Community Stories

How Many Here Do Not Like the Speedmaster? Why?

JwRosenthal
Posts
16,307
Likes
44,994
My watch handy friend (who does most of my restoration work) has a limited income so can’t afford many of his grails (I have given him a few as gifts for working on my watches- he won’t take my money).
He has always wanted a Speedmaster and has coveted mine since we met (he has an Alpha that looks similar, but it’s not a Speedy). He has been saving his pennies to finally buy one grail chrono- and he set his sites on a Speedy- despite having never worn one (he has put mine on his wrist a few times but has never lived with one).
So several weeks ago I forcibly loaned him my Speedy and Sinn 103 (he refused for years to borrow my watches as he can’t afford to replace them, so I had to force them on him). Of course he wore the Speedy for the first few days and loved it, but the Sinn has become the daily he grabs far more than the Speedy. Despite loving the Speedy, he is realizing that the Sinn is the one he would be far more likely to wear daily- and I feel the same way- it’s far more readable and easier on the wrist due to the slightly smaller size and shorter lugs.
I wish there was a watch rental program where we could wear these watches for a few days to really know if they work for us, unfortunalty we have to throw down the cash to learn by trial and error.
 
Fatcat
Posts
1,552
Likes
1,973
I like it and I hate it , the 2 first speedy I got at the end where representing bad memories and I sold it, actually I have since 3 months a 145.012 and looks like for the moment all good , I bought it in less than 15 minutes and no disappointing at the moment .
 
Buck2466
Posts
1,174
Likes
7,602
Every watch collection should have a Speedmaster in it! Even if you never wear it, there should be one in your collection! There, I said it!
 
Dan S
Posts
24,257
Likes
54,015
Buck2466 Buck2466
Every watch collection should have a Speedmaster in it! Even if you never wear it, there should be one in your collection! There, I said it!

This concept is a potential topic for a thread of its own. I suspect that there is an interesting split between people who feel that watches are only for wearing, and others who are happy to add watches to their collection just to have them. I admit that I was originally in the former group, but gradually evolved toward the latter.
 
connieseamaster
Posts
1,372
Likes
2,000
Buck2466 Buck2466
Every watch collection should have a Speedmaster in it! Even if you never wear it, there should be one in your collection! There, I said it!

I have a deep, deep dislike for being told what "should" be in a watch collection. That being said, it's my firm belief that a watch collection should (there's that word again 😜) solely reflect the tastes and inclinations of the owner and outside, arbitrary criteria be damned.
 
JwRosenthal
Posts
16,307
Likes
44,994
Dan S Dan S
This concept is a potential topic for a thread of its own. I suspect that there is an interesting split between people who feel that watches are only for wearing, and others who are happy to add watches to their collection just to have them. I admit that I was originally in the former group, but gradually evolved toward the latter.
This philosophy pertains to any hobby. I collected firearms for years and would only collect what I could shoot- a dear friend of mine collected flint-lock and wouldn’t dream of shooting them- he had them on display.
I also collected cameras and had many that I once used but had become shelf cameras over time.
I can understand the desire for a static versus active collection- almost like an archive. I see several vintage pieces posted on this forum that are true NOS examples and those I believe should not be worn- they are reference pieces by which all others are judged and should be owned by someone who intends to keep them as an archival object.
Edited:
 
Buck2466
Posts
1,174
Likes
7,602
Dan S Dan S
This concept is a potential topic for a thread of its own. I suspect that there is an interesting split between people who feel that watches are only for wearing, and others who are happy to add watches to their collection just to have them. I admit that I was originally in the former group, but gradually evolved toward the latter.

I agree! I am in the camp of I wear all my watches in my collection, but there are several that get very limited wear due to their value. I know there are collectors on here that some of their watches probably never see the light of day and there is nothing wrong with that. They own them just to have them. Probably, would be an interesting thread to start!
 
Buck2466
Posts
1,174
Likes
7,602
connieseamaster connieseamaster
I have a deep, deep dislike for being told what "should" be in a watch collection. That being said, it's my firm belief that a watch collection should (there's that word again 😜) solely reflect the tastes and inclinations of the owner and outside, arbitrary criteria be damned.
It was part tongue in cheek and part true statement😜::stirthepot::
 
Dan S
Posts
24,257
Likes
54,015
JwRosenthal JwRosenthal
I see several vintage pieces posted on this forum that are true NOS examples and those I believe should not be worn- they are reference pieces by which all others are judged and should be owned by someone who intends to keep them as a archival object.

Buck2466 Buck2466
I agree! I am in the camp of I wear all my watches in my collection, but there are several that get very limited wear due to their value. I know there are collectors on here that some of their watches probably never see the light of day and there is nothing wrong with that. They own them just to have them. Probably, would be an interesting thread to start!

Not only NOS and too-valuable examples, but also watches that can be appreciated for their history, but may not really be practical to wear for various reasons.
 
eugeneandresson
Posts
5,071
Likes
15,650
I love my speedmaster 😀

I also appreciate a Rolex. And all manner of other watches.

I hate all the BS around them though (as what most have mentioned), and that can not be faulted to the watches (on the contrary), but rather the people.
 
vitriol
Posts
986
Likes
3,009
It is not like I "-Do Not Like the Speedmaster", but technically any black Moonwatch means nothing to me.
The main reason is its unexciting design, and it has a chrono which I do not use, and it has manual winding which I do not like..
Yes, it was part of the Moon landing story which is cool as hell, but as far as I know that watches were pretty much the same as any other civil Speedmaster of that era, just equipped with a velcro strap, so again don't see any huge reason for the horological hype.

Speedmaster Mark II I do like a lot, when I am done with Seamasters I may buy Mark II.
Edited:
 
Ness
Posts
209
Likes
478
connieseamaster connieseamaster
I have a deep, deep dislike for being told what "should" be in a watch collection. That being said, it's my firm belief that a watch collection should (there's that word again 😜) solely reflect the tastes and inclinations of the owner and outside, arbitrary criteria be damned.

I totally agree. Just because it has been said to be consensus that we all must have a vintage submariner, and now a vintage speedmaster - creates a reverse desire of looking into something else to avoid being one more.

I also like the more funky and colourful vintage tool Omegas.
 
Taddyangle
Posts
4,877
Likes
31,864
I love most all Speedmasters. There are so many options, I think it would be impossible for someone to not fall in love with at least one Speedmaster.

So much love for the Speedmasters that I started the Speedmaster Decades Collection. A few others have too. It's a Speemaster from each Decade you have lived. Fortunate to not be born in the 1950s.
 
Mouse_at_Large
Posts
2,043
Likes
5,505
I don't hate Speedmasters. I have tried various versions out in ADs/Boutiques over the years, and none have grabbed my attention enough to shell out the cash to buy one.

They simply don't move me in any way, shape or form.

YMMV.

😀
 
cvalue13
Posts
3,998
Likes
9,018
Ness Ness
I totally agree. Just because it has been said to be consensus that we all must have a vintage submariner, and now a vintage speedmaster

I think on a second read we might all agree that the use of “should” here was meant less as a directive and more of a strong opinion. 😁

Last I checked, a dash of hyperbole is required in every “what watch do you like/dislike” discussion 😗
 
Archer
Posts
29,672
Likes
76,830
connieseamaster connieseamaster
I have a deep, deep dislike for being told what "should" be in a watch collection. That being said, it's my firm belief that a watch collection should (there's that word again 😜) solely reflect the tastes and inclinations of the owner and outside, arbitrary criteria be damned.

Agree 100%
 
madjestikmoose
Posts
833
Likes
1,571
Buck2466 Buck2466
Every watch collection should have a Speedmaster in it! Even if you never wear it, there should be one in your collection! There, I said it!

‘Should.’ Possibly the most dangerous word in the English language.
 
pdxleaf
Posts
6,190
Likes
21,195
JwRosenthal JwRosenthal
....
But I have found that on this forum, the love for the Speedy is predominantly the love for the “geek” factor of the watch (which I can appreciate and why I bought mine) and not as much for status - it’s a cool piece of history and a classic.

This is probably key.

I suspect there is a strong correlation between those who like the speedy and are space geeks and those who don't and are not.

Not that there is anything wrong with not being a space geek. Your loss. 🤨

Look at what I just bought! Arriving next Friday, can't wait. I have a 35th anniversary Apollo-soyuz speedmaster on hold to balance it out. That will be my second speedmaster, no more.

3437924_1.jpg 3437913_1.jpg


It's okay to be different.😀
 
51 More Posts...
Sign up or log in to reply...

Similar threads

knvqn

How many here are watchmakers?

knvqn Open Discussion
kov
kov
Posts
35
Views
4K