is this a haf decent watch?

[Strangely Brown]

eccles said:

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,

Wow! I wish I had that level of insight into what people are thinking. Incredible stuff. You should make a fortune from it.

Actually, I said it was a piece of junk because it is a piece of junk. Yes, it looks st too but that's not why I said it.

eccles said:

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?

I posted a link to a page of watches that are a damned sight better quality than either of the watches the OP had posted about. That's helpful if he wants to buy a "half-decent" watch. Of course, if you're superficial and have all the depth of a bird bath then perhaps what it looks like is the most important thing to you. Sure, it plays a part, but rather pointless if it's a crap watch in the first place.

Edited by Strangely Brown on Thursday 2nd July 22:44

[Mad Dave]

Accurists may well have improved in recent years but I was bought one a few years back and it was utter st; it looked nice but the glass scratched incredibly easily, the chronos constantly went out of alignment and the links kept dropping out of the bracelet causing the watch to fall off and get further damaged!

[Funk]

I too am not in the 'silly-money' watch league and tend to buy what I like the look of. I've pretty much stuck with Seiko and Citizen over the years, they look smart and have yet to let me down.

I have this:



which was about £300 I think, and this:



which was around £450 when I bought it.

Edited by Funk on Thursday 2nd July 23:01

[eccles]

Strangely Brown said:

eccles said:

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,

Wow! I wish I had that level of insight into what people are thinking. Incredible stuff. You should make a fortune from it.

Actually, I said it was a piece of junk because it is a piece of junk. Yes, it looks st too but that's not why I said it.

eccles said:

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?

I posted a link to a page of watches that are a damned sight better quality than either of the watches the OP had posted about. That's helpful if he wants to buy a "half-decent" watch. Of course, if you're superficial and have all the depth of a bird bath then perhaps what it looks like is the most important thing to you. Sure, it plays a part, but rather pointless if it's a crap watch in the first place.

Edited by Strangely Brown on Thursday 2nd July 22:44

Ok, i'm sorry, I must believe it's a piece of junk just because you say so with no qualification


How on earth does you posting a link to a page of watches that are of (alleged)superior quality help if they are nothing like what the OP was looking for?
The man has a very limited budget and the style of watch he was after was obvious by what he was
posting, there's nothing even similar on that page.... still never mind, i'm sure in you think you're being helpful.

[Strangely Brown]

eccles said:

Ok, i'm sorry, I must believe it's a piece of junk just because you say so with no qualification

No, you can use your brain and form your own opinion, as can the OP. The difference is that *he* came on here and *asked* for an opinion, which he got. OK?

eccles said:

How on earth does you posting a link to a page of watches that are of (alleged)superior quality help if they are nothing like what the OP was looking for?

Perhaps your eyes are failing you. The first watch was a chrono and the watch he chose over it was a tri-compax layout chrono. There are chronos of similar appearance on the page that I posted. They were examples of better stuff out there. Others suggested other alternatives.

eccles said:

The man has a very limited budget and the style of watch he was after was obvious by what he was
posting, there's nothing even similar on that page...

There are plenty of similar watches there, as there are in the Seiko 5 range or Werners. You need to look a bit harder.

eccles said:

still never mind, i'm sure in you think you're being helpful.

Whereas you haven't even done that much.

[Colonial]

If someone asked about buying a Kia Cee'd and people suggested actual decent cars would you get offeneded? No. Didn't think so.

And this is the same.

I don't have the money to spend on watches at this point in my life, so I go with things like Werners and the like. But I can still appreciate that there is cheap and then there is shoddy.

[pitbull turbo]

its ok people calm down1 lol
I was only asking as I wasn't sure on the watch.
I looked online before I bought my watch and thought I wouldn't buy it as of the brand and I thought a Seiko would be better but once I saw one in the flesh my mind was made up. it really does have a great finish and feel to it. also the fast I got it for £50 instead of £200 means now I can either have a nice holiday come September or put the money in saving for my tag link diamonds :-)
I have had 5 Seiko watches before as well and they are getting common now and also the Seiko watches are very nice but find the scratch very easy and as its a every day watch I didn't want that.

to be fair I think some of it does come down to snobbery but that’s life. I get loads of people look down on me for having a fiat and people call me a chav for having a r34 skyline (not sure how chavs can afford 25k skylines!) but simply I think you buy what you like but take guidance of people who know a little bit more than me on stuff so the info was useful as I thought accruist made well made watches so I have learnt something new now anyway :-)