A month’s salary on your wrist (Article)

[Kyle3130]

Originally Posted by |404|

You knew what he meant and yet, you still were offended? That is interesting.

It is interesting that you keep insinuating that I shouldn’t have my own opinions and that I should wear a g-shock instead of my Sub. It did affect me in the moment I wrote that post and I processed it and considered others opinions and I understand what he was trying to convey. I just wish you could do me the same favor.

[|404|]

Originally Posted by Kyle3130

It is interesting that you keep insinuating that I shouldn’t have my own opinions and that I should wear a g-shock instead of my Sub. It did affect me in the moment I wrote that post and I processed it and considered others opinions and I understand what he was trying to convey. I just wish you could do me the same favor.

I've never said that you should wear a G-Shock. Nor that you shouldn't have your own opinions. This account is entirely fictional.

I merely stated that I would and I would presume other soldiers would too. You can wear whatever you want, as can anyone else really. I don't care and nor should you.

Also, lets be somewhat controversial here. With respect you're a mechanic, you're not infantry. There's a big difference. A big mentality difference too.

You might be trained as a solider, but you're not infantry. You're not a front-line fighting force. It is not your main duty. Killing is not your trade, aeronautical mechanics and management (supervisor rank) would be your main duty. Your secondary duty is a solider. As everyone enlisted in the military is technically a soldier. But career soldiers in infantry are an entirely different ballgame. Their trades are field specialities, field medics, reconnaissance, field radio, advanced weaponry/munitions etc etc.

You may one day be asked to. But you certainly wouldn't be the first to be called up. Things would have to be quite desperate in order for you to be called to the front lines / defend the airbase from imminent attack.

-------

So with that said, your needs for a watch are going to be very different from front-line infantry only regiments. For example, the UKSF - ie SAS and SBS have regularly been seen wearing Casio's. This is where it gets fun. They've actually been caught wearing Baby-G's which is the girls brand and very small because of the very little weight and size. As are the standard G-shocks / Ironmans etc.

Again, I'll reiterate as I don't want you to claim offense here. But the reality is, your needs are very different to a frontline soldier. That doesn't make your opinion less valid. But it is worth thinking about.

[Burlington]

There is probably a bit too much emotion in this at the moment. I don’t believe anyone is trying to say what anyone should or shouldn’t wear.

I think keeping it to a fact based discussion about what is the most robust watch available, is what the thread was all about to begin with ?

There have been some good points made and as always the ever trusty G shock comes to fore.

The simple fact is most people in the line of work highlighted in the article do not wear a Rolex because it is not the best option for the job at hand.

That other people who serve do wear a Rolex, is great, and why not.

At least if an EMP strike happens then one of the options would still be ticking.

[Kyle3130]

Originally Posted by |404|

I've never said that you should wear a G-Shock. Nor that you shouldn't have your own opinions. This account is entirely fictional.

I merely stated that I would and I would presume other soldiers would too. You can wear whatever you want, as can anyone else really. I don't care and nor should you.

Also, lets be somewhat controversial here. With respect you're a mechanic, you're not infantry. There's a big difference. A big mentality difference too.

You might be trained as a solider, but you're not infantry. You're not a front-line fighting force. It is not your main duty. Killing is not your trade, aeronautical mechanics and management (supervisor rank) would be your main duty. Your secondary duty is a solider. As everyone enlisted in the military is technically a soldier. But career soldiers in infantry are an entirely different ballgame. Their trades are field specialities, field medics, reconnaissance, field radio, advanced weaponry/munitions etc etc.

You may one day be asked to. But you certainly wouldn't be first called up. Things would have to be quite desperate in order for you to be called to the front lines / defend the airbase from imminent attack.

-------

So with that said, your needs for a watch are going to be very different from front-line infantry only regiments. For example, the UKSF - ie SAS and SBS have regularly been seen wearing Casio's. This is where it gets fun. They've actually been caught wearing Baby-G's which is the girls brand and very small because of the very little weight and size. As are the standard G-shocks / Ironmans etc.

Again, I'll reiterate as I don't want you to claim offense here. But the reality is, your needs are very different to a frontline soldier. That doesn't make your opinion less valid. But it is worth thinking about.

Agreed, thank you for keeping this civil. I am passionate about my career, the watch I wear, and every aspect of my life for that matter. I believe it’s the best way to live. However, I have stated earlier in this thread that I am not Special Forces like the guys mentioned in the article. I am also in a supervisory role that greatly limits the situations that subject my watch to harm. I have also stated that I have nothing against g-shocks, they just aren’t my style.

[PathfinderMP]

Originally Posted by Kyle3130

Ok, congrats. I don’t have a degree per say but I do have a very particular set of skills that keep this country and it’s people free to say what they wish on the internet so I would appreciate a little slack if you would be so inclined. All I wish to convey to this community is that I agree with the author’s perspective on why mechanical wristwatches are more effective than digital ones in our line of work.

Thank you.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH *breath* BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH “a particular set of skills” speech from an Air Force zoomie?? LMFAO That’s rich!

Do you know how you tell an Air Force deployment from a regular day in the Air Force? They stay in a 4-star hotel instead of a 5-star hotel.

Look, if you want to justify spending the money for a Rolex to yourself, feel free, but let’s not throw out tough guy tropes in the hopes of impressing others like the process of service makes our opinions somehow more valid, shall we? LOL


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[|404|]

Originally Posted by Kyle3130

Agreed, thank you for keeping this civil. I am passionate about my career, the watch I wear, and every aspect of my life for that matter. I believe it’s the best way to live. However, I have stated earlier in this thread that I am not Special Forces like the guys mentioned in the article. I am also in a supervisory role that greatly limits the situations that subject my watch to harm. I have also stated that I have nothing against g-shocks, they just aren’t my style.

Well exactly, and in your position I certainly would be wearing a mechanical watch too. Why not! If you can afford it, do it! Not sure I'd be wearing one of my Pateks haha but certainly a Rolex sports watch is going to be perfect for that role!

a G-Shock would certainly be suitable for your role, but as you've stated your preference would be your Rolex and I agree it would be mine too. Because they are subjectively better to us... we fell in love with the cogs, the gears, the intricacy.
We like how they make us feel, the intangible, the intrinsic.

However, for field work, that's different. And unfortunately I think that article is entirely based on nonsense. The guy even quotes "an extreme example" of an explosive damaging a quartz movement, the irony being that mechanical watches are far more susceptible to blast/shock/kinetic damage from shrapnel/explosives/sound. Personally, it reads like someone who has never been out on operations. But obviously that is not true, as the author seems to be experienced, but I wonder if it's written for people that have very limited experience...

[Kyle3130]

Originally Posted by PathfinderMP

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH *breath* BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH “a particular set of skills” speech from an Air Force zoomie?? LMFAO That’s rich!

Do you know how you tell an Air Force deployment from a regular day in the Air Force? They stay in a 4-star hotel instead of a 5-star hotel.

Look, if you want to justify spending the money for a Rolex to yourself, feel free, but let’s not throw out tough guy tropes in the hopes of impressing others like the process of service makes our opinions somehow more valid, shall we? LOL


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You must be Army, you had a choice.

[Chester01]

My god, what did all of all wwii troops do without the gshocks! Hardly believe they could have won the war without a digital watch. My point is not that gshock cannot withstand more than a sub, that’s not the point. My point being that given people will not be diving in a vat of acid, and a tough watch is needed, the sub can and does have benefits over a gshock and I’ll concede gshock has advantages over the sub. But There are diminishing returns with toughness and can see why a soldier (and I have worked with many as the original article mentioned) may choose a tough mechanical over a gshock.

The space issue mentioned above likely had more to do with temp, as even the “low temp” gshocks are functional at like 10-15 Fahrenheit, and will fail when worn on the outside of a space suit for prolonged periods.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Chewbacca]

Sweet. Thanks for sharing.

[|404|]

Originally Posted by Chester01

My god, what did all of all wwii troops do without the gshocks! Hardly believe they could have won the war without a digital watch.

Hard to miss something that doesn't exist... your point is null. Quartz was not discovered/grown/invented. Had it been, I can assure you neigh on 90% of the combatants would have been wearing one. The accuracy alone would highlight it as a godsend in those days. That's before we even move onto cost, maintenance.

There's a phrase that is screamed a lot during most infantry basic training and advanced levels. "On time, On target!" and I do mean screamed.

On time is essential. Flanking a fortification that is large enough that you have no visuals, requires immense accuracy in time. Do you trust that to your mechanical? If you've been stationary waiting for 36 hours, do you trust that your mainspring is wound effectively? No you do not, you wear a digital / you trust the man that is wearing the digital that sync'd with the rest. There are ~30 second tolerances before you cause death. Personal experience is the people wearing mechanical watches ask the people wearing the digital for a countdown.

Do you know that a hard jolt can actually seize up the hairspring? Again causing timing inaccuracies.

Regarding space, well until we have the space force (go trump). I can't see that being an issue for combat.

[Chester01]

Originally Posted by |404|

Hard to miss something that doesn't exist... your point is null. Quartz was not discovered/grown/invented. Had it been, I can assure you neigh on 90% of the combatants would have been wearing one. The accuracy alone would highlight it as a godsend in those days. That's before we even move onto cost, maintenance.

There's a phrase that is screamed a lot during most infantry basic training and advanced levels. "On time, On target!" and I do mean screamed.

On time is essential. Flanking a fortification that is large enough that you have no visuals, requires immense accuracy in time. Do you trust that to your mechanical? If you've been stationary waiting for 36 hours, do you trust that your mainspring is wound effectively? No you do not, you wear a digital / you trust the man that is wearing the digital that sync'd with the rest. There are ~30 second tolerances before you cause death. Personal experience is the people wearing mechanical watches ask the people wearing the digital for a countdown.

Do you know that a hard jolt can actually seize up the hairspring? Again causing timing inaccuracies.

Regarding space, well until we have the space force (go trump). I can't see that being an issue for combat.

The history buffs can correct me, but digital watches were invented in the 70’s or al least available, yet there were military outfits that issued Tudor and some other mechanical watches in Britain in the late 70’s and early 80’s. Additionally, the speedy was flight qualified a second time During the shuttle era if I’m not mistaken. These timeframes correspond with a time when digital watches would have been easily available, leading one to wonder what those military outfits and NASA engineers saw in mechanical watches.

Look, I’m not saying there are not advantages of the digital watch over a mechanical, but is a far closer horse race than it may appear.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by Chester01

My god, what did all of all wwii troops do without the gshocks!

They had considerably less reliable and durable watches. I'm sure there aren't a lot of technical items from the '40s that you'd want to use in battle today.

Look, I'm not saying you CAN'T use a Sub in the military. Many people do, and it's usually fine. I'm saying that, just like a dive computer, it's certainly not the best tool. It's an emotional choice, which is why we all wear them.

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by Seibei

Honestly... Why can't you wear something battery powered in space? The X-33 is in fact battery powered.

With respect, to the topic of this thread, if the best argument anybody can up with for a mechanical watch being better than a G-Shock in a jungle, etc, is that they might forget to have installed a fresh battery, then that kind of person should not be in the military at all. If you can't keep a G-shock watch working, how can you be expected to be responsible for equipment worth millions of $ and the lives of other members of your team?

You misread my post. You can wear the X-33 in the ship or space station, but not actually in space. On an EVA, you're being subjected to extreme temps, radiation and vacuum which requires specially treated electronics, so that's when you'd want a mechanical watch.

The X-33 is popular when in the space craft, because it has a loud alarm and Mission Elapsed Time (MET) feature, which is very handy for astronauts and their crazy schedule. They just can't wear it on a space walk.

[|404|]

Originally Posted by Chester01

The history buffs can correct me, but digital watches were invented in the 70’s or al least available, yet there were military outfits that issued Tudor and some other mechanical watches in Britain in the late 70’s and early 80’s. Additionally, the speedy was flight qualified a second time During the shuttle era if I’m not mistaken. These timeframes correspond with a time when digital watches would have been easily available, leading one to wonder what those military outfits and NASA engineers saw in mechanical watches.

Look, I’m not saying there are not advantages of the digital watch over a mechanical, but is a far closer horse race than it may appear.

I think most of that was actually down to politics and xenophobia, you have to remember quartz was not well liked at the time it put a lot of traditional watch manufacturers out of business. It was called the quartz crisis for a reason.

Regarding space, I don't know so I couldn't comment.

But regarding military, it also takes a long time for the military to test and accept something. It isn't an overnight adoption, it would have taken several years for it to have been accepted.

It's not that close a race horse at all. Quartz is objectively superior to mechanical. The only reason mechanical watches even exist today is Rolex and a few other brands managed to carve a market based on the intangible.

Subjectively, we all love mechanical on this forum because we are the WIS.

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by |404|

It's not that close a race horse at all. Quartz is objectively superior to mechanical. The only reason mechanical watches even exist today is Rolex and a few other brands managed to carve a market based on the intangible.

Subjectively, we all love mechanical on this forum because we are the WIS.

x1000.

[Rocketman39]

Hey, 20 years testing Semiconductors including Watch Circuits. 18 years at Launch Complex 39 loading Rocket Fuel and working Fire Suppression, U.S. Army Combat Veteran with Vietnam Service and plenty of Bar Fights with the Tampa Police Department. I have seen a few things in my time. The reason the Military uses what they have is because it was the "Low Bid".

[vman]

Originally Posted by Rocketman39

The reason the Military uses what they have is because it was the "Low Bid".

Sad, but true.

And thank you for your service.

[PathfinderMP]

Originally Posted by Rocketman39

Hey, 20 years testing Semiconductors including Watch Circuits. 18 years at Launch Complex 39 loading Rocket Fuel and working Fire Suppression, U.S. Army Combat Veteran with Vietnam Service and plenty of Bar Fights with the Tampa Police Department. I have seen a few things in my time. The reason the Military uses what they have is because it was the "Low Bid".

Yup. This. 100%.

Unless you’re in a Special Missions Unit like CAG, the Virginia Boys, AVTEG, DEVGRU, or similar, you’re getting whatever the cheapest item is they can field reliably.

Side note, the majority of those guys I’ve worked with have work G-Shocks or Suunto on mission, and Subs/Resco/similar on their stateside rotations.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[asiparks]

...

[asiparks]

Wow.
so much subjective touchy feeliness.

G Shock or similar, objectively better than a mechanical watch at absorbing shock, vibration and impact, 3 things that can kill ANY mechanical watch.
Batteries- Somehow we managed to work lots of battery operated bits, some rather more mission critical than a timepiece, whilst remembering to carry and chuck in fresh batteries now and then. M68 anyone ?

"My god, what did all of all wwii troops do without the gshocks! Hardly believe they could have won the war without a digital watch." yeah, funny.
They used what was available. You might as well say how did they win they war without M249's and M4s." Equipment evolves.

Originally Posted by Kyle3130

...snip.... I have also stated that I have nothing against g-shocks, they just aren’t my style.

And there it is in a nutshell. Digital watches are not your style, fair enough.
And as another poster mentioned a while back, spending $8K on a watch is laughably low down the list for most service men and women, especially those with a family, that to suggest it is the best kit for the telling the time, that's pretty disingenuous at best. Rolex Forum reality bubble.......

[Kyle3130]

Even though this thread has turned into a Rolex vs G-Shock battle, I appreciate all of your comments and insight. I never thought this thread would have 140 comments and about 6,500 views! It is a testament to the knowledge base that this awesome forum has available to its members and those who find it via internet search. I hope we all enjoy what we wear everyday and that is what makes this hobby of ours so dang interesting. Thank you!

[Left_at_the_lights]

Originally Posted by Jason71

(Snip)

Bottom line is the fact that diving can be a threat to one’s life. Being deployed I’m sure can be even more perilous. Personally, I will trust my Rolex diver to time my dives because I know I can depend on it. If others want to trust an electronic digital device, that’s their business. Neither one is wrong, but I’m trusting the Rolex due to my personal experience.

"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?

[daveathall]

The normal soldier just doesn’t have £6,000 to drop down on a watch and use it day to day, if he is lucky enough to be able to afford one he wouldn’t wear it every day, it is a special, high value item that can soon be scratched beyond recognition. Hell a hundred quid g shock is expensive enough for an infantry private or junior rank bearing in mind the wages they are on. It took me 28 years in the forces before I could afford a Rolex, and then, only on HP.

The reason most soldiers don’t wear g shocks is the price, both makes can do the job of telling the time, but a Rolex costs more than 60 times that of a G shock for the same privilege.

I think there is a misconception of how much soldiers are paid, I left as a Warrant Officer Class II (Sergeant Major) in 2015, I was earning not a lot more than £30K a year before tax. A Rolex Sub costs about £6.5K.

I am not complaining about the wages, my profession was my choice and I loved it, I did it for over 42 years (the first 26 of those being infantry). It has looked after me and I receive two good pensions for life from it, so I'm not moaning, just putting things into perspective.

[Terrakot]

Some UK soldiers could afford Rolex)

[DGB]

The Duke of York has a Polar Explorer I,

Didn’t know that,

I would love to see his collection.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[daveathall]

Originally Posted by Terrakot

Some UK soldiers could afford Rolex)

Hahaha, great point, having said that, there are very few prince's in the army.

[zengineer]

Change a few words in that article and it could be a Stauer ad.

[dreyep]

Originally Posted by DGB

The Duke of York has a Polar Explorer I

York usually sports a DD. It's Sussex with the ExpII.

[Chester01]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

x1000.

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

[|404|]

Originally Posted by Chester01

I have yet to see a digital watch that would have better functionality for my daily job (though I work an office job)

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.