Number One: Citizen Grand Touring: Unique, monochromatic look with some Panerai features and appearing to cost thousands of dollars. It edges out the Orient Saturation Diver.
Number Two: Orient Saturation Diver or what I call my "Power Rolex." Conventional diver cues emphasizing boldness.
Number Three. Seiko Tuna SBBN017: Toolish and bold. If it had an automatic movement, it might rank higher. Before going on, it's safe to say which watches I'd keep if pressed to retain only three.
Number Four. Seiko Sumo. Another Rolex look. So classic looking.
Number Five. Orient M-Force Beast with lefty crown. Truthfully, the Beast is a dead tie with the Sumo.
Number Six. Seiko FieldMaster SBDL021 Solar. Toolish and no-worry solar quartz.
Number Seven. Orient M-Force black dial.
Number Eight. Seiko Black Monster, second generation.
Number Nine. Orient M-Force orange dial. Stripped crown is a downer.
That Orient M-Force is a great looking watch. It should be higher than number 7----except I can't tell you which one(s) it should displace. There might be a few "ties" in my rankings. Very nice. Did you ever get a quote on getting that stripped crown fixed?
Posted by: Angelo | February 17, 2014 at 01:14 PM
Good to see you rank your watches - I can't remember you doing that. About what I'd expect.
I'm glad to see you like the Citizen so much - that's a great watch you've got there.
By the way, don't you have a few other watches or did you sell everything else? Citizen Ecozilla?
My keeper box is over-flowing at 14, with a few more for sale. Not sure what I'm going to sell, but it really comes down to what's not being worn.
Posted by: jonnybardo | February 17, 2014 at 01:49 PM
I have five watches that aren't in the rotation, a G Shock bought out of respect to my dealer who won't charge me for batteries or bracelet adjustments; the Citizen Diver for swimming and car wash only; 3 Invicta Force Masters for whenever the Las Vegas virus hits me, which is about twice a year. So in all I have 14 watches, not bad, if you consider 2 years ago (or was it 3?) I had close to 260.
Posted by: herculodge | February 17, 2014 at 02:35 PM
Please tell me that is supposed to say "60" and not "260."
Posted by: jonnybardo | February 17, 2014 at 05:48 PM
It was 60 but sh##, man, it sure felt like 260.
Posted by: herculodge | February 17, 2014 at 05:51 PM
It will be interesting to see if our respective collections continue to slim down over time. Mine maxed out at around 30, but has been under 20 for the last year or so, and right now is at 14 (aside from sale box watches). I can foresee a time in which it is under 10, maybe smaller.
I still think that three watches is, aesthetically, the perfect collection. But it has to be the right three.
Posted by: jonnybardo | February 17, 2014 at 06:15 PM
Jonny: I think for someone who loves watches, three isn't enough. There are simply too many choices, too much variety to limit a collection to three watches. In my opinion, if a person could be happy with three, they should be happy with one. I think "collection" as a general term should assume a number greater than three----in watches, around 10 to start, give or take a couple.
Posted by: Angelo | February 18, 2014 at 05:09 AM
I agree with Angelo. If money were no object, I'd have 3 Breitlings with 48mm cases and 2 Panerais with 47mm cases, a Seiko Darth Vader, a Seiko Emperor and the list would build to 15 or so.
Posted by: herculodge | February 18, 2014 at 06:14 AM
I hear you, although the reason I come up with three is that it seems to be the smallest number for a "collection" - and I have a minimalist streak that finds it aesthetically pleasing.
Also, I've found that I just can't keep more than half a dozen watches in my rotation, and that I end up wearing about three most of the time, then a few more sprinkled in.
So I don't think its likely that I ever actually get down to three watches, and three watches only, I can see having a "holy trinity" around which are arrayed another half a dozen watches or so.
Posted by: jonnybardo | February 18, 2014 at 07:48 AM