Seamaster quartz, or automatic? stigma attatched?

[paultownsend]

so thanks to goldamith intersest free offer, im putting down a decent deposit on an omega seamaster quartz. black, large face.

the automatic version of this watch is a whopping £700 more. im going in again on monday to discuss if any movement can be had on price.

is a quartz watch a 'proper' watch? if your spending that much money, should you pay that little extra?

im getting in before the price increase, so either watch will have made money.
obviously to look at, you could not tell the difference.

also, obviously the quartz is a buy and forget item. will never loose time, and is alot cheaper to service. but does it feel special? as im sure at todays prices, most are quartz!

what have you guys done?

[Nick_F]

Depends entirely on what you want it for.

My wife's watches are all quartz - she has a number and wants to be able to pick up any of them and wear it, without the hassle of setting time and date every day.

Mine are either auto or digital because I like 'machines' on the one hand and need stopwatches for running and swimming on the other. But not both at the same time.

I suspect that there is some market 'stigma' around quartz versions of premium manufacturers' watches, but I could be entirely wrong.

[LukeBird]

Either really.
I like the sweep of the hand on the auto and the fact it has a mechanical movement, but the latter is entirely personal preference.
I have a mid-size blue auto. But as I have a fair few autos now, I'd definitely consider a quartz black for the collection...
Do you have a large collection or will it be a daily wearer?

[paultownsend]

my first 'proper' watch. i have a 12 year old animal quartz and a phillipe starck fossil digital

although this most likely be my everyday watch. am i right in thinking that the autos can still be manually wound if not wearing them for a day or 2?

[andy tims]

IF you're going to keep the watch forever, it's not an issue. If not, you'll probably be better off spending more on the auto come resale.

[gavk]

didn't think the difference was £700! i looked at both and bought a black seamaster quartz, makes me happy. save the cash and get something else

[jules_s]

gavk said:

didn't think the difference was £700! i looked at both and bought a black seamaster quartz, makes me happy. save the cash and get something else

I don't think I could ever spend a grand on a quartz watch

[fieldl]

Me neither and when I do see someone wearing one I do think that they should have spent the rest. That said I never realised there was that much difference. I'd see if I could get a 2nd hand auto.

[Frederick]

I have to admit, I'd baulk at paying more than £100 on a quartz watch unless it was something like my Suunto Core (A/B/C watch).

There's something about an automatic movement - it's a tiny combination of springs and wheels that manage to keep pretty much perfect time and is pretty much an engineering masterpiece. A quartz on the other hand keeps perfect time, but it's very clinical. There isn't the engineering feat behind it. When you can buy quartz watches for a few quid that keep amazing time, spending near a grand on one smacks of buying it for the name and not the heritage (if you see my point).

However, justifying £700 extra for an auto is what I would class as the nth degree.

The bottom line is buy what makes you happy. If you like the watch and if wearing it and looking at it makes you happy then pull the trigger on it. The last thing you want to do is let movement-snobs like myself dissuade you from something that you really like. It's not "the cop out option" no matter what anyone says - I just personaly like automatics for the engineering - really, the face has little bearing on the choice I make.

I've spent about 10 mins captivated by the display back on my £38 Seiko 5 from Hong Kong - just watching the movement. That's why I like them so much.

Edited by Frederick on Friday 19th February 22:46

[huytonman]

My ipod cost 80 quid, the Meridian CD player 1500...one does the job on paper as good as the other, in reality its like chalk and cheese..you are the only one who can decide of the extra dosh it worth the outlay, both tell the time!

[gavk]

i wouldn't or actually i didn't - was a gift from the mrs. there wasn't another quality watch in the shop that felt like good value that i liked.

i never saw the appeal in watches before (as i normally wear g-shocks) but when i put it on it just looked and felt great. i don't see myself spending any more on a watch but i can see the appeal (at least a hell of a lot more than a bl**dy engagment ring)

[Pobolycwm]

I`ve got a 15 year old TAG and a 5 yr old Seamaster, both auto. In my opinion Quartz are just visual copies of the real thing and you`re being fooled by the manufacturer, may as well buy a "genuine" fake quartz and at least save money fooling people, as well as laughing at people like me who`ve bought the real thing.

[Scooby72]

I was gonna buy a black seamaster quartz, but when I tried it on it just didn't feel right, didn't feel weighty enough, and was too thin.

You probably couldn't tell the difference from a distance, but I think you can wearing it.

Personally I'm gonna either save up for a new black faced Chrono, or try to find a nice used one.

Currently have a Christopher Ward C7 Rapide quartz as my 'special occasion' watch, and a crappy Pulsar Argos job for work, where it get bumped and scraped regularly.

[Ayahuasca]

Frederick said:

There's something about an automatic movement - it's a tiny combination of springs and wheels that manage to keep pretty much perfect time

Er, noooo. Very, very far from perfect time.

I have had an automatic seamaster for the last 15 years or so (since the James Bond film came out in fact!). It invariably gains a good few minutes a week. Not disastrous, but by no means in the ball park of perfect.

Tip - as well as the extra cost of buying, factor in a couple of hundred for a 'service' every so often...

But I would still go for an automatic as you will 'know' it is superior, in spite of everything.

Good luck.

[paultownsend]

its exactly that. i want that special feeling. mind made up. you have good persuasion skills! now, to seek out a bargain!

[Frederick]

Ayahuasca said:

Frederick said:

There's something about an automatic movement - it's a tiny combination of springs and wheels that manage to keep pretty much perfect time

Er, noooo. Very, very far from perfect time.

I have had an automatic seamaster for the last 15 years or so (since the James Bond film came out in fact!). It invariably gains a good few minutes a week. Not disastrous, but by no means in the ball park of perfect.

Well, all my autos keep good enough time that I can rely on them!! A few minutes a week is nothing really. There are 10,080 minutes in a week, if it gains even 5 mins a week that's an error margin of 0.05%.

That's what I mean by 'pretty much perfect' - if it was gaining or losing half an hour a week, then that is more serious but 5 mins a week works out to a net gain of 43 seconds a day, which is potentially the same error as some quartz watches set incorrectly! (as in not synchronising the second hand to the atomic clock)

You're right, they aren't perfect but it would take a lot of luck or tuning to make an auto perfect - that's why I said quartz were too clinical, they're perfect out the box.

If you want to tell the time, buy a quartz - if you want to marvel at the engineering, buy an auto.

[toohuge]

Blowers have a few for sale, I especially like this one:
http://blowers-jewellers.co.uk/s12465_28335091.htm

It's just a little different.

[hilly10]

I would sooner buy second hand for the auto then quartz. IMO if its a best watch worn at weekends and going out then auto is a must. for every day use then quartz is fine. Just my opinion what do I know

[glazbagun]

There will be stigma attatched to everything you buy by some group or other, so go with what feels right for you, there is no practical reason to buy a mechanical over a quartz, so many would say it's a waste to spend the extra. At the same time- spending that much on a watch in the first place is a great luxury.

Edited by glazbagun on Sunday 21st February 16:14

[OPC100]

I went off quartz when I got into automatic / mechanical watches about 10 years ago. But now I'd say that I've come back to them and think that they have there place. In simple terms I see watches as follows:-

Quartz = Tough, accurate (especially atomic), value for money. Great for wearing for work, sport, etc.

Automatic / mechanical = Not as accurate. Nicer to look at and marvel at the mechanics. Something that you are more likely to keep for a lifetime.

Edited by OPC100 on Saturday 20th February 23:40