Buying a new watch, advice request

[ninman]

So I'm thinking about buying a new watch. My options are either the First Omega in Space with the 1861 movement, the Breitling Navitimer Cosmonaute from the 90s with the same Lemania based movement but has a 24 hour modification, or a Rolex Explorer 114270.

I like all three of those watches, but I can't decide which one to go for. I'm kind of thinking against the FOIS because I already have a 3861 Speedmaster. I like the Cosmonaute, but it might be a little big for my small wrists, but I really appreciate it as a mathematical tool (I have a PhD in Maths). I like the Explorer for its size, but it feels a little bit too simple, plus I've kind of gone off Rolex lately because of how difficult it is to buy them, and I feel they're a bit too overhyped.

Can you guys give me some advice about which one I should go for?

Thank you

 

[w@tcher]

I was in your shoes 2 years ago between FOIS and Explorer (or Rolex OP). IMO, Explorer and OP were too simple for my taste and i went with the FOIS even if i own a 1861 Moonwatch. I really love it!

 

[Watch my Whisky]

I don’t have anything to add, but this is the first time I’ve read one of these posts and there is no bad option.

Personally, I’d go for the Explorer.

 

[hen]

If you have a PhD in Maths, you should be able to figure it out your self. .

Sorry, go for a Seamaster !

 

[Aroxx]

Might I suggest an alternative to the FOIS? Different enough from the 3861 so it won’t be as redundant. This is the way I would go. Otherwise, Explorer gets my vote.

https://omegaforums.net/threads/ome...-2-x-backs-best-model-vintage-to-wear.157113/

 

[Annapolis]

With the Breitling and the Rolex you're at two extremes: an extremely busy dial and an an extremely minimalist one; the Omega is in the middle, I suppose.

Based on the info you've provided, it sounds to me like the Breitling is the right choice for you; it's not a watch I'd want, but I'm not you.

I wouldn't do the Omega---just personal opinion, but unless I were a dedicated Speedmaster collector, I'd see no reason to own two versions of the same general watch.

The Rolex will probably retain value the best, and it's sort of the perfect watch, but also perfectly boring.

If it were my call, I'd second the vote for a Seamaster or maybe one of the more interesting Aqua Terras. Or choose one of the colorful 38mm Speedmasters.

 

[Dan S]

Although you say you like all three of the watches, it doesn't sound to me like you really like any of them enough to buy it. Keep looking. Eventually you will find something that really calls out to you.

 

[PhilF]

If a Rolex, possibly take a look at a Polar Explorer II, interesting face, nice size and GMT function.

 

[7enderbender]

Given that you have a nice Speedmaster already, my vote would be for a 36mm Explorer 1. That’ll be my next one to round out the “human adventure trilogy” (Speedmaster, Sea Dweller, Explorer 1).
Breitling doesn’t do anything for me. The FOIS is very nice obviously and I’m not going to anyone out of a second Speedy (as I’m guilty as charged).

 

[Jones in LA]

The Cosmonaute is fun, though it does take a bit of 'brain-training' to be able to quickly register the time when glancing at the watch. I keep the slide rule bezel on my Cosmonaute set to calculate an 18% restaurant tip (assuming the service was worth it) AND do Fahrenheit/Celsius temperature conversions -- both with the same setting!

As an all-around sports watch it's hard to beat the Explorer I, especially if you expect to have significant contact with water while wearing a watch.

 

[the_drunk_dial]

Explorer.

 

[Donn Chambers]

As someone who owns the FOIS and that model of Explorer, I vote the Explorer. But this is only because you already have a Speedmaster. If you didn’t have one, I’d say FOIS every day.

The primary reason not to get one is that you’d probably not wear it enough to justify having it — it’s not as accurate as the one you have, nor does it have as nice of a bracelet (aftermarket ones are nowhere close to Omega’s offering on the 3861). So, you’d probably gravitate to what you have.

 

[ErichPryde]

I don't particularly like the looks of the current Explorer's quarter numeral font, but of the watches you're discussing, I'd vote the 114270. Or, save the money and do some more searching to find a watch that you immediately "want," vs "I could go with this one or that one or maybe that one...."

 

[SC1]

ErichPryde

I don't particularly like the looks of the current Explorer's quarter numeral font.

Curious... what's that mean, "quarter numeral font"?
The 3, 6 and 9 or just the 3, confused.

 

[ErichPryde]

Could be that I am saying it wrong but yes, I meant the font of the numerals at each fourth, or quarter, of the 360° of dial. I've always heard this style called quarter numeral or quarter arabic. 👍 Please let me know if I've got it wrong.

SC1

Curious... what's that mean, "quarter numeral font"?
The 3, 6 and 9 or just the 3, confused.

Edited: Apr 4, 2023

 

[SC1]

ErichPryde

Could be that I am saying it wrong but yes, I meant the font of the numerals at each fourth, or quarter, of the 360° of dial. I've always heard this style called quarter numeral or quarter arabic. 👍 Please let me know if I've got it wrong.

Sounds good to me -- just never heard it described that way.

 

[ErichPryde]

SC1

Sounds good to me -- just never heard it described that way.

Now that I'm thinking about it, I probably picked this up initially from my grand-dad, so I've noticed it more when others have said it. He always said "Quarter-after, half-past, quarter-till" when talking time. I'm guessing--- well, it would be really interesting to see what the relationship is between the 12/3/6/9 numerals and the terms people used to tell time. Not sure when mixed markers even became a thing like this, and now I really want to know.

 

[SC1]

To me-

1. They are just simply Arabic numerals or an Arabic Numeral Dial... and the case of an Explorer, a "3/6/9 dial" or say a Seamaster diver - a "3/6/9/12 dial".

2. With their placement on the dial, cutting the dial into quarters or 12 hours into a division of threes, just seemed like pure logic to divide a dial that way as it naturally draws the eye in.

 

[ErichPryde]

SC1

To me-

1. They are just simply Arabic numerals or an Arabic Numeral Dial... and the case of an Explorer, a "3/6/9 dial" or say a Seamaster diver - a "3/6/9/12 dial".

2. With their placement on the dial, cutting the dial into quarters or 12 hours into a division of threes, just seemed like pure logic to divide a dial that way as it naturally draws the eye in.

Agreed, and going back far enough with dial style timekeepers, you wind up at the sundial, which is just a circle, and it makes sense to divide circles into quarters.

I wonder what you call a watch with numerals only at 12 and 6 like this rebuilt cal 33.3 1939. Half numeral dial?

 

[SC1]

ErichPryde

Agreed, and going back far enough with dial style timekeepers, you wind up at the sundial, which is just a circle, and it makes sense to divide circles into quarters.

I wonder what you call a watch with numerals only at 12 and 6 like this rebuilt cal 33.3 1939. Half numeral dial?

Chronograph with an Arabic numeral dial? I don't fυcking know -- I only come here for the hot chicks and free beer.