Hoppy, would you believe........WWW.WATCHWINDERS.COM

£60.00.

Ive seen similar winders at watch fairs, they are basic and battery operated, but they do the job. I found them to be noisey though, and if you want to keep the watch wound you would have to switch it on for a full charge(wind) every 24-36 hours depending on the watch. Maybe use one of those timer plugs, used for turning lights on and off when your not in.....

Nat dont force the back, it may not be pop off.

Some nice Brietlings pictured, any more.

Im going the 'full hog' at the weekend and taking snaps of my current collection, any tips on how to stop glare off the lenses. My photos are sh1te compared to others shown, any advice welcome...

Cheers Yoza

 

Looks very nice Paul, you activists get paid too well!

Les

 

Owning an expensive watch is not all about telling the time. Its an item of jewellery.

Hence my purchase. That watch should last me all of my life and be passed down to my children. You can't really do that with a Casio G-Shock.

"Fashion is temporary, class is permanent".

 

Yoza, great link for the winder. Thanks.

Photographing your watches should be quite easy with a digital camera that goes close enough, as you can see exactly what you're getting. You'll probably be better off without flash, but a tripod would be handy.

Reflections will be a problem, but if you remember that the angle of incidence is equal to the angle of reflectance, you'll be fine. No, I'm not taking the pi55. It just means that light bounces off a reflective surface at the same angle that it strikes it. Like a mirror. Which is why when you photograph people wearing glasses with flash, the flash comes straight back at you - so you need to move the flash away from the line of vision of the lens. That way the flash will reflect off to one side, but that isn't so easy with a built-in flash, so best to turn it off. Now you will be in to longer shutter speeds and everything will be much easier with a tripod. (Borrow one, or do what I do with little table-top shots like this and cobble something together with some tins of cat food and blue-tack - it works for me!)

Bearing in mind the angle of reflectance thing, if you're shooting the watch square on, the reflection you'll see will be that of the camera and you. Thing to do is get a piece of black card and cut a hole in the centre where you point the lens, also leaving room for the focus and exposure sensors to see what they need to do.

If you're shooting square-on like this, you probably don't need much depth-of-field (depth of clear focus in the image) which is just as well as you won't have much. But in this case it has the added advantage of throwing reflections out of focus. Say your camera-to-watch distance is 20cm, then the reflected image of the camera will be in focus at the camera-to-watch distance plus the watch-to-reflected-image distance, in this case 20cm plus 20cm. This is a 100% differential so there's a good chance reflections will be well blurred.

If you have trouble shooting square-on like this, try it from an angle. Move your piece of black card around until that is what the camera sees as the reflection, and get your missus to hold it there. If shooting at an angle like this, it's worth trying with flash.

Only other thing to note is that, without flash you'll probably be relying on room lighting. Flourescent light is usually greenish, and tungsten bulbs yellow-orange so if your camera is not compensating for this (check white balance setting) you'll need to make colour corrections when printing.

Cheers,

Richard.

 

Hoppy,
Ive read your tips, but your too late.

Ive just finished snapping them, some are OK, some not so.

Anyway they are done now, I will do a better job next time.

Just need to figure out how to get them off the camera and onto this page.

A job for the better half, me thinks....

 

go on then, here's my recent purchase



Breitling SuperOcean

simon

 

Simo, looks good.

I've got a Breitling with the raised pointers at the quarter hour on the bezel, and they are very sharp. Rips cuffs and pockets and I think I'll get them trimmed down and rounded off at a local jewellers.

Rolex Sub and Omega Sea as smooth as you like and nice to touch. And I can polish the face without shredding my tie

Richard.

 

Nice SuperOcean , dont take this the wrong way, but why didnt you go for the 'Professional' for an extra £50.

When they brought the two models out, I thought surely nobody would buy the non Professional model, due to the higher spec model being so close in price.........how wrong was I.

PS. I have E-mailed my pictures to Sonic, so he can put them up for me, because Im stupid !

Keep em coming, where are all the Rolexes ?

 

SOme hairy scary moles you have there fella!!!


shiver!

 

Is the Breitling a watch for those with impaired sight? those numbers on the face are pretty big

 

Yoza

saw it in the shop & just kinda liked it

simon

 

BTTT in case Sonic cant find it, post my pictures please....

 

Yoza, about to do it now, sorry mate been working in London

Pics on there way

 

And here they are, a fine collection too I might add

 

 

and last buit no means least

















Steve

 

Thanks for that Sonic...

Firstly I would like to apologise for the dire quality of the pictures.

Pics 1 & 4 Omega Seamaster Professional 3/4 sized quartz
Pics 2 & 3 Chase-Durer Trident FCX
Pics 5 & 6 Breitling Jupitor Pilot
Pics 7 & 10 Rolex GMT Master II
Pics 8 & 9 Rolex Explorer II
Pic 11 & 14 Seiko Sports 150
Pics 12 & 13 Breitling Navitimer (Swiss replica)
Pics 15 & 16 Rolex Daytona Cosmograph (Swiss replica)
Pics 17 & 18 Casio G Shock Classic
Pic 19 Assorted Bitz n bobs....
Pic 20 assorted watches, with boxes and papers
Pics 21 & 22 Breitling Blackbird with optional UTC (Swiss replica)
Pics 23 & 25 Breitling Crosswind with optional UTC
Pics 26 & 27 Citizen Diver Pro

I have a few more but they where not to hand when the photos were taken.
I hope to snap them ( another 8 ) using the tips provided by 'Hoppy'.

I may have said this before, but I will recap.
The replicas were bought to supliment my 'real' watches, I would wear the replicas when working, or when my 'real' watches were in danger of being robbed or damaged. But as my collection has changed through selling/swapping etc, Ive been left with the replicas. And I must add, some of them are more accurate than the originals.

Later Yoza [ Throws digi-camera in the bin ]

Ps. The most accurated and reliable watch out of the lot.......is, [drumroll].....

The G Shock.

 

Picture of my IWC



Si

 

i quite like the rolex explorer. not sure abot the rest of them. watches with more than one clock on 'em don't really do it for me. interesting to see them, in any case. after a few more drinks they'll look sharp.

 

Nice IWC.

No messing white on black, clear reading at a glance.

I like the day date windows.

 

Yoza,

When you say about the accuracy, what are the Breitings like as I like the look and features of them? According to the website, to acheive official chronometer status they can be out by up to -4 / +6 seconds My Seiko chromongraph is something like 1 second per month (and about a quarter of the price )

I once looked at a Rolex Cosmograph in some private / not cheap location jewellers and apart from the wait to get one, they said that Seiko's probably were more accurate - you were paying for the name

Andy

 

yeah but your seiko dont get you nuff respect in mcdonalds's do it?? my mate is getting a awesome rolex when he is payed off the loan for his nova (gsi engine, lowered, clear corners, 15MW alpine) and its like 5 large. just for a watch innit!

 

Apple, you don't buy a posh mechanical watch for accuracy. The psychology of it all is a bid wierd, but it's all part of the fun I think Rolex have even stopped making quartz watches now.

I have a Breitling quartz and it's so accurate it is boring - like +2.5 secs in the last 11 months. Within a minute a month is very good for a mechanical watch.

It is also made of titanium and I wear it with a leather strap, so it is so light you don't even know it's there! What's the point in that?

Richard.

 

gareth, wot no oakley or adeeeeedas, init rolix is for jimmy saveeeeeeelle - no respec D)

and there's me thinking the quartz ones are the cheap and nasty end of the range for accuracy...

my old man had an automatic for yonks but he never said how accurate it was, just that you saved on batteries and didn't have to remember to wind it up (true Yorkshireman )

 

Sicotty....very nice IWC.
One of the best manufacturers out there.

Excellent.

 

But that's like saying "Why spend £160,000 on that Aston Martin Vanquish? My Radical is even faster and it only cost £30,000!"... Not exactly the point is it...?

 

Do I have to go into....

How many moving parts go into a Rolex auto movement ?

How long it takes to build one ?

How you have to qualify to build them ?

How much you pay for them.

And you want them to be accurate aswell.......talk about " having your cake and eating it. "

Anorack time..

A title of "chronometer" has successfully undergone the entire battery of tests set by the COSC. This neutral and independant body tests the movements over a period of 15 days and nights. In 5 positions and 3 different temperatures 23, 38 and 8deg C.

To be called an official "chronometer" a mechanical movement must meet 7 criteria.........AYE, WAKE UP !

Shall I carry on, or wrap up ? Yawn, Yawn.

 

Read "Longitude" by Dava Sobel. I was given the paperback version by someone who'd already finished it on the plane and didn't want to take it back.


It cost me about a thousand quid, as it encouraged me to buy a Rolex instead of a TAG Heuer. Which would have been more accurate.


What car would you prefer, a 1976 Lamborghini Countach or a 2003 WRX STi?

Each is welcome to their choice.

 

Dava Sobel.....phwa, he is my underling.

Sorry John Harrison was my tea lad, Dava Sobel was just some writer.