 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Wed Sep 6th, 2006 |
| Location: | North Carolina USA |
| Posts: | 38 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
Thank you for this. You, as with me, have very specific things in mind for what constitutes a dress watch.
The other 3 or 4 who've been in on this discussion appear to be of the opinion that what is dressy in the eye of the wearer is what counts; the particular style makes no real difference. I had never thought of that and found it interesting.
However, most women who do wear watches do, I believe, find gems and/or gold = dressy. Anything else falls into the casual, everyday category.
rws in nc wrote:
My idea of a dress watch is basically simple and reasonably thin. I'm thinking less than 10mm. Generally no sweep second hand (although I prefer one). Rich looking black or dark brown leather strap. Gold, platinum or even silver but no rose gold. No complications other than date. Definitely, no chronographs. No digital. I don't have anything that I would consider a dress watch but I have been thinking about adding one to my meager collection.
Now.... having said that. Since I don't have anything that I would consider a "classic" dress watch, I would have no problem wearing my Tag link automatic chronograph on an occassion where I might wear a dress watch. So from that perspective, I can see where the other guys are coming from too. For me, a "conceptual" dress watch could be anything that I think is really nice looking.