1969 Porsche 911. Heck, probably not even a 917, since it'll likely just get me killed.

[PathfinderMP]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

Exactly. Mechanical watches are essentially classic cars. We all love them, they're still somewhat useful in today's society, and they're cool and fun to talk about, but tell me I'm racing LeMans tomorrow for the win, and, you know, I'm probably not going to pick a 1969 Porsche 911. Heck, probably not even a 917, since it'll likely just get me killed.

Yes, but what a way to go!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Chester01]

Originally Posted by pickettt

It's all chance. I'm wearing a 22 year old, $110 Citizen quartz right now. It's never failed, save for a dead battery every few years.

Yes, I have had good luck with my citizens in the past too. But my wife also mentioned her quartz chrono is not working just this evening. I look at it and sure enough, the year old 175.00 watch is not zeroing, in fact it resets to 50 seconds. So for the score, that’s 3 quartz movement failures and a quartz failure in the same time span my sub had zero issues. A little amusing given the quartz is always, 100 percent better than mechanical comments here. Well folks sorry, not my experience.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by Chester01

Yes, I have had good luck with my citizens in the past too. But my wife also mentioned her quartz chrono is not working just this evening. I look at it and sure enough, the year old 175.00 watch is not zeroing, in fact it resets to 50 seconds. So for the score, that’s 3 quartz movement failures and a quartz failure in the same time span my sub had zero issues. A little amusing given the quartz is always, 100 percent better than mechanical comments here. Well folks sorry, not my experience.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Anecdotes aren't evidence. There have been many members here over the years who've had to have their Rolex watches serviced in less than 5 years. Plus, just like mechanicals, not all quartz watches are created equally.

[pickettt]

Originally Posted by Chester01

Yes, I have had good luck with my citizens in the past too. But my wife also mentioned her quartz chrono is not working just this evening. I look at it and sure enough, the year old 175.00 watch is not zeroing, in fact it resets to 50 seconds. So for the score, that’s 3 quartz movement failures and a quartz failure in the same time span my sub had zero issues. A little amusing given the quartz is always, 100 percent better than mechanical comments here. Well folks sorry, not my experience.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by douglasf13

Anecdotes aren't evidence. There have been many members here over the years who've had to have their Rolex watches serviced in less than 5 years. Plus, just like mechanicals, not all quartz watches are created equally.

For the record, I never attested that either was always anything. It’s just been my experience. I’ve not even owned automatics for 5 years, so I couldn’t say from experience. I will say that I’d expect more from a $9k watch than a $110 one. One can hope, right? Incidentally, one of my next watches will be a GS quartz

[MJK737]

Holy Smokes guys and Gals. I can’t believe what this thread has devolved to. 99.9% of the time, your deployment watch isn’t a life or death decision ( see my earlier post, and yes he was Army SF ie. Green Beret). It’s just a tool to tell time. In other words it’s just a watch. Wear what you want. If your outside the wire you’re sleeves down so it really doesn’t matter. The ride in (HAF/GAF) you might let it peak out a bit to look cool, but when you are actually working it’s covered/protected by your long sleeved combat shirt and gloves. The arguments for Rolex or quartz both have merits. I wore a Rolex downrange but had a Casio in my ruck as a backup (two is one, one is none mentality). I’ll say it again. If you’re going to do something you might as well look cool doing it. The military dudes giving the OP a hard time about his MOS and his service to the country disappoint me. If you have ever deployed for an extended amount of time it is still a huge sacrifice. Whether you’re baking cakes in a DFAC (mess hall) or dealing with bad guys outside the wire, you are still away from home missing your family, missing holidays, missing normal life and living in rough conditions. Crazy home issues that you have no control over (happen as soon as you walk out the door), poor living conditions and Ground Hog Day are an everyday challenge. To the OP, I salute you sir and thank you for your service. Bye the way you look cool wearing your Sub. I know I did wearing my GMT.

Cheers!

[Kyle3130]

Originally Posted by MJK737

Holy Smokes guys and Gals. I can’t believe what this thread has devolved to. 99.9% of the time, your deployment watch isn’t a life or death decision ( see my earlier post, and yes he was Army SF ie. Green Beret). It’s just a tool to tell time. In other words it’s just a watch. Wear what you want. If your outside the wire you’re sleeves down so it really doesn’t matter. The ride in (HAF/GAF) you might let it peak out a bit to look cool, but when you are actually working it’s covered/protected by your long sleeved combat shirt and gloves. The arguments for Rolex or quartz both have merits. I wore a Rolex downrange but had a Casio in my ruck as a backup (two is one, one is none mentality). I’ll say it again. If you’re going to do something you might as well look cool doing it. The military dudes giving the OP a hard time about his MOS and his service to the country disappoint me. If you have ever deployed for an extended amount of time it is still a huge sacrifice. Whether you’re baking cakes in a DFAC (mess hall) or dealing with bad guys outside the wire, you are still away from home missing your family, missing holidays, missing normal life and living in rough conditions. Crazy home issues that you have no control over (happen as soon as you walk out the door), poor living conditions and Ground Hog Day are an everyday challenge. To the OP, I salute you sir and thank you for your service. Bye the way you look cool wearing your Sub. I know I did wearing my GMT.

Cheers!

Thanks for the kind words and for your service as well!

[MJK737]

Originally Posted by Kyle3130

Thanks for the kind words and for your service as well!

No worries Bro. Stay humble, stay cool and enjoy life, for me the hard part is over. If you deploy again, stay safe, mentor the new guys and keep rockin your Sub...