Wristwatches or clocks come in a gazillion varieties nowadays. So much so that they just piss me off. If you're one of those high society freaks who have to dress for every occasion (and breakfast, lunch, dinner, tea, strolls in the park, bedtime are all very, very different occasions) either just because or more commonly because of fashion reasons, then fine. But not everybody can afford thousand dollar pieces on their wrists, and not many have the 'culture' or the romance of old to spend enough money to buy a freaking Perodua Kancil for a grandfather clock that's not too stylish in their modern homes, and requires winding every so often.
I remember back in 2001 I wanted a new watch. It was hard. I go to shops knowing what I want. So I get in, take what I want, pay and get the hell outta there. We have the internet, we have catalogues; I don't see the point in standing around mannequins and racks and shelves for hours, feeling around and trying things out. I do, however believe in doing so for minutes at a time. Anyway, the point here is about watches. All I wanted was something simple.
You'd think it's easy, buying a watch. Not because we're choosy: there's an abundance of choice out there. But because it's personal. I had my strap adjusted the other day and the guy was very specific about every single detail. He said many people are very specific not just about what they like in a watch, but how they wear it--looseness of the strap, the size of the face relative to their wrists, etc. Which is true since the watch on our hand is the most personal item on our person after our phones and wallets. You don't leave home without those three. And for me, my left arm gets weird without it on me. I can't drive properly (it doesn't feel natural), when I run my armswings are awkward, and my hands just doesn't feel right when I put them in my pocket. A watch isn't just a timepiece. It's very much a part of us as it is a part of our everyday lives. Like underwear or bras--it's just wrong without 'em, despite their being purely human creations.
"I want something simple yet elegant, with maybe the date. But that's not such an issue". And how did that work out for me? I scoured the malls of KL, the shops of Mecca and Medina, and even three malls in Jakarta. All to no avail.
Did Tag Heuer offer any of that? No. They just have to have these stupid konon fancy crowns, and the face has to be carbon fibre like the McLaren Formula One cars they sponsor, and the hands just have to be neon orange or something ridiculous like that. And they'd have at least three dials. Patek Philippe have some pretty ones, but that's it: they're too pretty you'd look metrosexual in them. And then there's the small matter of the price, because, as they say: "You never actually own a Patek Philippe. You merely look after it for the next generation". Why, oh why, do we need power reserve indicators? It's not a car, in which an empty tank would be a huge problem. It's a watch. If it's low on power, the second hand can just skip a beat--move double the distance every other second--and you'd know you can head over to the drugstore and get new batteries. It's not the end of the world, and other people know the time too.
And then there's the stupid stopwatch feature. Of course so many are easily fooled. They think they're cool because they have a huge-ass watch on their stick-thin wrists that can be seen from a mile away, and it has five dials or buttons which you could press and the whole thing goes berzerk--second hand rotating counter clockwise, minute hand showing signs of a seizure. Why? If you really do need a stopwatch, why use an expensive Tag? Get a Casio--it's digital, and you can have your laps and splits. Why use something that's hard to read (the second hand in a tiny face here, the millisecond hand on a tinier face there...) when there are cheaper/better alternatives? Why even think of something as stupid as that at all? I thought Tag Heuer and friends catered for the rich who have a watch for every single damn thing they want to do. Why do you put a stopwatch on your expensive watches when you know people wont wear them when they jog or dive or swim? It's pointless yet demand is high, so why do people buy them?
The face of the watch is the most important feature. It's what you look at every time you want the time--which is probably around ten times a day. I still don't get why you need oval faces. For men, I mean. I understand women need them to match their jewelery sometimes it looks like a bracelet, and that's perfectly fine. The beauty of women is etched in their curves so it's only feminine if a watch looks less rounded. Not to say that women can't wear round-faced watches. But short hands and oval faces on men--not cool. Neither round, nor square faces--well then, you're neither here, nor there. Square faces? They look good if you're a character from 2001: A Space Odyssey, and it looks good...on some people. Some. The hands rotate in a circular motion; just leave the faces round for fuck's sake. And make 'em less gay, less poyo, less flashy.
Now we get to the strap. I should think all types of straps have their appeal. But nobody looks good in suit or tux if they wear anything plastic or Velcro or most digital watches for that matter. Sure there's a time and place for everything, but if you could choose something universal, what'd it be? A leather strap just isn't for me as of now. I don't quite have the luxury for a second or third watch, so I'd rather stick to one through thick and thin. And then there's also the small matter of leather/suede and its water- and smell-related issues. So, steel it is then. Have you seen the steel straps for men's watches these days? You look at them and they're just so gender-polarized. Either they're just slightly bigger than their women's counterparts, but still as feminine and still very gay to wear. Or they're just like tiny pieces of bricks, crudely-designed squares or rectangles with sharp edges. In the 1980's, cars were too squarish (e.g. Proton Saga), in the 1990's they were too round, making them look bulky (e.g. Mercedes Benz E-Class, W210). And then there are the fancy ones that think they got it right having a mix of both, with weirdo lines here and there making the watch look like it came from outer space. Just like any recent Pontiac--so rounded it looks like shit, and then you have these pointless lines here and there that make it worse. Now in the Naughties, we have an awesome blend of curves and lines and creases, resulting in the sexy new generation of Merc's and--off the top my head--the Cadillac CTS, any new Volkswagen or Audi, anything from Aston Martin, the new Dodge Charger. Just look at Merc's new GLK and the CLS; or the BMW X6, pointless as it is. Now those are pretty. And I'm not just gaga over the luxury brands: Kia, Honda Mazda and Ford are close behind. You don't want a buffed up 300 pound jock, nor do you want a wafer-thin wimp who exudes innocence and tenderness. You don't want something showy, with awkward motifs and shit. You'd want the James Bond of watches: he won't pack a mean punch, he doesn't come in and show his awesome biceps; yet he's no pushover, he's no "oh, I feel tho depreththed today I jutht need thome chocolate" (with a threthh on the 't' in 'chocolate'). Why can't straps be low-key, yet elegant?
People hate the what-the-fuck-is-that days of the Casio G Shock where straps are a mixture of Velcro and clips and god-knows-what and have rubber protectors for the glass. They hate the konon alternative-ness of the ring watch because you just need something on your wrist. They hate a lot of things. Yet they like the huge, bold and very crude offerings from Fossil because they think it makes them a manly man. They like anything from Tag because 1) it's a Tag and 2) they think the crown is 'pretty' and 3) it's got all these cool things it can do and it's got glow-in-the-dark neon orange hands and that F1 champ wears it. They like anything you think a pimp might want because they crave your attention. They'd get $10 Casios because they can't be bothered to learn to read analog watches (and it's waterproof and has a stopwatch, they'll insist). Geeks/nerds will want the remote control watch or the calculator watch because they think it's cool.
We hate lots of these things yet there is a group of people out there who treasure these items. I'd just love to rant about how hard it is for me to find something I like, but I guess it's the same for everyone since the poyo would have a problem due to the abundance of poyo-ness out there. Wherever you are on the spectrum, you're screwed anyway. As to where this is going, I have absolutely no idea. I saw an ad by Hublot and it had a watch that had a nonstop second hand, which prompted the title but now apparently I have digressed and written my opinion on the market for watches and to an extent, clocks. Well, in November 2003 I finally found something I like. It's titanium so it was light and didn't have that solid feel of something so personal and so valuable. But your hands and arms would 'learn' your watch, in time. That Seiko, though, in all its not-so-grandness, was the sleekest and prettiest of 'em all TO ME. I take issue with these kind/design of watches because not only are they so rare, they are usually extremely expensive. It isn't hard to design something without aesthetics. It's probably cheaper to make since it doesn't need spinning crowns and extra mechanisms for stupid stopwatches. Yet only the grandest brands make these kinds. It's like only the Rolls Royces and the Bentleys make 2.0 sedans and everyone else makes coupés and hot hatches. The 2.0 sedans will still be sedans and still be 2.0 but they'd be ridiculously expensive due to their fancy badge (and superior build quality, I should add). But this Seiko I found was an exception to the rule, so I bought it. My gift for 8As in PMR.
In recent months I have looked around online and in all my looking around, found only three I could agree upon. One is the Rolex Explorer. Before you pass judgment on such high taste on my part, google it and take a look for yourself. Not the Explorer II. But the original Explorer designed for members of Sir Edmund Hillary's climb up Everest in 1953. The fact that it was designed so long ago and still is in production goes to show what a timeless (pun intended) classic it is. Why Rolex just had to 'touch it up' with a white face and a silly rotatable crown, only God knows. But take a look at the Explorer and tell me it isn't the James Bond of watches. Okay, fine. Maybe it isn't exactly 007 due to the lack of gadgetry, but you know what I mean. Anyway, I can't have it even if I had a million dollars to burn: the dad has it, and that would lack originality. Or would it? (Maybe our preferences are indeed the same?) Then there was one each from Maurice Lacroix and Jaeger-LeCoultre. All three very similar, and priced between $1,300 and $5,000. Well? Well. Well at least I know what I want. It may be impossible to find a watch I like, much less get one, but that makes it all the more worth it. Which is why I love this Seiko, even if I could have had something more solid or 'classy' or 'of a higher stature' (or pricier, in short).
And on a side note, watches or clocks are synonymous to the tick-tocking of a timepiece. And they can only tick-tock if the second hand ticks one second and then tocks the next. So second hands that don't stop are just weird.
