ill-fitting muffin top?[/quote]gestalt wrote:
I've never seen a Muff in top ? Muff on top yeah but not the other way round !
ill-fitting muffin top?[/quote]gestalt wrote:
Some excellent points on the role of the dress watch that are spot on. I would add that the watch should also be masculine which allows for a larger diameter. So the watch can still be thin and without excessive complications,but be larger,appropriate for the wrist size, which gives a more masculine look.gestalt wrote:I'll add my two cents about a dress watch...
My dress watch is a gold C5 Malvern Mk II and I find it a tad too big to be a dress watch. This was my first real watch purchase so I didn't know too much about anything at the time, but have since learned and lived with it for four years on my wrist.
I think when men wear suits or more formal wear, the goal is to generally dress understated and have the fit, finish and just some well done flashes of colour and style work for the wearer. I think from this understatement comes a sense of confidence, which is ultimately what makes someone attractive in a suit. I find that if my watch doesn't fit under my cuff, I lose confidence and I do not feel as well put together as I should.
More importantly, my watch should in no way be the centrepiece of my appearance when I wear a suit or a tuxedo, so it is critical that it always stay under the cuff unless I want to bring it out, in which case it can be seen as something that blends seamlessly into what I am wearing and accentuates the suit itself. If it is any more than that, it doesn't do its job well.
What this means in terms of size and complications is that a dress watch should be small and understated because it will blend better with the suit. A watch with complications is usually larger and more flashy - something that takes away from the overall fashion of wearing a suit or tux, in my opinion.
Of course it does appear as if styles have changed and that larger watches and watches that don't fit under a suit are becoming more accepted, and that is fine. I am sure, however that we all remember the 70's in terms of fashion.
Guess you use your Sea Dweller as a dress watch.smegwina wrote:You guys are waaaaaaaaay over thinking the concept and requirements of a dress watch!
Sent from my ONE A2003 using Tapatalk
Once again, I will have to +1 an AVO post.Amor Vincit Omnia wrote:I think we must beware of confusing unfavourable criticism with negativity. Several members, myself included, have expressed both positive and negative thoughts about the watch. I don't think my saying that on balance it is not for me is being overly negative. And, for me, it IS too thick for a watch of its type.
Any thread of this type that becomes a panegyric quickly descends to the inane but this one has been interesting precisely because, in horological terms, we reflect the dining habits of Mr and Mrs Spratt. Which can only be good news in terms of keeping a wide range of options available, albeit not necessarily under the same commercial roof.
I must admit I do! I was in the hunt for a dressier type watch, and still am to a degree, but the last few times I wore a tux it was with the DeepSea, the MBii (on a smart leather strap) and this weekend I wore the Bremont Americas Cup with it.Bahnstormer_vRS wrote:Guess you use your Sea Dweller as a dress watch.smegwina wrote:You guys are waaaaaaaaay over thinking the concept and requirements of a dress watch!
Sent from my ONE A2003 using Tapatalk
Guy
Sent from my Xperia Z5 Premium