Can you dress down a DJ II and is it a 'dress' watch?

[Muzz]

I think they can be dressed down easily. I use to dress down my DD II WG all the time (weekends).

The blue stick IMO is a casual very fun piece (really like that variance) IMO. Both bezel toons work well for pretty much everything.

[stil]

I don't think it's a dress watch but can certainly be dressed-up. To me a dress watch has a leather strap.

[Brucie D]

My two cents as always. I've got a 116200 which is a 36mm, not a 41mm II model. With the smooth bezel, it pops with jeans or a suit. I actually love wearing it around the house in super casual clothes.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[DJJon]

DJ 36 mm fluted / jubilee is very much a dress watch that can also go casual as Nick very eloquently stated about the differences in "casual" I wear mine in $1000 suits to major meetings and feel it is a dressy as I could possibly need. BUT it is not a true "black tie" dress watch which I think requires a leather strap or as someone stated no watch at all.

The DJ II with smooth bezel is very flexible too and to my way of thinking is closer to casual than dress but that said, who in their right mind would agree it was a dress watch when worn with formal attire?

DJs and DJ IIs and DD 36's and the new DD 40s will always go up or down the fashion chain to suit your needs.

[123Blueface]

Originally Posted by Tseg

They may influence fashion, but certainly know little about etiquette.

No argument Bieber is a moron and no one I know would look like this.
That said, etiquette has nothing to do with fashion.
The above photo is an example of fashion.
Etiquette, taken literally, does not refer to fashion.
It refers to manners/politeness.

That said, true, I agree, he has proven he has no etiquette as well.

[Racerdj]

In my opinion, wear it anyway you are dressed. I wear my Day-Date and Sky Dweller with shorts or to work. Just put it on and enjoy it. So a DJ can function in both environments.

[123Blueface]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with having a preference as this thread illustrates, that there are many varying opinions.

It's perfectly fine to opine you prefer but to say it's the absolute must or the highway is an inaccurate assessment on any person following that train of thought. Fashion is personal. Wear what you wish, when you wish, how you wish, even if your look is that of Bieber that was posted.

BTW,
Security is really lacking in the UK lately. How on Earth did they let this guy out like this?

[Scholar]

Originally Posted by 123Blueface

A DJ II not a dress watch?
Seriously?
Glad I am my own person.

Is a $250 Robert Graham shirt with a $250 Robert Graham jeans and an elegant pair of shoes with a DJ II not "dress"?

Likewise, a polo shirt, with a pair of shorts and sandals improper for a DJ II?

It's not a dress watch. It's a sports watch (albeit sports in the sense of, say, a tweed jacket which can take sporting and all it demands but has a certain elegance.)

I am not familiar with 'Robert Graham' but Googling reveals bold floral shirts, which even without jeans would hardly qualify as formal.

[Tseg]

Originally Posted by 123Blueface

No argument Bieber is a moron and no one I know would look like this.
That said, etiquette has nothing to do with fashion.
The above photo is an example of fashion.
Etiquette, taken literally, does not refer to fashion.
It refers to manners/politeness.

That said, true, I agree, he has proven he has no etiquette as well.

Good points... in hindsight, I should have said 'good taste' not etiquette. Anyone can wear just about anything they desire, others will judge whether it is in good taste. One either cares about these sorts of things or not. Over time, less people care about these sorts of things.

[123Blueface]

Originally Posted by Scholar

I am not familiar with 'Robert Graham' but Googling reveals bold floral shirts, which even without jeans would hardly qualify as formal.

Are you either inferring or explicitly saying "dress" equates to "formal"?
If you are, that is completely inaccurate.
Did my post in any way infer a pair of jeans and a flowered shirt equates to formal?
That inferences would also be inaccurate.
It was just an example of what can be considered dress and be fine with a DJ II for my personal like,

[123Blueface]

Originally Posted by Tseg

Good points... in hindsight, I should have said 'good taste' not etiquette. Anyone can wear just about anything they desire, others will judge whether it is in good taste. One either cares about these sorts of things or not. Over time, less people care about these sorts of things.

[Mr DateJust]

It's often asked about the DJ being a dress watch. It's not. A dress watch is something like a Patek calatrava with a leather strap. Rolex dress line is the Cellini. The DJ is sort of Rolex general purpose all around watch that gives you the time and date and works in almost all settings.

[Scholar]

Originally Posted by 123Blueface

Are you either inferring or explicitly saying "dress" equates to "formal"?
If you are, that is completely inaccurate.
Did my post in any way infer a pair of jeans and a flowered shirt equates to formal?
That inferences would also be inaccurate.
It was just an example of what can be considered dress and be fine with a DJ II for my personal like,

"Dress" in this sense doesn't refer just to clothes in general, which would make the term meaningless. It refers to formalwear, as in 'morning dress', 'dress watch', 'evening dress', 'dress uniform', et cetera.


Yes, it did.

[123Blueface]

Originally Posted by Scholar

"Dress" in this sense doesn't refer just to clothes in general, which would make the term meaningless. It refers to formalwear, as in 'morning dress', 'dress watch', 'evening dress', 'dress uniform', et cetera.


Yes, it did.

I think in this regard, there is a clear difference in our origins.
Given where you reside, I would not ever dare challenge the English language given how we have modified it to our way here on this side of the pond.

Having grown up in a very relatively poor inner city of Newark, NJ, "dress" has a completely different meaning than that of proper English.
To be able to have had a semi clean pair of shoes, a slack with no holes in the knee and a clean shirt to go to church on Sunday represented "dress".

So yes, if the reference to dress in this thread is formal wear, then I am mistaken but not sure all have interpreted it that way.

[Scholar]

Originally Posted by 123Blueface

I think in this regard, there is a clear difference in our origins.
Given where you reside, I would not ever dare challenge the English language given how we have modified it to our way here on this side of the pond.

Having grown up in a very relatively poor inner city of Newark, NJ, "dress" has a completely different meaning than that of proper English.
To be able to have had a semi clean pair of shoes, a slack with no holes in the knee and a clean shirt to go to church on Sunday represented "dress".

So yes, if the reference to dress in this thread is formal wear, then I am mistaken but not sure all have interpreted it that way.

I'm American.

What I'm saying is that 'dress' in this context has a very specific meaning. It's almost a technical term, in this case.

[123Blueface]

Folks,
Just feel compelled to share.
George Clooney's publicist just contacted me.
While he himself will not post, wanted me to share before and after of his learnings from this thread.

Before:
Forgot to shave.
Forgot to take off his SS bracelet watch.



Post reading this thread.
Shaved.
Switched to mandatory leather band.



His sincere gratitude.

Come on, you have to laugh at that.

[123Blueface]

Originally Posted by Scholar

I'm American.

What I'm saying is that 'dress' in this context has a very specific meaning. It's almost a technical term, in this case.

Then you certainly didn't grow up as I did.
For me, dress is a full array.
Formal is a tuxedo.

[Scholar]

Originally Posted by 123Blueface

Then you certainly didn't grow up as I did.
For me, dress is a full array.
Formal is a tuxedo.

Again, 'dress' is a technical term for a category of watch in this case.

It's unrelated to idiomatic usage.

[123Blueface]

Originally Posted by Scholar

Again, 'dress' is a technical term for a category of watch in this case.

It's unrelated to idiomatic usage.

I hear you and I know clearly the category of what constitutes a true dress watch.
However, if technically speaking, and dress refers to formal wear, then a watch shouldn't even be in the discussion.
Historically, a watch was never to be worn with formal wear to be polite to your host.
Through time, it evolved to include a slim watch with leather band.
As evidence by many photos posted and many more out there, my point is fashions evolve and today, that "rule" is broken by many, on a regular basis, some day making this thread obsolete.
Fashion is personal and you wear what makes you comfortable. No legal ramifications for not complying with the norm.

Whatever makes you happy.

[AF_Rob]

Ive seen a DJ, white dial, stick markers on a black Rubber B and it looked casual and cool.