In a post from a few days ago, I noticed that someone mentioned that they were afraid to post about their dislike of the Tudor BB58 for fear of downvoting. You know what? The BB is a boring watch that’s not worth the money, and Tudor wouldn’t be half as popular as it is without the connection to Rolex. If Rolexes were as attainable as they were in past years, cut that by a factor of 10. Would you really buy a BB if the reality were that you could just save a little bit more and get a Rolex Submariner? That’s my hot take. What’s yours?

  • owiseone23BEnglish
    1·
    10 months ago

    I’m not complaining, I just think it’s a little silly to talk about the practicality of watches that are inherently inpractical. The labeling isn’t what I’m talking about. It’s about how some people talk about the watches. Liking submariners or speedmasters or something because one appreciates their beauty, craftsmanship, history, etc is one thing, but talking up their performance specs is another. Here’s an example of what I’m talking about

    The Longines Spirit Zulu Time is outfitted with the calibre L844.4 movement. It is chronometer certified for the highest level of accuracy and employs an anti-magnetic, silicon balance spring. Its “jumping hour” GMT hand can track a second time zone, and in conjunction with its bidirectional, 24-hour ceramic bezel, it can also track a third. The special beat rate of 3.5 Hz extends the power reserve to a full 72-hours. The watch comes with a screw down crown, 100m of water resistance, and is treated with Super-LumiNova for nighttime legibility

    A G Shock will do every one of those functionalities singfiicantly better so it’s just funny to me to have that be the sort of sales pitch.