Forums Latest Members

Squarely in the risky category. Update: Roundly endorsed

  1. Rman Aug 31, 2016

    Posts
    2,412
    Likes
    9,540
    I've had a hankerin for a square watch ever since @Modest_Proposal revealed his Nomos Tetra.
    In the center of my latest spending storm, this shagadelic piece turned up in Kiev. The fact that it only cost about as much as a dinner for two made it a gamble I had to take. Still waiting to hear back from Longines but she's so minty I have a hard time imagining it's a put together. Very pretty Cal 280, interesting faceted case, opaline dial, serial dates to around '61. Original brush and polish completely intact. By square watch standards this baby is very wearable, 32mm w/out crown by 42mm lug length.

    IMG_3845.jpg
    IMG_3856.jpg
    FullSizeRender.jpg IMG_3851.jpg
     
    Jacquot, GuiltyBoomerang and ahartfie like this.
  2. ulackfocus Aug 31, 2016

    Posts
    25,983
    Likes
    26,972
    Would that be 2 Chicken Kiev dinners? :p
     
  3. Rman Aug 31, 2016

    Posts
    2,412
    Likes
    9,540
    More like two duck l'oranges someplace nice.:D
     
  4. Darlinboy Pratts! Will I B******S!!! Aug 31, 2016

    Posts
    8,728
    Likes
    69,016
    That looks like a nice one!
     
  5. Modest_Proposal Trying too hard to be one of the cool kids Aug 31, 2016

    Posts
    2,890
    Likes
    5,960
    Yup! Square watches wear bigger than their diameters lead you to believe. :eek:
     
  6. ulackfocus Aug 31, 2016

    Posts
    25,983
    Likes
    26,972
    Because they are bigger. A circle with a diameter of 32 mm has a surface area of 804 square mm, while a square that measures 32 mm across has a surface area of 1024 square mm. That's why C-cases look larger - the lug's surface cover more area than that of a round watch with skinny lugs.
     
  7. Modest_Proposal Trying too hard to be one of the cool kids Aug 31, 2016

    Posts
    2,890
    Likes
    5,960
    Exactly!
     
  8. jimmyjay Aug 31, 2016

    Posts
    192
    Likes
    656
    It seems to have been roundly endorsed.:)
     
    ulackfocus likes this.
  9. Modest_Proposal Trying too hard to be one of the cool kids Aug 31, 2016

    Posts
    2,890
    Likes
    5,960
    Which is not common for something that rests squarely on the wrist.
     
    jimmyjay likes this.
  10. Matty01 Port Adelaide's No.1 Fan Sep 4, 2016

    Posts
    1,797
    Likes
    4,745
    It's certainly not a circular argument
     
  11. NT931 Sep 4, 2016

    Posts
    2,820
    Likes
    14,424
    Nice! And (shameless plug!) I have another square watch for sale on the forums if you'd like another ;)
     
  12. Rman Sep 13, 2016

    Posts
    2,412
    Likes
    9,540
    Update:
    Watch Sold in 1963 by Ostersetzer, Longines agent in Italy.
    Thank you Stephanie Lechat over in the history department!
     
  13. Scepticalist Sep 13, 2016

    Posts
    369
    Likes
    433
    Great catch - enjoy :)
     
  14. Canuck Sep 14, 2016

    Posts
    13,468
    Likes
    37,960
    Now for a nutritious square meal! ::rimshot::
     
  15. ahsposo Most fun screen name at ΩF Sep 15, 2016

    Posts
    3,745
    Likes
    19,992
    Beautiful case! It certainly has all the right angles!
     
  16. soybeanwatch Sep 16, 2016

    Posts
    241
    Likes
    503
    That is one beautiful watch that confirms, it's hip to be square ::psy::