Me personally, I'm partial to the boring ol' run of the mill Timex Ironman triathalon series. Just tells the time and date with big obvious easy to read numbers. Also keeps accurate time, and the battery lasts for years.
I still prefer analog. I can read the dial without my glasses, but I can't see numbers. The numbers on my digital alarm clock are about an inch high and I can just barely read them in the middle of the night.
I don't have a watch but do look at others when I need to find out the time occasionaly and those I view are very simple to rerad yet very expensive looking. I never understood why someone would want a 5,000.00 or above costing watch to wear other than for their own egocentric personality.
Hey dude, it's called JEWELRY. A lot of people like it. To dismiss it as egocentricity is just your way of expressing your iconoclasm... or perhaps just the fact that you can't afford a five-thousand dollar piece of jewelry. Don't ever get married!
I agree, the last metal-band watch I owned was a swiss army thing I got as a present, was kinda nice, looked good, felt neat, but the metal links would snag the hair on my arm anytime the watch slid up and down my wrist, and a slip on an icy road one day smacked the watch so one of the links snapped with the little push-rod bent in half! Could've paid for repairs, but meh, was a liability, rather have a good water-resistant leather band above anything.
I had a really nice watch--a Thalassa--but it was just too heavy. Now I wear an (analog) Swatch. And on top of that I'm such a Philistine that I put an expansion band on it. Solid metal bracelets are annoying because they're either too tight or too loose and they move around on my skin. Leather or plastic is even worse because it does all of those things and in addition gets clammy.
Because they last forever unlike disposable cheap watches under $1000 that die all the time, their finish falls off, bracelets/straps break, etc... I have had the same watches for years: an everyday Rolex, a gold one, and a really nice collector's watch.
Well sure, but if you're just looking for utility you'll spend less money over a lifetime by replacing a Swatch or a Fossil every ten years than you spent on that one Rolex. As jewelry of course it has intrinsic value and you're paying for that, but you're betting that when you start liquidating your retirement portfolio that particular piece of jewelry will still be in vogue and you'll get your intrinsic value out of it.
My conscience would never allow me to wear a watch that cost over $100. Starving children in the world and I'm wearing a months worth of food on my wrist. WWJD indeed.
Geeze Orly, haven't you been around here long enough to understand that world hunger is not caused by the way Americans spend their income? We could stop buying nice stuff and use all the money to buy food for the Third World, and it will still end up being diverted by their despotic leaders, sold on the black market, and the proceeds used to pay for champagne, hookers, Mercedes, villas, and most especially weapons. The sparsely populated Western Hemisphere has enough agricultural productivity to feed the entire world three times over, without making a dent in our disposable incomes.
People over there are not hungry because of
what we do. They are hungry because of
what they don't do, which is take charge of their own destiny. Sure our meddling hasn't helped them but their basic problem is that they're still in the Neolithic Era with a tribal culture, and tribes almost by definition don't cooperate. Until they do they'll never succeed in installing capable, responsible, compassionate governments because there will always be somebody who rises to power by taking advantage of their hostility toward each other.
