Dress watches: Once the norm? - Page 5
Like Tree52Likes

Thread: Dress watches: Once the norm?

Page 5 of 14 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 138
  1. #41
    Member Metlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    7,149

    Re: Dress watches: Once the norm?

    Quote Originally Posted by Chronopolis View Post
    Somehow, your "signature" - Poe? -- goes well with this post.
    Something vaguely horrific about the sheer absurdity... or the other way round: vaguely absurd about the sheer horror... of it all.
    Ah, how I wish it were an original. Here's another that I rather like:

    "Poor Mariner, ruined and wrecked
    Are you wiser for taking your trek?"
    "Yes, I learned not to cross
    Any old albatross
    That happens to poop on my deck."
    Last edited by Metlin; November 19th, 2011 at 22:53.

  2. #42
    Member bichondaddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Humble, TX
    Posts
    12

    Re: Dress watches: Once the norm?

    Well.....I know I'm having one heck of a good time reading this thread while sitting here in Houston Texas with my Texas sized Invicta on my wrist!!!! LOL Why so serious guys....I wear anything from my fathers 35mm 1940's Elgin to my 53mm Invicta. Yeah...I have "real" watch too....just enjoy the big ones too. Oh...I am 6'6" and a 35mm watch looks rather absurd on me...it looks like I have a dime strapped to my wrist...and besides that...I can't read the darn thing anyway. I am not a cell phone person....so...I use my watch for its intended purpose...to tell time.
    You can't please everyone, so you've got to please yourself!!

  3. #43
    Member firithmorgulion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    533

    Re: Dress watches: Once the norm?

    Quote Originally Posted by Watchalex View Post
    Firith, Metlin is right. And khakis = chinos. Cotton twill pants. Often worn as uniform pants originally. They are like one step up from jeans but not as dressed as wool pants.
    ive mixed up cloth and clothes, but im not a taylor and ive never thought about the different types of cloth in this way

  4. Remove Advertisements
    WatchUSeek.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #44
    Member Metlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    7,149

    Re: Dress watches: Once the norm?

    Quote Originally Posted by firithmorgulion View Post
    ive mixed up cloth and clothes, but im not a taylor and ive never thought about the different types of cloth in this way
    Oh, this is nothing - wait until you get into tweeds.
    WatchMeWatchU likes this.

  6. #45
    Member novedl's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    baltimore. MD
    Posts
    11,474

    Off topic Re: Dress watches: Once the norm?

    Quote Originally Posted by bichondaddy View Post
    Well.....I know I'm having one heck of a good time reading this thread while sitting here in Houston Texas with my Texas sized Invicta on my wrist!!!! LOL Why so serious guys....I wear anything from my fathers 35mm 1940's Elgin to my 53mm Invicta. Yeah...I have "real" watch too....just enjoy the big ones too. Oh...I am 6'6" and a 35mm watch looks rather absurd on me...it looks like I have a dime strapped to my wrist...and besides that...I can't read the darn thing anyway. I am not a cell phone person....so...I use my watch for its intended purpose...to tell time.
    that sir, is one good looking avatar.

    being an extremely casual person, there is nothing else for me to add to this thread.
    Last edited by novedl; November 19th, 2011 at 23:27.
    Enjoying a life far better than I deserve...

  7. #46
    Member fatehbajwa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Chandigarh, India
    Posts
    10,539
    This was by far the most enjoyable thread I read on WUS .
    Subscribing to it.......carry on guys.

    ;)

  8. #47
    Member Sea-Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Toronto, Munich, Monaco
    Posts
    1,857

    Re: Dress watches: Once the norm?

    Lord Monocle: whilst I thank you for the compliment (I think ;) my dear, Fellow, allow me to say that our views may not be as divergent as you think: the style guide is not carved in stone but a living tree of sorts, meant to serve as a guide to assist individuals who, without which, would not merely get lost in the forest unable to see through the trees but, fall from the very limbs of those trees and hurt themselves should they go too far astray. The point of the rules is to set standards, to maintain civilization as others have said; whilst it is "safe" of course to stick to the tree trunk, adhere to the rules if you will without giving it much thought as many are want to do (we don't have many explorers and cutting-edge visionaries in our midst, most working in cubicles or otherwise as has also been said), so why should it come as any surprise that most would take comfort in the rules as it relates to dress? If they do not (and the majority of the world do not) wish to "rock the boat" as they say, then why should they wish to "trail-blaze" when it comes to customs and traditions, particularly on matters related to i.e. formal and semi-formal including business dress? Lost in the woods without the rules as their guide as they would be, can you imagine the result? It would be a disaster, and to what end, I ask, what would be the result?

    This is hardly a prescriptive carved in stone tablet, however, so far as it is a guide and meant to be so; once one understands the rules, they are free to take creative twists and turns, so as to show off their own personal style within the bounds as are permitted under the rules, which do in fact encourage same, so as to show off their good taste. In medieval times, it is true that just about everything was pronounced upon, including but not limited to the colours people based on their societal rank were permitted to wear, right down to the length of the toes of their shoes. For e.g. royalty and aristocrats who made these rules were allowed to wear long-toed shoes, the merchants as well albeit shorter than those permitted the aristocracy, etc., whereas the rest of society by contrast were pretty much allotted nothing more than their actual shoe size; we could poke fun of this one all day long, perhaps where the saying comes from no doubt (which I trust needs no further explanation ;) The point being that they were indeed rigid, and designed to curtail all manner of personal style and expression, by among other things reminding society as to who was who and what one's lot in life was with no means by which to change one's "stars" in life, thus indeed rigid and meant to be such. Of course, there was no room for taking anything into consideration; this, until a battle happened, the aristocratic officers with their big, long-toed shoes unable to maneuver on the battle field as against the enemy, such that they were forced to cut off the toes so as to do battle. Yes, one must be mindful of the circumstances, and adjust one's mode of style and/or dress, accordingly. This is true ;)

    That said, the rules handed down to us from Britain by contrast were a departure from that mode of thinking, enabling indeed encouraging "colourful" style and expression, provided only that one adheres to the boundaries which are designed not to stifle one's taste but, rather, encourage good taste, whilst at the same time encouraging civility. To put it another way, one can reach out from the limb of the tree and hang on to the branches, but before one does that, they first need to know just how sturdy is that trunk and what the branches therefrom hold, else a man falls down flat on his face and hurts himself, wouldn't you say? It's for your safety you see, as well as that of society's, where personal liberty (expression, including one's mode and style of dress) meets societal needs (be it a corporate cultural setting or a formal/semi-formal function, where the individual is a part of said culture, not the focus of it, thus reminding us of our part in the organization, its function and purpose and thus the part we are to play, just as it is the gatherings we attend, be it a wedding or other formal function, where it is not us qua individual that matters but, rather, the host/hostess and/or purpose behind the meeting for which we are gathered, such that we take the matter seriously and play our part as individual qua guest accordingly). And yes, when you dress the part--right down to your watch, be it a 36mm DJ, a classic vintage piece, or something from the Stowa/Laco marine collection, or other dress/dress-sport watch regardless, it is noticed albeit often spoken about in silence, garnering smiles if done right. In any event, it used to be understood that, whilst what a man wears (or doesn't) in his own private home is his own business, but not so when he steps outside on account of the fact that he is presenting himself to the public. This distinction for some reason does seem to be lacking in today's society, as pointed out by others and which I have likewise noticed myself.

    Of course, one dresses for the needs of their occupation this is most true; and a deep sea diver or submarine captain would look out of place and be improperly dressed if showing up to work with a dress watch on as a business, etc. manager would with (what's the name of that deep sea and/or sub watch again? You know, the one that goes with blue jeans/casual attire, and great with air tanks and flippers ;)

    What I find so interesting though, is how it is that each generation goes through this, again and again, as if re-inventing the wheel or something; I am reminded of the story of Siegfried by Wagner, wherein the young hero, so brash, confident and without fear, is as clueless and without wisdom as he is strong, constantly being taken advantage of in his quest for knowledge and wisdom which down deep he is searching for, but which he refuses to admit that he is on account of the fact he is young and needs not wisdom. Turns out, in stumbling around and constantly averting danger on account of his youthful exuberance, etc., he gains not only wisdom but actually learns what it means to fear, and only then does he get the girl (but I digress ... ;)

    As to the 80s, as one who knows something of that period as well, yes, watches were a bit thinner/smaller but designs were not all that dissimilar; in fact, in terms of dress watches anyway, they haven't really changed that much at all in decades, as that is what it means to be timeless; whilst fashions and fads come and go, classics are timeless so far as they never go out of style. What is worn by Prince Charles or his mother, HRM Queen Elizabeth II could very well have been worn by royals in past times, such as their ancestors before the war periods, in terms of watches and clothing in fact. I would say that less is more, but with a payroll like that, egads, is it any wonder why we here in this part of the Commonwealth pay so much in terms of "security" when they come to visit?

    Then, and it's true, in the 80s for the most part we were quite a conservative bunch (as in, not casual wearing sweat pants and running shoes when out in public, unless jogging). Rather, well dressed and somewhat preppy although individualistic as well, and yes, dress watches (or dress watch like) were everyday watches (thin, clean classic dials, that sort of thing: think, Movado Museum for e.g., which was quite popular at the time; then, so too were those colourful plastic Swatches, to go with one's colourful but subdued polo shirt and khakis). Subcultures such as the punk rockers from which today's goths came, wore tool watches at the time (think: Swiss Army, etc.). Is it really all that much different? I don't think so. As the French are fond of saying, the more things change, the more they stay the same. But in the end, I guess that I just don't buy into the whole "Siegfried" story that to be young necessarily means one is utterly lacking in wisdom, anymore than with wisdom means the loss of their individuality. Quite the contrary actually, for if one is in doubt, they need only check the style guide ... that's all I'll be saying about it :)

    Cheers.

    p.s. and yes, people who present well are not only treated better, but also garner more trust in the minds of their listeners when they are speaking; but to get them to listen in the first place, one must look the part, it being as much a matter as to how one holds his/herself as it is a matter of dress. As human beings, we are visual creatures by nature, and why it is that that is.
    Last edited by Sea-Wolf; November 20th, 2011 at 01:09. Reason: edit: to remove typo
    WatchMeWatchU likes this.
    Breguet Rolex Tudor Breitling Longines IWC Mühle-Glashütte Tutima Hamilton TAG Heuer Cartier

    OTHER: Vintage (Manual and Automatic), Modern (Automatic and Quartz).

  9. #48
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,086

    Re: Dress watches: Once the norm?

    Unless it matters in the situation - who cares?
    What would Tyler Durden wear? ; )

  10. #49
    Member Sea-Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Toronto, Munich, Monaco
    Posts
    1,857

    Re: Dress watches: Once the norm?

    This guy?
    Name:  durden.jpg
Views: 1409
Size:  54.7 KB

    Yes, Fight Club, 90s, a loud T-shirt and no watch--probably uses a cell phone to tell the time, which he might have lost when he uh fell down, yeah, that's it, fell down from the trees which would explain his wounds, yes? lol

    Hmmm, 80s, though; wasn't it all about this guy? ;)

    Name:  bradpittRolex.jpg
Views: 473
Size:  33.6 KB
    Breguet Rolex Tudor Breitling Longines IWC Mühle-Glashütte Tutima Hamilton TAG Heuer Cartier

    OTHER: Vintage (Manual and Automatic), Modern (Automatic and Quartz).

  11. #50
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,738

    Re: Dress watches: Once the norm?

    Quote Originally Posted by Metlin View Post
    Once again, while the chino cloth is made of cotton, chino pants themselves are usually a cotton-synthetic blend of a particular style (usually tapered bottoms or narrower leg-lines and rise).

    Both chino and khaki pants can come in the "multiple pockets" variety or the more stylish "dress slack" variety.

    The two are inter-related, and are often used interchangeably even when different.
    Actually, I believe that "chinos" are the original term for what most people call khaki's today. Chinos refer to a 100% cotton, traditional trouser made of khaki twill. Because of the popular brand name many people also refer to them as "Dockers."

    I never thought I would be discussing pants in my own thread that I started for watches.
    ShockMister

Page 5 of 14 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •