Lume on dress watches

[wokafu]

Hi people,

I am so use to lumes on my watches i got a hard time accepting the fact that there's none to some lume on dress watches...am i the only one having this problem..? The reason i ask is because recently i got myself a dress watch for some formal occasions (a moon phase chrono btw) during the function i cant even see what time it is and i have to light up my mobile phone screen just to see the time...i mean i understand a dress watch would look 'odd' with good lume on them...but isnt a watch suppose to be able to tell time under any occasion even if its a dress watch..??

I dont know where to post this thread so i just post it up here...should the moderator feels this suppose to move else where please do..thanks

[77T]

Tastes vary in different parts of the World. IMHO, lume or not, a dress watch isn't really meant to be checked by the owner at a formal occasion. Referring to your watch is oft considered bad form - unless asked by someone for the correct time.

And what is your mobile doing at a formal occasion?

[stankeyleg]

giving your watch a quick check at a formal occasion should be fine, using a cell phone or ipod to check the time is a whole different story.

[FeelingTheBlues]

Originally Posted by stankeyleg

giving your watch a quick check at a formal occasion should be fine, using a cell phone or ipod to check the time is a whole different story.

I agree, to me people who take a look at their cellphones look more impolite or in "bad form" as our friend above said than somebody who takes a quick look at his watch. As for the lume on a dress watch, I have one (non-Rolex but I know the Cellini line has quite a good lume on its models) that has some but you must charge it quite a lot in order to get it to work properly. For instance, I had to put a light bulb right above it for about thirty seconds in order to get it to something like this:





By the way, I'm sure your watch is a real beauty but I'm quite surprised to learn that a chronograph with a moonphase indicator doesn't have any lume at all. I understand it must be classy and a bit dressy but those complications together are, to me, a great way to give a watch a sportier look (take the Patek Philippe who have those, they still have lume despite their classy looks).

[77T]

Just so you know - I don't really take sides on the matter. I was answering the question of keeping time in a formal setting. The etiquette varies but in general...

Traditionally, visible timepieces are not worn with formal evening dress in Europe and the Americas. Slim pocket watches are a good option.

It is considered bad form to have a visible watch because timekeeping is not considered a priority at black tie or white tie events. And checking a watch is the oldest "tell" in the world that you are bored (an insult to the host in most circles).

But if you must have one with classic formal wear to avoid feeling naked; keep your timepiece slim and in the same metal as your studs/links with a leather strap and basic black face.

[wokafu]

this is the watch im talking about...it does have some lume on the hour/minute hand..but its so small you can hardly notice it..

[OrangeSport]

The polite form is to ask someone else the correct time. Then you don't need to check the time and he can, because he has been asked! ;-)

My dress watches have no lume, including my incoming Meistersinger, but I am not sure I would want them glowing away at a formal event.

[wokafu]

thanks for the etiquette part of 'time checking' ..never even thought of that ...i just wonder how many people out there would consider better lume for dress watch is a good thing...

[kilyung]

I just ask my wife for the time.

[wokafu]

Originally Posted by kilyung

I just ask my wife for the time.

and let her be the 'rude' one..:D cooolllll

[GTS Dean]

Originally Posted by FeelingTheBlues

As for the lume on a dress watch, I have one (non-Rolex but I know the Cellini line has quite a good lume on its models) that has some but you must charge it quite a lot in order to get it to work properly. For instance, I had to put a light bulb right above it for about thirty seconds in order to get it to something like this:

Just right - like both of my OQ's.

____________________________
TT OysterQuartz
SS/Black "U" Daytona
TT GMT II-C
DD OysterQuartz
Brietling Aero
Omega Speedmaster Pro

[BOA]

Although it's a very nice watch, I wouldn't have considered yours a dress watch myself, but maybe standards are changing faster than I thought. Just a few years ago, I bought a new tux for an event and wore a chronometer to the final fitting. I asked what kind of watch I should wear, and they took one look at the chrono and said, "Certainly not that one." Basically, wearing no watch at all was the best option, but a basic gold on a strap was acceptable, preferably no pushbuttons or complications, and nothing heavy or large. Thus, the elegant look of the Cellini ends up having the quintessential look of what constitutes a "dress" watch, though "Dress Watch" in itself is an oxymoron to some. When you specify the occasion as formal, it ratchets into specifics like cuffs and patent leather, and as 77T indicated in the first reply, there's a perceived sense in which you shouldn't even be looking at a watch. I believe it all goes back to an era before wrist watches were even available, that these traditions have been kept in such a way as to continually block them, which is why there is still an element that frowns on them heavily, though that may be decreasing as rules are flaunted to a point of universal non-compliance. There's actually something nice about leaving a watch home and doing things the old way. But again, so many things change so fast it wouldn't surprise me if a formalized version of Bermuda Shorts had been introduced to go along with a black tie event. Rip Van Winkle wouldn't have to sleep 20 years in today's world. He could nod off for a month or two and find everything different.

[capote]

Generally I prefer dress watches without lume, but there are some exceptions.

[2th Dr]

Originally Posted by wokafu

Hi people,

I am so use to lumes on my watches i got a hard time accepting the fact that there's none to some lume on dress watches...am i the only one having this problem..? The reason i ask is because recently i got myself a dress watch for some formal occasions (a moon phase chrono btw) during the function i cant even see what time it is and i have to light up my mobile phone screen just to see the time...i mean i understand a dress watch would look 'odd' with good lume on them...but isnt a watch suppose to be able to tell time under any occasion even if its a dress watch..??

I dont know where to post this thread so i just post it up here...should the moderator feels this suppose to move else where please do..thanks

Why don't you just look at the time when you light up your mobile phone then? We know why!
I kinda like my "dress" watches with little or no lume, even though I AM a lume freak.

[DJJon]

The new version Datejust and DJ II with batons (sticks) have a lot of lume. The hands plus the wide sticks. Older DJs had just the dots at the end of the sticks.

Mine stays very bright all night long, if charged by CFL bulb for 5 mins before retiring.

[wokafu]

Originally Posted by stankeyleg

giving your watch a quick check at a formal occasion should be fine, using a cell phone or ipod to check the time is a whole different story.

i would agree 100% on this...hence the question wouldnt it be ok to have some lume to avoid it..??

[wokafu]

Originally Posted by BOA

Although it's a very nice watch, I wouldn't have considered yours a dress watch myself, but maybe standards are changing faster than I thought. Just a few years ago, I bought a new tux for an event and wore a chronometer to the final fitting. I asked what kind of watch I should wear, and they took one look at the chrono and said, "Certainly not that one." Basically, wearing no watch at all was the best option, but a basic gold on a strap was acceptable, preferably no pushbuttons or complications, and nothing heavy or large. Thus, the elegant look of the Cellini ends up having the quintessential look of what constitutes a "dress" watch, though "Dress Watch" in itself is an oxymoron to some. When you specify the occasion as formal, it ratchets into specifics like cuffs and patent leather, and as 77T indicated in the first reply, there's a perceived sense in which you shouldn't even be looking at a watch. I believe it all goes back to an era before wrist watches were even available, that these traditions have been kept in such a way as to continually block them, which is why there is still an element that frowns on them heavily, though that may be decreasing as rules are flaunted to a point of universal non-compliance. There's actually something nice about leaving a watch home and doing things the old way. But again, so many things change so fast it wouldn't surprise me if a formalized version of Bermuda Shorts had been introduced to go along with a black tie event. Rip Van Winkle wouldn't have to sleep 20 years in today's world. He could nod off for a month or two and find everything different.

certainly interesting to know that a chrono is not consider suitable...not wearing a watch eh...hmmm i wonder how James Bond pull it off everytime ( i know im not Bond)

[BOA]

I'm not sure either, and I was thinking the same thing. I considered for a moment that perhaps "no watch" might be the correct way to go, but given that nobody seems to follow that anymore for most functions, why should I? So I wore one, and I think you should wear what you want as well. I actually like your chrono, and I think it will look fine at formal functions. It's only the real sticklers that it seems to bother, and the only situations I have heard it come up as a major issue or consideration has been with such things as a state function where national leaders are present. I think there was a thread here a while back where a forum member was going to meet royalty, and whether to wear a watch at all was discussed at length. If memory serves, in the end he did, and so did everyone else, and all was fine. So now we have new traditions, but the book of etiquette is still there to pound home what's proper and what's not. Some people really do follow it, but all in all, I think James Bond actually has had a lot of influence in our breaking our bonds and getting out of bondage to the old ways regarding watches. >> sorry <<

[floater156]

Originally Posted by BOA

Although it's a very nice watch, I wouldn't have considered yours a dress watch myself, but maybe standards are changing faster than I thought. Just a few years ago, I bought a new tux for an event and wore a chronometer to the final fitting. I asked what kind of watch I should wear, and they took one look at the chrono and said, "Certainly not that one." Basically, wearing no watch at all was the best option, but a basic gold on a strap was acceptable, preferably no pushbuttons or complications, and nothing heavy or large. Thus, the elegant look of the Cellini ends up having the quintessential look of what constitutes a "dress" watch, though "Dress Watch" in itself is an oxymoron to some. When you specify the occasion as formal, it ratchets into specifics like cuffs and patent leather, and as 77T indicated in the first reply, there's a perceived sense in which you shouldn't even be looking at a watch. I believe it all goes back to an era before wrist watches were even available, that these traditions have been kept in such a way as to continually block them, which is why there is still an element that frowns on them heavily, though that may be decreasing as rules are flaunted to a point of universal non-compliance. There's actually something nice about leaving a watch home and doing things the old way. But again, so many things change so fast it wouldn't surprise me if a formalized version of Bermuda Shorts had been introduced to go along with a black tie event. Rip Van Winkle wouldn't have to sleep 20 years in today's world. He could nod off for a month or two and find everything different.

When most guys talk about dressing up they're talking about a shirt and tie, blazer/suit, not a tux. How many times is the average American in a tux?

I've never worn a watch with a tux. In a suit a Rolex works perfect. Anyone who says otherwise probably has one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel.

[BOA]

Originally Posted by floater156

When most guys talk about dressing up they're talking about a shirt and tie, blazer/suit, not a tux. How many times is the average American in a tux?

I've never worn a watch with a tux. In a suit a Rolex works perfect. Anyone who says otherwise probably has one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel.

I agree with you, but the OP used the word "formal" along with "functions," so I had to think he was talking black tie, tux and all the trimmings, and so I addressed that.

But you hit the nail on the head. I hate to think I gave it away in my posts, but I do have one foot in the grave. I turn 60 on Saturday.

[wokafu]

age is just a number BOA..as long as you're wearing your watch in good health its all good my man..

[BOA]

Thanks. I realize that of course. I also have three young kids, relative to my age anyway, and I think they keep me pretty young. But I've got to admit, coincidentally, my 9-year-old son left a banana peel on the bathroom floor yesterday, so floater156 has gotten almost too close for comfort. I guess I've got to try to be really careful.

Getting back to watches for a moment, I prefer wearing a watch even in formal situations if possible, so I always inquire for those functions what the level of formality is. As I said before, I've been told the style of watch matters in some instances, that a Cellini works where a Sub won't, and respecting that, I'll go with the dress rather than the sports watch, if that's what's expected. If it is dictated that a watch is inappropriate, I probably wouldn't wear one, but I haven't been to one of those yet. I go to a few formal events a year, mostly charitable affairs, and for the most part they are not very strict. I have worn my white gold meteorite Day-Date to some of those, and I've also worn a Sub, but not at the same time.

Let us know how it works out when you do go formal. I believe you will have a whole lot of fun, and I've found that usually there's enough light so you don't really need the lume. My DD doesn't have it, and while I wanted it at first, I don't anymore.

Hey look, I got your thread back on track.

[wokafu]

Thanks BOA for the advise and brough it back on track..lol....well the event i was talking about was some charity/product launching with the PM/Ministers (dont think i have to wear a tux for it btw) there's some performance whereby they dim the lights and most of the time the stage light was not strong enough from where i'm sitting..anyhow thank yall for the advise..i am greatly educated and i enjoy this forum even more now...cheerss

[gwalker]

Regardless of the lume I love your watch!!!!!

[Widows Son]

I wear a Tux about 12 times a year. I'll wear a thin dress watch under the cuff which nobody sees anyway. A vintage IWC,Hamilton, or Omega fits the bill. I dislike seeing someone's chunky tool watch sticking out from under a cuff screaming, "look at me, I'm an expensive sports watch trying to be a dress watch!!"

[cedargrove]

I have absolutely no need for lume on a dress watch. Lume is a must on my camping watch, but otherwise lume isn't that important to me.