| View single post by tny795 | |||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat Oct 14th, 2006 07:08 pm |
|
||||||||||||
tny795
|
And, after reading what you and Ken (with his illustrated epistle to the Corinthians), I've come to 2 conclusions. 1. None of us in this thread has really addressed the issue of what, in each person's opinion, constitutes a "dress" watch. If what Ken wrote is anything to go by, it seems any watch can be a "dress" one. A new, probably short, thread ought to be posted asking just that question. 2. Women differ from men in re watches because they do NOT see them as jewelery! (which is something they all tend to go nutso over, or: over which they go nutso). I've tried to get many to convert to more than one timepiece, using the famous sentence: A watch is a piece of jewelery that happens to tell time, as well. No dice; only one reluctantly gave that some thought and has come 'round. I was very surprised that men see it just the other way around--blown away, actually. Speaking of the quartz angle--I know one very elderly gentleman who didn't know what in the aitch an automatic was and wanted to wear one of mine to "see if I like it". Cardiac arrest time for me. BTW: he didn't get one. All my words about movements and complications, etc. had no bearing on the topic either. I simply stated I had one dress watch.....no elaboration. So, Mr. Pax, start a thread and let's see how the cookie crumbles. Or, let's not start one.....whatever. After a brief riposte to Mr. KenC's illustrated essay (what I thought about that can't be printed here), I'm going to play some poker. Paxman wrote: You know thinking about your comments on movements, complications and brand names compells me to tell you most men I know are the same way and could care less about the specifics of watch or even a watch at all.
|
||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||