 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Sun Sep 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | Florida &, Arizona USA |
| Posts: | 11288 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
KenC wrote:steve6387 wrote:I really like the movement and crafstmanship of my mechanicals/autos.... but I think the whole idea of those watches having a "soul" and "becoming one" with the owner is utter nonsense.
So, call me "nonsensical"....I don't recall using the term "becoming one", but to me I do use the term "soul" to describe what I feel is the spirit, history and art of the craftsmanship involved!
That wasn't directed specifically at you, Ken. I've seen your posts here and on other forums and respect your contributions. I also have a preference for the auto/mechanical movement myself.
My comment was specifically a poke in the eye to those that look down on quartz watches and people who buy them with a complete disregard for the fact that quartz is a cheaper, more accurate, and (arguably) more durable movement. You have to admit, Ken that there is a certain snob factor that can rear it's ugly head from time to time in these debates. While this may not be as prevalent here, there is no shortage of it on some other forums.
--Steve
Steve...Don't misunderstand...I took no offense to you statement, and, I agree that quartz, in a purely digital form, can be more durable than mechanical. I also feel that in instances, a multi-functional digital watch can provide specific detailed information that mechanical cannot....That said, I did want to define "soul" as I see it.
As to snob factor, yes, I see it all the time...not only in Mech v Quartz, but in Rolex V the World, German watches V others, Swiss v Japanese, et al.