This is the style that I'm going for but the price... Is there something like this for the $$
This is the style that I'm going for but the price... Is there something like this for the $$
Last edited by inginius; June 24th, 2009 at 01:05.
I listened to that Monty python bit last week .It really was a pity he had to ---- him.I reccomend a Vostok amphibian for fifty four dollars from my Favorite watch buying site.
Last edited by James Haury; June 29th, 2009 at 20:56.
Well this MRG-7500 fits your bill.
You can't get tougher or more durable. It is hardened titanium (4-5 times stronger than SS) covered in DLC (Diamond Like Coating) and has a sapphire crystal.
It is also solar and atomic with lots of other bells and whistles. It is nice and chunky but is light because it is all titanium.
Another vote for Ball
How about the Oris divers? This is the 47mm Small Seconds diver. Was a little too big for my wrist but I am a huge Oris fan. You can get this for around $1200 with a good discount.
Durability in watches is definitely a multi-dimensional concept, and what kind of watch will be most durable is definitely subject to what kind of danger your watch will be in. Temperature extremes, pressure extremes, water submersion, shock, corrosives, or lots of pointy things likely to scratch the case are all very different conditions that will likely call for different watches.
I don't know of many really comprehensive and objective durability tests of watches. I suspect tests of this sort have been carried out by the military and professional diving, flying, etc. companies, or contractors to those companies, but I wouldn't know where to find the the results of these tests.
The one exception to this is NASA's search for a watch for the Apollo missions back in the 60s. They found that the watch best suited for the missions, by quite a big margin, was the Omega Speedmaster. The same basic watch (with some changes) is still available and used by NASA for all EVA ("space walks"). It is worn outside the space suit on a huge velcro strap. It is called the Omega Speedmaster Professional 3570.50 (Is that the right number?). It's pricey... but you gotta have what you gotta have. (Image borrowed from Wikipedia)
Even this test was a bit limited in scope because of NASA's requirements for the watch: manually winding chronograph. Also NASA wanted a hesalite (not sapphire) crystal (because if sapphire breaks it can shatter into many small shards, which would be dangerous floating around in a 0 gravity environment). And they didn't really care about water submersion. The Omega Speedmaster Professional 3570.50 is to this day manually winding with a hesalite crystal and a meek water resistance. There is a version with a sapphire crystal for only slightly more money. There are also automatic "speedmasters" and ones with better water resistance, but these are really completely different watches having little to do with the "real" speedmaster used by NASA.
Beyond telling you about that test, I'll take this opportunity to throw out by own completely subjective opinions. I personally think they're the very best opinions out there... because they're mine.
It's been said that quartz is more shock-resistant. This is probably true. But I don't know of any reason to think they're better with regard to temperature extremes, corrosive chemicals, or whatever else you can throw at a watch. One problem with quartz is that they tend to not be very repairable. You mentioned that this will perhaps be your first and last watch. It's hard for me to say what lifetime to expect from a quartz watch, this is because they've only been popular for about 30 years, so they haven't really been subject to the centuries long test of time that mechanicals have been subject to. I will say that when a quartz movement breaks, it probably doesn't get fixed, unless it's just a battery related problem or a small amount of water present. It gets replaced. So if you want a watch that will last a lifetime, you might want to go mechanical. This is the difference between reliability and durability. Hondas are reliable, Mack trucks are durable. Quartz movements are reliable, mechanicals are durable (or repairable, at least) except maybe with respect to shock resistance. As you can see, the simple concept of durability is complicated and incomplete, because now we have introduced other relevant but distinct concepts: reliability and repairability.
Case materials: any good stainless steel case will probably not break before your arm is smashed to bits. The same goes for sapphire crystals of 2 or 3mm thickness. Other materials like titanium might give you lighter weight. They also may give better corrosion resistance. But unless your going to be cleaning your watch in chemical solutions that would kill a medium sized dinosaur if swallowed, I don't think SS will show significant corrosion in your lifetime. Besides, corrosion can easily be polished away. Materials like titanium and also various coatings may give better scratch resistance. But scratches do not damage the watch, they are just as issue of aesthetics. Some people even like the scratches because, like battle scars, they show that the watch has been through a lot - and yet survived. It can give the watch a more rugged look. On the other hand, your watch won't be shiny anymore. So case materials/coatings are mostly a matter of personal preference, unless your going for light weight in which case titanium is probably best. I'll also point out that (small) scratches in stainless steel can easily be polished away, and the case will look as good as new. I'm not sure about titanium, but if you do manage to get a scratch in a DLC coated watch, it's going to be expensive to repair. It would probably involve stripping the coating, polishing the underlying steel, and re-coating it. Is that even possible? I don't know. But basically what I'm trying to say is that the scratch will probably be on the watch for the rest of your (or the watch's) life.
I'll point out that, if your watch does ever break due to some type of abuse, it's probably at least as likely that the problem will originate in the movement as it is that the problem will originate in the case. As for movements, if you really want durability and longevity in a mechanical watch, there are probably are a few useful things to look for.
Simplicity: things like automatic winding add potential failure points to the watch, so I think a nice manually winding movement with small seconds will be good because it has fewer potential failure points.
Size: I'm guessing a bigger movement with bigger parts will be more durable. I'm not exactly sure why I think this. (Note that a bigger *watch* doesn't necessarily have a bigger *movement*).
Repairability: A movement that is simple and large will be easiest to get repaired and serviced. It won't require any special training to work on. Furthermore, if the movement is a very common/popular one, parts will be more readily available and watchmakers will have more experience repairing similar movements.
With all this in mind, a simple ETA 6497 might serve well. It used to be a pocketwatch movement, but since wrist watches have gotten larger, it is now used in a number of wrist watches. Truth be told, it will be much easier to find a watch with an ETA 2824 or 2892. They are more popular in sports/military style watches because they have automatic winding, center seconds, and date. While they are more complicated, and smaller, they are still good solid movements with parts readily available and are easily serviced. There exist many watches with these movements that are well within your price range.
To actually make some opinionated watch recommendations: I would check out Marathon (military watches), MkII (homages to military watches using ETA 2824 and 2892), and TimeFactors (using various movements including ETA 2824).
Bottom line is, if you're looking for a watch that is gauranteed to never break, I don't know what to tell you. If you're looking for a watch that will outlive your grandchildren, you have lots of options: get a mechanical and make sure that it is well maintained and serviced on schedule. If you're looking for a watch that can take a load of heavy abuse, it depends a lot on the type of abuse, but I would probably lean toward military stuff and military style stuff.
Well that was a huge post. I hope you don't feel I've wasted your time.
Last edited by austinnh; June 30th, 2009 at 19:44.
If you want a big robust watch with military style, you could save yourself about a thousand bucks and go with a Marathon JSAR, but it is a beefy watch. It is $475 new.
If you want to go with a similar watch, yet smaller and in an automatic you could grab a Marathon GSAR for about $700 new. It also has the tritium hands.
These watches are designed for military use and are issued in the U.S. and Canada.
The more expensive (to you) the watch is, the longer it will last because the care you put into maintaining the watch would be directly proportional to how much it is worth (to you). And given most automatic watches are equally durable, it would be wiser to choose based on other criteria than durability.
A $20 plastic quartz watch keeps better time than most fine mechanical watches, but anyone comparing the two is missing the point entirely.
Get the MR-G 7500. I wasn't previously familiar with that watch but it has the features you specified, the price you want, and G is the very definition of durability as far as watches are concerned. That is a SERIOUSLY sweet high quality timepiece, and solar powered, so you won't have to worry about it for at least 10 years.
As a bonus, there aren't too many people walking around with $1500 worth of G on their wrist! As such it is highly collectble, and will be worth quite a bit one day. Mark my words!
Meine Bratwurst has a first name,
Meine Bratwurst has a second name,
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)