Mine is a gift from my father, he bought it when he was 18 years old, those automatic, the company do not exist 'Phenix' swiss, is working like new after 50+ years. The gold is wasted though. :)

many of those modern watches that were posted are pure fashion. Don't try to tell me that with the first one posted you would tell me even an approximate hour. I have 3 watches: a simple Tissot PR50 series on a leather belt, without a chronometer etc, only showing time and date, I wear it every day; a Citizen, made of titanium. I wear it only for exams or sth like that and sometimes when meeting "chicks" (coz it shines a bit). Third one - a Rosato, with that crazy LCD display, in which little bars indicate minutes and hours. I had it once on my hand- at that was enough. Coming back to what Neal has said: yup, and that's what women like. My mother has this tiny little Maurice Lacroix, with a pearl dial. However, the space between 12 and 15 is SOOO small that you can hardly say where the hands are. Once it ended with being late more than an hour bcoz of the reason mentioned above. I'm practical: the watch for, let's say, 200$ shows exactly the same time as the one for 10 000$.

The only one I own at the moment, a Suunto Observer

http://www.progear.net/kauppa/images...r_0909_e10.jpg

Functionality over style, as you can see :D

So that's why you wear womens jewelry and parfum :D

(PS this can get worse if you don't put something in that placeholder soon! Anything!)

Those small dials ? Well, the one on the right is the seconds for the watch as the large second hand is used for the stopwatch, the one at the top is the minutes for the stopwatch, and the bottom one is the alarm time.

Ya think thats complicated ? You should see my old Casio digital with a built-in depth/barometer- it has a screen that shows 24 hour history above and below sea level. Trying to keep it calibrated was a pain so I retired it to the swatch drawer.
http://watchshock.com/photo/Casio/Ea...1272660221.jpg

Darkfish: Very nice, much easier to read than mine (in the dark).

10:12 precisely. Why is that a problem?

Shall I make a poll on that?

Be my guest. I agree it's fashion, and way overpriced, but so are a lot of things. I just found it easy to read.

To the poll: I see 10:13, or 4:43 (depending on your point of view). Precisely ? Dunno, withing 20 seconds-ish.

I still havent determined how one tells up-side-down from right-side up with this watch.

Since the advent of cell phones I do not find a need for a watch. However, some time pieces are true works of art.

I have no problems saying that I look for a fashionable looking watch when selecting one. I also prefer fashionable looking clothing, as I suspect most of you do as well; otherwise, we'd all be wearing burlap sacks. Can't see the problem in such selection.

Around ten years ago, there was an even simplier watch design available. It was was single black disc with a V-slit of 30° moving over a clock-face that separated the hours in twelve coloured segments, like a pie. Cannot remember whether it was Swatch or something else.

The one that Neal has linked now, actually is quite simple to read, and niot different from the standard handles. The one disc marks the big hand, the other disc marks the small hand. That's all. The design clou lies in the changing graphical pattern from the two discs rotating at different speeds. But in principle it is the same idea like having two hands. Binary display watches work different, so did the old watch I described above.

I have a "Certina DS Nautic".

I would buy the one we were talking about if it had clearly marked digits so that I wouldn't have to make a poll on subsim whether it was 10:12, 10:13 or 4:43 :D I prefer practicality to fashion. (not that I wear a burlap sack tho :D)

Indeed though I'm usually told that by their prices :O: