(04-28-2021 03:28 PM)mfleming Wrote: [ -> ]The watch crystal itself seems to be offset within the case. Between 10 and two there are two distinct nested rings of dots, but the outer ring vanishes around the 9/3 midpoint and the inner ring shifts downward by the 6 o'clock position. Perspective?
I believe that's just perspective and/or lighting, as you can see they fade slowly, not just disappearing.
As for the hands' relative positions (which I had not noticed) indeed there are issues, for such a precise clock positioning; with second hand on 30 secs, the minute hand should be halfway between 10 and 11 minutes (or maybe 9 and 10?) in addition to the hour hand a bit past 10 o'clock. So, it's a mess!!
That's it, I'm not purchasing one!
(04-28-2021 06:29 AM)Massimo Gnerucci Wrote: [ -> ] (04-28-2021 04:38 AM)Joe Horn Wrote: [ -> ]Heh heh! 
I thought that the gaffe you were referring to was the hour hand's position, which is pointing directly at 10, which is clearly wrong for 10:10.
Ditto.
Double Ditto!
(04-28-2021 02:15 AM)toml_12953 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-28-2021 01:39 AM)Dave Britten Wrote: [ -> ]I think the explanation I've heard is that clocks will use IIII instead of the more correct IV because having both IV and VI printed upside-down near the bottom of the face can be a bit visually confusing. But then they go and keep both IX and XI, so who knows.
The use of IV is a relatively modern construct. Since clocks that use Roman numerals are trying to impart a feeling of age, they use the more correct (for the Middle Ages and earlier) IIII.
https://museum.seiko.co.jp/en/knowledge/...20century.
One legend(?) says that IIII was used because it was easier to cast the numerals from molten metal.
Basically, by using IIII for 4, the "smith" could use 1 mold with the letters XVIIIII 4 times to make all the numerals needed for the clock face.
That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it!
Oh, the advantage of being born in Rome!
;)
(04-28-2021 04:04 PM)rprosperi Wrote: [ -> ]As for the hands' relative positions (which I had not noticed) indeed there are issues, for such a precise clock positioning; with second hand on 30 secs, the minute hand should be halfway between 10 and 11 minutes (or maybe 9 and 10?) in addition to the hour hand a bit past 10 o'clock. So, it's a mess!!
Oh no! It's an analog-digital watch. The hour hand rests on the
X until the minute hand completes the next hour. Guess what happens then.
The hour hand jumps to the
XI
Günter
(04-28-2021 09:27 PM)Guenter Schink Wrote: [ -> ] (04-28-2021 04:04 PM)rprosperi Wrote: [ -> ]As for the hands' relative positions (which I had not noticed) indeed there are issues, for such a precise clock positioning; with second hand on 30 secs, the minute hand should be halfway between 10 and 11 minutes (or maybe 9 and 10?) in addition to the hour hand a bit past 10 o'clock. So, it's a mess!!
Oh no! It's an analog-digital watch. The hour hand rests on the X until the minute hand completes the next hour. Guess what happens then. The hour hand jumps to the XI
Günter
Thanks Günter, I had not thought such a 'classic' watch design would behave that way.
As each full hour is completed, it must be quite a noticeable jump when the Hour-, Minute- and Second-hand all jump at the same moment.
Hello!
(04-28-2021 12:58 AM)Don Shepherd Wrote: [ -> ]Do you see anything wrong?
One thing that's wrong with this watch and has so far been overlooked: It is plain ugly ;-)
Regards
Max
It is ugly, and there is an extra mark on the bezel between 50 and 60 that doesn't belong, it seems to me.
(04-29-2021 12:51 PM)Don Shepherd Wrote: [ -> ]It is ugly, and there is an extra mark on the bezel between 50 and 60 that doesn't belong, it seems to me.
IMHO, that's a reflection of something off camera which is also being reflected at the top left, next to the watch band.
(04-28-2021 03:47 PM)Thomas Okken Wrote: [ -> ]The Wikipedia article on Roman numerals gives a good overview on just how little standardization there is, or has indeed ever been, when it comes to the use of subtractive notation.
Even today there seem to be disagreements. Specifically, some people seem to believe that subtractive notation should only be used with the next lower power of 10, while others do not consider that to be a requirement. So, for example, in the closing titles of BBC TV shows, they show the year the program was made using Roman numerals, and as the 20th century drew to a close, I observed both MCMXCIX and MIM for 1999.
So true. Even in elementary school (in the mid/late 70s) we were taught to write IIII instead of IV and even VIIII instead of IX. Later this also included IV and IX. I've seen various forms over the years.
"There are II types of people in the world. Those who understand Roman numerals, and those who do not."
make that
"There are IIIV types of people in the world. Those who understand Roman numerals, and those who do not."
(04-28-2021 10:02 PM)rprosperi Wrote: [ -> ] (04-28-2021 09:27 PM)Guenter Schink Wrote: [ -> ]Oh no! It's an analog-digital watch. The hour hand rests on the X until the minute hand completes the next hour. Guess what happens then. The hour hand jumps to the XI
Günter
Thanks Günter, I had not thought such a 'classic' watch design would behave that way.
As each full hour is completed, it must be quite a noticeable jump when the Hour-, Minute- and Second-hand all jump at the same moment.
Sorry but there's no way such a cheesy watch had a jump hand mechanism - even the very latest stepper-motor models eschew such an approach. No, it's just cheap.
But they're in good company - one of the watch review enthusiasts on the Internet noticed a TAG Heuer print advert for a multi-thousand dollar watch where the second hand didn't quite align with the seconds markers on the dial. Ooops.
Alignment issues have always bothered me. Another issue is when minute hand jumps from being perfectly aligned when pressing the crown in to restart the watch when setting it...
Strange: The seconds markings (20, 30, 40) are flipped for better readability at the lower part of the watch, but the roman numbers are upside down.
(04-30-2021 04:24 PM)BruceH Wrote: [ -> ]But they're in good company - one of the watch review enthusiasts on the Internet noticed a TAG Heuer print advert for a multi-thousand dollar watch where the second hand didn't quite align with the seconds markers on the dial. Ooops.
I saw ads like that. It looked like parallax error to me.
As far as the hands not pointing where they're supposed to, the ad company sets all the hands manually. They don't just twist the stem to get to a certain time. They thought it looked better the way it's shown.