Tokyo Olympics Rising Sun prices

There are a lot of lovely watches that prioritize aesthetics over legibility, and that’s fine. After-all, watches are primarily jewelry (anymore). So it’s not to disparage the Panda or Rising Sun, but instead only to clarify they are that type of watch. Prospective buyers may or may not value a high degree of legibility.

Also, some folks will disagree and be nonplussed and say that they can read it fine, or that a slight twist of the wrist let’s light highlight the hands more visibly.

But at the end of the day, the standard speedy can be read from across the room, or I imagine during a wildly vibrating liftoff, while these Tokyo examples with white-ish dial and silver handset are another matter.

Personally, I’ve come to where you are. I have now owned for a few years but ultimately passed along both a Mitsukoshi (mod) and the Tokyo Panda.

Never completely took to them, and some portion of that was legibility.

The white on black scheme of the basic Speedmaster is obviously the easiest to read at a glance, that's true of every black dial, white hand watch. But I don't quite understand the seeming inability for some people to read some watches with lighter dials. I've owned over 200 watches over the years but never had one that was so challenging to read that I couldn't use it, or was even a factor for selling it. Right now I have an Apollo 35th dial, a Rising Sun and an Apollo 8, three watches that seem to get mentioned a lot for their supposed poor readability. I've never had any issue reading any of these watches, none, and my eyes are older than almost all people on this forum. Perhaps people are too impatient and just won't spend more than a fleeting glance at their watch to tell the time.

Well, at least we all agree there is a legibility delta between the standard white-hand-on-black-dial vs the silver-hand-on-whiteish-dial, and there’s only disagreement only over whether one should care about that delta.

Surprisingly, I did/do.

And that is your right to do so. For me it's a non issue, but everybody is different. It is only a 'flaw' to the wearer who has trouble reading a particular dial, a non issue to those who can easily read it.

A lot of people get excited over lume, too, but I have never had much use for it. Whether a watch has effective lume is immaterial. To others it's a big deal. We all have ideas on what is important and what is not. Take your pick.

Replying just to chat about an interesting topic, not disagree with anything you’ve said. I think we’ve about covered the Reader’s Digest version of the issue.

But to drill down one click further:

I’ve been reflecting a bit on why the decreased legibility bothers me. I’ll admit to not yet having a complete and compelling grasp of it, but that’s what this chat is exercising. I think there are two main peeves. And the TLDR version is that for me a Speedy is a tool watch requiring (philosophically and functionally) maximum legibility, and it makes a poor dress watch no matter the pretty dial color and shiny handset.

More at length:

First, I have a different legibility expectation of a “tool” watch, such as a Speedy, than I might a more dress/jewelry watch. In a tool watch such as a Speedy, the functionality of the watch does, I think, aspire to maximum legibility. If I’m driving on a racetrack, I want the chronograph hands to be visible at a level of almost peripheral vision. Also, if I’m being vibrated/shaken - by e.g., a liftoff, or on my ATV on gravel roads), I need the hands to be visible at a level of blurred vision. In these ways (and probably some others I’ll not recount), with a tool watch such as a Speedy it’s job is to accurately and with confidence provide the time without “spend[ing] more than a fleeting glance at [the] watch to tell the time.”

Admittedly, this issue of tool watch legibility bothers me philosophically as much as functionally. My watch’s use case is admittedly far less adventurous, far more of the time, than not.

But, you know what else would be more philosophically than functionally irksome? If the 3 o’clock index on my watch instead bizarrely read the letter “L” by way of some crazy miss-hap in manufacturing. Functionally I would know it is 3 o’clock despite what the index says, but why is there an “L” where a “3” should be?! Just the same, why is my tool watch requiring me to spend more than a fleeting, peripheral, blurred-vision moment to tell the time with confidence?!

The second peeve topic deals with basic time-telling in the less adventurous use case (like right now, me writing this while sitting on an airplane), but still in practical terms.

We sometimes talk about how watches are redundant and unnecessary because everyone has a cell phone. While I enjoy the quip for it’s “aren’t we silly sentimentals” message, in truth I disagree that watches are redundant to phones. One thing I value about telling time from a wristwatch vs a cell phone is that the wristwatch gives me comparatively immediate information with nearly zero effort. A glance at the wrist already at my desk and so eye level is preferable to a phone for which I must reach, twist, lift, and perhaps click, in order to arrive at my phone’s display of time. In this way, the better a wristwatch provides me the time with minimal effort, the better the wristwatch proves it’s continued utility over less sentimental alternatives like my phone, or TV, or any such “why do you even need a watch in this day and age” alternative device.

I suppose in this way, a Speedy is for me still functionally a “tool watch” even when not racing on a track, or lifting off in a rocket. It’s on my wrist in my most mundane of activities to tell me the time with absolute minimum effort; and those rarer times I’m engaged in some activity emphasizing legibility, to really shine.

Which brings brings me back around to the distinction, for me, between a Speedy and a dress watch that errors toward jewelry. The latter type of watch I have different expectations of - and in fact may prize aesthetics over function for obvious reasons: it’s a dress watch.

Which I think finally gets back to the TLDR conclusiry paragraph: these white-ish dial with silver hand Speedys are really an attempt at a dressy version of a tool watch, which on many levels but including legibility results in a hybrid that - for me - is a less than compelling offering given alternatives. That is to say, were money no object I would have never sold my Tokyo Panda - it’s a beautiful looking watch, achieved by compromises to reach dressy-tool chimera status. But with limited resources, that chimera ultimately needed to make room for other options.

Again, none of this to disagree with the completely (nay, more?) rational position of you’ve put forward.

The Speedmaster may have started as a tool watch but marketing has pushed it in many directions over the years. Many different dial/hand combinations, case/bracelets in yellow, white, rose, platinum, even diamond set models. Limited editions galore, now even one with cartoon animation on the back. No one will like all of these iterations, but they all find a home. People buy a watch when it looks good on their wrist, that's really all that matters. To some it is the classic Speedmaster, either vintage or new, to others the myriad of variations are a go to. No right, no wrong, it's all individual choice. People buy what they like and ignore the rest.

Agree, long term the Rising Sun will prove to be a winner. I got mine in a trade and I'm probably a bit underwater at this point, no big deal. Prices go up, down, sideways, it's just part of the hobby. They aren't investments.

I've seen a few Rising Suns where the owner put on blued hands instead of the silver, that would improve readability for those that have difficulties.