Wednesday, 20 October 2021

The Big Question

I read this Guardian article this morning and it resonated with some of my views. Without reading too much into the word "meaning" in this it makes the important point of "we're all we've got"and perhaps we should stop thinking about SciFi, stop placing God as the center and start thinking about humanity as the center ... 


I would place religion as a key player in our environmental problems as well as our problems of getting along together. Religions (particularly the Abrahamic stemmed faiths) somehow are key in fostering the idea that somehow "God" and the "Final Conflict" are what we were created for.

So its not for the prudent management of our selves and our world, its somehow about pleasing God. Its almost as if all religions want to celebrate our death as the sacrifice for God.

To me this is complete madness.

The reality as I see it is that we have (in the last few dozen years) become truly world changing agents and are slowly waking up to that fact. 

We have to realise that if we fuck up here we fall forever, there is no "new land" to migrate to.

We need to get rid of the toxic mental disease at the heart of most of religion (all or most of them really) and make anthropocentric views the center of what's important.

Now to be clear I am not saying that  there is no God, what I am saying is that the human views of God are wrong. If we continue to rely on the ideas of a bunch of illiterate un-educated sheep shaggers and War Lords to inform us of what God is then we're locked into a thinking from 2000 years ago which is entirely out of step with human capacity right now.

Sunday, 17 October 2021

investment watches

Its been a while since my last post here and so I thought I'd whack something together which I was thinking about a topic that came up in an internet discussion. The topic was "will this watch make a good investment".  Note: not this watch



but it sure is a nice watch.

Anyway, I see this being bantered around on various watch discussion sites where an amount of intellectual self delusion goes on (commonly I call this watch wanking).

A well known watch review site did an article (here) about the resale values of Rolex models and identified some pretty stand out models. I thought I'd discuss a the stand out model of the Daytona 116520 White.

Introduced in about 2000 its only been naround a few years. As you can see from their chart (which I've edited to remove distraction) that seems to have grown in price from around US$13,000 when new to nearly US$30,000 now.

A KingWang type would just leap on that and go WOW ... I can make a packet on a watch.

Lets just do a little more analysis depth than that simplistic wanking, hmm? So to be able to get that sort of growth you had to know in advance which watches would go up and which would not. Notice that the Cellini Time actually went down in cost over the time between release and used price researched for their article (2020).

Now the Daytona 116500 was made in 2000, which means that you'd have had to keep it not only in good order, but either proof of service or a recent service done if you wanted to get that money. Such things are  not free. Financial people call this "cost of carry".

Now lets look at what would have happened if you'd put $13,000 down on something else, lets say good old fashioned gold. Now how much gold would you get in the year 2000? 

Back in 2000 gold was about US$279 per oz, that $13,000 works out to be about 47oz of gold (people didn't buy fractions of an Oz ).

So now, if you'd put aside that gold, what would that be worth today? Well at US$2,424 per oz at the moment of writing means you would have US$112,946.23. Suddenly the less than US$30,000 seems like peanuts doesn't it. That is because gold has risen like this since even the 70's


So you could now go out and buy 4 Daytonas and still have change.

Amusingly gold isn't even considered a good investment ... 

Watches as an investment? Laugh ... I nearly shat.

Friday, 8 October 2021

Arlec PC800: how to delete a program

If you have one of these (or something similar with different branding) you may want occasionally to delete a specific program (emptying it), while not disturbing your other programs.

Well its not in the manual but I discovered it by accident. You press the Manual button with the progam you want to delete showing. Like this


hope that helps

Tuesday, 7 September 2021

the enduring appeal of the Dive Watch (is it based on signalling and identification?)

I had a discussion the other day (online) which (I'm sure) prompted Google to fish this Hodinkee article up into my feed. I felt that it was entirely bang on with what I was saying in that discussion about why we like our divers watches.

This watch was my second Seiko (discussed here) which I bought in around 1984. I picked it because I liked the Diver Style and did an amount of swimming, snorkelling and other wet (weather) activities. 


I liked the bezel timer aspect for daily things too (when the print still showed) and best of all it wasn't a big chunky watch that got in the way of things (discussed here) and shows that this "diver" style watch didn't need to be Bold and Chunky as it was thinner and lighter than many modern watches (such as my SNK805 or SRPE61K1).


Which is more interesting in light of the Hodinkee article. However while I strongly identified with everything identified in that piece there were a few points I'd change the wording of very slightly. So if I may make changes:

This was probably more true in the 1950s than it is today – case manufacturing precision, as well as improvements in seals and gaskets, mean that the days of it being advisable to take off your watch before washing your hands are long gone, and virtually any mechanical watch from a Seiko 5 on up is going to be able to tolerate splashes and even brief periods of immersion, and emerge none the worse for wear. I wore my first mechanical watch, a Seiko 5, into the ocean every summer for several years. I happened at the end of that period to have begun doing watchmaking as a hobby and out of curiosity I took the back off the watch, curious to see what it was becoming clear to me, was injudicious behaviour, might have done to the innards. There was a hint of corrosion around the inner part of the crown tube but that was it). However, though it may be less true today than it once was, the habit of thinking of perceiving dive watches as generally a significantly more practical and pragmatic choice for daily wear than non-dive watches, is probably permanently ingrained at this point.

So this paragraph shows clearly that the idea of the dive watch is rooted in the past when if you did want a watch which was robust and reliable in the field that probably a dive watch was all there was (to Captain Willard, who picked a Seiko not a Rolex) ... his humble Seiko 5 had no problems. Indeed my Seiko "Quartz Sports 100" was not a proper diver but a diver alike. As shown in my blog post there was no undue effect from swimming, snorkelling and SCUBA diving (as I discovered when changing my battery myself)



Remember this is not a certified diver, its just a diver styled watch. All I can say is that my experience matches his.

The article continues:

The second answer is that like any other sort of watch, dive watches say something about us. A dive watch projects, in its broad-shouldered rejection of the unnecessary, the same trustworthy, here-to-get-work done vibe as rolled up sleeves, a loosened tie, and a (navy blue) jacket thrown over the back of a conference room chair with a devil-may-care disregard of wrinkles. It says that you're a person who, though you might spend the majority of the day warming a desk chair with your posterior, could outside the workplace be a person of physical bravery, if not outright daring, who just might need a watch that will tolerate, say, jumping off the side of the Staten Island Ferry on a muggy August afternoon to save a loved one's errant poodle (it could happen).

... to basically say that its about how you pick your jewellery and your clothes to send a message (perhaps to yourself?) of who "you are" (or how you wish to sculpt your narrative).

This is starting to shape up as King Wang territory isn't it. If it wasn't clear by now that the author thinks its all about how you imagine yourself he states:

A thinner, more understated (less overstated?) watch may speak to your sense of sober discretion, or your refinement of taste but these are probably secondary considerations in the minds of most dive watch lovers, who all things being equal would rather be thought of as the James Bonds of this world, than the Thomas Crowns

And we all know that Bond wore a NATO ... right? The king is dead, long live the king?

A dive watch, in its most classic iterations, doesn't particularly feel designed at all, so much as made simply and purely to suit a particular purpose and that purity of intent has long outlasted the intent's actual relevance, in either diving or everyday life. In short, dive watches feel authentic – they project an air of necessity which other categories of timepieces simply fail to match, on many levels. In a world full of timepieces whose designs seem more or less arbitrary, or at best present in order to appeal to highly subjective vagaries of taste, the dive watch, we feel, looks the way it looks for a reason. This solid feeling of grounding in reality that the best dive watches have,  project this absence of arbitrariness and subjectivity in their basic features, is I think the most substantial reason for their enduring appeal.

With those minor changes (because its not really thinking, its the opposite, its not rational and is all emotional) I submit this is one of the best articles I've read.

I would say however that the SNK805 is perhaps another design which has its origins in the pragmatic and minimal practical design views



For this design comes from a time when "flight instrumentation" was actually worn on the navigators wrist. The outer dial is divided to display the minutes well and clearly as the most significant part of the time, meanwhile the hour takes the inner part of the face and we can read it sufficiently accuratly to know which hour we are in. This is the stuff of pre GPS navigational process.

In the 1980's I bought my above Seiko Sports 100 because it had a beautiful orange dial, wasn't thick, was well priced (I bought it used) and I like the diver style; in that order. I bought the SNK805 because I wanted a mechanical watch (which I could leave sitting around for some time and know it wouldn't need a battery change) or just wear every day and know the time - because I wanted to reduce how often I looked at my phone.

The SNK805 has been exemplary in that role for a tiny fraction of the cost of a (Desk) Diver.