Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: wolfnowl on August 22, 2007, 02:02:49 am
-
Wise words, Michael:
Seems too often people are willing to allow someone else to provide the answers for them - "Here buy this one, it's exactly what you need!" - without taking the time to figure out what exactly they DO need or for what reason. As you said, this applies to cameras, computers, printers... even cars, houses...
As for watches, I've always been an Audemars Piguet fan. Can't afford any at the moment, but I'm impressed by their workmanship. Not only do they make all of the pieces in each watch by hand but in many cases they also make their own tools by hand as well.
Mike.
-
I have to admit I was extremely amused by the article. Well amused may not be the correct word. A few years back, I was trying to figure out what watch I wanted to buy. I went through a similar thought process. I wanted two time Zone capabilities (I do travel a lot), alarm, and chronograph. While there are many watches that would fit the bill, there was another factor. With age, my ability to see small numbers on the secondary dials without my reading glasses has become problematic or even impossible. This turned out to be a rate limiting factor for me. In the end I went with a Breitling aerospace (do not remember exact model off hand). Nonetheless, it is close to perfect. I have a few complaints as nothing is perfect but compared to some of the others I tried, it was a great choice.
Mark
.
Wise words, Michael:
Seems too often people are willing to allow someone else to provide the answers for them - "Here buy this one, it's exactly what you need!" - without taking the time to figure out what exactly they DO need or for what reason. As you said, this applies to cameras, computers, printers... even cars, houses...
As for watches, I've always been an Audemars Piguet fan. Can't afford any at the moment, but I'm impressed by their workmanship. Not only do they make all of the pieces in each watch by hand but in many cases they also make their own tools by hand as well.
Mike.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134713\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
I have to admit I was extremely amused by the article. Well amused may not be the correct word. A few years back, I was trying to figure out what watch I wanted to buy. I went through a similar thought process. I wanted two time Zone capabilities (I do travel a lot), alarm, and chronograph. While there are many watches that would fit the bill, there was another factor. With age, my ability to see small numbers on the secondary dials without my reading glasses has become problematic or even impossible. This turned out to be a rate limiting factor for me. In the end I went with a Breitling aerospace (do not remember exact model off hand). Nonetheless, it is close to perfect. I have a few complaints as nothing is perfect but compared to some of the others I tried, it was a great choice.
Mark
.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134718\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'll admit to being bemused more than amused by the 'watch article'.
Whilst I understand the point Michael is trying to make - I cant help but chuckle that its necessary to make such a point - not to put to fine a point on it.
-
I also found the watch article interesting and informative in as much as it gives insight into the mind of one of those elevated people who are so far above the earth that they can spend over a thousand pounds on a wrist watch!!!?!!
I hope to keep my new Pentax DSLR and lenses under the thousand quid mark so I won't be minding too much about the watch on my wrist, which as it happens, I find so eminently satisfactory that I never give it a thought. None of the features of my watch get in the way of it's basic function,...which is more than can be said of the Pentax!!
So, what is the make of my wonderful timepiece? Well, it's not so much that I can't remember as that I have never looked to see,...I only ever look at my watch to read the time. I was WELL able to afford my watch as I paid three pounds (yes, £3) in a street market and got a completely practical time piece which, for the last two years, has keeped excellent time without intruding at all on my thoughts. If it had not, I would have by now dropped it in the dustbin!!....try that kind of practicality with a thousand quid watch!!
-
Michael - if it´s not a Rolex it´s a piece of string.
I bought mine in '72 or ´73 and it is still going strong - the dial is clear (Submariner) and it doesn´t mind going out in the rain; in fact, lying at the bottom of 660 ft of ocean it would still tick whilst I´d be well beyond caring. Dual time-zones? Well, lack of that neither stopped me travelling nor catching the ´plane back!
I fell in love with the classic design long before I bought mine; it never occured to me that it could be a staus symbol and I have often wondered if my owning one had anything to do with James Bond wanting one too.
Problems with it? Yes, people can kill you for it; but then so they might for a fake.
Rob C
-
I'll top you one. Istill use my 1939 Oyster (Rolex) "bubble back". But for everyday use, my Seiko Kinetic is accurate, unscratchable and works to 100 m underwater for C$300. Sorry, that's two.
-
I also found the watch article interesting and informative in as much as it gives insight into the mind of one of those elevated people who are so far above the earth that they can spend over a thousand pounds on a wrist watch!!!?!!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134732\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Its all a matter of perspective, isn't it? For some people a few thousand for a watch seems outrageous. To others, a thousand for a camera is a sin when a $15 point a shoot will take just fine snaps, thank you very much.
I scratch my head at people that spend hundreds a day just to knock a little white ball around on the grass. Others can't understand how someone can spend more than $10 on a bottle of wine.
It's all a matter of means and perspective.
Michael
-
Michael - if it´s not a Rolex it´s a piece of string.
Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134739\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I bought a Submariner in Nassau in 1975 for about $500, and wore it for some 10 years. I was then offered $1000, so with a lust for something new I took my 100% profit and bought a lovely used Accutron, one of the originals (which I'd owned when they first came out, and foolishly sold). BTW, I see they've now been reintroduced.
Michael
-
Its no surprise to any of us that the watch is a technological tour de force; diamond pallets to eliminate lubrication, case hardened outer layer to 1200 Vickers, etc, etc.
You point the way to the state of the art, whether in watches or photography. Thank you Michael.
Fred
-
Its all a matter of perspective, isn't it? For some people a few thousand for a watch seems outrageous. To others, a thousand for a camera is a sin when a $15 point a shoot will take just fine snaps, thank you very much.
I scratch my head at people that spend hundreds a day just to knock a little white ball around on the grass. Others can't understand how someone can spend more than $10 on a bottle of wine.
It's all a matter of means and perspective.
Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134763\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think that what it comes down to is that this is a luxury item. Like all luxury items, it's a bit of an extravagence.
One quick question from someone with similar requirements in a watch (who may just use your end point as a starting point). The GMT offers a second hour hand. I see how that's useful for trackign the time difference between here (Toronto) and Hong Kong, or here and the UK, but what about between here and a place that's got one of those silly 1/2 hour time differentials (a la Newfoundland or India)? I'm guessing that I'm kind of out of luck on that one aren't I.
--dilip
-
The striking difference between, say, a 5000 US$ watch, and a 5000 US$ camera or lens, is that the lens or camera may be something required for work (like certain cars for a taxi driver) OR a luxury item, while the 5000 dollar watch is a luxury item, period.
In Michael`s world, it seems like the "perspectives", preferences and choices are solely based on individual and subjective factors. Nothing extraordinary in that, given his personal "means" (upper middle class). Still surprising, coming from someone with his world experience, knowledge, and intelligence.
The fact that certain parts of the Western, and Eastern hemisphere are populated with people wealthy enough to afford having certain "perspectives", while shopping world wide on the net, has less to do with individual point of view than with other factors.
Sorry, didn`t want to spoil the shopping party. Just had to mention it.
Nota bene:
This is not meant as a personal, moralistic attack on MR as an individual, nor on the lucky Rolex owners on LL; quite the opposite! Actually, I own a (modestly priced) gold watch myself.
And it is not a polemical attack on "luxury items". The benefits of certain enterprises making excellent watches, lenses, food and other high quality products are obvious - and beside my point.
-
Don't forget lifestyle.
For me a wristwatch is something to snarl on barbed wire fences and brush. I might splurge on a $60 dollar pocket watch when my current $30 model dies. Or perhaps go for one of those neat Timex Indiglo wristwatches for night viewing, but the wrist strap will go in the dumster and the body will ride in my pants pocket like a coin.
-
The striking difference between, say, a 5000 US$ watch, and a 5000 US$ camera or lens, is that the lens or camera may be something required for work (like certain cars for a taxi driver) OR a luxury item, while the 5000 dollar watch is a luxury item, period.
In Michael`s world, it seems like the "perspectives", preferences and choices are solely based on individual and subjective factors. Nothing extraordinary in that, given his personal "means" (upper middle class). Still surprising, coming from someone with his world experience, knowledge, and intelligence.
The fact that certain parts of the Western, and Eastern hemisphere are populated with people wealthy enough to afford having certain "perspectives", while shopping world wide on the net, has less to do with individual point of view than with other factors.
Sorry, didn`t want to spoil the shopping party. Just had to mention it.
Nota bene:
This is not meant as a personal, moralistic attack on MR as an individual, nor on the lucky Rolex owners on LL; quite the opposite! Actually, I own a (modestly priced) gold watch myself.
And it is not a polemical attack on "luxury items". The benefits of certain enterprises making excellent watches, lenses, food and other high quality products are obvious - and beside my point.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134824\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Paul,
I believe that's it's more complicated than that. A car, for example, can be both a utilitarian device and a luxury. Without personalizing it, and and I ask this rhetorically and don't need a response, unless your car is anything other than the most basic four wheels, an engine and a seat, then you own what some would call a luxury item. Similarly with your apartment or house. What more does one need that a bed and a dry roof?
I have friends who own Timexes and friends who have $50,000 watches. I have friends who live in modest walk-up flats and others in 10,000 sq/ft mansions. I don't think any the more or less of them due to their situations.
We all see the world through mental filters which provide us with certain unique perspectives. But to criticise others for their interests, good or bad fortune, or choice of life style, is inappropriate as long as their means of achieving it and manner of action is not to the detrement of others.
Michael
Ps: Having done so myself here, I would ask that this thread not become one about life style choices, wealth or its lack. Watches are fair game (in this thread only) and so is the issue of making camera equipment purchasing decisions.
-
Great article.
I remember in my previous life standing in the duty-free shop at the Beirut Airport sometime in late 1973. It was here that I first saw a dual-face watch. I thought wow. It was made of heavy gold with an equally heavy gold band. If memory serves me, the cost of this watch was in the neighborhood of $5000. While I remember the watch I can not remember the make. I had returned from Southeast Asia just 18 months prior and my watch of choice then was a Seiko. While I was on a hefty per diem I didn’t buy the watch thinking at the time that why spend $5000 on anything more than a car.
Fast forward to today. I have a Canon 1Ds II, a Canon 300 f2.8; as well as a brand new 400 DO, a combination of which would total several such watches. Lets not forget the Mamiya 645 w/P30+ that cost just about the same as my first house.
Since retiring from the Federal Government in 2003 my wife and I have first gone to a small 21’ travel trailer, then a couple months later a 36’ 5th wheel; then on to a 36’ Class A motorhome and now very happily to a 8’ Lance truck camper. Yeah, we wound up spending a heck of a lot of money on our “education” but we had a heck of a lot of fun doing it.
The dollar amount of a particular item means more to the purchaser than anyone else. Anyone who is familiar with collecting (anything) knows that it only takes one person to buy and it will be that one person who will actually help set the price they are willing to pay.
I like the message from the article. Actually there are several; have a price point you’re will it spend, do you research, and don’t be afraid to take a chance. While it’s okay to seek the counsel of others, the bottom line is that only you know what your budget is and what you can afford; likewise what one person may like more might be that thing you like least about the (fill in the blank). If it doesn’t hum for you it’ll never work.
Keep up the good work Michael.
Oh, since this is a response about watches, my current one is a Suunto Advizor (when I remember to wear it).
don
-
My dad made of hobby -- more of a game, I suppose -- of wearing the absolute cheapest watch he could find. The rule was that he had to purchase the watch - a gift watch did not count. His greatest find cost $0.99 and he sure enjoyed talking about it! (OK, so it was ugly.)
-
I bought a cheap Rolex Oyster knock off in Hong Kong some years ago. Two full rotations of the hour hand takes 28 hours - I guess that is where Chinese productivity comes from
-
I enjoyed reading the essay and Michael's commentary in this thread. Making buying decisions can be difficult, while at the same time quite exciting. Today the web has become a good venue to do research and to purchase just about anything, providing one is careful and takes the proper buying precautions. The web has certainly extended our options in regards to buying "exotic" items and doing research. I had never heard of the watch brands Michael mentions but by doing a google search for them I was able to extend my knowledge in yet another area.
-
I bought a cheap Rolex Oyster knock off in Hong Kong some years ago. Two full rotations of the hour hand takes 28 hours - I guess that is where Chinese productivity comes from
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134857\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No, not really: it comes from the lads who buy the product that fuels the fraudsters.
Rob C
-
My 'daily driver' is a Tag Carrera Chrono. A $2k Luxury? Sure, technically. But I wouldn't wear a cheap POS again if you paid me. I wear it to work, even if I have to go in the factory...dive with it, hike with it, etc. most people can't understand this, they think anything more than a Wal-Mart Timex should be special occasion-only. Your'e right, it's all about perspective. To some, this IS a cheap POS
-
Paul,
I believe that's it's more complicated than that. A car, for example, can be both a utilitarian device and a luxury. Without personalizing it, and and I ask this rhetorically and don't need a response, unless your car is anything other than the most basic four wheels, an engine and a seat, then you own what some would call a luxury item. Similarly with your apartment or house. What more does one need that a bed and a dry roof?
I have friends who own Timexes and friends who have $50,000 watches. I have friends who live in modest walk-up flats and others in 10,000 sq/ft mansions. I don't think any the more or less of them due to their situations.
We all see the world through mental filters which provide us with certain unique perspectives. But to criticise others for their interests, good or bad fortune, or choice of life style, is inappropriate as long as their means of achieving it and manner of action is not to the detrement of others.
Michael
Ps: Having done so myself here, I would ask that this thread not become one about life style choices, wealth or its lack. Watches are fair game (in this thread only) and so is the issue of making camera equipment purchasing decisions.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134832\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Michael,
I realize that my second sentence above was ambiguous and unclear. Let me try again:
Choosing a lens or a watch is a question of individual preferences, perspectives and priorities, right?
Yes. And no. For certain people in certain parts of the world, it is exactly that. For other people (actually the majority of the world population), this is not true. They have no real choises. And this is a fact, whether they are hard working, talented and honest people or not.
This was my simple point number 1. My 2. simple point is that for a lot of people who can afford to have individual perspectives and priorities in shopping issues, it seems like this is something of an antropological fact, and not limited to their own group. Because they can afford real choises, this is part of the normal human condition.
But that is not true. And I didn`t intend to criticize their life style or wealth, just the way their experiences make them tend to forget that individual choices still is a privilege in this world, and not part of the human condition.
Pretentious talk? Beyond photography? Not more than your general statements about shopping choises, Michael; they imply some non-photographic issues.
And yeah, I think it is fine that LL is a photographic website, and not a political or sosio-economical site. But your statements begged for a little reply, specially since Luminious Landscape now has a world wide audience. And also since some of your pictures from foreign countries, and your organized photo safaris to some relatively poor countries have implications far beyond photographic equipment and beautiful scenery. To make myself clear: I don´t say that this is a bad thing, I just say that the implications are cultural, economical, and some times perhaps also political, or even religious.
I understand fully that you fear the consequenses of discussing controversial non-photographic issues with the rest of the world on LL. Photographic issues would drown in a lot of noise, misunderstanding, stupidity, hard feelings and fanatical positions. But sometimes it does not hurt to mention the world that we look at through our lenses. It is all about means and perspectives, right?
And for the sake of clarity: I did not talk about your life style and personal choices per se. But if you allow me to, I will do that now, and (I promise!) never repeat it: I think you are making a remarkable contribution to the photographic community, by generously sharing your thoughts and experiences of the equipment you have been lucky enough to own or try out, your broad experience as a photographer, and the expeditions that you have arranged.
Just a small P.S. to what you said about items being useful AND at the same time luxury items (like cars). Yes, I thought about it when I wrote my first comment, but if I start arguing how complicated things REALLY are, I am afraid no one is able to stop me! How many Canon shooters with the 85 mm f/1.2 are able to look at it as a plain and simple tool, and not also as a fascinating piece of equipment? And the same goes for the proud owners of a Leica with a Summilux or Noctilux, even if they are very useful tools in the right hands.
For some people, taking pictures and collecting lenses and cameras goes hand in hand. For others, it seems like they are less fascinated with photography as an art form, and more with the equipment. Nothing wrong with that – it is just to very different things, that some times get in conflict with each other. But that is a big and different issue.
Or perhaps a central point, when we discuss how to, and why we choose a certain lens or camera?
At least I think it is an issue safely within the context of a photographic site.
-
It has been said that a gentleman only needs two items of jewellery - a wedding band and a good watch.
Choice of watch is a subtle thing and very personal, no doubt this is why Michael chose this subject for his wise words.
-
I'm a member of timezone http://timezone.com/ (http://timezone.com/) a pretty serious watch collector/owners site. It's a pretty large community of like minded watch enthusiasts or WISs (watch idiot savants) who take a fairly humorous view of their particular addiction. On their sales corner there are great bargains on barely used watches with a pretty decent control and self control of fakes and cheats.
For some reason I've always been attracted to watches, probably pocket watches early on (although I don't own any) and then worked my way up to now owning around 20 watches.
I only started accumulating them in the last few years and most were under $500. A year or so ago I bought a Phillipe Charriol Columbus, then a Cartier Roadster and finally 6 months ago a Rolex Submariner.
Once I started wearing the Rolex and the Cartier I rarely wear the others. It's something like a fine camera, even though it's a tool it is still a great work of craftmanship and art.
The difference between the craftsmanship of a "mechanical" watch, compared to a quartz watch is where one starts to appreciate the "quality" of the workmanship.
If you've ever opened up a quartz watch, regardless of the price, you are quickly filled with disappointment. A mechanical, on the other hand, often have see through cases on the back and you are able to see craftsmanshop and art much like the prestige watches of years ago.
It's hard to explain the attraction but we WISs know it's a disease, and one we feel grateful to have.
Michael
-
Paul you are either living a very insulated or even insular existence; when I bought my Rolex Submariner I also owned a Nikon F and it was more expensive still.
The perspective? The Nikon worked for me for some years; the Rolex is for life: mine, now, and possibly for my son in due course. So where is greater value?
Rob C
-
For me the strange thing about time these days is that I hardly ever look to my wrist to check it.
The time is on my bedside radio, it sits in the corner of my computer screen, I see it on the sides of buildings driving to work, on the instrument panel of my car, and at the entrance to parking garages, it appears on the television every time I change channels, it is on my PDA, and my cellphone, not to mention my kitchen wall.
I still wear a watch, but it is an item of jewelry now, more than ever before.
-
Hi Michael
Congratulations on your beautifull new watch! I much prefer its look to the bell + ross, sort of classical, understated and simple. Reminds me of my basic fortis automatic I bought eight years ago. It ran accurately until I took it to the dealers last sept for its first major service. since then it has kept time very erratically. Two weeks ago in florence I bought [something I thought I would never do] a Kienzle quartz watch. a little bit more fancy than the fortis but a lot cheaper and , now, more accurate with a metal strap. I have decided to use this as my everyday watch, until I figure out where to have my fortis properly serviced. The funy thing is that it took me all of 10min, on the way to the boboli gardens, once I saw the watch to make up my mind and purchase it! whereas the fortis took me months to decide.
a bit like my recent purchase of the nikon p5000 after unming and aming for monaths weather to get the canon a640 or g7. Once I had the nikon in my hands it was a quick decision. I have decided definately not to have a look at the new just announced nikons
because it could become expensive selling all my canon gear!
Regards, Ivan
-
For me the strange thing about time these days is that I hardly ever look to my wrist to check it.
The time is on my bedside radio, it sits in the corner of my computer screen, I see it on the sides of buildings driving to work, on the instrument panel of my car, and at the entrance to parking garages, it appears on the television every time I change channels, it is on my PDA, and my cellphone, not to mention my kitchen wall.
I still wear a watch, but it is an item of jewelry now, more than ever before.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135004\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Come on, Paris, we know your life is different; but look at it this way: if you wear, and learn to read, your own watch it saves you the trouble of having your people consult their people just to let you know what time it is. Anyway, they´d be slow by the time (no pun intended etc.) they got back to you.
Haven´t you done enough time already?
Love - Rob C
-
For me the strange thing about time these days is that I hardly ever look to my wrist to check it.
The time is on my bedside radio, it sits in the corner of my computer screen, I see it on the sides of buildings driving to work, on the instrument panel of my car, and at the entrance to parking garages, it appears on the television every time I change channels, it is on my PDA, and my cellphone, not to mention my kitchen wall.
I still wear a watch, but it is an item of jewelry now, more than ever before.
Went out cycling yesterday and after riding for a while stopped at Starbucks for a break. Only then did I realize that I wasn't wearing my watch so I didn't know how long I'd been out. No problem, I thought. Except there was no clock on the wall in Starbucks and neither of the clerks nor any of the other patrons in Starbucks at that time were wearing a watch! Finally dawned on me that my cell phone was in my backpack...
That's getting away from Michael's original story on purchasing decisions, but it did seem somehow appropriate here...
Mike.
-
Come on, Paris, we know your life is different; but look at it this way: if you wear, and learn to read, your own watch it saves you the trouble of having your people consult their people just to let you know what time it is. Anyway, they´d be slow by the time (no pun intended etc.) they got back to you.
Haven´t you done enough time already?
Love - Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135051\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Rob, you're a funny guy!
1st - just checked my nether region and there are things down there which I'm sure Paris ain't got!
2nd - just checked my bank balance, and there aren't things in there which I'm sure Paris has got!
3rd - I penned that reply in good spirit. Times (!) really have changed in the sense that everywhere we look these days there seems to be a clock shining back at us.
-
Rob, you're a funny guy!
1st - just checked my nether region and there are things down there which I'm sure Paris ain't got!
2nd - just checked my bank balance, and there aren't things in there which I'm sure Paris has got!
3rd - I penned that reply in good spirit. Times (!) really have changed in the sense that everywhere we look these days there seems to be a clock shining back at us.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135086\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes, I know, but after a certain age you begin to wonder how close it is to running down...
That´s one of the better things about this site: it isn´t always as deadly serious as it might be, given the way of the world. In fact, I think it is that very thing which keps me interested even when some of the photographic bits have gone right out of my budget, if not right over my head.
Take care - Rob C
-
Michael, I had no idea you were interested in watches! I have been a regular reader (& occasional customer) of your site for several years, and it was my interest in watches which drew me to photography. I simply could not squint through the jeweler's loupe.
Anyhow, I am now enjoying a second hobby, (mostly) macro photography:
(http://ninanet.net/watches/home.jpg) (http://watchpics.com)
here is a sample:
(http://ninanet.net/watches/others05/Mediums/mlangedc92.jpg)
-
... in fact, lying at the bottom of 660 ft of ocean it would still tick whilst I´d be well beyond caring...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134739\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I have had occasion to use the Rolex Sub Mariner at depth, and I'm glad I had my then-new TAG Aquagraph as well. Up until recently I was a tech diver who liked to go deep. I was at approx 190m (623 feet) and noticed the TAG and Rolex were showing different time: worryingly, the Rolex was showing I had spent less time at depth than my TAG and the three dive computers I had. I reached 210m accoring to the line markers, and by this time two of the computers had failed, and the Rolex strap had buckled and snapped, and it was lost to the deep. I was on manual; I had my pre-planned dive and deco profile written on my slate, and I timed it with the TAG using the last computer (VR3) as confirmation. The TAG and the VR3 stayed true. The Big C (and common sense and a little more maturity!) prevents me diving deep just for the sake of it now, but I still occasionally go to 60-90m on a rebreather with heliox, and always I have that same original TAG plus an extra VR3.
When I first bought it I complained to the TAG dealer that the thing didn't show the date: his reply was that this is a professional dive instrument, and if I didn't know what day it was I shouldn't be going down!
-
I've never claimed to be a gentleman; I like wearing nothing other my wedding ring. And my Blackberry always knows what time it is. ;-)
Nill
~~
www.toulme.net (http://www.toulme.net)
-
I haven't worn a watch since I popeyed my fossil watch off my wrist while trying to avoid falling into the St. Louis up at Jay Cooke.
-
I haven't worn a watch since I popeyed my fossil watch off my wrist while trying to avoid falling into the St. Louis up at Jay Cooke.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135175\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Don´t tell me: you were beng inverted...
Ciao - Rob C
-
I never worn a watch too. If I go for clients I have my cellphone that gives me the digital time.
But I like watches as objects. On the german magazine Spiegel there was a nice article about handmade watches from the watchmaker store Dornblüth (http://www.dornblueth.com/flash.php?lang=en).
-
The watch article made me think about how money can influence one's considerations of gadgets... You unconsciously limit yourself to a budget and try to get the best from it; it can really be fun to see how much you can do within certain limitations if they are low; for instance, take a $100 film camera from ebay with a $60 prime lens and create the most beautiful pictures Provia or Sensia can make. However, when you try to think big, then it really becomes agonizing, if you try to maximize. What is the best [car, camera, watch,...] you can buy? Do you settle for something normal, or do you try to squeeze the absolute maximum out of your pool of choices? Hmm...
-
Every single time I have tried wearing a good(ish) watch I have banged them against doors, walls, desktops, you name it. Every time I've worn cheap (sub $50) plastic ugly electronic things, they last for years and years. It's not right.
-
I've never claimed to be a gentleman; I like wearing nothing other my wedding ring. And my Blackberry always knows what time it is. ;-)
Nill
~~
www.toulme.net (http://www.toulme.net)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135165\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I've always found it a bit difficult to tell the time on a Blackberry underwater.
Michael
-
I've always found it a bit difficult to tell the time on a Blackberry underwater.
I try to avoid getting wet under any circumstances. ;-)
Nill
~~
www.toulme.net (http://www.toulme.net)
p.s. That's why God created waders.
-
I've never claimed to be a gentleman; I like wearing nothing other my wedding ring. And my Blackberry always knows what time it is. ;-)
Nill
~~
www.toulme.net (http://www.toulme.net)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135165\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
A nudist, then...
Rob C
-
I've always found it a bit difficult to tell the time on a Blackberry underwater.
Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135244\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Why do you need to know the time underwater?
Do you have a submarine to catch?
-
The article was about making a choice, not about a watch. And to choose, it's not as easy as one would think ... http://www.sciammind.com/article.cfm?artic...00&pageNumber=1 (http://www.sciammind.com/article.cfm?articleID=00056941-1933-1196-906983414B7F0000&pageNumber=1)
Lubor
-
The article was about making a choice, not about a watch. And to choose, it's not as easy as one would think ... http://www.sciammind.com/article.cfm?artic...00&pageNumber=1 (http://www.sciammind.com/article.cfm?articleID=00056941-1933-1196-906983414B7F0000&pageNumber=1)
Lubor
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135393\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Lubor, now who´s being lugubrious?
Rob C
-
I had to look up "lugubrious." Lovely word, thanks. ;-)
Interesting article. I wonder if any one of us who frequent gear forums (and no, I'm not tarring LL with that brush) would score less than a 6 on that "maximizers" test.
Nill
~~
www.toulme.net (http://www.toulme.net)
-
Why do you need to know the time underwater?
Do you have a submarine to catch?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135264\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Just for the fun of it – a few places where I need a (waterproof) watch where a Blackberry or similar won't cut it...
... swimming, snorkeling, skiing, water water rafting, corporate locations that don't allow mobiles, customs and immigration halls at airports, on airplanes (some get uptight about wireless devices even when the transmitter is tuned off, especially during takeoffs and landings).
I imagine if I thought about it for a few more minutes I could come up with several more.
So, whether said in jest or not, a mobile phone is a poor substitute for a watch. On the other hand, my Nokia E90 syncs to the mobile operators time signal, shows the time in any city in the world, has multiple alarms, can get atomic clock accuracy from its built in GPS, has countdown and countup timers, etc, etc. But I won't take it swimming.
Michael
-
Michael, I´m not surprised you won´t take it swimming; perhaps it might take YOU swimming!
As far as the Submariner goes, even if I hadn´t thought of wearing it in the ocean and such watery places, it still appealed to me originally on the strength of its design. That was the first attraction and still is, for me, though I have to say, it does lend one a certain status in some circles. I´ve no probelm with that: if I can´t sing, I might as well have something going for me!
On the other hand, - or should that have been wrist? - the much more expensive gold ones don´t ring my chimes. As you go too far up the cost range you get into the diamond studded zone which makes the wearer look a little like a bookie (a turf accountant in US parlance, perhaps?), more nouveau riche than anything else.
Of course, was I able to afford one, I might view matters differently.... no, I don´t really think so.
Ciao - Rob C
-
It wasn't said entirely in jest — in fact not in jest at all. I used to wear watches but there came a time when the last battery in the last one died. I kept telling myself I'd get a new one (watch or battery) but somehow I just didn't get around to it, and soon found that I liked not having the pesky things on my wrist.
There are not many places I go without my Crackberry. And, as somebody else mentioned, in today's world it's generally all to easy to find out what time it is. ;-)
I do have to buy a new watch now though because I just got certified as a soccer referee, and the soccer pitch is one place where the BB is indeed not a convenient way to tell time. And, admittedly, if I were a diver I would certainly want a good watch. (But, happily, I have no more desire to go diving than I do to jump out of an airplane.)
Nill
~~
www.toulme.net (http://www.toulme.net)
-
I´m with you regarding the airplane, Nill, but can´t share any of your enthusiasm for the soccer pitch!
Rob C
-
Nill, agree about the plane too! But the serenity, peace and other-worldliness (not to mention the very different photographic opportunities and challenges) of diving in tropical waters is one of the things that make me feel alive. You don't have to go deep - on the right reef the best stuff is all at 10-30m anyway...!
-
Nill, agree about the plane too! But the serenity, peace and other-worldliness (not to mention the very different photographic opportunities and challenges) of diving in tropical waters is one of the things that make me feel alive. You don't have to go deep - on the right reef the best stuff is all at 10-30m anyway...!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135550\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I get that serenity, peace and other-worldliness standing in a river waving a stick (which is the other reason God made waders). ;-)
Nill
~~
www.toulme.net
-
Every single time I have tried wearing a good(ish) watch I have banged them against doors, walls, desktops, you name it. Every time I've worn cheap (sub $50) plastic ugly electronic things, they last for years and years. It's not right.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135240\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The better ones don't scratch as they have scratch resistant glass.
-
The better ones don't scratch as they have scratch resistant glass.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=145388\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Then, sad to say, my Submariner must be less than good - it scratches almost by magic; perhaps that´s why it scratches.
Rob C
-
LOL - it's interesting how watches can be like cameras - everyone has a "pet" brand or type. Over my 65 years I've had a number of wrist watches. My "favorite" is now my Rolex Explorer II which was, by the working man's standard pretty expensive (about $5,000 U.S. with tax) but has been virtually bullet-proof for many years. However 18 years ago before I bought the Rolex I wanted a decent but moderately inexpensive dive watch for a trip to Cozumel. My old Citizen dive watch has bought the farm when I bumped it on a large rock at about 100 feet depth and the shock added to the three atmospheres depth caused an instant leak. I wanted something which could take a health lick at depth and not leak and didn't want to spring for a Rolex Sea Dweller so my local dive shop had a watch guaranteed to take the pressure of 1200 ATM (12,000 meters or over 39,000 feet). Of course I didn't believe the hype, but I looked it over and read the information from the manufacturer and paid a bit over $300 and bought it.
Here's the amazing thing! I was a bit concerned because there was no way I could change the battery. The watch was filled with a very light oil. The entire watch including under the crystal and inside the case was oil filled so in theory, at least, it was essentially incompressible. I was told it would have to be sent back to the manufacturer (Hyperbar) for a battery change but that the battery would last "a long time". Here comes the unbelievable part - 18 years and it still keeps perfect time on the "ORIGINAL" battery!
It's been running continuously for 18 years and I'm perplexed as to how this is possible. New Hyperbar watches have a 10 year lithium-ion battery but I have no clue what they used in this one but whatever they put in it is absolutely incredible. It still keeps perfect time so anyone wanting a recommendation for a dive watch is going to get one from me for the Hyperbar. Mine was called the St Moritz but I don't think they make the same model any longer. It was made in Switzerland and they are available over the web. I believe the newer models have a "bubble" on the back where the battery can be replaced so it's no longer necessary to send the watch to the factory for battery replacement. In fact, I don't know where to send mine and for the approximate $400 price of a new one I probably won't bother when the battery finally quits on this one - LOL. One thing for certain - when I need another dive watch it will be the Hyperbar again. Another one will probably outlast me!!
Best regards,
Lin
-
so my local dive shop had a watch guaranteed to take the pressure of 1200 ATM (12,000 meters or over 39,000 feet). Of course I didn't believe the hype, but I looked it over and read the information from the manufacturer and paid a bit over $300 and bought it.
Apparently it's not hype... http://www.special-forces.co.uk/sdw.htm (http://www.special-forces.co.uk/sdw.htm)
BTW, if the battery runs out, send it to:
HMP Watch Ltd
RIEDSTRASSE 16B
P.O. Box 218 CH-2544
Bettlach / Switzerland
Tel: 41 32 645 32 23 Fax: 41 32 645 32 23
Mike.
-
Hi Mike,
Thanks much for the address - I hadn't been able to locate the manufacturer, only dealers and after emailing a couple of them with no answers (I guess they would rather see more watches) I gave up. It probably would be worth sending it in for a battery replacement.
Best regards,
Lin
Apparently it's not hype... http://www.special-forces.co.uk/sdw.htm (http://www.special-forces.co.uk/sdw.htm)
BTW, if the battery runs out, send it to:
HMP Watch Ltd
RIEDSTRASSE 16B
P.O. Box 218 CH-2544
Bettlach / Switzerland
Tel: 41 32 645 32 23 Fax: 41 32 645 32 23
Mike.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148442\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
(But, happily, I have no more desire to go diving than I do to jump out of an airplane.)
Nill
~~
www.toulme.net (http://www.toulme.net)
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=135447\")
Hi All,
Interesting Subject the Watch-love em or hate -we need em at some stage ---some notes on the Posts .
Nil- If you have ever stood on the deck of a WW II Battleship at 50 m surrounded by schools of Fish you don't know what your missing!
The Rolex watches -even the expensive ones--I have the Oyster Datejust -WILL scratch unless you have the Crystal Glass face-this is only available on some models.
Hmm-- the one that will go to 1200 ATM certainly seems great value moneywise -- you would'nt be around to confirm it tho!
Des W
PADI OWSI #113416
[a href=\"http://www.deswilliams.com/]http://www.deswilliams.com/[/url]
-
Hmm-- the one that will go to 1200 ATM certainly seems great value moneywise -- you would'nt be around to confirm it tho!
I used to have a diver's watch that was supposed to be good to 150 feet. Lost it in six feet of water, and by the time I found it water had gotten inside and ruined it. I still have a Bulova Caravelle level-wind that's 24 years old now...
Mike.
-
Hi Mike,
Yep, that's a typo. The problem with water pressure is that any impact adds the "G" force to the atmospheric and it's really easy to exceed the water resistance rating if you have an accident. I was trying to pry a stubborn Abalone off a rock and the ab-iron slipped and banged the Citizen with several "G's" against the rock. It didn't break the crystal, but when they opened the case to check the battery it was full of salt-water. I won't even take my Explorer II deeper than snorkle depth after that experience. I don't generally dive much deeper than 150' and then only a "bounce" dive. There's generally nothing worth shooting either with spear or camera deeper than that - at least nothing I want to tangle with - LOL. The Hyperbar has been to 160 a couple times but over the years 80-100 has been common and not a problem even though it's had some pretty rough treatment. I highly recommend it.
Best regards,
Lin
That 12 THOUSAND ATM, not 1200! But you're certainly correct! I used to have a diver's watch that was supposed to be good to 150 feet. Lost it in six feet of water, and by the time I found it water had gotten inside and ruined it. I still have a Bulova Caravelle level-wind that's 24 years old now...
Mike.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148501\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
I used to have a diver's watch that was supposed to be good to 150 feet. Lost it in six feet of water, and by the time I found it water had gotten inside and ruined it. I still have a Bulova Caravelle level-wind that's 24 years old now...
Mike.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148501\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
B***dy Hell that brings back memories of those Bulova Ads with the magical tuning fork thingo-sort of a Greek symbol shape-- did'nt it oscillate forever and never need winding springs /etc?
On the so sold as "Diving Watches" their Achilles heels more often than not are the 0 rings in the winder/buttons with the wearer usually wearing same in the Shower( Read HOT water after a Dive) this softens the the ring(yeah yeah-I mean the WATCH one-sheesh!) and causes it to deteriorate quickly.
I have been guilty of this and now rinse any Dive Timepiece in Cold water only.
Des
-
Thing is, you´re supposed to re-proof and service a Rolex Submariner every year. I have done so about three times since ´72 or ´73 when I bought mine. The first time, in Scotland, it was away for about two months; the next time, in Spain, they lost it for about the same length of time and on the last occassion it came back more accurate than it had ever been since new. Go figure that one out!
I´ve long abandoned the sea to the fish - the heaviest duty it´s had (the watch) in the last ten years is facing the inside of a pool. I took an intense dislike of the ocean experience - the shore, that is, whilst my experience and pleasure in boats died with my friend who had a few of them. The single, most important thing I learned from him about boats was that they are never big enough, even at over 90ft.; another thing I picked up was that it´s fun when you have a crew - you just leave all of the hassle to them. Equally, I also learned that a crew that doesn´t want to go somewhere will quickly find a mechanical or electronic reason why a trip at a precise time is currently impossible to contemplate.
The Rolex, however, just sits there on my arm, getting heavier and more loose as I get older and thinner.
Rob C
-
I recently took delivery of:
-
I bought a cheap Rolex Oyster knock off in Hong Kong some years ago. Two full rotations of the hour hand takes 28 hours - I guess that is where Chinese productivity comes from
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134857\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
My girlfriend got me a Chairman Mao watch from China a few years back.
But there was a problem as the watch stopped before she gave it to me and she and her work colleagues were completely baffled as to how to replace the battery.
It was a wind up watch!
-
Yep, Rolex will take you to the cleaners whenever you get your watch serviced. Mine has cost me about $600 each time I've had it in. Their "minimum" in the U.S. is $300 for cleaning, etc.
Thing is, you´re supposed to re-proof and service a Rolex Submariner every year. I have done so about three times since ´72 or ´73 when I bought mine. The first time, in Scotland, it was away for about two months; the next time, in Spain, they lost it for about the same length of time and on the last occassion it came back more accurate than it had ever been since new. Go figure that one out!
Pull out a couple links and adjust the band - no need for it to fall off your hand - LOL.
Best regards,
Lin
I´ve long abandoned the sea to the fish - the heaviest duty it´s had (the watch) in the last ten years is facing the inside of a pool. I took an intense dislike of the ocean experience - the shore, that is, whilst my experience and pleasure in boats died with my friend who had a few of them. The single, most important thing I learned from him about boats was that they are never big enough, even at over 90ft.; another thing I picked up was that it´s fun when you have a crew - you just leave all of the hassle to them. Equally, I also learned that a crew that doesn´t want to go somewhere will quickly find a mechanical or electronic reason why a trip at a precise time is currently impossible to contemplate.
The Rolex, however, just sits there on my arm, getting heavier and more loose as I get older and thinner.
Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148600\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Andy M
Act now, or forever rue the day you lacked the courage to get your own back!
Lin
The band is set at its second-last smallest hole - I don´t dare go the last notch in case my life runs out of even more options than nature intended...
Rob C
-
What is it about this obsession with watches? Four pages about watches on a photography forum??
I hope you guys do not buy cameras with the same sort of motivation that people seem to have who buy expensive watches. Ie. jewelery and status symbol.
-
Actually, Ray, in my case at least you are mistaken.
I first saw, and fell in love with the Rolex design ethic when I was a lad of about twelve years of age, long before I had any notions of ostentation etc., for which I might well have made up since, but that´s another story altogether.
Some things in life are valuable for their own, intrinsic charm; a Rolex of the right design is one such. I have no qualms about condemning the wrong type: I have a relation who went into the marque and bought a monstrosity bedecked with diamonds around the bezel which has had the net effect of turning him into a bookie look-alike. I would not, of course, venture to tell him so: he might run me over with his CLS....
Ciao - Rob C
-
i love my casio disposable plastic watch - weigts nothing, costs almost nothing, extra time zone, calculator, and keeps nearly perfect time - and frees up the budget for cameras and lenses
-
Thing is, a Rolex (in my opinion) is a once-in-a-lifetime purchase which gets handed down through the generations; I don´t imagine myself buying anything else again, unless it gets stolen. One watch per adult lifetime is even good for your carbon footprint, when you think about it. Certainly not a lot of people think about having to recycle them, the watches...
Rob C
-
Timeless classic. (http://www.amazon.com/Timex-Ironman-Triathlon-100-Lap-T5E231/dp/B00093CZV0/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/002-3207425-9799234?ie=UTF8&s=jewelry&qid=1193938972&sr=8-2)
-
Indeed; it would go very well with those trendy sandles that people sport out here when they come on holiday - you know, the things made up from old tyres, nouveau pauvre fashion at its most pure.
Rob C
-
Thing is, a Rolex (in my opinion) is a once-in-a-lifetime purchase which gets handed down through the generations; I don´t imagine myself buying anything else again, unless it gets stolen. One watch per adult lifetime is even good for your carbon footprint, when you think about it. Certainly not a lot of people think about having to recycle them, the watches...
Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149145\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
My husband bought a Rolex 35 years ago from his first season of growing smallcrops. He left school at year 11 and ran his dad's farm with an agreement that he could keep the net profit for that season. It was a blinder of a year and he purchased his Rolex, with the intention of it being an heirloom.
When we were first dating he had had his watch for about 6 years, and as young men do - was trying to impress me with his machoness. He decided to scale to the top of the mast of a 70 foot sailing boat and dive from the spreaders. The dive was not as spectacular as he had hoped and he landed flat on his back. After many of us dived in to rescue his motionless body, on the deck he realised his Rolex had broken the band and was on the bottom of the ocean. Desperate as he was to reclaim his Rolex, we hired a diver with a metal detector to dive where the boat was anchored. To no avail. An heirloom no more !
ps. he now has a TAG-Heuer for diving
Julie
-
A Stainless Daytona.
You bastard!
At its list of $7K or whatever I'd probably buy it with cash. I just can't pay the extra $4K markup though, and the DeBeers-style artificial supply limitations burns my butt.
-
Yep! Definitely status symbols and items of jewelery; quite unlike cameras.
-
A Stainless Daytona.
You bastard!
At its list of $7K or whatever I'd probably buy it with cash. I just can't pay the extra $4K markup though, and the DeBeers-style artificial supply limitations burns my butt.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150157\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Over here in the UK they're approx $9,000, and $13,000 with the markup
I waited a few years to get mine. I'm not sure I'd enjoy it as much if I'd paid over the odds.
-
Yep! Definitely status symbols and items of jewelery; quite unlike cameras.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150194\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Clearly no loss of sense of humour, then!
Rob C
-
Over here in the UK they're approx $9,000, and $13,000 with the markup
I waited a few years to get mine. I'm not sure I'd enjoy it as much if I'd paid over the odds.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150201\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well that's because you have all that VAT to pay to the queen
-
Well that's because you have all that VAT to pay to the queen
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150259\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Bad info, baby: that VAT goes to finance the Surrender Monkey farmers and their Suddenly Pacifist neighbours who favour thin men with moustaches. The poor old Queen just takes all the kicks and is unable, because of the crappy UK laws and protocol, to defend herself and her family against all the speculative rubbish that is produced around her and hers.
That, my friend, is the reality of freedom of speach: as long as it enables the sale of gutter periodicals, suits the morality (joking, here) of the ruling left-wing party and keeps the what´s-yours-is-mine voters faithful , anything goes.
Rob C
Edit: I should add that the main beneficiaries of the Common Market, much to nobody´s surprise, are the Euro politicians who live high on the hog at our expense (the infamous VAT), pay zero taxation on their salaries, employ their immediate families on the same VAT-powered account and laugh their collective heads off at us, the mugs that keep them there.
As a matter of interest, I remember when VAT was introduced to the UK: it raised the cost of living by the same direct amount; complicated my business tax return no end and the paperwork was horrific. I was also here in Spain at the start of it, and on the very first day of the new regulation we went to the local café for our usual coffee and it had doubled in cost. Yes, doubled. So yes, I do have a very short fuse on that topic.
-
Edit: I should add that the main beneficiaries of the Common Market, much to nobody´s surprise, are the Euro politicians who live high on the hog at our expense (the infamous VAT), pay zero taxation on their salaries, employ their immediate families on the same VAT-powered account and laugh their collective heads off at us, the mugs that keep them there.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150291\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Clearly the real beneficiaries are the major international corporations who can move their goods across borders more freely and cheaply. THEY benefit far more than the few bureuacrats living high of the hog.
I sincerely doubt there'd be a common market if it wasn't in the interests of capital.
-
Personally I own over 25 watches....I don't choose them for status as I can't afford the watches that purport to have 'status'. My favorite brands are Tissot, Seiko and Hamilton. I doubt you can get better value for money than with these brands. They are great watches in the $100 - $600 range.
For me a watch is a fashion accessory. For example, I choose the one I am wearing to match my shirt or activity. If I am sporty casual I'll pick a nice diver's watch or chrono. If I am at the office I'll pick a classier watch to match my attire. I often buy a leather strap top match the dial. Seiko 5 are great cheap watches. I also own a Chairman Mao watch that I wear on occassion with my red shirt.
-
Clearly the real beneficiaries are the major international corporations who can move their goods across borders more freely and cheaply. THEY benefit far more than the few bureuacrats living high of the hog.
I sincerely doubt there'd be a common market if it wasn't in the interests of capital.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151097\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You would appear to have completely forgotten the economic migrants currently swelling the national debt of the more ´western´ countries within said Common Market - it appears to me that they are getting much more out of it than any major business, which was always able to go wherever it wanted to anyhow.
Buying companies outwith one´s own country has usually required permission from a long variety of foreign governmental bodies - to the gratification of many officials´ pockets - so a little light corruption was never far from the centre of things. The difference now, with the advent of the CM, is that it is increasingly more difficult to throw the mothers out - they have an even wider common interest grouping behind them than ever before: why would any of them rock the gravy train?
Frankly, if something is in the interest of capital, then it is in the interest of the mechanism that makes the world go round. Without capital and capitalists you have Cuba and the failed USSR, North Korea et al. No other way has ever worked for the basic reasons that all people are not created equal, will never attain equality and if they have any talents they are normally quite different. That allows the differences to capitalise (one of your favourite words, perhaps?) on the collective talents or abilities available and, in coming together, produce a holistic solution to trading one talent for another. But even there, it is acknowledged within the power structures themselves that regulation is necessary
Of course, the big fly in that ointment is the one with no talent whatsoever. Anybody have a swat?
Rob C