Regular readers of my blog may notice that I recently decided to re-start wearing a watch; however this is a little misleading because my break without a watch has been perhaps less than it seems. So its from this standpoint I'm left wondering:
Why are watches so thick and heavy now?
Of course I started wearing a watch in school in the 70's because it was important to know the time and (hard to imagine for kids today) we didn't have phones. In the 80's I bought this watch:
which I wore pretty much daily in conditions which would perhaps horrify the Rolex Watch Snob Set (distinct from just people who own a Rolex because to them its the same effective price this watch was at $200 when it was released in 1979 and they happen to like them).
Some time in about 2005 I stopped wearing it because simply the battery ran out and being over seas at the time (and having a mobile phone) didn't really need to.
It could be argued that I didn't have a watch again until May (but that would not be strictly true) this year when I bought this nice little Seiko 5 because I wanted a fully mechanical watch (which were sort of out of fashion when I bought the Sports 100 above).
not an electronic hybrid of gears to drive the hands with electronics to keep the time (Quartz), with merely mechanical hands (because digits are another argument all together).
(*the above taken when I changed my battery after being inspired to get it going as a result of enjoying the Seiko 5)
I liked the Seiko 5, but gradually found that without my glasses on and in lower light I simply struggled to find the time on it (because the hands were too similar in size and shape). Partly this was because the hands are small and partly because the face is just a bit busy without clear indicators of the positions at the quaters. I found myself wanting the simplicity of my older Sports 100 dial where the face was clear of distractions and the primary 12, 3, 6 and 9 (compass) points were clear. Soon enough YouTube had (through the few searches I had made to find which Seiko 5 because there are quite a few in that range), pushed up the SRPE61K1 (called the Dress KX in that review) to me and suddenly I found the watch I was looking for
A lovely dial (and btw, I still love the metallic orange of the Sports 100 that I've had now for around 35 years) that's uncluttered and by the shapes easy to see the time.
It has a sort of "nod" to the style of a divers watch, while not being as utilitarian and doesn't waste space on the rotating bezel, which I don't really need.
Fairly quickly however I became aware of "hey, this things heavy" and feels bulky, which although I'd had a (pseudo) Diver for most of my time I found that indeed it was thicker and heavier than my Sports 100 ... now I'm sure that was a marketing aspect of the watch back in 1979 when it was first released, but it came as a discovery to me (some 40 years later) just how advanced this watch actually was back then.
Measurements
The differences feel more than appear, but as best as I could I tried to photograph it in a way to explain this difference, the order is the SNK, the SRPE and the much older Sports 100 "diver":
So relative to the aged Sports 100 (bottom of course) the SRPE "KX" is nearly 30% thicker while the SNK is only about 13% thicker (and I must say didn't feel significantly different on the wrist). Indeed due to its nice nylon strap felt lighter.
Weights
The scales tell an interesting story, these figures are watch alone (straps removed)
| Watch | Weight (g) |
| Sports 100 | 62.55 |
| SNK805 | 47.24 |
| SRPE61K1 | 59.68 |
Balance is the reason
The answer is found in the balance of the band and the watch, for the watch does not sit alone on your wrist. Now at the moment the Sports 100 has a metal bracelet, which makes a difference compared to the light weights of the nylon straps on the other two watches. Basically it balances out the blob of the heavier watch.
The bracelet on the Sports 100 weighs 33.64g, which is almost the weight of just the Seiko 5 watch, which comes with a nylon strap that weighs a mere 14g - bringing watch and strap to 61.32g or lighter than just the Sports 100 watch.
With a thicker and heavier watch this feeling exacerbated when putting it on. You can feel its heavier, but its the balance and smooth fit (shit, its been on my wrist for over 20 years, you can be sure its had some minor metal bending to fit) means that its weight is not as watch imbalanced and so sits more evenly weighted (and doesn't tend to hang on a band that weighs a small fraction of the watch.
Worse, the KX came with a NATO strap which is not only lighter but causes the watch to sit above not only the strap, but two layers of it, and therefore a few mm further up than the other watches.
Don't get me wrong, the NATO feels comfortable and distributes the weight, but I know when I change it out to the green strap I bought to experiment with on the Sports 100 it feels "better". Now it makes me feel that NATO straps make more sense on lighter thinner watches. Which interestingly is how watches were (generally speaking) "back in the day the NATO spec was drafted" as this blog makes clear. (an image I poached from that)
These watches however are all pretty similar, the 5 is 42.7mm the Sports 100 is 43.7 and KX is 44mm, this small difference is not actually surprising because I typically shun bigger ostentatious watches.
So where does this leave me.
Well for a start it leaves me with two really nice watches (a third if I count my old faithful running again now) and significantly informed by the journey.
I bought the Seiko 5 because I wanted a "gentle in" to a new watch (in case for instance I lost interest) and was actually initially "inspired by a friends post on Facebook of a nice military replica field watch. I also had another friend who collects (a little) WW2 era field watches and being more of an outdoor person wanted something more along that line.
Below you can see the two new Seikos side by side with the price (in Australian dollars) each cost me. This shows how little difference there is in time telling area vs just a bigger bit of steel in the case.
Given that the 5 comes in all manner of configurations, it occurs to me now (if there was such a thing as a watch shop anymore{certainly not out here}) I could have done some window shopping and perhaps bought something between the two in the Seiko 5 range with a dial a bit more like the KX, but mostly they're divers and so probably its just better that I have this pair.
Well, actually its not that easy, because while I very much like the anthracite sunburst lustre of the KX above in some light its a bit hard to read (because of those lovely spectral reflections on the Sunburst dial making the hands disappear). So as lovely as it was to look at I felt I wanted something I could tell the time on easily ... which if you recall was what turned me away from the little green field watch.
As it happened while searching for the SRPE61K1 (which were getting thin on the ground on eBay) I found a a few related ones that had more plain dials, such as the SRPE65K1 with a green dial but otherwise the same. As I like green and already had a 20mm strap from the previous experiment on putting a strap on the Sports 100, I had strap for SRPE65K1 when it arrived.
As it happens this has become my daily driver (although not with this strap) because:
- its easier to read the time (the glossy reflections do occasionally get in the way)
- looks a bit more dressy than the SNK, but not over the top
- feels good with a leather strap
- SNK805K2 (the smaller Green Seiko 5)
- SRPE61K1 (the "Dress KX")
- SRPE65K1 (the latest addition)
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment