JCC ITT We are unimpressed

Every time I read one of your posts now, I'm going to hear The Final Countdown in the back of my mind... and I think I hate you for it.

 

Is this because of the Bond connection? Because he's supposed to wear a Rolex. Omega paid their way into that position.

 

No my dad had Seamasters when I was growing up and I've always liked two models in particular - Seamaster Professional and Seamaster Planet Ocean.

To be fair to Omega, what Rolex was in the 50s is the niche they occupy now. I don't think anyone who drops £7,000 on a Rolex Submariner actually takes it diving.

 

*Messages SuperWatto on FB*

Me: Hey, SW... the collective jcc need you to verify that Ender Saiz does indeed wear an Omega.

SW: . . . .

Me: It's very important

SW: . . . .

Me: Okay, then... thanks for your time.

 

That's cool, was just curious. I went through a bit of a watch phase and I have a Seamaster Pro and an Explorer I still with me now. Good point about cost in relation to actual use, but that is more than the price for a "base" Submariner... and Seamaster Pros are also pretty expensive if literally just used for diving.

 

I'm totally hijacking this thread to talk watches.

You're right re the price; they charge more though for that insane looking date model with the small magnification bubble above the date. Looks terrible, but whatever.

I don't know if I think for a proper diver it's too expensive; the quartz model, which is less "pure" but more accurate in terms of time kept, is only about US$2,500-3,000. Considering the seals won't break, the Helium release valve and that you'll likely own it for 10 years it's not a bad investment. I'm sure you could be like every other wannabe by buying a TAG-Heuer but why, I mean honestly, why would you?

At my 10 year work anniversary I'll likely end up with a Breitling Superocean II, which I'm not complaining about.

 

-Any incarnation of Superman... has always been my least favorite superhero character.

-The Blind Side... it was an entertaining film, but really, a Best Picture nominee? And Sandra Bullock nabbing the Best Actress Oscar for it? The hell? It was barely above the quality of a Lifetime/Hallmark channel television film.

-90-95% of college basketball.

 

I stopped in this store a month or two ago:

http://www.breguet.com/en/New-York3

I... was impressed. I mean, I don't wear watches ever and couldn't imagine spending that kind of dough on a watch but they were literally things of beauty.

 

Ender Sai Wasn't there a style thread a few months back? Find that, or start one damn it.

 

Who wears a watch? I thought that's what phones were for.

 

Erm, me?

 

Yes, you should start a "Tender Thigh's Guide to Fashion" thread.

 

Not impressed.

 

ITT? I'm unimpressed in every thread.

 

I'll contribute a little more to the thread hijack too.

Yeah, I'm actually thinking that price you mentioned might be for one with some gold too, as opposed to just stainless. And I agree about the date bubble on Rolexes; one of the things I like about the Explorer is the lack of a date, and therefore, the bubble. My Seamaster Pro is one of the quartz models, which like you said lacks some "purity" but makes up for it in accuracy and convenience (it doesn't stop when I don't wear it, which my Explorer does since it's automatic... but that's one of the reasons I usually wear the Explorer). I've already had both of these for over ten years and plan to keep them.

Congrats on the work anniversary Breitling.

 

Deadwood

 

... I actually stand by you on this one. I have a watch, and I use it to tell time about half the time (the other half I pull out my phone. I don't know! It's silly.). It's a really cheap $30 one though because that's what I can afford. I actually wouldn't mind spending more on a watch (though not a whole lot more) if I could afford it, because there are some watches out there that I really like. My current watch serves it's purpose fine, though, so I can't complain.

Yes, but you're missing the point. You'd be a stupid, cruel, prejudiced, boring, and totally unremarkable person with style.

 

You don't need the right clothes to have style. But some people find it helpful to compensate.

 

It's not a stupid comment. I understand totally that a person will look better in a $2,000 suit than in a $100 suit. But I question two things. First, paying $2,000 because you want to look nice is idiotic when there are so many more important things you could spend that on, things that would actually increase your life experience and not just make you look pretty. And secondly, I kind of think there's a ceiling on value. Is a $2,000 suit really going to be 25% more awesome than a $1,500 suit or are you just paying for things that don't actually matter at that point.

And, to those of us who go the movies for something other than a fashion show, Craig looked great in Casino Royale. Casino Royale and Skyfall are both four star movies in my opinion. If his suits in Casino Royale were a little cheaper, that didn't detract from the wonderful, exciting, emotional experience of the film in the slightest. It's the same with movies as it is with people: the cost of the clothes in them is not directly proportional to how awesome they are. Have you never enjoyed a low-budget film in your life because the jeans aren't designer quality?

 

On a sidenote, does anyone else notice how Ender always seems to mention Craig-Bond when talking about fashion? It's happened several times now, in different threads. Not saying that Craig didn't look great, but you might want some new references. It's starting to feel like a fixation.

 

So if I'm fixated on Rachel Weisz, does that mean we're a shadow-married couple?

 

I don't see how it could possibly mean anything else. Erotic fan-fiction time!