Watch Lume Is a Must

 

Bill writes:

I'm afraid I have to disagree with Angelo (that watch lume is not necessary). Lume is, after all, just paint. For lack of that paint, your watch becomes unreadable in dim light. So now you're supposed to plan ahead and, in any situation you might be in dim light or darkness, wear a different watch. Or be sure to carry a cell phone to check the time (when, often, I choose to carry mine in a messenger bag, so that digging it out takes far more time than glancing at my wrist.) None of this is the end of the world, but it's a lot of price to pay, in terms of inconvenience, for the absence of a penny's worth of paint.

Second, although I do not like diver's watches (my favorite is an utterly simple military style Citizen Eco-Drive, much simpler and smaller than a diver's watch) I gather the attraction is supposed to be their ruggedness and utility under any condition you could conceivably face. As in "I can count on this watch in any conditions that wouldn't kill me." A watch that is useless when you step into a darkened bedroom for your slippers fails that theme. Hoo boy, does it ever.

Third, unlike the Range Rover which is big, heavy, inefficient, and clumsy, a watch with lume has no disadvantages compared to one without. If you need it, you will definitely know the difference. If you don't need it, its presence makes no difference at all. It's a win-no way to lose situation. So why not have the lume?

The purpose of a watch is to be there when you need it so you can look at it and know what time it is. The artsy-fartsy jewelry designer wing of the watch company only has one serious engineering constraint on them; whatever else they do, they MUST keep enough contrast between the watch dial and the hands so that you can read what time it is. Yet they refuse to do it, because they think (say) silver hands on a silver dial look cool. If that's not sacrificing all function just for style, I don't know what is. Until they decide it's stylish just to leave the hands off altogether, of course.

Comments

[Paul]

Sony ICR-S71 AM Field Radio, about $100 shipped from Japan. See
http://herculodge.typepad.com/herculodge/2012/01/vals-sony-icr-s71-am-only-radio-seems-like-a-winner.html

You have to put your order in through http://www.whiterabbitjapan.com

The price they will quote you, based on Amazon Japan's price (http://www.amazon.co.jp/dp/B00009VSBA) will come to US $78.98.

You then have to estimate the shipping fee from here:
http://www.post.japanpost.jp/english/fee/intel/ems.html

I think the radio and its box are under 700 grams so this means a fee of 1860 yen or $23.77.

Total will then come to $102.75.

The question is whether this radio is worth $100 ...

[jonnybardo]

It comes down to what the main purpose of a watch is. At this point - in this age - it is not about telling time, at least for me. A watch is primarily a "manaccecessory" - a piece of jewelry for men. Yes, it is supposed to tell time and be able to do so in most conditions, but it is really secondary to the aesthetics of it. Again, at least for me.

[Bill]

Well, there we differ. If a widget does nothing except tell people I like pointless glitter, I won't waste my money on it. If it's a tool, it had better be able to perform its function as a tool, whether I actually need it to do that today or not.

This is not an unusual symptom among men. Endless debates on online forums about whether a car is stable above 120 mph from people who never drive over 60. Endless debates and much cash spent on handguns for protecting against grizzlies from guys who have never seen a bear. Workshops full of shiny tools that are never used.

Still, I think it's not too much to ask that you be able to TELL TIME from a watch, for Rice's cake! At least a tool that works, unused, you MIGHT be able to use it some day. A tool that serves no function and can serve none-- just throw it in the trash and stop wasting your time.

[jonnybardo]

Of course a watch should function, but that's not what I'm talking about - or rather, there are endless degrees of functionality, and for me the lume isn't an absolute must. Preferred? Yes, but I will never stop myself from buying or enjoying a watch I love the aesthetics of based upon lume.

A watch without lume still functions. I can tell you that I rarely--almost never, really--actually "need" the lume. It is pretty cool when I leave a lit hallway and go down my darker stairs and can see the lume, or show it to my daughters when I'm tucking them in. But I can't remember a time when I looked at my watch and was unable to read it, or couldn't just check my cellphone.

I don't wear a watch to bed and there is always a lit clock in my bedroom, or a hotel room. When I camp I can just check my cellphone if need be.

If anything I would say that, for me at least, lume is more an aspect of aesthetics than of functionality. Of course it is both, but my enjoyment of it comes more on the side of "wow, cool" than "damn this watch, I can't read it in this dark pit."

[herculodge]

I will concede to having one combat watch in my collection. I currently own two. I have to confess I don't wear them or haven't in months.