is this a haf decent watch?

[pitbull turbo]

https://direct.tesco.com/q/R.204-5749.aspx

i saw one of these the other day as i was getting some cd's and the other half came over and was going on that this would look nice and be a good day to day tach.
i was going to buy a seiko or like next month but this looked quite good and quite cheap.
the one i looked at didn't have the broen but it was stainless brazel.

Edited by pitbull turbo on Wednesday 1st July 12:28

[motordave]

There's probably some nicer stuff out there for the money but it is nothing special. For that money though if you like the look of it buy it.

[pitbull turbo]

its ok i have bought a much nicer watch today for alot less money :-)

[Strangely Brown]

OP said:

is this a haf decent watch?

No, it's not even that good.

[pitbull turbo]

ok i hven't got 2k to spend on a watch or £400 to service it each year and this is just a watch to mess about in.
got this instead and got it very cheap
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/images/B001C0G0...

[Bloobird]

Strangely Brown said:

OP said:

is this a haf decent watch?

No, it's not even that good.

That's not very pleasant.

[Strangely Brown]

Bloobird said:

Strangely Brown said:

OP said:

is this a haf decent watch?

No, it's not even that good.

That's not very pleasant.

What's not pleasant about it? It was an honest answer to the question posed. It is not a good watch.

ETA: If you only want positive answers, I suggest that you ask elsewhere.

Edited by Strangely Brown on Wednesday 1st July 22:11

[CommanderJameson]

For the amount of money you're spending, a Seiko 5 makes more sense. Proper automatic watch, build quality as good as Accurist and certainly better than Sekonda, will last for ever, keep decent time, and there's dozens and dozens to choose from, in styles from sport to dress.

[Bloobird]

Strangely Brown said:

Bloobird said:

Strangely Brown said:

OP said:

is this a haf decent watch?

No, it's not even that good.

That's not very pleasant.

What's not pleasant about it? It was an honest answer to the question posed. It is not a good watch.

ETA: If you only want positive answers, I suggest that you ask elsewhere.

Edited by Strangely Brown on Wednesday 1st July 22:11

1) The tone is not very pleasant, it's hardly a constructive or informative answer for the guy

2) I didn't ask the question. However if I did come on here and ask about a watch I was thinking of buying I would be unimpressed if people were unable to answer without looking down their nose at it.

[CommanderJameson]

Bloobird said:

Strangely Brown said:

Bloobird said:

Strangely Brown said:

OP said:

is this a haf decent watch?

No, it's not even that good.

That's not very pleasant.

What's not pleasant about it? It was an honest answer to the question posed. It is not a good watch.

ETA: If you only want positive answers, I suggest that you ask elsewhere.

1) The tone is not very pleasant, it's hardly a constructive or informative answer for the guy

2) I didn't ask the question. However if I did come on here and ask about a watch I was thinking of buying I would be unimpressed if people were unable to answer without looking down their nose at it.

Even if it were, actually, a fairly naff watch?

[Strangely Brown]

Bloobird said:

1) The tone is not very pleasant, it's hardly a constructive or informative answer for the guy

2) I didn't ask the question. However if I did come on here and ask about a watch I was thinking of buying I would be unimpressed if people were unable to answer without looking down their nose at it.

Well pardon me for expressing an opinion.

If I want to look down my nose at what I perceive to be [and is] a piece of junk then I will do so. Frankly, I really don't see any point in asking advice on a forum when you're spending less than £100 on a watch. If you want a decent workhorse that will last then spend a bit more and get something that actually *is* "half-decent". Failing that, pay your money and take your choice, be happy.

Here is a selection of reasonable workhorses that will last a damned sight longer than that thing.

http://www.silvermans.co.uk/Products/tabid/54/Depa...

Buy cheap, buy twice.

CommanderJameson said:

Even if it were, actually, a fairly naff watch?

That good eh?

[andy tims]

Bloobird - You're going to need to develop a slightly thicker skin me thinks. This is PistonHeads after all.

To awnswer the OP's question - It's feckin horrible & you could do wayyyyy better.

Loads of posts on here about buying good, reasonably priced watches to which the stock answers are:-

1) Get a Seiko
2) Have a look at Werners

[andy tims]

Forgot one

3) Join TZ-UK and get a great second hand deal

[pitbull turbo]

thanks guys.
i am not to worried what people think im thick skinned. i drive a fiat after all.
i am really pleased with the one whatch i have just bought, i tried servral watches including a monster but they didn't suit me. the one is big and chunky and as sturdy as they come. only cost me £50 reduced for £180! so pleased about that as its my knock about watch but i have really grown to like it already.
+ i like to be different and it seams everyone on here has seikos and maybe for a reason but i like to be different.
everyone who has seen the watch has commented on how expensive and robust and nice it is so can't just be me who like it.

[redtwin]

• Note to self*

Self, never post pics of your "collection" as they do not include anything made by Seiko, sourced from Werners or priced in excess of 2 figures.



JK. I couldn't really care less. I buy what catches my eye and I can afford.

[andy tims]

redtwin said:

or priced in excess of 2 figures.

Unless they're all "petrol station specials" that's some serious bargain hunting

[HereBeMonsters]

No.

[Bloobird]

OK, fair comment all. Must remember not to post after a blazing row with the missus having spent an hour trying to get a 3-month old to sleep!!

And apologies Strangely Brown

[Strangely Brown]

Bloobird said:

And apologies Strangely Brown

No apologies necessary. You had a vague point in there somewhere I suppose.

[eccles]

Strangely Brown said:

Bloobird said:

1) The tone is not very pleasant, it's hardly a constructive or informative answer for the guy

2) I didn't ask the question. However if I did come on here and ask about a watch I was thinking of buying I would be unimpressed if people were unable to answer without looking down their nose at it.

Well pardon me for expressing an opinion.

If I want to look down my nose at what I perceive to be [and is] a piece of junk then I will do so. Frankly, I really don't see any point in asking advice on a forum when you're spending less than £100 on a watch. If you want a decent workhorse that will last then spend a bit more and get something that actually *is* "half-decent". Failing that, pay your money and take your choice, be happy.

Here is a selection of reasonable workhorses that will last a damned sight longer than that thing.

http://www.silvermans.co.uk/Products/tabid/54/Depa...

Buy cheap, buy twice.

CommanderJameson said:

Even if it were, actually, a fairly naff watch?

That good eh?

Good to see the good old watch snobbery is still alive and kicking on here!

You say it's a rubbish watch purely because you don't like it's looks, that doesn't make it rubbish, it's just not to your taste, then you post a link to a page of watches that look nothing like either of the watches the OP has posted about, how is that helpful?