In a post from a few days ago, I noticed that someone mentioned that they were afraid to post about their dislike of the Tudor BB58 for fear of downvoting. You know what? The BB is a boring watch that’s not worth the money, and Tudor wouldn’t be half as popular as it is without the connection to Rolex. If Rolexes were as attainable as they were in past years, cut that by a factor of 10. Would you really buy a BB if the reality were that you could just save a little bit more and get a Rolex Submariner? That’s my hot take. What’s yours?

      • owiseone23@alien.topBEnglish
        1·
        11 months ago

        True, but often people market and discuss them as if they are meant to be tools. A lot of people care a lot about specs and performance and certification in regards to precision, water resistance, etc

    • Dalamar7@alien.top
      BEnglish
      1·
      11 months ago

      True, I don’t get why they’re called tool watches anymore (some, ever). They’re luxury items with a sporty design and that’s fine, but taking a picture chopping wood with your TT GMT because it’s “meant to be worn” feels desperate for group acceptance

        • Accurate_Mood@alien.topBEnglish
          1·
          11 months ago

          Yay for functionality, but nay for form-factor or design language IMO-- I would love it if I could afford it as a 5th watch or sth, but for example the entire sinn or seiko prospect line should be HAQ if they want to be tool watches.

    • ArcaneTrickster11@alien.topBEnglish
      1·
      11 months ago

      My hot take is that people with this hot take are just looking for things to complain about. It’s just a way to label a style of watch. It’s like saying “calling a chronometer a chronometer is dumb because all watches measure time and that’s what chronometer means.”

      A dive computer will outperform any dive watch, so should we just stop using the term dive watch? No because it’s a useful way to categorise the style of watch that every understands

      • owiseone23@alien.topBEnglish
        1·
        11 months ago

        I’m not complaining, I just think it’s a little silly to talk about the practicality of watches that are inherently inpractical. The labeling isn’t what I’m talking about. It’s about how some people talk about the watches. Liking submariners or speedmasters or something because one appreciates their beauty, craftsmanship, history, etc is one thing, but talking up their performance specs is another. Here’s an example of what I’m talking about

        The Longines Spirit Zulu Time is outfitted with the calibre L844.4 movement. It is chronometer certified for the highest level of accuracy and employs an anti-magnetic, silicon balance spring. Its “jumping hour” GMT hand can track a second time zone, and in conjunction with its bidirectional, 24-hour ceramic bezel, it can also track a third. The special beat rate of 3.5 Hz extends the power reserve to a full 72-hours. The watch comes with a screw down crown, 100m of water resistance, and is treated with Super-LumiNova for nighttime legibility

        A G Shock will do every one of those functionalities singfiicantly better so it’s just funny to me to have that be the sort of sales pitch.

    • robmob78@alien.topBEnglish
      1·
      11 months ago

      I agree wholeheartedly, though I raise you Rado. Another contentious take on this sub…