Down here at the pawn shop

[xoxoxoBruce]

A slight tangent... Lapham's Quarterly has an article about how WW I made the watch indispensable, and the wristwatch acceptable.

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

... So if this was $20, which it should be, it wouldn't be douchey. But it lists at $199. And apparently this high cost is resulting in underwound watches causing deaths from poor pulse rate counts everywhere. That's double douchey!

Those EMTs should follow the lead of the nurses. Just about every nurse I've ever known uses a Mickey Mouse watch.

You mean like those nurses who are spreading Ebola because they can't wash their cheap, aptly named, Mickey Mouse watches?

Apparently you've not heard that some people wear one watch to work along with their work uniforms and have another one for casual wear with casual cloths. It'd be convenient to have something that keeps the workhorse automatic wound over the weekends and holidays. People have spent far more for convenience and entertainment items as any community based website owner could probably tell you.

You seem to be a bit touchy-cunty-douchey on this. I may feature you in a post about what's amusing me today!

[Undertoad]

Nothing more convenient and entertaining than a livestrong bracelet that needs an overpriced chicken roaster spit or it can't keep itself powered over a down weekend. If I have a device that rotates 8 holes there had better be fleshlights in them or I --

wait a minute, I've just had a product idea that those blowhards on Shark Tank can't possibly turn down.

[sexobon]

Gee whiz, here's another idea and I've found the perfect watch for you.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by sexobon

No it's not. There are only varying degrees of water resistance and phones are not highly rated. Their depth rating (ft/m/atm) doesn't even guaranty the construction is effective against high humidity.

My phone is independently rated by the International Electrotechnical Comission to be IP67, means that it is dust-tight and withstands immersion to 1 meter for 30 minutes. That is well within the parameters of a toilet dunk.

(I feel all like Lisa in My Cousin Vinny.)

Lisa: [sighs] If you will look in the manual, you will see that this particular model faucet requires a range of 10 to 16 foot-pounds of torque. I routinely twist the maximum allowable torquage.
Vinny Gambini: Well, how could you be sure you used 16 foot-pounds of torque?
Lisa: Because I used a Craftsman model 1019 Laboratory Edition Signature Series torque wrench. The kind used by Caltech high energy physicists. And NASA engineers.
Vinny Gambini: Well, in that case, how can you be sure THAT's accurate?
Lisa: Because a split second before the torque wrench was applied to the faucet handle, it had been calibrated by top members of the state AND federal Department of Weights and Measures... to be dead on balls accurate!
[She rips a page out of a magazine and hands it to him]
Lisa: Here's the certificate of validation.
Vinny Gambini: Dead on balls accurate?
Lisa: It's an industry term.

[sexobon]

You missed the point. The generic term waterproof is a misnomer that went out years ago for these applications because it implies an absolute when in actuality there are limitations. The proper term is water resistance and it's not just semantics since it carries ratings standards.

As you deduced, the ratings are given in terms of depth and duration; but, that information still has to be interpreted. The depth rating is under static water pressure for the purpose of comparing the relative water resistance of different items. The article you linked points out the disparity between the WR rating and actual performance under running tap water (or moving water). Yes, your particular model of phone may survive a dunk in the toilet while the water in the bowl is static; but, perhaps not while it's being flushed. Post retrieval, it may not even survive a tap water rinse (eww).

A general guideline for using water resistance (WR) ratings in moving water [or still water through which an item is moving] is that WR50m covers rain, dunking in streams, rivers, flood waters...etc., WR100m covers surface swimming and skin diving, WR200m and better covers varying depths of SCUBA diving. With watches, manufacturers don't typically include a screw down crown, which bolsters seal integrity around the stem should the watch get bumped, until the WR200m rating.

All of my watches are rated WR200m or better, even the slim dress watch I wear with suits. You paid how much for your smart phone to get a paltry WR1m rating? How douchey a product is that!

[Spexxvet]

It's hard to sneak a peek at a phone, and some people get offended if you look at your watch while, oh, let's say ... selling them a pair of glasses. I've become pretty good at not only sneaking a peek at my watch, but at sneaking a peek at theirs.

[Undertoad]

All of my watches are rated WR200m or better, even the slim dress watch I wear with suits.

Right, for all those times you dive in suits, or do EMT in suits, or have to reach into a flushing toilet to retrieve your phone in suits.

Keep in mind I wasn't saying the watches themselves are douchey, not at all, just the winder -- but then you used a site called Style for Success to suggest it was a good idea, and now I'm no longer sure.

[sexobon]

You miss the points again.

Neither the winder is douchey, nor those who buy them at a good price, just people who sell them for exorbitant amounts.

Watches with higher WR ratings are typically better all around. When you look at their lifespan and versatility, they don't cost too much more in the long run. There's the cheapest thing, the most expensive thing, and somewhere in between is where you get the most bang for your buck. That's where many WR100m-WR200m watches fall. A traveler can carry only their dress watch, get out of the business suit and hit the pool or beach with it.

Naturally, the value one places on anything depends on their lifestyle. No style, no value.

[Undertoad]

Still, Style for Success. I mean come on now.



Hey I just noticed that my automatic fish feeder rotates... you can put your watch on it and it will wind!

[xoxoxoBruce]

Wearing suits is douchey.

[sexobon]

You can wind an automatic by holding it face up and swinging it in a side-to-side arc for a minute or two. That's why most people aren't going to pay a lot for a winder. There are also dual wind automatics that you can wind with the crown as well.

In some lines of work everyday is casual Friday. You see that a lot among information technology workers and factory workers. That's not the way it is in all occupations or the way it is in the same occupation in different countries. There's no practical use for wearing a tie either; but, there are plenty of good paying jobs in business where if you don't wear a tie you don't hold the position. Same goes for wearing watches in some fields: time is money and they want you to at least look like you know that when making first impressions as their representative.

Douchiness is in the eye of the douchebag.

[Gravdigr]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Wearing suits is douchey.

Suit up!

Get a suit. Suits are cool.

~Barney Stinson

[xoxoxoBruce]

Barney Stinson is as douchey as they come.

[Gravdigr]

You may have a point.