PDA

View Full Version : Watches: Jewelry or a Tool?


Camilio Pascual
04-19-2005, 04:08 AM
The watch thread interested me. I have a Citizen watch my daughter bought for me and I wear it in the occasions my daughter tells me to. So, it is jewelry. I am VERY time conscious, but feel no need to wear a watch as the time is readily available all over the place. If I were to buy a watch for my purposes, it would be as a tool.

Craig Sheppard
04-19-2005, 07:16 AM
Yeah, being that I really only wear a watch when I want a certain "look" I guess it's jewerly... I have the time on my cell phone. Plus as an IT guy, watches are always clunking on my keyboard and getting in the way...repeatedly took it off, and then just decided to leave it home.

gmlasam
04-19-2005, 07:23 AM
I think watches are tools that made into jewlery. Watches are simply a measuring tool, but the more expensive ones like Rolex, and Cartier put diamonds to make them more appealing to show wealth so in this case its a jewelry.

All watches measure time a tool and some watches are made simply for jewlery.

camhabib
04-19-2005, 08:38 AM
Take a look at the Breitling Emergency. It is a pilots watch that has a transmitter built in that can be turned on and broadcasts an emergency signal for up too a few hundred miles. To me, this isn't a piece of jewelry, itís a real tool, one that can save some lives. However, there are many watches out there that can act purely as jewelry. It all depends on what the watch was made for and what purpose the company and designer had in mind.

-Cameron

Noelle
04-19-2005, 08:58 AM
I've always thought of watches as tools, except for the special dress watches. For truly formal occasions, though, I've been told it's not proper for a lady to wear a watch (at least, the leather-strap kind).

Cypo
04-19-2005, 10:22 AM
For me it's neither - I don't have one.

PugArePeopleToo
04-19-2005, 10:30 AM
Most are jewelry. Especially high end watches. They are marvel of mechanical engineering achievement, but most people buy them not for their functionality but as a status symbol.

POGO
04-19-2005, 02:32 PM
I've always thought of watches as tools, except for the special dress watches. For truly formal occasions, though, I've been told it's not proper for a lady to wear a watch (at least, the leather-strap kind).
Who told you that? Are you like in Pakistan where women are supressed?

camhabib
04-19-2005, 02:59 PM
While I can't speak for the whereabouts of Noelle, he is correct. Proper formal atire for a female does not include wearing a watch. Don't start with "well who decides what's proper or not" type stuff. Its just one of those unwritten rules that if you go to enough functions and what not, you pick up on. Its more of a guideline then a rule (unlike not mixing dark blue with back, which IS a rule). Think about it, how many Oscars and these types of televised formal events do you see women walking in with maybe a bracelet on their wrist, one or two maybe with watches. Mostly, its just a dress and a handbag.

-Cameron

need2paint
04-19-2005, 03:18 PM
Noelle is correct. For the most formal occasions (such as when one might wear a tuxedo) it is dressier not to wear a watch--for both men and women.

Kirko
04-19-2005, 05:14 PM
Its a tool except for my Pateks , Audemars and JLC reverso. I wear those sparingly. i use my rolexs all the tiome play teenis run and shoot with them on. no probs.

Phil
04-19-2005, 05:17 PM
Depends on the person, occassion, personal tastes, etc. I think anything over a couple hundred bucks, "tool" or not, is jewelry. The only exceptions to that, are the Suunto and Nemo dive computer watches, which cost anywhere from several hundred to $2,000. These are not meant to be jewelry-they're digital, plastic, big and kinda ugly, but they actually function to keep you alive. But even these can be turned into jewlery; I have actually seen people wearing these who do nothing but snorkle or skin dive...in that case, it's jewelry...an attention getter/penile extension.

Morpheus
04-19-2005, 06:22 PM
I only wear a watch when I run, so I suppose its a tool--something to keep time. I don't own another watch and I don't use an alarm clock.

Interesting side note: those of you who give the exact time--"5:03 p.m." (typcially those with digital watches) tend to think of time as discrete units. Those that say "about 5 o'clock" typcially think of time as fluid or continuous. How do you perceive time?

slice bh compliment
04-19-2005, 06:56 PM
I only wear a watch when I run, so I suppose its a tool--something to keep time. I don't own another watch and I don't use an alarm clock.

Interesting side note: those of you who give the exact time--"5:03 p.m." (typcially those with digital watches) tend to think of time as discrete units. Those that say "about 5 o'clock" typcially think of time as fluid or continuous. How do you perceive time?

Great question.
Sometimes, time flies. Sometimes it stands still. So, I suppose my concept of time is fluid/continuous. "It is what it is", my wife would say.

But, what did you mean by "discrete units"?

Capt. Willie
04-19-2005, 08:01 PM
I think they are a little of both. As for me, and this may sound odd to some, I feel naked if I don't have a watch on. I never leave the house without one and have been like that as long as I can remember. And yes, I play tennis in it....watch on the left and wristband on the right.

theace21
04-19-2005, 08:23 PM
Tool, but I can't stand those guys that wear a watch while they play tennis...

Morpheus
04-19-2005, 09:01 PM
Great question.
Sometimes, time flies. Sometimes it stands still. So, I suppose my concept of time is fluid/continuous. "It is what it is", my wife would say.

But, what did you mean by "discrete units"?

Compare a quartz movement watch to an analog watch. The smallest unit of time on a quartz is one second. In a sense, there are particles of time. With an analog watch, the hands move smoothly over time. From an analog watch perspective, between 12:02 P.m. and 12:03 P.m. there are infinitely many possible different times as the second hand sweeps around the watch face.

On a digital watch, there are only finitely many possible different times between 12:02 P.m. and 12:03 P.m. A digital watch does not acknowledge split seconds. There is no time between 12:02:03 and 12:02:04. The watch leaps from one time to the next. A digital watch can show only finitely many different times, and the transition from one time to the next is sharp and unambiguous.

People tend to adopt one way of thinking about time and it usually shows up in how they answer the question, "What time do you have."

(And, yes, time flies like an arrow, and fruit flies like a banana.)

Phil
04-19-2005, 09:26 PM
Compare a quartz movement watch to an analog watch. The smallest unit of time on a quartz is one second. In a sense, there are particles of time. With an analog watch, the hands move smoothly over time. From an analog watch perspective, between 12:02 P.m. and 12:03 P.m. there are infinitely many possible different times as the second hand sweeps around the watch face.

On a digital watch, there are only finitely many possible different times between 12:02 P.m. and 12:03 P.m. A digital watch does not acknowledge split seconds. There is no time between 12:02:03 and 12:02:04. The watch leaps from one time to the next. A digital watch can show only finitely many different times, and the transition from one time to the next is sharp and unambiguous.

People tend to adopt one way of thinking about time and it usually shows up in how they answer the question, "What time do you have."

(And, yes, time flies like an arrow, and fruit flies like a banana.)

Morpheus - I think you meant to say "...compare a quartz movement to a MECHANICAL (or AUTOMATIC) watch." Both quartz and mechanical watches may be analog, which just means a watch face with numbers and hands.

I always liked the intro and theme song to the soap opera "The Days of Our Lives" (not that I actually WATCHED it, but the intro was very cool)...

"Like sands from the hourglass, so are the days of our lives..."

And of course there was the shot of a big, old-style sand timer...now THAT'S a "watch".

Morpheus
04-20-2005, 03:06 AM
I stand corrected.

Camilio Pascual
04-20-2005, 03:49 AM
Remember the swatch? It was supposed to be utilitarian, cheap, and functional. Now the swatch has been turned into a high end status symbol.

Ah, what did Billy Shakespeare say?
"....to paint the lily, to gild the gold..."