[tfar]

Simple question: When you buy a watch, what's more important for you, the movement or the looks? I recognize that there is also a point about functionality. But the way I see it we can handily integrate that into either category. Example: You like divers. A diver's function depends largely on it's case design and a simple but reliable movement inside will do. So you choose "looks". Or you want a complicated watch with a certain feature set, you choose "movement".

Things like history and craftsmanship can also be summed up under these two categories. Some watches have fantastic outside and inside craftsmanship but the movements are simple. Others have a historically important movement but the craftsmanship is nothing special.

When I make a buying decision it can be based on either of the two. Sometimes one is more important than the other. Both are valid choices and standpoints for me. I'd just like to see where WUS stands.

So I'm not giving a 50/50 option because that would be boring. Are you a movement person or a looks person first and foremost?

For me I guess, with a pistol to my head (and it would still be a hard decision) I'd say movement. But I admit that if I found a watch totally ugly and it had the greatest movement, it better be really affordable. ;-)

What's your choice?

EDIT: When I think about it, and this might help, I only bought 4 out of 24 watches I own for their looks. An E1, a sea Dweller, a Panerai PAM001 and a Citizen Diver with monocoque case. It does help that they all keep excellent time, though.

 

[tfar]

Sorry, this was supposed to go in the PUBLIC FORUM. Mods, could you please move this? Thanks. :thanks

Till

 

[cavallino33]

Originally I bought just for looks. After a while I realized I enjoyed the watches with special movements or interesting history more.

Still I won't buy an really ugly watch just for it's movement but I have bought watches that had an interesting case/dial/construction but a good plain jane movement (i.e. base eta 2824-2). I would never buy a watch that had a notoriously crappy movement.

 

[Bogeyman]

I'd buy primarily for the looks, since I'm going to be glancing at the watch constantly, it might as well be a joy to look at. The movement doesn't have to be exotic or overly complicated, just reliable.

 

[ccm123]

Looks, for me.:-!

 

[Mecha-Shock]

Looks. If it catches my eye I grab it. I only use all my G's for time, date and day of the week.

 

[tfar]

I'd buy primarily for the looks, since I'm going to be glancing at the watch constantly, it might as well be a joy to look at. The movement doesn't have to be exotic or overly complicated, just reliable.

Really good argument. |>

 

[ThomAsio]

Both b-)

As a result, I dont have many watches...

 

[Maine]

I would avoid a poor movement; my threshold is to stay away from the sort of cheap Chinese Ebay specials - the really cheap ones where the hands fall off and the crown wobbles around - and anything that's old and uneconomical to service. Other than that, I'm happy to wear anything, but obviously prefer higher quality and decorated movements, because they look nice. Hmm. Look. Nice.

I think I prefer looks

 

[Wah_Wah_Wah]

For G-shock, of course looks. Otherwise, I am too stupid to buy a series of frogs using the same module.

For mechanicals, looks and movement. They both are equally important. Good look with in-house movement is the best combination.

 

[BruceS]

Generally looks because if I don't like that I won't wear it. Sometimes, functionality wins, like when I was diving. I mostly used Citizen Aqualand Duplex watches, and I think they're pretty ugly, but very functional dive watches.

Cheers,
Bruce

 

[kafvyn]

For G-shock, of course looks. Otherwise, I am too stupid to buy a series of frogs using the same module.

For mechanicals, looks and movement. They both are equally important. Good look with in-house movement is the best combination.

I agree with Wah Wah Wah. I will also consider design, those that are evergreen, those that we are not sick of looking and wearing over n over again.:-!

 

[tribe125]

Sorry, this was supposed to go in the PUBLIC FORUM. Mods, could you please move this? Thanks. :thanks

Till

Moved.

 

[gettocard]

Interesting poll but why in a Gshock forum ??

Look of course,but I've once sold a 6K Euro worth of stunning IWC chrono just because I could not stand the idea of having the same caliber of a 400 Euro Hamilton,wich,of course,makes the Hamilton best value.

 

[Ryan Alden]

Looks of course, undeniably, undoubtedly.

 

[Ray MacDonald]

Probably movement, but I'm interested in Vintage where it makes a difference. You wouldn't buy a 7 jewel pocket watch when a 15 jewel one won't cost that much more. Factor in the service costs and the final price will be virtually the same.

 

[Red Rover]

I won't even "look" at a watch that is not visually appealing to me. After that, the movement MAY OR MAY NOT kill the deal, but the watch WILL be one that I like to look at.

 

[*El Ocho 1*]

I guess I'd have to say looks. I like how all my watches look & I doubt I'd wear a hideous looking watch only because of it's movement.

 

[TheWalrus]

Since functionality has been subsumed into looks I guess that makes my choice even easier. I find movements interesting, but, as others have said, as long as they pass a base level of reliability and quality it's all fine with me.

 

[GX9901]

I like a nice exotic movement as much as the next WIS, but a watch with a great movement that looks terrible to me would be a deal breaker while a great looking watch with a common movement would still have my interest.