# Aluminum or steel?



## BarracksSi

Ignoring the gold Edition models as I don't think we're in the demographic --

Which model would you prefer, the aluminum Sport or standard steel Watch?

Aluminum --
+ Makes sense for a low entry price into a new product segment
+ extra lightweight 
+ anodized surface won't show scratches as easily (I haven't learned if the finish is harder than SS)
- won't look appropriate with steel or leather bands (although the Sport owner with custom leather bands showed it can look pretty good after all)
- Ion-X glass less scratch proof than sapphire
- black band only included with the all-black model, meaning that a silver-and-black combo requires purchasing a second band.

Steel --
+ Sapphire and ceramic
+ looks great with steel bracelets, and can dress up with leather very well
+ more versatile style, which makes more sense if you wear it all the time
- at least two hundred dollars more expensive
- the head is nearly twice as heavy as the aluminum Sport (unless you enjoy the more substantial feeling)
- shows scratches more easily

I would really like the steel Watch, starting with it on the black sport band. I think it would be more versatile, too, especially if I get one of the leather straps and/or steel bracelets later.

But, I'm also not yet sure that I would wear an AW all the time, so the cheaper option might be best. I've remarked in other posts that I could imagine it being useful in any situation this side of a black tie dinner, yet I haven't worn a gadget like this often enough to know for sure. My Garmin only gets worn for workouts, and I never wanted a Fitbit-style tracker band.

I'm digging the idea of a durable, good-looking AW that I'd enjoying wearing most of the time, getting the most use out of it. I leave my phone at home sometimes when my wife and I take walks, so it'd be cool to still be able to log them into the Health app when we return.

But do I want to spend the extra money for the SS model? Of course it's Apple's first-gen Watch, but nobody besides Cook and Ive will say for sure what the upgrade cycle will be, whether new models will pop out in one year or in five years. I also don't think it would become uselessly obsolete any time soon, either (cameras, onscreen keyboards, and full cellular capability don't make sense at this size with current power tech).


----------



## rationaltime

Aluminum
An anodized finish is harder than stainless. It is a pretty tough finish.
However it is possible to scratch it.

To me "composite back" means plastic. It appears the part that holds
the strap is metal. I guess it is low risk.

Steel
Stainless can be polished.

In my opinion one should select the strap with the loop ends. If the strap
wears out you could potentially replace it with some open ended generic.
I do not see that strap option available for the aluminum model.

Stainless is forever.


Though the Apple Watch is not a watch, in my opinion, the most expensive
watches are those you buy instead of the watch you really wanted.


Thanks,
rationaltime


----------



## tiger roach

I got the SS, thinking that it would be better for wearing "out" even if my primary uses for it are running and golf. I got the milanese loop band, which is really comfortable and good-looking, and the black rubber for exercising. I think I made the right call.

If I was convinced it would be used exclusively for exercising or knock-around wear, I would have gotten the aluminum. It is lighter than the SS version, in addition to being less expensive. And the matte finish looks good in its own way.


----------



## clintfca

Knowing that I'll most likely get future generations of AW and gift my old ones to family I'm going for the space gray aluminum. The $200+ premium for SS finish doesn't make sense to me for the exact same internals as a aluminum one. If the AW is your first/one and only watch (ever) perhaps I can understand why some would spring for the SS finish.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BarracksSi

clintfca said:


> If the AW is your first/one and only watch (ever) perhaps I can understand why some would spring for the SS finish.


Right, and that's the thing with me -- I've got a few other perfectly fine watches which, IMO, are better suited to their occasions than an AW.

What I wonder is, will I find the AW useful often enough that I barely wear the other watches?

There's just one way to find out, and that's to get my own. My wife is interested in getting some sort of fitness device, but she's going to wait on choosing one until we get my AW. She would try it out herself, and she'd see how I use it, too.

We've set a $600 cap for the moment (otherwise I wouldn't have started this thread). A SS AW with a steel band would have to wait, or I could get the aluminum model and at least one additional strap.


----------



## BarracksSi

tiger roach said:


> I got the SS, thinking that it would be better for wearing "out" even if my primary uses for it are running and golf. I got the milanese loop band, which is really comfortable and good-looking, and the black rubber for exercising. I think I made the right call.


That's the combo I would get if it were all up to me. (see above


----------



## BarracksSi

rationaltime said:


> &#8230;, in my opinion, the most expensive
> watches are those you buy instead of the watch you really wanted.


I've learned that much, too. Go for the good stuff. If you settle for the cheap stuff now, a year later you'll have forgotten what you did with the money you saved, but you'll keep looking at what you got and wish you had gotten the better option in the first place.


----------



## zetaplus93

I had the same dilemma and went with the SS.

The main thing is that I'm going to try to make it my wear-it-all-the-time watch (with a few exceptions). The SS looks better and should last longer (sapphire is a big plus). Also, it should match different types of straps more easily. Lastly, if it does end up as a wear-it-all-the-time watch, then it'll stem my watch addiction, and that's worth a lot more! :-d

I've been pretty happy with my SS so far (got it 4/24), so definitely recommend it over the aluminum.

You've got the 14 day return window as well. You should know within 10 days or so if you're going to keep it around for a while. If not, just return it and perhaps keep an aluminum.

BTW, the extra weight shouldn't be an issue. It's lighter (40g) than other typical dress watches like the Seiko SARB033/35. It should disappear on your wrist weight-wise.

The scratching of the SS is a concern though. But as others mentioned, it shouldn't be too hard to buff out.


----------



## experimentjon

It was an easy decision for me to get the aluminum. I tried both on in store, and while the Milanese loop was cool (primary reason to get the SS for the matching finish), the steel version was just too heavy and not quite worth the price jump for identical internals. It also played into the way I planned to wear (and am currently wearing) the watch: on my right wrist as a secondary device. Some people still think it's a bit weird, but I'm good with it. I wanted something light and almost unnoticeable like the FitBit that used to reside on that wrist. I think the AW is a bit more intrusive than the Fitbit Flex, but it's still very comfortable on the sport strap--much more so than the SS version would be.


----------



## cunawarit

Given the pricing I’d only ever consider the aluminium version.

To me the AW is a disposable device meant to compliment my phone designed to be used for 2 or 3 years and then thrown away, this rules out spending good money on it. Given that there are benefits to going aluminium, it is lighter and because it isn’t supposed to last that long then long term longevity of steel and sapphire is inconsequential.

So aluminium for me J But I understand why people go for SS as I have to admit it looks better.


----------



## scentedlead

I’ve been wondering this for the past few weeks and I’ll go aluminum for V1. As I don’t have any children, when I buy a new iPad, I keep the old around, repurposed into a more dedicated purpose. I have one at my nightstand for night-time reading and another hooked up to the TV to prevent me from getting a Roku or Apple TV.

With the AW, I’d keep the old one as a sleep tracker—that’s not something I’d want with a stainless steel band. Hopefully, future AW cases are going to be compatible with older straps and this is where the gamble is.


----------



## BarracksSi

We swung by the store today (used a gift card to get a case for Dad's new iPhone 6) and my "CFO"  said the Milanese loop is a possibility. Whew.


----------



## Fer Guzman

I think I will keep this watch until the next version comes out and I therefore originally ordered the aluminum version. Once I saw them in the store however, the steel version looked significantly better imho so I cancelled the aluminum and ordered the steel and I think I made the right choice. I got the leather loop, but the milanese loop is very comfortable only potential problem is its only secured by one magnet as opposed to the leather loop which has many magnets. I tried it on and it seemed pretty secure but I read some comments claiming it would loosen up thoughout the day.


----------



## rationaltime

BarracksSi said:


> We swung by the store today (used a gift card to get a case for Dad's new iPhone 6) and my "CFO"  said the Milanese loop is a possibility. Whew.


Did the CFO provide enough input to make a decision about the case
size and material?

Thanks,
rationaltime


----------



## BarracksSi

rationaltime said:


> Did the CFO provide enough input to make a decision about the case
> size and material?
> 
> Thanks,
> rationaltime


42mm is pretty much a given, and I'm a little surprised that she's saying that the more expensive steel models are an option. I'm not so sure about the Milanese loop being a good all-around strap, especially the security of the magnetic tip during jogs or workouts, so I'd want a sport band for such activities. Adding the sport band would bump the overall cost, though, possibly beyond what she'd be comfortable with.

We haven't tried on different models together yet, either. I spent a few minutes trying them on at the Fifth Avenue store in NYC by myself a few weeks ago on a business trip, but not since then. I'd like her input because she's got better taste than I do anyway.


----------



## Operate

Aluminum=Fragile


----------



## Operate

Steel=Strength Shine Beauty Sapphire Glass


----------



## rationaltime

CUPERTINO, California-June 4, 2015

Sales in Apple Retail Stores to Begin in Two Weeks 
...
"The response to Apple Watch has surpassed our expectations in every way, and we are thrilled to bring it to more customers around the world," said Jeff Williams, Apple's senior vice president of Operations. "We're also making great progress with the backlog of Apple Watch orders, and we thank our customers for their patience. All orders placed through May, with the sole exception of Apple Watch 42 mm Space Black Stainless Steel with Space Black Link Bracelet, will ship to customers within two weeks. At that time, we'll also begin selling some models in our Apple Retail Stores."
...

---
It appears there are Apple retail stores in Georgetown and Arlington.
Perhaps in a few weeks you and the CFO will be able to go try on
various Apple Watches.

Thanks,
rationaltime


----------



## Fer Guzman

You can already try on every model at every Apple Store except the gold models and I believe the dlc steel models.


----------



## BarracksSi

Fer Guzman said:


> You can already try on every model at every Apple Store except the gold models and I believe the dlc steel models.


Pretty much. The gold models should be available at Tyson's and Georgetown, too.

She hasn't wanted to spend much time with them yet. But, she'll be at the in-laws for a few more days while I return home for work, so I intend to get another hands-on session.


----------



## rationaltime

Fer Guzman said:


> You can already try on every model at every Apple Store except the gold models and I believe the dlc steel models.


 Somehow I got the idea today you can make an appointment to see demo
models that light up without full functionality.

I don't want to over interpret, but I am guessing the announcement means
soon you will be able to walk into the Apple store to see working models
and purchase one to take home.

Thanks,
rationaltime


----------



## Fer Guzman

The watches in the store that you can put on have a demo on loop. But they have some models on some of the tables that you can play with that have full software functionality but you can't put on. In the announcement they are just saying the watches will soon be in stock in the stores. I don't think you will be able to put on a watch that isn't on the demo loop unless you purchase it .

It would be a good idea to have some of the try on models with just the regular software not the demo on loop. I think they did the demo loop to limit try on appointments but if you go into the store there really isn't a line to try them on.


----------



## BarracksSi

^^^^^ I think they have the demo loop to prevent thefts.


----------



## Fer Guzman

^when I went to try them on they had a security guard next to all the watches.


----------



## Memphis1

Fer Guzman said:


> ^when I went to try them on they had a security guard next to all the watches.


i went on the weekend and there wasn't a soul looking at the watches, i had like 5 blue shirt members checking out my watch instead of the other way around....


----------



## BarracksSi

Fer Guzman said:


> ^when I went to try them on they had a security guard next to all the watches.


Speaking of which, I think I got one of Apple's security guys to help me out with trying on some watches yesterday. The other staff were all busy, and the guy helping me was eyeballing the entire store while we chatted.

Saw another customer come in and try to buy two watches (link bracelet and mesh loop) on the spot. She hoped to present them both at a her boyfriend's party today, then return the watch he didn't prefer. She had no idea they were still online-only, so another staffer helped her place an order for the pair.


----------



## BarracksSi

Btw, I still think the mesh is damned sexy. My favorite combo now would be a steel watch with the sport band and mesh.

I wish the staff were allowed to size the link bracelet when trying them on. I _really_ want to find out if it could fit well enough on my wrist. I only have one bracelet watch without half links or micro adjust, and it's looser than I would like.

I wonder what the mesh would look like on the silver-colored aluminum model, though.


----------



## Fer Guzman

BarracksSi said:


> Btw, I still think the mesh is damned sexy. My favorite combo now would be a steel watch with the sport band and mesh.
> 
> I wish the staff were allowed to size the link bracelet when trying them on. I _really_ want to find out if it could fit well enough on my wrist. I only have one bracelet watch without half links or micro adjust, and it's looser than I would like.
> 
> I wonder what the mesh would look like on the silver-colored aluminum model, though.


They do size them up for you when your trying them on.


----------



## BarracksSi

Fer Guzman said:


> They do size them up for you when your trying them on.


I'll have to ask again. Both the Tyson's store and Fifth Avenue in NYC said they couldn't remove any links. Maybe I should try again at one of the other stores in the area.


----------



## Fer Guzman

BarracksSi said:


> I'll have to ask again. Both the Tyson's store and Fifth Avenue in NYC said they couldn't remove any links. Maybe I should try again at one of the other stores in the area.


From the try-on models?


----------



## BarracksSi

Fer Guzman said:


> From the try-on models?


Yup.


----------



## Fer Guzman

I know they don't allow swapping of straps between models, but if you tell them you want to try on a steel model with a bracelet they should size it for you.


----------



## zetaplus93

Fer Guzman said:


> I know they don't allow swapping of straps between models, but if you tell them you want to try on a steel model with a bracelet they should size it for you.


Wasn't the case with stores in New England back in late April/early May. But perhaps they've changed their process since then.

And if they do that now, I'll have to head in again!


----------



## cptdean

I bought the Space Grey Sport, chiefly due to price. There's no doubt I'll be replacing this one with the next version, so I don't really care about materials such as steel and sapphire at this point.


----------



## Memphis1

Fer Guzman said:


> I know they don't allow swapping of straps between models, but if you tell them you want to try on a steel model with a bracelet they should size it for you.


i swapped bracelets and resized them... the kid was so eager to show me how so i ran with it.


----------



## BarracksSi

Disco.






















[edit - apologies for the blurry fourth shot]


----------



## BarracksSi

As sized, it fit almost exactly like my SKX009's stock jubilee, but more snug than my Rado (which probably always will be too loose).

The staffer who helped me, plus another that came by the table, started swapping bands around after a customer got them to try a blue leather loop on his silver Sport model. The second staffer had an all-black Sport, and she tried both the blue leather loop and the "stone" (aka, light tan) loop. Both looked pretty cool with the black Sport.


----------



## Fer Guzman

I'm not that into bracelets because I like adjusting the size throughout the day but their bracelet is very well made and thought out. It looks good


----------



## BarracksSi

My wife's out of town until tomorrow (hence today's store visit!), so I sent her these pics and told her how easy it was to resize (I shot video, too). She said that I should forget this model and stop talking about it, or else she won't let me get an AW at all.


----------



## zetaplus93

Fer Guzman said:


> I'm not that into bracelets because I like adjusting the size throughout the day but their bracelet is very well made and thought out. It looks good


That's the one thing that the bracelet is missing (AFAIK): the ability to quickly change sizes throughout the day.

It's a bigger deal in the summer when it's hot outside, while cool inside with the A/C. Some dive watches have this feature, and I believe Rolex bracelets (among others) also have this. So surprised that Apple didn't address this issue in their link bracelet--perhaps in a future update?


----------



## Memphis1

zetaplus93 said:


> That's the one thing that the bracelet is missing (AFAIK): the ability to quickly change sizes throughout the day.
> 
> It's a bigger deal in the summer when it's hot outside, while cool inside with the A/C. Some dive watches have this feature, and I believe Rolex bracelets (among others) also have this. So surprised that Apple didn't address this issue in their link bracelet--perhaps in a future update?


who the hell resizes their watches because they walked into an a/c building???


----------



## Memphis1

BarracksSi said:


> My wife's out of town until tomorrow (hence today's store visit!), so I sent her these pics and told her how easy it was to resize (I shot video, too). She said that I should forget this model and stop talking about it, or else she won't let me get an AW at all.


LOL!!!!


----------



## RV Driver

I'm an Apple guy, and I love my Apple devices. I've thought about getting an AW to match my other devices, because it has a lot of info at-a-glance for which I now have to unholster my iPhone. BUT... I came up in the '70s, when everyone had the Texas instruments LED watch, and it turned out to be a fad. In fact, I've still got mine and it works perfectly. But it's a FAD. It was a fairly cheap fad. The AW is a fairly EXPENSIVE fad. It may tell the time, but it's Not. A. Watch. it's a computer. It's an electronic device. We all have watches that are relics, throwbacks, tributes to an earlier, gentler age -- mechanical watches. Apparently the trend is now toward retro -- even antique -- watches. What sense does it make for a bunch of people who are into steam-era machinery to get ga-ga over a Dick Tracy Wrist TV? We strive to keep our watches for years and we pride ourselves on the "heirloom quality" of our pieces. You know what? The trend with computers is that you replace it every couple of years for one that costs $200 more, is "faster," and "handles more apps." Is that really, honestly, what we want a watch for? To "run more apps?" Is that really why we're WISs? Doesn't the AW fall more in the realm of "computer nerd?"

I suppose it's fine if you're a WIS _and_ a computer nerd, and don't get me wrong: I'm as enamored with Apple as the next guy -- I've got a MacBook, an iPad, an iPod and the iPhone 6, and I'm fairly technological -- I fly a homebuilt plane with a $20,000 glass cockpit and an autopilot that can land the plane all by itself. But I just don't see the value in the AW as a real watch that I'm just going to replace when the AW 2 comes out next year. I dunno, maybe I'm just getting old, but I prefer a real piece of machinery on my wrist, not a little computer that's got no jewelry value and will probably be out of fashion when wrist-implants are developed in ten years. Or head implants that are 8G LTE and transmit information directly into your brain.

Rant over. Thanks for listening.


----------



## BarracksSi

RV Driver said:


> I'm an Apple guy, and I love my Apple devices. I've thought about getting an AW to match my other devices, because it has a lot of info at-a-glance for which I now have to unholster my iPhone. BUT...
> [snipped for space]
> Rant over. Thanks for listening.


Despite my enthusiasm for the AW, I feel that smartwatches are the type of device that is most in danger of being obsoleted. We're very close to being able to manage the delivery of basic information (texts, weather updates, whatever) with only voice control and aural feedback. Most of what you'd get on a smartwatch could be delivered via an earpiece.

About the trend towards retro/antique watches: I'll bet that's partly driven by the whole retro-hipster thing, and also the stupid high prices of "respectable" brands. One can get a vintage example for a pittance and still feel they got a good watch.

I understand your rant, though. Similar thoughts of my own are keeping me from jumping in right away.


----------



## zetaplus93

Memphis1 said:


> who the hell resizes their watches because they walked into an a/c building???


If it's hot and humid and pushing 90+ or 100+ and the buildings are only around 70, yeah, your wrist is gonna expand and contract...


----------



## Fer Guzman

Memphis1 said:


> who the hell resizes their watches because they walked into an a/c building???


I probably resize my watch a couple times a day. It's normal for your wrist to expand and contract and if you like to wear the watch snug sometimes it gets too snug.


----------



## scentedlead

Memphis1 said:


> who the hell resizes their watches because they walked into an a/c building???


Mine's not so extreme and it's only two notches on my current watch that I use but, my wrist size does vary between temperature and hydration levels.


----------



## scentedlead

RV Driver said:


> It may tell the time, but it's Not. A. Watch. it's a computer.


The smartphone isn't a phone, it's a computer, with a phone app. The smartwatch isn't a watch, it's a computer, with a watch app. What's your point?

It's called a phone because it's a thing in our hand to connect us to the larger world. It's a watch because it's a thing on the wrist that gives us context for the when-and with a smartwatch also the where and how and why-of the moment.



> It's an electronic device. We all have watches that are relics, throwbacks, tributes to an earlier, gentler age -- mechanical watches. Apparently the trend is now toward retro -- even antique -- watches. What sense does it make for a bunch of people who are into steam-era machinery to get ga-ga over a Dick Tracy Wrist TV?


I love my fountain pens. I don't care that my MOM looks at me weird, "But why? Ballpoint pens have already been invented?" But I'm usually on my tablet with bluetooth pens because with a fountain pen-oh crap, I need to type this all into the computer. But I still write things into my tablet in cursive, which apparently is so retro, who needs good handwriting when you have keyboards?

I want a Diana camera, you have no idea. But then I realized-oh crap, I'm going to need to develop this film and then scan it to get it into my computer. And now I use my smartphone with Hipstamatic and Instagram and Instant for the retro filters. Ironically, it is possible for a cell phone camera to be too good for these filters to recreate true to era photographs. Did anyone ever own a Polaroid that made such crisp and sharp photos? And yet yet yet, filter apps are so popular.

We update our typefaces, some a half millennia old, for modern technologies-rough paper stock with lots of ink bleed has different needs from fonts than laser printer paper put through a laser printer. Ink bleed? What's ink bleed? So, obviously we love the typefaces that have history behind them.

Some people want the new. Some people want the old. Yet, it is possible to let modernity evolve from the past. This is the approach I look for.

Marc Newson really left his mark on the AW. Obviously, that's not for everyone. But maybe some other smartwatch producer will let some other big name in watches leave their mark on those watches.



> We all have watches that are relics, throwbacks, tributes to an earlier, gentler age --


Gentler age? I dare you to say that to anyone who isn't white or male. I think an age-where lots of people don't have voting rights and face much more systematic discrimination-is a lot less gentle than one with more social justice.


----------



## BarracksSi

(really, _really not_ trying to step on anyone's toes by saying this&#8230

I wonder if my wrist expanded and contracted more dramatically when I was heavier.

I mean, my watches definitely feel looser when I'm colder, but they're not loose enough to bug me.

If I could go six years and fifty pounds back in time, I could take measurements of my wrist under different weather conditions and track the changes along with my weight loss. Say, x.x inches at weight yyy and temp zz°, then the same stats at every ten pounds I lost.

Unfortunately for the experiment, I'm not planning on regaining the same amount of weight. The opportunity has been lost.


----------



## Fer Guzman

I move between two notches on the strap and two magnets on the loop. 

I think the AW is an awesome watch. Better than any digital watch I've had from gshock except for battery and toughness but neither has been an issue for me. Being able to customize what you see in the dial is extremely helpful. But I do agree it's a tech that will change significantly every year. I purchased mine with the assumption that I'll buy the newer iteration when it is released. I estimate I'll get at least half of my money back which isn't bad when you buy a new watch in the price range and want to flick it a year later.


----------



## RV Driver

> The smartphone isn't a phone, it's a computer, with a phone app. The smartwatch isn't a watch, it's a computer, with a watch app. What's your point?


My point is that this is a watch site, for people who are into watches. Not a techno site for people who are into apps.


> It's called a phone because it's a thing in our hand to connect us to the larger world. It's a watch because it's a thing on the wrist that gives us context for the when-and with a smartwatch also the where and how and why-of the moment.


A big part of the reason why we are members and post here (as I understand it), is because we see the beauty and value in the art of creating quality timepieces out of little pieces of machinery, so cunningly and faithfully constructed, that they keep accurate time in a manner that is aesthetically pleasing and in a way that has historic fidelity. I didn't realize that this was a site to celebrate "things on the wrist that give us a context for the when." If that were the case, it seems there would be threads for any number of similar toys that can be dug out of a Fruity Pebbles box on any given Saturday morning. The AW just happens to be a much more expensive type of "thing that sits on the wrist." I'm not being a snob, the AW is a great tool -- as I said, I'm an Apple guy; I just don't see that the AW is germane to celebrating the watch any more than is a plastic decoder ring with a "sundial" on top.


> I want a Diana camera, you have no idea. But then I realized-oh crap, I'm going to need to develop this film and then scan it to get it into my computer. And now I use my smartphone with Hipstamatic and Instagram and Instant for the retro filters. Ironically, it is possible for a cell phone camera to be too good for these filters to recreate true to era photographs. Did anyone ever own a Polaroid that made such crisp and sharp photos? And yet yet yet, filter apps are so popular.


Let's set some parameters here: A watch is a device created solely for the purpose of telling the time. A camera is a device created solely for taking photographs. The "camera" on an iPhone isn't a "camera." It's an app on a device. If you want a camera, you go to Best Buy and look for something that says "Canon," or "Hasselblad," or "Leica," or "Nikon." It may use a digital medium, but it's a camera. No professional photographer worth his salt would use an iPhone for a paying gig. Because photographers use cameras, not apps on devices. When you want to buy a watch, you go to a jewelry or watch store and buy something that says, "Hamilton," or "Breitling," or "Rolex," or "Longines." It may record the time like an AW, but it's a  watch. Because watch aficionados collect watches, not apps on devices. If such were the case, why is there no dedicated thread for the beauty, reliability, collectibility and aesthetics of the iPhone that has tells the time on the home screen? WISs celebrate watches, not apps. 


> Some people want the new. Some people want the old. Yet, it is possible to let modernity evolve from the past. This is the approach I look for.


Me too. But, at some point, the evolution stops being the thing it evolved from, because the hallmarks of the thing have changed. My argument is that the AW lacks the hallmarks that really matter to defining the parameters of a fine watch. The fact that it's worn on the wrist and tells the time notwithstanding.


> Gentler age? I dare you to say that to anyone who isn't white or male.


Now you're just sounding obtuse. This is a thread about watches, not about social justice. "Earlier, gentler age" refers to watchmaking, not racial and sexual bigotry. No one here could argue that a mechanical watch doesn't reflect an ambience of a time when rampant commercialism, politics, and technology were not the driving forces behind a watch.

I like the AW. But it's not a watch. A Maytag convection oven cooks food in a marvelous way, and I like the one my brother-in-law has. But it's not a campfire, and is really anathema to a forum dedicated to the ambience of camping out.


----------



## Fer Guzman

RV Driver said:


> Now you're just sounding obtuse. This is a thread about watches, not about social justice.


The comment re: social justice was a little whack.



RV Driver said:


> My point is that this is a watch site, for people who are into watches. Not a techno site for people who are into apps.
> 
> We see the beauty and value in the art of creating quality timepieces out of little pieces of machinery, so cunningly and faithfully constructed, that they keep accurate time in a manner that is aesthetically pleasing and in a way that has historic fidelity. . . . I just don't see that the AW is germane to celebrating the watch any more than is a plastic decoder ring with a "sundial" on top.


I'm very into watches and completely disagree that it isn't a watch. Traditional mechanical watches do not keep accurate time compared to quartz or signal corrected watches. My Citizen that I just sold because the Apple watch took its place had a thermocompesated movement keeping time at +2 seconds per year on average. Looks wise it was in line with a traditional watch but under the hood it's completely different. The AW is germane because it's an evolution of the what the watch is. When quartz came out you could have said the same thing about a battery powered movement. Is a G-Shock not germane to celebrating the watch since most are made of plastic and use quartz?



RV Driver said:


> Let's set some parameters here: A watch is a device created solely for the purpose of telling the time. A camera is a device created solely for taking photographs. The "camera" on an iPhone isn't a "camera." It's an app on a device. If you want a camera, you go to Best Buy and look for something that says "Canon," or "Hasselblad," or "Leica," or "Nikon." It may use a digital medium, but it's a camera.


Of course it's a camera, but being a camera isn't its main function. It has the same parts that a regular camera has. The digital experience of it makes it easier to use and the software just makes the pictures look better.



RV Driver said:


> No professional photographer worth his salt would use an iPhone for a paying gig. Because photographers use cameras, not apps on devices.


Of course they wouldn't, but they wouldn't use the cheap Canon point and shoot either. Is the point and shoot not a camera? Because if it is, it's the same thing as the camera inside the iPhone.



RV Driver said:


> When you want to buy a watch, you go to a jewelry or watch store and buy something that says, "Hamilton," or "Breitling," or "Rolex," or "Longines." It may record the time like an AW, but it's a  watch. Because watch aficionados collect watches, not apps on devices. If such were the case, why is there no dedicated thread for the beauty, reliability, collectibility and aesthetics of the iPhone that has tells the time on the home screen? WISs celebrate watches, not apps.


There isn't an iPhone section because the iPhone is a phone. But there is a dedicated forum for the Apple watch in WUS because at least some people think it's a watch. Furthermore there is an entire forum dedicated to smart watches because some WIS are interested in these types of watches.

By your logic it almost seems the G-Shock, since it has no historical fidelity to the traditional watch, shouldn't be discussed by WIS, yet it's the most popular forum in WUS. The AW straps and bracelets alone are worth discussing from the perspective of an advancement in the watch world. You are being a snob in the sense that you feel your idea of what the watch is or should be, or what it means when people are "into watches" is the only view, when it is not. I love the way a Patek or Lange look but as a daily wearer I can't stand a watch where time has to be adjusted daily to be correct and where the day and/or date isn't perpetual. I like a watch that I cans strap on in the morning knowing the time and day and/or date is correct. Quartz offers that for me in either a thermocompesanted movement w/perpetual calendar or a watch with atomic or satellite reception. Now the AW offers me the same thing with no need to worry about reception since it gets the correct time from the iPhone. The main function for me of the AW is telling accurate time. It just adds the convenience of being able to also function as a workout device, messaging device, weather device, etc. I can understand if it's not for you, but to infer it shouldn't even be discussed amongst WIS because it does more than tell time is ridiculous.


----------



## RV Driver

Fer Guzman said:


> The comment re: social justice was a little whack.
> 
> I'm very into watches and completely disagree that it isn't a watch. Traditional mechanical watches do not keep accurate time compared to quartz or signal corrected watches. My Citizen that I just sold because the Apple watch took its place had a thermocompesated movement keeping time at +2 seconds per year on average. Looks wise it was in line with a traditional watch but under the hood it's completely different. The AW is germane because it's an evolution of the what the watch is. When quartz came out you could have said the same thing about a battery powered movement. Is a G-Shock not germane to celebrating the watch since most are made of plastic and use quartz?
> 
> Of course it's a camera, but being a camera isn't its main function. It has the same parts that a regular camera has. The digital experience of it makes it easier to use and the software just makes the pictures look better.
> 
> Of course they wouldn't, but they wouldn't use the cheap Canon point and shoot either. Is the point and shoot not a camera? Because if it is, it's the same thing as the camera inside the iPhone.
> 
> There isn't an iPhone section because the iPhone is a phone. But there is a dedicated forum for Apple watch in WUS, you're in it, it's f586 and furthermore an entire forum dedicated to smart watches because some WIS are interested in these types of watches.
> 
> By your logic it almost seems the G-Shock, since it has no historical fidelity to the traditional watch, shouldn't be discussed by WIS, yet it's the most popular forum in WUS. The AW straps and bracelets alone are worth discussing from the perspective of an advancement in the watch world. You are being a snob in the sense that you feel your idea of what the watch is or should be, or what it means when people are "into watches" is the only view, when it is not. I love the way a Patek or Lange look but as a daily wearer I can't stand a watch where time has to be adjusted daily to be correct and where the day and/or date isn't perpetual. I like a watch that I cans strap on in the morning knowing the time and day and/or date is correct. Quartz offers that for me in either a thermocompesanted movement w/perpetual calendar or a watch with atomic or satellite reception. Now the AW offers me the same thing with no need to worry about reception since it gets the correct time from the iPhone. The main function for me of the AW is telling accurate time. It just adds the convenience of being able to also function as a workout device, messaging device, weather device, etc. I can understand if it's not for you, but to infer it shouldn't even be discussed amongst WUS because it does more than tell time is ridiculous.


The G-shock is obviously closer to a Rolex Automatic than it is to the AW. But the AW is also obviously closer to the iPhone than the Rolex. I guess my point is that I just don't think that the AW is "the next step" in watchmaking. It is the next step in computer devices. And here's the important part: Do you really believe that the AW is going to stand the test of time? I'd be willing to bet that mechanical watches will still be made long after the AW has joined the ranks of the Simon Says, Mattel Football, the brick phone, and the Commodore 64. Why? Because the AW is technology. In 1969, the computer in the Apollo space capsule was the most advanced piece of technology on the planet. Today, you can buy a $5 calculator at Wal-Mart with more power and storage.

No, I'm afraid there will always be a divide between something that is an expression of technology, and something that utilizes technology.


----------



## shnjb

I'm really conflicted about this too.


----------



## BarracksSi

On the way to the airport, I stopped in at the same store as last night and had them swap the mesh loop onto the aluminum watch. It felt fine, with the light weight of the mesh and aluminum head balancing well. 

But it just didn't look right. It's not like the surfaces don't match any worse—the lugs and end tab of the mesh loop are brushed, not polished, so they don't strictly match the SS head either—but it simply didn't gel with the aluminum. I think it's because the mesh itself is pretty sparkly and polished, and it makes the blasted aluminum finish look plasticky.

That combo would have been a less expensive way to get what I want: an Apple Watch with a sport band and metal bracelet. I don't think I'd be happy with it, though.


----------



## scentedlead

BarracksSi said:


> On the way to the airport, I stopped in at the same store as last night and had them swap the mesh loop onto the aluminum watch. It felt fine, with the light weight of the mesh and aluminum head balancing well.
> 
> But it just didn't look right. It's not like the surfaces don't match any worse-the lugs and end tab of the mesh loop are brushed, not polished, so they don't strictly match the SS head either-but it simply didn't gel with the aluminum. I think it's because the mesh itself is pretty sparkly and polished, and it makes the blasted aluminum finish look plasticky.
> 
> That combo would have been a less expensive way to get what I want: an Apple Watch with a sport band and metal bracelet. I don't think I'd be happy with it, though.


To be honest, if the Milanese Loop were offered in black, I'd be all over the steel.


----------



## Fer Guzman

RV Driver said:


> The G-shock is obviously closer to a Rolex Automatic than it is to the AW. But the AW is also obviously closer to the iPhone than the Rolex. I guess my point is that I just don't think that the AW is "the next step" in watchmaking. It is the next step in computer devices. And here's the important part: Do you really believe that the AW is going to stand the test of time? I'd be willing to bet that mechanical watches will still be made long after the AW has joined the ranks of the Simon Says, Mattel Football, the brick phone, and the Commodore 64. Why? Because the AW is technology. In 1969, the computer in the Apollo space capsule was the most advanced piece of technology on the planet. Today, you can buy a $5 calculator at Wal-Mart with more power and storage.
> 
> No, I'm afraid there will always be a divide between something that is an expression of technology, and something that utilizes technology.


I think the design and utility of a digital display gshock is much more similar to the AW than a Rolex.

Will the AW stand the test of time, absolutely not. I won't own this one 2 years from now. But standing the test of time isn't what makes a watch a watch. That's just one of the selling points of traditional mechanical watches.


----------



## RV Driver

Fer Guzman said:


> I think the design and utility of a digital display gshock is much more similar to the AW than a Rolex.
> 
> Will the AW stand the test of time, absolutely not. I won't own this one 2 years from now. But standing the test of time isn't what makes a watch a watch. That's just one of the selling points of traditional mechanical watches.


For me, I guess, it's a matter of somebody "trying to build a better mousetrap." The G-Shock's been around a long time and will continue to be around a long time, because it's a mousetrap. It's been slicked up, but it's a mousetrap. it's design is meant to catch mice. It's function is to catch mice. It catches mice in a rugged and sporty way.

OTOH, the AW isn't a mousetrap. It's a technological marvel that acts like a toaster, gym trainer, weatherman, mailman, stock broker, real estate agent, that also happens to catch mice. In short, it's kind of dishonesst. It's not designed to be a watch. It's designed to be "a computer one wears on the wrist." Right now, everybody's enamored with the computer. And right now, there's an agency that's backing up all important data onto wax discs for the day technology fails and we no longer have digital storage. Digital technology isn't going to last. And everybody will go back to wearing ... wait for it! ... _watches_.

A computer isn't a typewriter. It's not a TV. It's not a movie theater. It's not a bank. It's not a travel agent. It's not a stock broker. It's not a real estate agent. It's not a doctor. It's not a mailbox. It's not a trainer. It's not an attorney. It's not a classroom. It's not a cheap date. It's not a book. It's not an almanac. It's not an encyclopedia. It's not a chef. It's not a pilot. It's not a babysitter. It's not a teacher. It's not an architect. It's not a fashion designer. It's not a waitress. It's not a cookfire. It's not a farmer. It's not a salesman. It's not a sommelier. It's not a filing cabinet. It's not a jukebox. It's not a camera. It's not a piano. It's not an organ. It's not a composer. It's not an artist. It's not a map. It's not a telephone, and it's not a watch. It does all those things, but it is not all those things. It's a computer. That's what it is.

Yes, the AW looks cool sitting on the wrist. Yes, it pairs with one's phone and laptop. Yes, it's a cool Apple gadget. Yes, I want one, and yes, I'd use it. Probably in place of my watch. Because I'd look goofy with an AW and a watch on my left wrist. But it's not a watch. And I can't appreciate it as a watch. It's a computer. I can (and do) appreciate it as a computer.

In the seventies, everybody started using LED digital watches. In the eighties, everybody started using LCD digital watches. In the nineties, everybody started using quartz watches. In the 2000s, everybody started using Eco-Drive, or Solar. But everybody seems to gravitate back to mechanical. A lot of new GA aircraft are being marketed with glass cockpits these days. And guess what? Every aircraft is _also_ required to have steam gauges as backups. An autopilot can take off and land an airliner by itself. But every plane is required to have at least two flight officers on board. Ten years ago, the DaVinci Robot was developed for doctors to do surgery long-distance over the internet. Guess what? Nobody's doing long-distance surgery these days. We seem to gravitate away from things that "look like" the real deal and "act like" the real deal, back to the things that *are* "the real deal." Because we value _honesty_. And, to me, the AW isn't an honest watch. It's a technological copy. A great technological copy, yes. But a copy.


----------



## Fer Guzman

Okay, well agree to disagree. I think the little computer on my wrist is a great watch.


----------



## zetaplus93

BarracksSi said:


> (really, _really not_ trying to step on anyone's toes by saying this&#8230
> 
> I wonder if my wrist expanded and contracted more dramatically when I was heavier.
> 
> I mean, my watches definitely feel looser when I'm colder, but they're not loose enough to bug me.
> 
> If I could go six years and fifty pounds back in time, I could take measurements of my wrist under different weather conditions and track the changes along with my weight loss. Say, x.x inches at weight yyy and temp zz°, then the same stats at every ten pounds I lost.
> 
> Unfortunately for the experiment, I'm not planning on regaining the same amount of weight. The opportunity has been lost.


I'm in decent shape and I notice my wrists change enough to find adjustable straps useful.

I've got a GS and one of the things that really bugs me is that it doesn't even have micro adjustments on the clasp. The weather's been weird and some days it's 72, and others it's pushing 90+. So I've sized the metal bracelet (with no micro adjustments) to be comfortable when it's hot and humid outside (otherwise I'd take the watch off). Now when I'm indoors or when it's cooler, it's looser than I would like. I have no choice.

So yeah, would say that adjustments (that involve additional tools, like micro adjustments, or not) would be a huge improvement. Other ways of tackling the same problem would work too, of course.


----------



## zetaplus93

We're going a bit off-tangent from the original topic. Sorry OP...



RV Driver said:


> My point is that this is a watch site, for people who are into watches. Not a techno site for people who are into apps.


Yes, but this is an Apple Watch subforum... so you're going to get people who like watches like the Apple Watch.



RV Driver said:


> A big part of the reason why we are members and post here (as I understand it), is because we see the beauty and value in the art of creating quality timepieces out of little pieces of machinery, so cunningly and faithfully constructed, that they keep accurate time in a manner that is aesthetically pleasing and in a way that has historic fidelity.


Yes to the above. But then again, one can like traditional watches _and _also modern smartwatches like the AW. It's not either this or that...



RV Driver said:


> Let's set some parameters here: A watch is a device created solely for the purpose of telling the time.Keep in mind that the meaning of words can change over time. And it's the general public who determines what the meaning of words mean.
> 
> i.e. Watches in the 1800's were pocket watches. In the 1900's, the term became to mean wristwatches more than pocket watches.
> 
> 
> 
> RV Driver said:
> 
> 
> 
> A camera is a device created solely for taking photographs. The "camera" on an iPhone isn't a "camera." It's an app on a device.
> 
> 
> 
> When you hear the word "phone", are you thinking about rotary phones or landlines? Or are you thinking of feature phones (those old Nokias)? Or are you thinking of modern smartphones (iPhone, Android)? The meaning has changed over time. Broadly speaking, it's a device for me to make a call to someone. Note that the meaning of "call" has changed over time too (regular call, FaceTime, Skype, etc etc).
> 
> Similarly, ask a kid what a camera is. Bet they'll say iPhones and Android phones. The general public (and the next generation of the population) determines the meaning of words.
Click to expand...


----------



## zetaplus93

RV Driver said:


> The G-shock is obviously closer to a Rolex Automatic than it is to the AW. But the AW is also obviously closer to the iPhone than the Rolex. I guess my point is that I just don't think that the AW is "the next step" in watchmaking. It is the next step in computer devices.


Hmm. By the same logic, do you consider the iPhone/Android phones "the next step" in phone designs (when considering the long history of rotary phones and landlines)?

Generally speaking, I think there's a trend of making new "things" or devices using computers of some kind (general processing units + software). This is because computers are very versatile and can be created to do many things.

It's like mechanical linkages were replaced by electronic components. Then hardwired electronics (punch card computers) became software and computers. It's just a natural evolution.



RV Driver said:


> And here's the important part: Do you really believe that the AW is going to stand the test of time? I'd be willing to bet that mechanical watches will still be made long after the AW has joined the ranks of the Simon Says, Mattel Football, the brick phone, and the Commodore 64. Why? Because the AW is technology. In 1969, the computer in the Apollo space capsule was the most advanced piece of technology on the planet. Today, you can buy a $5 calculator at Wal-Mart with more power and storage.


No, I think AW (and other devices in the same class), assuming it becomes mass market (or whatever degree; perhaps population penetration rates > 40-50%?), will evolve over time. But the general concept of an AW, i.e. slap a computer on a wrist, will likely stick around for a bit (with the assumptions that it "makes it"). If adoption rates are high enough, it may be a dominant design over traditional wristwatches.

But just because it becomes dominant or obsoletes traditional watches doesn't mean traditional watches goes away completely. Just look at pocket watches.

And of course, perhaps AW and similar devices will become obsolete in a few more years because we move to earpieces like in the movie _Her_.



RV Driver said:


> No, I'm afraid there will always be a divide between something that is an expression of technology, and something that utilizes technology.


You lost me there. Could you elaborate more on what you mean here?


----------



## zetaplus93

BarracksSi said:


> On the way to the airport, I stopped in at the same store as last night and had them swap the mesh loop onto the aluminum watch. It felt fine, with the light weight of the mesh and aluminum head balancing well.
> 
> But it just didn't look right. It's not like the surfaces don't match any worse-the lugs and end tab of the mesh loop are brushed, not polished, so they don't strictly match the SS head either-but it simply didn't gel with the aluminum. I think it's because the mesh itself is pretty sparkly and polished, and it makes the blasted aluminum finish look plasticky.
> 
> That combo would have been a less expensive way to get what I want: an Apple Watch with a sport band and metal bracelet. I don't think I'd be happy with it, though.


I was in a similar situation before too (though aluminum AW + metal bracelet) and the difference between the finishings (brushed + polished) didn't look right.

Tough call. If you really like the mesh, you could get an adapter and put in a mesh of your own?


----------



## zetaplus93

RV Driver said:


> OTOH, the AW isn't a mousetrap. It's a technological marvel that acts like a toaster, gym trainer, weatherman, mailman, stock broker, real estate agent, that also happens to catch mice. In short, it's kind of dishonest. It's not designed to be a watch. It's designed to be "a computer one wears on the wrist." Right now, everybody's enamored with the computer. And right now, there's an agency that's backing up all important data onto wax discs for the day technology fails and we no longer have digital storage. Digital technology isn't going to last. And everybody will go back to wearing ... wait for it! ... _watches_.
> ...
> In the seventies, everybody started using LED digital watches. In the eighties, everybody started using LCD digital watches. In the nineties, everybody started using quartz watches. In the 2000s, everybody started using Eco-Drive, or Solar. But everybody seems to gravitate back to mechanical. A lot of new GA aircraft are being marketed with glass cockpits these days. And guess what? Every aircraft is _also_ required to have steam gauges as backups. An autopilot can take off and land an airliner by itself. But every plane is required to have at least two flight officers on board. Ten years ago, the DaVinci Robot was developed for doctors to do surgery long-distance over the internet. Guess what? Nobody's doing long-distance surgery these days. We seem to gravitate away from things that "look like" the real deal and "act like" the real deal, back to the things that *are* "the real deal." Because we value _honesty_. And, to me, the AW isn't an honest watch. It's a technological copy. A great technological copy, yes. But a copy.


Not sure I understand or agree about the honesty thing. We're not going back to mechanical phones, that's for sure. And we're certainly not going back to analog technologies for things like cameras, architecture building/planning, airplanes, rockets, satellites, etc etc etc. Digital technologies (which = computers of some kind) are gonna stick around until it's replaced by something better (and analog tech isn't better for these applications).

Some of the things like long-distance surgery didn't pan out. It was an experimentation that didn't become the dominant design. Still, 3D imaging, MRIs, CAT scans, etc etc are digital technologies that became dominant designs and have stuck around. So I'd say that as new tech comes out, we try and experiment and the dominant designs stick around.

So if you're argument is that the AW isn't a dominant design and would fade away, that I say is of course a possibility. But if you say that the AW fails and we go back to traditional watches... that's a bit of a stretch. It's more like if the AW fails, then people would continue to not wear a watch. That was a trend pre-AW--traditional watches are a niche even pre-AW.


----------



## BarracksSi

So anyway...

One of my coworkers with a black Sport model also got himself the black leather loop. Looks good:


----------



## RV Driver

Fer Guzman said:


> Okay, well agree to disagree. I think the little computer on my wrist is a great watch.


Lol. I like that. I'm sure it's got a great timekeeping function, and I'd really like to have one myself. I'm envious. Perhaps Father's Day...


----------



## jbg7474

RV Driver said:


> ...Is that really why we're WISs? Doesn't the AW fall more in the realm of "computer nerd?"
> 
> I suppose it's fine if you're a WIS _and_ a computer nerd...


*raises hand*
Yeah, that's actually pretty much exactly why it appeals to me. I'm an electrical engineer and I appreciate amazing engineering, whether you can see what's happening with your eyes or not. The fact that it's a computer doesn't make it less interesting to me. And, by the way, the fact that a watch may have analog hands doesn't make it not a computer. Anything that computes is a computer. You could make a pretty strong argument that mechanical watches are mechanical computers--they compute the time. And I think that is cool as well.


----------



## RV Driver

jbg7474 said:


> *raises hand*
> Yeah, that's actually pretty much exactly why it appeals to me. I'm an electrical engineer and I appreciate amazing engineering, whether you can see what's happening with your eyes or not. The fact that it's a computer doesn't make it less interesting to me. And, by the way, the fact that a watch may have analog hands doesn't make it not a computer. Anything that computes is a computer. You could make a pretty strong argument that mechanical watches are mechanical computers--they compute the time. And I think that is cool as well.


Never thought of it that way. Thanks!


----------



## BarracksSi

This is where I am now in my decision. This is just a starting point, and the link bracelet is basically a fantasy (see an earlier post). Every option is a pretty neutral color as I plan to wear it often.


----------



## Fer Guzman

BarracksSi said:


> This is where I am now in my decision. This is just a starting point, and the link bracelet is basically a fantasy (see an earlier post). Every option is a pretty neutral color as I plan to wear it often.
> 
> View attachment 4319313


I'd go SS wit strap because you can wear it with anything and the steel does look better than the aluminum. The milanese you won't be able to wear for sport activities. The Space Grey aluminum, personally, I don't like the look of everything blacked out for all occasions it's a bit less versatile in my opinion.

1) SS w/strap
2) aluminum w/strap
3) sport great w/strap
4) milanese


----------



## shnjb

Fer Guzman said:


> I'd go SS wit strap because you can wear it with anything and the steel does look better than the aluminum. The milanese you won't be able to wear for sport activities. The Space Grey aluminum, personally, I don't like the look of everything blacked out for all occasions it's a bit less versatile in my opinion.
> 
> 1) SS w/strap
> 2) aluminum w/strap
> 3) sport great w/strap
> 4) milanese


What if you already have other watches for nicer looks?
Should one still go for the steel?


----------



## Fer Guzman

shnjb said:


> What if you already have other watches for nicer looks?
> Should one still go for the steel?


Probably go with the aluminum models then if it's going to be a more casual/beater watch. For sure try to go in the store and try it out to see which metal you prefer.


----------



## BarracksSi

shnjb said:


> What if you already have other watches for nicer looks?
> Should one still go for the steel?


That's what pushes me towards the aluminum, too. If I didn't already have some other nice-looking watches, I'd be going for the steel all the way.


----------



## shnjb

BarracksSi said:


> That's what pushes me towards the aluminum, too. If I didn't already have some other nice-looking watches, I'd be going for the steel all the way.


Yeah but at the same time, I don't want a crappy looking or a cheap looking watch


----------



## BarracksSi

shnjb said:


> Yeah but at the same time, I don't want a crappy looking or a cheap looking watch


... which is exactly what makes me want the steel Watch.


----------



## Fer Guzman

My original plan was buy the space grey aluminum because I know I'm buying the next version. Saw both in person and although the steel is heavier (I preferred the lighter aluminum version) the polished finish makes the SS look considerably better in my opinion. So then it comes down do, am I willing to pay for the steel knowing I'll sell it as soon as the next one comes out. Answer: for me, yes because it's my daily wearer. If I was only going to use it for running hiking etc or I'd probably go sport.


----------



## zetaplus93

BarracksSi said:


> That's what pushes me towards the aluminum, too. If I didn't already have some other nice-looking watches, I'd be going for the steel all the way.


If you end up wearing the AW as your daily, you'll beat yourself up for not getting the nicer SS


----------



## scentedlead

shnjb said:


> What if you already have other watches for nicer looks?
> Should one still go for the steel?


When/where will you wear the watch and which non-smartwatch would you wear in those situations?


----------



## BarracksSi

zetaplus93 said:


> If you end up wearing the AW as your daily, you'll beat yourself up for not getting the nicer SS


No kidding. ;-p Whether the AW becomes a daily wearer or not is the question that won't be answered until after at least a couple months of ownership.



scentedlead said:


> When/where will you wear the watch and which non-smartwatch would you wear in those situations?


I've come up with reasons for wearing the AW in every situation between pouring concrete and white-tie formal dinners. But, I could also think of trying to _disconnect_ myself, especially when I'm socializing or when we're busy at work. My job is fairly low-tech, honestly, and nobody is more than a thirty seconds' walk from anyone else. When we have the occasional meeting, we're sitting with all the people we need to see, and turning off our cell phones is nearly standard procedure. I don't rightly need an AW, or a smartwatch of any kind, at work.

There are plenty of times when I think I would dig it, and plenty of times when I'm fine without it. My wife is also very interested in how it works out, because she would like a fitness tracker of her own, but is planning to wait until we've had the AW a while.


----------



## Tucker3434

My wife ordered me a space gray aluminum model last night. She offered to get the stainless model, but for my purposes, I couldn't justify it. I originally thought I'd never get an AW, but recently I've started to look into fitness trackers like the Fitbit and jawbone. Once I started getting an idea of what they could do and their cost, I started looking a little more closely at the AW as a fitness tracker+. I'll certainly wear it much more than in the gym, but I'll always wear my tag heuer for nice occasions or no watch at all for really nice occasions. 

To me, the apple watch isn't a fashion statement. Every model I've seen is ugly. Some are less ugly than others, but it's just lipstick on a pig. I'm not going to spend any extra money to try to dress it up, especially because it isn't a long term commitment like other watches are for me. Whenever they come out with the next (hopefully more attractive) AW, I'll replace this one. Maybe then he'll have come out with something I don't mind wearing with a suit.


----------



## Fer Guzman

The one drawback about the steel model is that's it's polished which will shows the scratches. Not sure if the aluminum fared any better.


----------



## shnjb

Are there any famous aluminum (gray color) watches? Do people have problems with durability?

I don't think I would normally use a polished stainless steel watch for sports, which is what I would be doing if I bought the Apple Watch.
But then again, polished stainless steel mechanical watches usually cost a lot more ($8000 for a typical rolex).


----------



## Fer Guzman

I've been using it to run, play with the dogs, cut a treed down the other day. I just put the sport strap and afterwards throw a little water on it and wipe it down. No problems. But I do see some scratches which don't bother me since all my watches start to develop scratches. But I know some people don't like that.


----------



## BarracksSi

shnjb said:


> But then again, polished stainless steel mechanical watches usually cost a lot more ($8000 for a typical rolex).


Or my SKX009.

I haven't seen hardness numbers or anything, but I'd bet the blasted aluminum finish is pretty hard. I've seen complaints on WUS from guys getting desk-diving scratches on their regular watch bracelet clasps due to the finish on aluminum MacBooks.


----------



## BarracksSi

Saw a few while out and about today, and I tell ya, the steel on mesh, which I saw being worn by a gent walking near the Supreme Court, is probably my favorite style, appearance-wise. I like how the magnetic loop is like a piece of advanced tech on its own, one-upping the already cool slide-change mechanism with its infinitely adjustable magnetic closure. Man, it's cool.


----------



## zetaplus93

You know you want the SS! Go big or go home


----------



## BarracksSi

What I'm thinking now is the steel watch with the black sport band, then use it a while to see how much wrist time it takes. The understated black band is important at work because it fits with the uniform.

I could easily put the mesh loop on my Christmas or wedding anniversary lists.


----------



## clintfca

In the U.S. on business (stopping over from Canada). Stopped by a Apple Store yesterday in Lexington, KY with no appointment and walked out with a 42mm space gray sport. Comfy. Putting the watch through the paces but so far so good.

As I mentioned before the aluminum is a no brainer for me. Lowest cost entry for when I decide to upgrade to the inevitable 'better' generation(s).

My other mid-high end Swiss mechanicals are there for when I need wear something SS or gold.










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BarracksSi

clintfca said:


> As I mentioned before the aluminum is a no brainer for me. Lowest cost entry for when I decide to upgrade to the inevitable 'better' generation(s).
> 
> My other mid-high end Swiss mechanicals are there for when I need wear something SS or gold.


Dude, you're not helping, because you're making perfectly good sense, too. 

Here's the wrench that I have [semi] purposely left out of the thread:

The last time we looked at the watch table in the store, my "CFO" said she'd be "happy" if I chose aluminum, and that she'd "consider" up to the mesh on SS.


----------



## rationaltime

BarracksSi said:


> Dude, you're not helping, because you're making perfectly good sense, too.
> 
> Here's the wrench that I have [semi] purposely left out of the thread:
> 
> The last time we looked at the watch table in the store, *my "CFO" said she'd be "happy" if I chose aluminum*, and that she'd "consider" up to the mesh on SS.


It appears the question has been answered, and responses here are moot.

Thanks,
rationaltime


----------



## shnjb

haha cfo. sounds like you need to replace the cfo with a new one.


----------



## BarracksSi

shnjb said:


> haha cfo. sounds like you need to replace the cfo with a new one.


Hellz no, she's kept me from making quite a few stupid purchases already.


----------



## BarracksSi

rationaltime said:


> It appears the question has been answered, and responses here are moot.


Well, it can probably make for an ongoing discussion even after my purchase is made.

One possibility could be that she would take this first one for herself and I'd get another later. A big part of us thinking seriously about getting an AW* is that she liked the presentation last fall. I mean, she liked it a _lot_ -- they were talking about the fitness tracking and she started saying, "Really? Really?? Wow. I want it." She wants me to try it first, though, and see what it's really like to use before she commits to one for herself.

She doesn't wear watches -- her mom's Rolex sits in a box, and a $15 fashion watch has barely been touched -- so the idea of regularly wearing any watch at all is a bigger deal than it would be for most of us. She even wants me to hold off on picking out a cheaper fitness tracker for her until we've used an AW for a while.

(*) I might've said this already in this thread, and definitely before on WUS.


----------



## clintfca

BarracksSi said:


> She even wants me to hold off on picking out a cheaper fitness tracker for her until we've used an AW for a while.


Cheap fitness tracker? Look up Xiao Mi's 'Mi Band'. For $15-25 (depends if you have any Asia contacts) it does the following:

- free iOS and android app which is clean and simple to use
- step/run counter, set daily step goals
- 3 LED indicators with 4 colour options
- vibration for alarms and even incoming calls
- automatic sleep tracker (deep and light sleep)
- water resistant (submergible, shower, etc)
- 40-50 day battery life on single 2-3hr charge

This is what I've been using before getting my hands on the Apple Watch and will continue to wear overnight for the sleep tracking. Seriously this thing destroys the Fitbit Flex ($100) when it comes to value. It might be something worth looking into for your wife. It doesn't have a heart rate sensor but then again the Fitbit version that does starts at $180.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BarracksSi

clintfca said:


> Cheap fitness tracker? Look up Xiao Mi's 'Mi Band'. For $15-25 (depends if you have any Asia contacts) it does the following:


She's just started her vacation in Korea, so maybe they have some out there. Her cousin here has a Fitbit Charge, but I've suggested that she get something with heart rate for her home video workouts. Wrist-based HR is so new that there aren't many devices to choose from, but at least it's simpler to shop around.


----------



## BarracksSi

Apple Watch Sapphire vs Glass Display Shoot-Out

Scratch-resistant, but high-reflectance, sapphire versus glass...


----------



## shnjb

I am guessing there is no anti reflective coating on the apple watch.


----------



## BarracksSi

shnjb said:


> I am guessing there is no anti reflective coating on the apple watch.


Nope.

But, in a neighboring article, they talk about "enhanced sapphire," which has the lowest reflectance they've ever measured, and does not use a coating, either.

http://www.displaymate.com/news.html#Enhanced_Sapphire

Now I wonder if this stuff could be in an upgraded AW later.


----------



## shnjb

BarracksSi said:


> Nope.
> 
> But, in a neighboring article, they talk about "enhanced sapphire," which has the lowest reflectance they've ever measured, and does not use a coating, either.
> 
> http://www.displaymate.com/news.html#Enhanced_Sapphire
> 
> Now I wonder if this stuff could be in an upgraded AW later.


Can it really be higher quality than the ones being used by the high end watches?
That would be amazing but I guess maybe not surprising when you consider the economies of scale tech giants have vs relatively smaller watch conglomerates.


----------



## BarracksSi

shnjb said:


> Can it really be higher quality than the ones being used by the high end watches?
> That would be amazing but I guess maybe not surprising when you consider the economies of scale tech giants have vs relatively smaller watch conglomerates.


Yeah, I wonder, too.

I suppose a good reason for AR coating on sapphire is to cut down on reflections, but we all know that coatings almost always scratch, too. The relatively unprotected AW display would leave coatings more prone to scratching, so it's better to leave it off, at least for now.


----------



## shnjb

BarracksSi said:


> Yeah, I wonder, too.
> 
> I suppose a good reason for AR coating on sapphire is to cut down on reflections, but we all know that coatings almost always scratch, too. The relatively unprotected AW display would leave coatings more prone to scratching, so it's better to leave it off, at least for now.


I was referring to AR coating applied to the inside of the crystal, not the outside so in theory Apple could have done it


----------



## BarracksSi

shnjb said:


> I was referring to AR coating applied to the inside of the crystal, not the outside so in theory Apple could have done it


Hmm. Yeah, maybe. I wonder if it would affect how they could attach the display assembly underneath.


----------



## Fer Guzman

I'm not sure if an ar coating on inside of the sapphire crystal would help that much. The problem is the display underneath the crystal not the crystal itself. The crystal plays a role, as we can see with ion-x vs sapphire but even the ion-x has bad visibility in the sunlight and the ion-x isn't that much better than sapphire.


----------



## BarracksSi

True, no smartwatch is going to be as easy to see in sunlight as my SKX009 (but they're all better in dim light than my all-gold tone Rado), so maybe I shouldn't put so much weight on the visibility of each type.

I'd like to check them both out in a store with a lot of outdoor light. It would be too weird to stop an AW-wearing stranger on the street and say, "Hey, let me see your Apple Watch in the sun..."


----------



## BarracksSi

Another wrinkle --

While putting on some AW variants at the store this weekend, I mentioned how a coworker had picked up the mesh bracelet for his silver aluminum Sport model. The staffer who was with me said that, style aside, it wasn't recommended to mix the metals because of the possibility of dielectric corrosion.

It might not be an issue with straps that are changed frequently, but not everyone swaps straps all the time. I'll bet that's why Apple sells the Sport models only with the rubber straps.

I'd say that if the plan is to have the option of swapping to one of the straps with steel "lugs", such as the mesh loop or classic buckle, one should buy the SS Watch.


----------



## rationaltime

BarracksSi said:


> Another wrinkle --
> 
> While putting on some AW variants at the store this weekend, I mentioned how a coworker had picked up the mesh bracelet for his silver aluminum Sport model. The staffer who was with me said that, style aside, it wasn't recommended to mix the metals because of the possibility of dielectric corrosion.
> 
> It might not be an issue with straps that are changed frequently, but not everyone swaps straps all the time. I'll bet that's why Apple sells the Sport models only with the rubber straps.
> 
> I'd say that if the plan is to have the option of swapping to one of the straps with steel "lugs", such as the mesh loop or classic buckle, one should buy the SS Watch.


There are electro chemical differences between aluminum and stainless alloys 
which could lead to galvanic corrosion. Galvanic corrosion would be a concern
in corrosive environments. However, the watch cases are anodized and the
stainless has chromium and nickel oxides at the surface. There is not much
electrical contact between the metals. I regularly use stainless fasteners
to hold aluminum pieces, and have not seen corrosion. I guess if I were 
concerned I would spray the contact points with some non-conductive
material like GlideCote and let it dry before assembly.

Thanks,
rationaltime


----------



## BarracksSi

BarracksSi said:


> I would really like the steel Watch, starting with it on the black sport band.


You know how they advise taking multiple-choice tests, that you should pick the first answer that looks good? That's what I did.

I'm setting this up for the long term. If I went into it with a "this is just to try it out" mindset, I don't think I'd take it very seriously.

I'm trading the ion glass's lower reflectance for the sapphire's better scratch resistance, and the aluminum's light weight for the steel's style.

I'm not yet sure which other straps or bracelets I'll add later, but it's interesting to see all the low-cost alternatives hitting the market.


----------



## rationaltime

After the prior discussion I think you should post a photo of your new
Apple Watch showing heart rate on the CFO's wrist to demonstrate
you are sharing.


Thanks,
rationaltime


----------

