5 minutes ago, Rossliew said:

Anyone here find the Seiko Tuna watches attractive?

It's a bit big for my tastes. 

Over here in Malaysia in one of the watch forums i see a lot of Seikos changing hands. Granted the aesthetics are an acquired taste but the price is very attractive. In any case, further depreciation of value should not be as much as the other luxury brands.

Out of curiosity, what is the attraction factor of a Grand Seiko?

The Tuna is certainly a nice watch.

The Grand Seikos are exceptionally fine watches, with excellent build and design (if you are a fan of the design school), and often cutting edge techniques.  Seiko is the only watch company that is as "in-house" as Rolex, and the Grand Seiko line might even be more so, as I don't think Rolex makes its own lubricants. 

11 minutes ago, EdipisReks1 said:

I don't think Rolex makes its own lubricants. 

Fight me IRL.

2 hours ago, Hopstretch said:

Fight me IRL.

As soon as you get stateside!

20 hours ago, EdipisReks1 said:

It's a bit big for my tastes. 

It's the size of a can of tuna, innit.

1 hour ago, Dusty Chalk said:

It's the size of a can of tuna, innit.

There is a reason it's called the Tuna, for sure.

7 hours ago, EdipisReks1 said:

The Tuna is certainly a nice watch.

The Grand Seikos are exceptionally fine watches, with excellent build and design (if you are a fan of the design school), and often cutting edge techniques.  Seiko is the only watch company that is as "in-house" as Rolex, and the Grand Seiko line might even be more so, as I don't think Rolex makes its own lubricants. 

That is a very impressive fact. I believe the Japanese (and other ex-Swiss European brands) are pushing the boundaries of fine watchmaking. The simplicity of design is pretty attractive, very understated.

I asked ABC to take a picture of the inside of the case back, as I was never able to get the damned thing open.  The chrono paperwork shows a test date mid-December, '68, so Rolex was pumping them out as quickly as they were selling to dealers, back then.  I thought this crowd might like the picture, especially given that it has marks from when watchmakers still marked case backs.  

I've been wearing my Pre-Moon Speedy on its 1171 a lot, lately.  I had forgotten just how good the Oyster bracelet is (i.e. the 1171 isn't). Speedies are handsome on bracelets, though. 

Edited May 23, 20179 yr by EdipisReks1

Wow.  Chris will love this link, but it's great for anybody who loves watches.  Had you ever seen a synthetic quartz crystal?  Me either.  

After more than a year as "#2 on the wait list", I finally gave up and canceled my ceramic Daytona order with the Rolex boutique on Bond St. Got the deposit back and immediately blew it on a new Belstaff jacket. Bond St. is dangerous.

Going to sell the rest of the watches I have over here before we go just because of the hassle of reimporting them into the US. Plus it's always fun to start from scratch again.

The Daytonas are yummy.

That Seiko is insane...

HS

On 5/23/2017 at 3:53 AM, EdipisReks1 said:

I've been wearing my Pre-Moon Speedy on its 1171 a lot, lately.  I had forgotten just how good the Oyster bracelet is (i.e. the 1171 isn't). Speedies are handsome on bracelets, though. 

Finally I've seen a Rolex that I find to be good looking.  Nice watch.

that's an omega

So I see.  No wonder I liked it.

That said:

 

I believe those go for a bit more.

Edited May 28, 20179 yr by Hopstretch

yes, slightly

And it just looks like another clunky Rolex to me.  I'd take the Omega.  YMMV.

I too am much fonder of Omegas in general.

3 hours ago, swt61 said:

I too am much fonder of Omegas in general.

And why is that?

I wouldn't trade it for Daytona (within reason), but I would certainly like to have a Daytona to go with it.  Sucks about the Daytona, Stretch. I'm sure you can buy one on Chrono24 at a 50% markup.

5 hours ago, guzziguy said:

And it just looks like another clunky Rolex to me.  I'd take the Omega.  YMMV.

That Daytona is a lot less clunky than my Speedmaster!  Except for the very first version, the Speedy line has always been quite substantial.  This one will not slip comfortably under a dress cuff, where as my GMT Master typically will.  Most Rolexes are actually of quite moderate size, being 40mm and about 12mm thick. This pre-moon is 42mm by about 14 thick.  It might not sound like much of a difference, but it's a much larger watch, and about as large as I will comfortably wear.  It's why I sold my Maurice Lacroix.  It was a watch I liked a lot, but it had several complications, which usually necessitates a large watch (unless you are Vacheron, apparently) and it was just too big. 

Edited May 29, 20179 yr by EdipisReks1

2 hours ago, Rossliew said:

And why is that?

I just prefer the look of many Omegas to most of the Rolex.

Yes I agree the Omegas have more attractive faces (if that's what u call it)