Actually, quartz. I have a few autos which I consider a pain, especially if I can't hand wind it. Even quartz are a pain at battery change time. I'm basically lazy and therefore much prefer Eco-drive movements. For me to enjoy those watches, I have only to look at them, LOL. Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
Well.... this week I've decided that I've left my auto watches sitting forlorn and lonely for too too long. This started because I've just not been active enough to keep them ticking away.... Enough sez I! This week, my first and oldest auto. Seiko 5 Sports, purchased around the late 90's. Actually a smallish case size at about 36 mm; lug to lug about 42 mm. Crown is at 4 o'clock, similar to just the plain Seiko 5...white 'sun-burst' dial. SS bracelet and case; gold accents in the bracelet continue around the bezel. 7S36A movement with day/date complication. This watch has NEVER seen a watchmaker's bench since it left the factory. Yet power reserve and time keeping actually blow away my two newer Seiko 5 Sports.. which are at least 18 years newer. Sorry. No pics. Mea culpa! Am Yisrael Chai! Moshe ben David
I've only recently discovered Smith's watches. I like their classic field/pilot watch aesthetics. I also recently learned that Sir Edmond Hillary wore two watches on his ascent of Mt. Everest, a Rolex and a Smiths. I have a field watch, but the Smith's version of an Explorer is now on my list
Nice, good luck with getting one. As for the 1953 ascent, this recent article quite convincingly debunks the Rolex myth: https://www.outdoorjournal.com/featured/opinion-editorial/rolex-vs-smiths-which-watch-summited-everest-in-1953-putting-a-controversy-to-rest/ Edit -- and today's pic, because why not:
Seiko today. Beautiful charcoal sunburst dial and numerals fully coated with outstanding lume. Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
The Omega Speedmaster Professional trumped that in 1969 by being the first on the Moon....unless you're a conspiracy theorist.
