Tungsten Watch...Too Flashy (literally)..as in reflective?
So I have been toying with the idea of getting this Movado watch for a while. It is made out of a substance called Tungsten Carbide. For those of you that are unfamiliar with it, it is perhaps the most scratchproof metal you can get it a watch. I have a ring made out of Tungsten, and you simply cannot scratch it. I have taken a pair of pliers to this thing, and it will dent the tool without leaving a mark on the ring.
I want a watch made out of the same substance because I tend to beat the hell out of my watches. With this watch, it will look brand new even after years of wear. The one problem is that it is VERY reflective. When you clean it, it shines like a mirror. That leads me to the main drawback. I just started work for a hedge fund that is straigt casual all the time. This means the watch will show all day long since I will be rolling short sleeves a lot. Anyone else think this might be just a bit too flashy for a work setting, or am I just being paranoid.






I would not wear that.
I would not wear that.
i really dont think its a
i really dont think its a big deal. its not like ur rolling into work with a patek philippe
Personally
Personally I think the watch looks very tacky. If you were buying it just for the material, I wouldn't.
Movado is for 70 year old Italians. No offense if there are any 70 year old Italians on the board.
--------------
Either you sling crack rock or you got a wicked jump shot
2
2
ooh! ooh!
A watch that will hold it's value! I'll take three and throw in a side order of delusion as well.
1
1
OMMMMMGGGGG!!!!!!!
you've totally pwned me with your arguments - the final nail in my coffin was when you told me to STFU.
Who said anything about the Hublot Big Bang (or any watch for that matter) being overpriced? Oh yes, it was you - maybe someone needs a little self-justification? I don't give two $hits whether you worry about the relative value of the stuff you buy. If you can afford it and it floats your boat then knock yourself out.
What I have an issue with is the portrayal of a watch as a solid investment - they aren't. End of. It would have to be a pretty friggin rare watch, and you'd have to hold onto it for a long time for any significant appreciation. In the meantime, you have the time value of money working against you (sorry), the cost of maintenance, and a cotton wool encased sleeve to make sure it doesn't hit anything.
Yes, there are some very special watches in the world which could be considered "art" but a mass-produced Hublot will not even come close.
The only watch that has consistently had a resale value above retail is the stainless Daytona and that's more to do with a deliberate restriction of supply.
And one final thing, I'm guessing Antiquorum is the same place that was recently busted for colluding with the manufacturers to inflate the perceived second-hand values of their watches?
So, in summary, I'll take the hard way please.
0
0
John Mack Your point about
John Mack
Your point about the poor investments of watches is mostly true.
My point was to say that if he wants a Tungsten watch, Hublot Big Bang 'Ice' Bang is a good watch if he's got $13,000. Price is very relative, I agree.
I apologize for saying STFU...
Best of luck,
Net Worth or Nothing
???
What happened there? Did I interview you yesterday? ;-)
No, I just realized it was
No, I just realized it was pointless, so I deleted my posts.
It's one of those situations where I could have argued for the sake of arguing, but really I could care less about Tungsten watches, Hublot Big Bang watches (overpriced, flashy, too sporty for work), watch appreciation, watch cost/value/price (that could be a great conversation though), arguing for the sake of arguing, et cetera. I just happen to have some knowledge about timepieces.
I recommend www.timezone.com if you have an interest in watches though and especially to the guy who posted.