Movement Silliness
I know there are a bunch of watches out there where the movement it too small for the case, as a result of just using an available movement and the constant increase in case sizes. It annoys me a bit, but I understand. This, on the other hand, makes no se...
We should invent a metric
for explaining the case-to-movement size ratio. I'd propose "Absurd Ratio of Sizes, Equalized" so this watch is 38mm/17mm or 2.23 A
SUP'D
is OK as far as an acronym, but it sounds more like surfer-slang. I like the directness of ARSE as an acronym A
Are you being deliberately...
..."Overly Bloated Timepiece Utilising Small Engine"????? Cheers, pplater
Moi??? Never
That would be nothing more than a Symptom of Hearing You Talk Endlessly But think, we could refer to the display back on such a watch as the Absurd Ratio of Sizes Evidence Hole A
so the rest of it is just empty spaces
whats the watch manufacterer thinking when they made that!?
well, aaron, at least the watch of yours has a heart, and a genuine one too, although..
smaller compared to its "body", i am sure it is a genuine heart, and ORIS, does not say it ain't ETA, but to have that small movement powering a watch displaying the moonphase, day and date, and a second time zone..isnt that movement ingenious, so to spea...
that is actually a pet peeve of mine
and prevents me from enjoying many otherwise fine watches, such as the Girard Perregaux 1966 line. I would much rather have a solid case back in these cases! Best Andreas
for that ORIS of mine, i wanted in solid caseback reflected in my sentiments..
..shared in the posting on pilot watches.. adds a bit more weight to it too which will be nice.
Agree with you Andreas regarding
the GP 1966 line.A few years ago , when the peter fleming was announced, I went in to AD, but one look at the movement lost in the see through back stopped me from buying.A shame as I liked the dial and case.
