“It’s an almost impossible task for a 15-year-old to be playing first team football at a club in the Premier League. You’ve got to be better than the senior pros in the starting line up to play every week.”
I feel like we need to have a reality check about the "heirloom" justification that gets thrown around this sub constantly. It seems like every day there is a post from someone stretching their budget to buy a Rolex, Omega, Longines, or Oris, and justifying the financial hit by saying, "It's an heirloom piece I will pass down to my son."
Let’s be honest: the concept of an heirloom is completely misunderstood in the watch community.
An heirloom shouldn't be defined by the brand name on the dial or the MSRP (Most of the watches you guys are buying for heirloom are anyway Mass produced watches). An heirloom is supposed to represent a connection to the person who owned it. It is the watch you actually lived in. It should be the watch your kid looks at and says, "My dad wore this every day when he was working in the garage," or "My dad had this on his wrist during every family vacation."
That watch could absolutely be a $15 Casio F-91W or a beat-up Timex Expedition. If you wore it through all of life's important moments, it carries infinitely more sentimental weight than a pristine luxury piece.
It makes absolutely no sense to buy a luxury watch you can barely afford, keep it locked in a wardrobe or safe for 20 years because you are terrified of scratching it, and then hand it to your child and expect them to feel some deep, emotional connection to it. At that point, it’s not an heirloom; it’s just a used watch they have no memories of you actually wearing.
Furthermore, they would appreciate it way more if you bought gold, put that money into an index fund, or put a down payment on a home with a mortgage under their name rather than the delued heirloom watches.
Buy the Rolex or the Omega because you want it and you want to wear it. But let's stop using our kids as an excuse to justify irresponsible spending. That being said respect and shout out to all parents who take care of their children. And this heirloom idea is here becasue at least you have some love for your next generation.
Hey everyone,
I’m looking to add a reliable, grab-and-go quartz chronograph to my collection and I'm completely torn between Tissot and Seiko.
From my research, Tissot seems to offer that entry-level Swiss heritage, slightly better bracelet finishing, and a sleeker, dressier design language.
On the flip side, Seiko (like their Prospex Speedtimers) offers amazing, sporty dial designs, great Japanese reliability, and highly regarded meca-quartz/solar movements.
For those who have handled or owned quartz chronos from both brands, which direction would you lean?
Speaking on BBC Sport, Rooney pointed out that United failed to capitalise on a decent first half. He said: "I thought Manchester United were the better team and dominated City up until half-time, but they gave away too many free-kicks and allowed the game to be slowed down, which suited City perfectly."
"Once City got their goal, they managed the game brilliantly, and United just couldn't find enough quality, especially in the final third."
"Haaland's goal should not have stood; it was offside, but as soon as City went ahead they used all their nous and game management to frustrate United. They restricted them to pretty much one chance and didn't look in any danger at all."
United registered 16 shots against City, only three of which were on target, but failed to score a goal. They now sit 13th in the Premier League table after four games, already eight points behind leaders Arsenal.
Rooney went on to acknowledge that United are already lagging behind in the title race and insisted that Carrick will not be pleased with the start. He continued: "United are already eight points behind City, and Michael Carrick will be disappointed with how they've started, no doubt about that."
"There have been some good moments, but one win from four league matches tells its own story."
Wazza argued that his former team-mate has been let down by INEOS over the summer, concluding: "When the transfer window closed, I felt United still needed better players, not only to provide competition for places and cover across all competitions, but to come on in games and provide that extra quality and change games."
"You were just waiting for someone to be brought on and make an impact today, but you looked at the bench, and there weren't many attacking threats to call on. It was all a bit toothless."
Watch folks in this sub always hear the standard collector wisdom: *"*Service your mechanical watch every 5 to 7 years to keep it running smoothly." right?
But when you actually do the math on service costs versus the market value of the watch, routine maintenance stops making financial sense for a huge chunk of entry-to-mid tier watches.
Here’s how I’ve been looking at it:
It feels like routine, scheduled servicing only really makes financial sense once you cross into the $3,000+ or $5,000+ territory (Tudor, Omega, Rolex, etc.) where a $600–$900 service represents a small fraction of a high-value asset.
So, at the end of the day, how much have you paid over the years and what's the minimum watch value where you'd actually pay for a full overhaul?
Questions have been raised about United's lack of recruitment during the latter days of the transfer window, with no striker signed to support Sesko.
It was interesting to note Joshua Zirkzee remained on the bench for a game he could have played in for Everton had United not ruled out the prospect of the Dutch forward joining on loan because they were unable to secure a replacement.
United also opted not to bring in Rayan Ait-Nouri from Manchester City because they did not want to sign a left-back permanently to put pressure on Luke Shaw.
Shaw was one of the visitors' better performers against Everton. The England defender got forward with regularity and it was encouraging to see him provide the cross for Sesko's late header.
"He was really good," said Rooney.
"Defensively he was leading and he was good going forward as well. He looked more of a threat today in his connection with Marcus [Rashford]."
To that end, Carrick will hope the "something" Rashford felt that led to his second-half exit is not serious.
"Marcus and Luke were particularly dangerous down that side," said Carrick.
"They've played together for quite some time now and have an understanding. We're trying to build partnerships and combinations throughout the team."
Shaw has been ever-present in United's Premier League starting line-up since the start of last season.
"It was great to see that left side and the connection they have had for years, it was like Luke Shaw when he first came to the club," said Ashley Young on Match of the Day.
"He goes so quick, overlaps and gets balls into the box, gets the defence on the back foot."
Now though, Carrick must navigate through a tricky spell of four games in 11 days.
It is the busiest period he has had as United boss. Last term, neither of his two midweek games were followed by weekend matches.
How involved will Shaw be? If he does not play, who starts? Does Zirkzee really have a meaningful role?
Sesko, presumably, has put himself in line to start against Sabah? Or does Carrick prioritise the derby instead.
These are the unanswered questions that would always come in a campaign that could feature 60 games.
The tricky bit is navigating through, while delivering positive results.
"Not that bad" is a fair assessment after three games. But Carrick knows expectations around Manchester United are huge. We are nowhere near reaching it just yet, but there will come a point where "not that bad" will not be good enough.
Hey r/Watches,
I'm a first-time buyer looking to get into the hobby, and I'm currently torn between two very different approaches for my budget.
Option 1: The "One Good Watch" Approach Just buy the Longines HydroConquest (blue dial/ceramic bezel). It feels like a fantastic, higher-tier Swiss diver with great build quality that I could wear almost anywhere and be incredibly happy with.
Option 2: The "Instant Collection" Approach For just a little bit more money total, I could buy these three watches instead and have a complete, versatile collection right out of the gate:
My dilemma: Should I consolidate my budget into one higher-end luxury piece with better finishing and a superior movement? Or, as a beginner, is it better to spend a little more to experience a wider variety of styles (a field watch, a chrono, and a diver) to figure out what I actually enjoy wearing?
If you were starting your collection from scratch today, which route would you choose and why?
Thanks in advance!
Hi lovely folks here!
I’m turning 30 soon and looking to celebrate by buying an automatic watch that I can wear every day at my desk job. My ultimate goal is to buy a "buy-it-for-life" piece that I can realistically keep running for the next 50 years something that can age with me gracefully through my career and beyond.
Because I want to keep this watch forever, my biggest priority is long-term serviceability. I want a piece that won't feel obsolete, and more importantly, won't be impossible for an independent local watchmaker to service, regulate, or source parts for 20, 30, or 50 years down the line.
Here is my current dilemma: I live in Thailand, and I am currently choosing between two different paths based on local pricing.
I am really torn. Do I go with the single, higher-tier FC Highlife COSC because of its superior movement and COSC certification? Or is it a smarter move to get two incredibly popular, versatile Tissots so I have variety for the office and the weekend?
My only hesitation with the Tissots is reading about the Powermatic 80 movements (plastic parts in the PRX, and Swatch Group's tendency to just replace the movement entirely rather than actually servicing it over the decades).
Which route would you take for a true 50-year watch? Please kindly help a first-time buyer out! <3
HI, I’ve been debating between investing in a high-end Micro Four Thirds setup versus jumping straight to Full Frame. I'm curious about real-world Image Quality (IQ).
If I put a premium, top-tier pro lens (like an Olympus M.Zuiko PRO or a Panasonic Leica) on a modern M43 body, is there still a highly noticeable difference in sharpness, micro-contrast, and overall rendering compared to a Full Frame camera? Or does the premium glass on the smaller sensor close the gap enough that it doesn't matter for most viewing and printing?
My friend bred too many goldfish and is now pouring buckets of them down our town's drainage grates. Because he watches way too much anime, he genuinely believes they’ll swim through the sewers, grow huge, and magically fill our waterways with "beautiful fish."
How do I snap him out of this fantasy? What facts or articles can I show him to prove this is terrible for both the fish and the environment?
Hey guys! My friend sent me here because I finally want to buy a real camera.
Tbh, I’ve only been shooting for the "vibes" lately. Right now I use a Fujifilm X-Half and a Kodak Charmera.
I love how tiny they are, but I really want to learn actual photography manual settings, interchangeable lenses, and RAW files without carrying a massive, heavy brick in my tote bag. My friend said Micro Four Thirds is exactly what I need.
Since I'm ready to drop my hard-earned money, I need your expert advice:
Thanks so much for the help! 🎀
Kodak Charmera is my first camera and I love its viewfinder.
Kodak Charmera is my first camera and I love its viewfinder.
