Wednesday, February 05, 2014

Watch Fetish?



Post-Script: Conceptually, I'm attracted to the idea of a watch that doesn't appear to be moving. No sweeping second hand, or continuously incrementing numbers. The single hand moves at about 1/12 the rate of a normal watch's minute hand, such that there's no apparent motion. You can't even tell it's running except to wait a few minutes. It's calming, really, like time standing still, a slower, less frenetic pace than what we normally experience in our hectic lives.

I'm fortunate that single-handed watches are rather rare, else I'd have a real problem on my hands (or wrist). As it is, most of the others I've seen are half a grand or more, too rich for my blood. So I will have to be content with my several watches, and pretend I don't have a watch fetish. It's still okay to pretend, right?

Here's Watch Design's webpage of single-handed watches, if you're interested.

In the piece, I mentioned having three watches. The third one I acquired last autumn. It's the bottom-of-the-line Casio, black plastic digital, about $15 or thereabouts. The back story to this watch is that I needed a watch to wear at work but, being as I work in a clean-room, wearing a so-called "bunny suit," anything other than plastic would get corroded (or worse) due to perspiration. Though I prefer analog, I knew a digital would fit the need better. I wanted the simplest I could find, no world time or extra timers or functions. Only two recessed buttons, and all the information is visible on one screen. Battery powered, it'll last about seven years, then I could throw it away and no great loss.

Photo taken at my favorite table at the Daily Grind, using the Fujifilm X10. Watch photography is a specialty that I'm simply not the best at. Typecast via Olympia SM9 and flatbed scanner. Incidentally, though I really like the mechanics and feel of this Olympia, I'm finding that I don't take to elite font at all, preferring the larger pica instead. So were I to pare down my collection further, the elites would all go and the pica machines would stay.


Blogger Rob Bowker said...

Does a one handed watch have a slower tick? I'm afraid my latent watch fetish demands a second hand that hits the top of the minute smack on time. That's more of a time fetish though... I love your justification, as if you needed one :-)

4:35 PM  
Blogger Joe V said...

Rob, this watch is so quiet that I can't hear the tick at all.

4:44 PM  
Blogger Bill M said...

I have yet to succumb to the watch bug. I worked with 2 other engineers who had a big collection of way too expensive for me watches. I like a good time piece, but I prefer the old pocket watch. A fascination since childhood. I do have a few of those.

5:03 PM  
Blogger Ken Coghlan III said...

Welcome to the club! I looked around at those one handed watches, but eventually decided against it. I have a bunch of nice mechanicals, but pretty much just wear my Casio G-Shocks. They're rugged as anything, I never have to worry about my wrist hitting something when I'm wearing it (which you really do with a 1930-some Omega), they keep great time AND I get to annoy my wife by telling her the time with the seconds included (right now, it's 8:04:12PM).

Thanks for sharing. That was a nice read.

6:04 PM  
Blogger Michael Clemens said...

I like it -- kind of a like a modern take on the old joke of a sundial on your wrist. Why clutter it up? This would be a boon to teaching kids to tell time, though I expect it lends itself to a comfortable imprecision. "It's around 4:30"

6:30 PM  

Post a Comment

Have a comment? I'll post your comment after I read it.


Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home