TAG Watch Repair Cost - SCAM

photome

How can one thread with a simple question be taken over by a someone extolling the virtues of his £80 watch

I saw a 65 plate lotus on forecourt yesterday for 75,000. the spec in a fiesta is far superior but costs a fraction, but who cares!!!

The Op asked about his watch, (not a scam by the way) and has had the awnser

Keep_pedalling

fierystormcloud wrote: »

Spending two grand on a watch is insane, unless you're a frikkin' millionaire!

Although, as someone said earlier, smoking is just a much of a waste of money, and would rob you of several thousand a year.

No, my point was that smoking was truly insane, compared to bring the watch. The watch will last a life time, where as smoking continues to drain your wallet. The watch causes no harm and keeps skilled people in work, fags just wreck you health and for many lead to one of the worst ways to die there is.

Lots of poor people smoke for years, which costs them many thousands, but equally lots of others with save to get something they desire even if it takes many years, so it is not about being a millionaire it's about personal choice.

takman

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

So what if it's accurate to half a second per day. Unless you are involved in something that makes this sort of accuracy vital, it's just a novelty and advertising gimmick.

It's a bit like people who boast of having a car that can do 200 mph yet never drive above 70mph.
What is the point of having such an accurate timepiece if 99.9% of the population have a watch or clock that may be a few seconds out?

I have a watch that never needs the time adjusting, never needs a battery change and is durable enough that I never need to take it off for fear of damage.

That means I never have to spend time adjusting it and never have to take it to a shop to get a battery changed. I don't think a device that carried out its intended function for a lifetime without any user interference can be considered a gimmick!

takman

ARandomMiser wrote: »

There you go, that is what you were dying to come out with but nobody cared enough to ask ... so you were forced to mention the auto-setting yourself and I am sure this will not be the last mention you make of it.

Auto sync watches often have cheap mechanisms in them because they don't have to be accurate because they sync. But taking your criteria, my £9.99 watch (given to me as a birthday present by my nephew in 1998 and is still regularly used) is waterproof (I have actually swam with it on), it is shockproof (from X meters - can't remember how many), and doesn't even contain a battery (self winding). On the accuracy front it gains about 30 seconds in the period between having to reset it between summer/winter clock changes - so technically speaking that is more accurate than the claims you make for your mechanism.

So please let us know. what possessed you to waste £80 on a watch that you described as having low accuracy - was it the gimmick of being able to tell people how it sets the time using Anthorn?

BTW one of my other watches, Citizen Ecodrive, meets all the criteria you mention (so I knew why you were making accuracy claims). It cost over £80 but when I looked at the less expensive ones they looked and felt cheap.

I mentioned the features of the watch earlier in the thread. But you forced me to into more detail by not not reading my previous posts and claiming a £10 watch is more accurate.
Like I said in the post above how can having a watch that never needs the time changing and never needs a battery change is a "gimmick".

Imagine if a manufacturer released a car than never needs to be serviced ever. Would you also say that is a gimmick?

theonlywayisup

takman, believe it or not, this thread isn't about you and your cheap watch.

takman

photome wrote: »

How can one thread with a simple question be taken over by a someone extolling the virtues of his £80 watch

I saw a 65 plate lotus on forecourt yesterday for 75,000. the spec in a fiesta is far superior but costs a fraction, but who cares!!!

The Op asked about his watch, (not a scam by the way) and has had the awnser

The Lotus has better suspension and is setup for better handling and it is also faster. So it does have a better spec!.

The example I'm using is two devices which have a specific function to perform. The more expensive device performs that function poorly in comparison to the cheaper device. Yet people are intent on defending the more expensive device and say it's not a waste of money!.

takman

theonlywayisup wrote: »

takman, believe it or not, this thread isn't about you and your cheap watch.

I'm glad you recognise my watch as cheap, I also thought it was a good price too considering all the features it has! :rotfl:.

theonlywayisup

takman wrote: »

I'm glad you recognise my watch as cheap, I also thought it was a good price too considering all the features it has! :rotfl:.

I do think it was cheap.

I don't think it was a good price.

You don't seem to realise the difference.

colazombie

theonlywayisup wrote: »

takman, believe it or not, this thread isn't about you and your cheap watch. :d

hear hear. talk about hijacking a thread

shaun_from_Africa

takman wrote: »

I have a watch that never needs the time adjusting, never needs a battery change and is durable enough that I never need to take it off for fear of damage.

That means I never have to spend time adjusting it and never have to take it to a shop to get a battery changed. I don't think a device that carried out its intended function for a lifetime without any user interference can be considered a gimmick!

I never made any mention of the durability of the watch nor of not having to adjust it being gimmicks.
I simply stated my opinion that having a watch that is never more than 1/2 a second out is a gimmick, an opinion that I stick to.
My watch is probably a few seconds off the correct time, as will be an extremely large proportion of all the watches in existence and for nearly everyone that owns one of these "innacurate" timepieces, what effect has the loss or gain of a couple of seconds had on their life?