• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

So I was wondering ? (2 Viewers)

Kevin, pleased you enjoyed the banter and I hope my posts were not agressive.
Andy the problem with my Omega is that it stops if I forget to wind it. I am not against mechanical watches I just think quartz watches are better value for money and do a better job by and large. I do wear my Omega when I want to impress and my model has two largish buttons which nicely display the Omega character.
I also bought my Omega (back in 1970) as a present to myself for passing my professional exams. I bought my first quartz watch in 1978 a Seiko SQ Sports 100 which is going strong after nearly 40 years, if not a little battered. I now only use it as my "gardening" watch.
I don't own or use a smartphone but some of my naturalist friends use them regularly in the field to photograph plants and fungi and to record their location (battery permitting).
I will finish with an amusing anecdote by Lord Finklestein (a Tory/Conservative Peer in the House of Lords, London) writing in "The Times" newspaper.His father was a Professor of Measurement at a top London University. When his father died, Lord Finklestein inherited his watch which he claims still keeps perfect time - it was a basic Casio quartz.
 
I must say that I'm surprised that a discussion of watches on Birdforum would turn to snobbery rather than stay anchored to practical considerations. When it comes to outdoor gear, I'm all for art, craftmanship, and elegance, but the only basis for final judgment of what is a valid choice (i.e. an option) in that venue is performance, in this case as a timekeeping and time display tool (i.e. its utility, practical significance). Sure, one can argue that a cheap digital is not useful for climbing Everest because accidentally contemplating its lack of art and status might make the wearer feel déclassé and evoke such feelings of revulsion for the humble tool that the wearer or a companion might vomit at an inopportune time during the climb...but I think that argument would be a stretch, as much as are some of the assertions in this thread. I mostly agree w/Robert Wallace and I identify w/his approach to this discussion. It seems to me, he clearly has a bit of interest in watches (as do I) but he is honest w/himself and others as to the practical merits of different models and technologies. Being a snob about mechanical watches and futilely trying to defend their technological or practical superiority by ignoring objective performance measures should not be a prerequisite for acceptance into the tiny community (as a percentage of the human population) of people who discuss and appreciate watches.

...I haven't said a word about those Casio electronic time devices because they certainly are not watches and don't deserve to be considered such...
Oh come on. Why be dismissive of such a functional marvel? Maybe it isn't very arty, and no craftmanship (in the original sense) is involved, but such watches (e.g. a basic waterproof digital) are viciously accurate and beautifully simple in their own way.

...Mechanical watches are less accurate than quartz and are now mainly used as "Bling", to demonstrate how wealthy the wearer is...
I agree when it comes to the motivations of most people who wear fine mechanical watches. Most are interested in status and style, not the art or engineering and execution of intricate movements. But don't forget that a few wearers do choose mechanical watches for aesthetic reasons. Unfortunately, others purchase them (especially cheap but functional automatics, e.g. Seiko 5 sometimes available for ~$50!) out of a mistaken notion that they are more practical or reliable since they don't use batteries.

The latest Swarovision FieldPro is really nothing but "Birding Bling" when you think about it since it really does nothing a Zeiss FL doesn't. But it's performance figures give an indication of it's potential and its construction...
Objectively wrong. Among other differences, the Swarovision has far superior off-axis optical performance, which is important for some users and uses.

...Fine timepieces have always represented milestones in human achievements in engineering and science....and, yes.. art...
Sure they have. But I submit that the invention of the quartz digital does likewise. Those heroic watchmakers of the past were motivated by concern for precision in time keeping as much or more so than making cases, faces, and movements aesthetically pleasing, so I think they would have much respect for the quartz digital based on its performance. Were I a time traveler, given a choice for figuring longitude at sea in 1761, I'd choose a Casio digital over Harrison's H4 every time.

...Nonsense.They are slightly less accurate, but represent craftsmanship in engineering.
And you don't have to replace batteries...
If you read online discussions, you'll see that many people buy cheap mechanical automatic watches out of a mistaken belief that they are more reliable and inexpensive in the long run because they don't use batteries. Which is less convenient and costly, having to replace the battery every 3-12 years, or having to have the watch lubricated/cleaned/overhauled every few years? For every 1000 people who know that quartz and digital watches require batteries, only 1 knows that mechanical watches need costly regular maintenance and that quartz watches don't [O.K. I admit that I just made up that "statistic", but I hope you take my point].

...A watch in the field doesn't need to be accurate down to the nano second...
...I once wore a cheapo to bird the forests in Malaysia and it filled with condensation within 3 days and then stopped...
...My watch (Raymond Weil) cost me £200 over twenty years ago, it's been all over the World and is still unscratched and going strong, I call that a bargain...
Ah, all true, but it is also true that a watch can be very accurate, reliably waterproof, _and_ super inexpensive (i.e. "cheapo"). I try not to buy watches, for a long time had only two (a digital and a utilitarian Swiss made automatic) but now have two automatic, four quartz analog, and one digital. When it comes to convenience, practicality, accuracy etc, my best watch has to be my Casio digital that I got when I was about ~10 years old for under $20. I wore it for 15 years absolutely everywhere (never took it off) so it is a little scatched up, but it has never leaked in the shower, swimming pool, or while snorkeling in the sea, and I've only had to replace the band once (for under $10) and the battery three times (every 12 years--it is a big lithium) at a cost of $3 each time. I still use it while camping, traveling etc, or any time I need a watch with an alarm (One of my quartz analog watches has an alarm but it isn't as precise or as easy to use).

So I've had my digital Casio now 36 years, it has cost me under $40 total plus a few minutes every decade to maintain, it is super-precise, and besides telling time has many other abilities. Frankly, I think such performance is a stunning display of technology well-executed, is therefore a tremendous human achievement, and so deserves respect.

--AP
 
Last edited:
Alexis, I enjoyed reading your post especially your mention of Harrison's H4Chronometer. Dava Sobel wrote a book "Longitude" which tells the story of John Harrison. I have seen some of the chronometers in the National Maritime museum in Greenwich London.
 
Post script
Following the reference by Alexis of the Harrison H4 chronometer, I remembered that I have a Royal Observatory Greenwich publication " A Guide to the Royal Observatory Greenwich"(62pp) by Kristen Lippincott. It includes a concise history of timekeeping up to the atomic clocks.There are some nice photographs of Harrison's H1,2,3 and 4. H4 is described as "probably the most important timekeeper ever made"
It also discusses briefly the problem of the fluctuation in the rates of rotation of the Earth, the new clocks are more accurate than the Earth. This may not seem important but has huge implications for GPS/SatNav systems and if I remember correctly a minute adjustment was made on New Years eve. Bring this back to birdwatching or more accurately ornithology, the latest research on migrating birds involves the use of "satellite tagging" which enables ornithologists to map migration routes on their computers giving them new and exciting information. Species tagged include Cuckoo and Osprey.
I accept that for most of us any old watch Aldi or Rolex (mechanical or quartz) will be good enough for when we venture out birdwatching!
 
Yawn.
Nobody recognizes my Rolex Explorer, other than fellow watch enthousiasts. I wear it for myself and nobody else. So far for the 'bling' aspect.

Value for money-wise, any Casio will beat a Rolex in the same way as a Polaroid picture will beat a Picasso. Good luck with the discussion :)
 
90% of the time, I'm wearing an old Rolex Sub or GMTII. Where I live, no one knows what they are anyway.
 
90% of the time, I'm wearing an old Rolex Sub or GMTII. Where I live, no one knows what they are anyway.

My trip watch is an old Casio Data Bank, just a splendid little device.
It is reasonably waterproof, has an alarm, two in fact, multiple time zones and a decent light. That helps a lot when traveling.
My old Rolex Sub is for home use only. It has long lost its shine, there are no alarms and I'd hate to risk losing it. It would be out of place on a trip.
 
I'm a watch hoarder wannabe but financially unable to indulge that habit. I do have a few vintage automatics (Seiko Bellmatic, Swiss Titoni), a Citizen Eco-Drive, and a cool Russian Poljot wind up, all of which would be more reliable long term should watch batteries suddenly become extinct. However, my go-to for the field is a basic battery-powered Victorinox Swiss Army that has proven incredibly durable and accurate, getting banged around and rained on pretty frequently. Plus, I keep my other 'gems' (not any Rolexs, mind you) in pristine condition that way.
 

Attachments

  • Victorinox2.jpg
    Victorinox2.jpg
    257.6 KB · Views: 277
Anything with tritium illumination. Perfect for glancing at the time in the early hours before rolling over for another 30 minutes sleep!

LGM
 
Anything with tritium illumination. Perfect for glancing at the time in the early hours before rolling over for another 30 minutes sleep!

LGM

Not sure that is still legal. The tritium backlights were removed from the East German Army glasses before they were put on the market.
Also, the 12 year tritium half life will dull the display pretty effectively on any vintage gear.
 
Alway wear a wrist watch Apple very occasionally mostly Rolex seadweller never use the mobile phone time?
As I repair watches and clocks it's another interest
 
I went 20 years without a watch, favouring mobile phones for the time. I recently bought a citizen watch for my work long service award.

I love it, I got the one with Bluetooth connectivity to my mobile, so it buzzes, and chimes whenever I get messages or phone calls.
The other big advantage is that the phone battery lasts much longer now, as I'm no longer checking it constantly. Bluetooth is not most reliable connection, but it seems to do quite well paired to my phone, and it lets me know if the connection is lost.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20171006_184729~3.jpg
    IMG_20171006_184729~3.jpg
    231.1 KB · Views: 175
Last edited:
I went 20 years without a watch, favouring mobile phones for the time. I recently bought a citizen watch for my work long service award.

I love it, I got the one with Bluetooth connectivity to my mobile, so it buzzes, and chimes whenever I get messages or phone calls.
The other big advantage is that the phone battery lasts much longer now, as I'm no longer checking it constantly. Bluetooth is not most reliable connection, but it seems to do quite well paired to my phone, and it lets me know if the connection is lost.

Is this the modern equivalent of a gentleman of a cartain age, coming home with a 25 year old blond? :-O


A
 
Warning! This thread is more than 6 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top