Well yes, but at least we usually agree on what a watch actually is.
Jeannie
Prompted by the above, I asked myself the question: Do we ?
So in an endeavour to hammer out some definitive criteria for what a watch is, and find out if there actually is a general consensus; I put it to you..... Where do you draw the line as to what is a watch and what is a gimmick, an exercise in horological prowess, an exhibition of micro-mechanics, an ego-trip for a designer, or simply a joke ?
The more pictures, the better.
For me, a watch should, quite simply, tell me the time at a glance. I should not have to decipher the display, or search for the hands, or look in 2 different places for hours & minutes, or hold it at a certain angle to be able to read it. The cost is irrelevant, though I've included the costs in my examples just for the hell of it and comparison purposes.
My starter for ten:
This is a watch:
This cost me $3,000
This.... isn't:
I wouldn't pay $300 for it, let alone the $300,000 asking price
Some people have opinions - The rest of us have taste.
Prompted by the above, I asked myself the question: Do we ?
So in an endeavour to hammer out some definitive criteria for what a watch is, and find out if there actually is a general consensus; I put it to you..... Where do you draw the line as to what is a watch and what is a gimmick, an exercise in horological prowess, an exhibition of micro-mechanics, an ego-trip for a designer, or simply a joke ?
The more pictures, the better.
For me, a watch should, quite simply, tell me the time at a glance. I should not have to decipher the display, or search for the hands, or look in 2 different places for hours & minutes, or hold it at a certain angle to be able to read it. The cost is irrelevant, though I've included the costs in my examples just for the hell of it and comparison purposes.
Interesting topic. If we rule out the easy ones, where there aren't any hands or other markers to show hours and minutes, then you have a continuum in terms of "telling time at a glance." That continuum will vary by individual. For example, you appear to be saying that, for you, any regulator is "not a watch", since you have to look in two different places for hours and minutes. I would disagree, I own two regulators and I don't find them particularly hard to tell the time at a glance.
How about this one? I admit it takes a half a second longer to read, but it's still within the definition of watch that you have set (i.e. readable at a glance, albeit a longer one than a conventional glance):
Here's another question for you--what about accuracy? I can't tell the time to within, say, two minutes, on this watch, but I still would say it's a watch:
Now, this one crosses my line:
So does this one (yes, it does show the time, after a fashion):
I'm not sure I actually read the time. When using an analogue I just see a patten and instantly recognise the time, to within a minute or two.
I do get stumped if someone asks me the time and minute hand is between the indices and often just show the dial to the asker because I feel like I could be cheating them of +/- a minute or two?
I don't get hung up on accuracy but I like to see the time as quickly as possible, so the old school analogue display suits me
Likes: 
Originally Posted by Jeannie
Well yes, but at least we usually agree on what a watch actually is.
Reply With Quote
):
