# Apple Stainless steel VS Aluminum



## Hazmat1213 (Sep 30, 2018)

Hey guys, just joined because I wanted to get a quick questions out of y’all...

Looking to add something retro to my collection and an apple watch seems like fun.... is it worth getting the stainless compared to the other option? any got an aluminum one? only wondering :-d


----------



## powerband (Oct 17, 2008)

You’re considering an Apple Watch because you want something retro? Hmm.

I had an aluminum series 0 and now a stainless steel series 4. I like the compact weight, the sapphire crystal and the overall look of the stainless steel better. It will be more scratch resistant with the sapphire crystal and the steel. I plan to wear it for 3 to 4 years, so I think the additional $100 more per year is worth the enjoyment of the material differences. (Price and worth are different things for people.)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## edhchoe (Mar 2, 2010)

I prefer lighter weight, especially because I wear it to sleep for sleep tracking.
AW4 is about 4g heavier than AW3.
I hope it doesn't keep getting heavier every gen.


----------



## ronalddheld (May 5, 2005)

If might if the battery and case get larger in volume.


----------



## Toddski1 (Jul 5, 2018)

Many, many other watches to invest in if one is looking to add a retro/vintage example to their collection.

I don’t think there will ever be much a collector market for the Apple Watch and if there ever is, there will be so many of them that the prices will be low (i.e. far below their original sale price).


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

edhchoe said:


> I prefer lighter weight, especially because I wear it to sleep for sleep tracking.
> AW4 is about 4g heavier than AW3.
> I hope it doesn't keep getting heavier every gen.


Four grams is, from what I remember in a school science book, about four paperclips. And I don't think they'll get noticeably heavier since our wrists aren't getting any bigger and, at least among people who are accustomed to thin, light quartz watches, the perception is that the AW is still kinda thick.

I wear my SS Series 2 to bed, too, and never noticed it bothering me. It's really not appreciably heavier than any of my other daily-wear watches, either.

To the OP's questions:

For looks, definitely polished SS... but that's, like, just my opinion, man. 

For weight,... yes, the aluminum is lighter, but the steel models are also lighter than my Seiko SKX or Citizen, and maybe lighter than my Rado Centrix automatic, too. So this kinda depends on what you're normally wear now. People who weren't wearing watches before buying an AW used to complain about the weight, but of course, that's because they never knew what it was like to wear a watch.


----------



## robmellor (Feb 16, 2006)

I when for the stainless steel version as I am ocd re marking a watch and the sapphire screen was a must plus the paint is tougher.


----------



## cashmonee (Jul 13, 2015)

Not to resurrect an old thread, but I wanted to add to this. I had two SS Apple Watches, and if I were to ever get another one, it would definitely be the cheapest version they have. The stainless definitely looks better than the aluminum, but you are fooling yourself if you think any of them look good. They both still look like a computer or fitness tracker on your wrist. The increased cost to go to stainless is prohibitive in my opinion. Stainless currently costs $200 over aluminum, and if you do not want LTE, then that balloons to $300. Resale value on stainless and aluminum is pretty close to identical. That means whatever extra you spend on stainless is lost money. For an item that already has really poor resale value (the worst resale of any Apple product), I feel like you are really just throwing money away on the stainless. This is even more true of the Hermes and old ceramic versions. In general, my advice is to realize this is disposable tool. In that sense just get the Nike version and call it a day.


----------

