>>18687815 Seiko is better at what? Being overpriced and chintzy with the good parts? FUCK Seiko. I'll never buy another new one for as long as I live.
I'm convinced there are only a small handful of serious posters here. Everything else is trolling and nonsense.
>>18688173 >Seiko is better at what? At keeping time. The Swiss and French literally shutdown their chronmetry competitions because Seiko was going to win.
>>18688182 Oh, accuracy? Not even close to the fifth thing I consider when buying watches. But a lot of what I buy comes with Seiko movements that Seiko only reserves for their spendier in-house watches, so I guess I'm glad they keep time so well. Again, fuck Seiko.
>>18688671 >After Seiko’s victories in 1968, the Geneva observatory then cancelled its contests in 1968, ending the long tradition of Swiss observatory timing trials. https://watchesbysjx.com/2013/06/explaining-seikos-legendary-history-in-swiss-chronometer-trials-with-live-pictures-of-its-landmark-astronomical-observatory-chronometer.html COPE
>>18690314 No, he's right. If you were asking you would have said "they are?" But you said they aren't, contradicting his claim, which is a statement, not a question.
>>18691481 >Using a question mark at the end of a declarative statement (a statement with a question mark) is primarily used to express surprise, disbelief, or to turn a statement into an interrogative request for confirmation (e.g., "You're actually going?"). It signals rising intonation, indicating a question without strict inverted sentence structure. >Grammarly FUCKING SPERG
>>18688671 The swiss chronometry contests were a shitshow >want to make it all about muh traditional mechanical chronometers >don't state as much in the terms of entry and competition so you'd still get a lot of (paid) entrants >Rolex fails to meet the demands a few times, they shit themselves in rage and stop applying and create their own "superlative chronometry" standard that is actually worse (has been revised a bunch of time since, now more strict than COSC) >"see, this is proof that chronometry is very demanding and not everyone can meet the demands" >suddenly, japanese factories become very efficient and can outperform your domestic pieces >re-write the rules to exclude them >suddenly, electrical and then quartz chronometers become more efficient too >Omega is trying to present a quartz watch in the marine chronometry contest >re-re-write the rules so only chronometers built in Geneva can apply and exclude Omega that way
>>18693262 I don't follow anything anymore. Is that man a racecar driver, a golfer, a basketball, football, tennis, or hockey player, a mountain climber, a chess player, a tech billionaire, or what?
>>18697131 If only they were still $100. For what they charge now that shake awake movement fucking sucks. Not to mention all the other cheap components on 5s. Seiko was probably pretty great back in the day though when they were cheap and didn't have competition undercutting their prices while using NH35s.
>>18697131 Those fucking suck. I'll never buy another "automatic" that you can't hack and handwind. Also, the crystal sucks and the bracelet is shit and of course there's no screwdown crown.
You won't find any Seiko 5 new for under $130, and even at that price it's shitty. Guess that brand name really speaks to you.