The largest independent, non-commercial, consumer-oriented resource on the Internet for owners, collectors and enthusiasts of fine wristwatches. Online since 1998. | ||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Feel free to discuss pricing and specific dealers. But 'for sale' postings, commercial solicitation and ads are not allowed. Full archive of all messages is accessible through options in the Search and Preferences features. Privacy, policies and administrivia are covered in the Terms of Use.
For the answer to the NUMBER #1 most frequently asked question here--for details or value of a specific older Omega watch you have--go to: Tell Me About My Omega. | Learn more about How To Include Photos and HTML In Your Postings. | To contact someone with a question not relevant to other readers of the forum, please click on their email address and contact them privately. |
'Better' and 'best' are, at best, subjective.
What's the best car? A Roller or a Ford F-150? What if you detest the looks of one of them? How could it then be considered 'best' in some way?
This same logic applies to watches. Which is 'best'? Are we talking re-sale value? Looks? Time-keeping?
The 'best' is what suits your needs best, and not what qualifies under someone else's criteria.
I have an Omega, a Rolex, a lot of Eternas, a Zenith, some Seikos, a Wenger or two, a couple of Longines, a Glycine, a TAG Heuer F1 (given me by a fellow at McLaren), and a bunch of other watches.
Is one the 'best'? It depends on what I'm doing, and where I'm going.
I have a 'car washing watch', a 'movie' watch, a 'hey, look at me watch', and a 'only watch guys will get this one' watch, among others.
What difference does any of it make to anyone but me . . .?
Chronocentric and zOwie site design and contents (c) Copyright 1998-2005, Derek Ziglar; Copyright 2005-2008, Jeffrey M. Stein. All rights reserved. Use of this web site constitutes acceptance of the terms of use. | CONTACT | TERMS OF USE | TRANSLATE |