Showing 1 of 19 conversations about:
View Full Discussion
The hashmarks between the hours are divided into 5 major lines, with what another 5 betwen them? How does that make sense? Since when can you divide an hour into 25 parts, the 5 major lines would each be 12 minutes, as that is 20% of an hour, but how hard would it have been to divide into 6 major portions or 10 minute intervals, or better yet 12 like the way time actually works. This was a pretty good concept that was extremely poorly executed, it looks like it was designed by someone who doesn't understand the system of hours, minutes and seconds.
like the time on the blue watch if you look at the hour marker only, that would be what, 2.6 o'clock?
you are right that the traditional five divisions per hour are not functional on this watch with non standard minute and second hands, but I would point out three things: 1. The hour hand is so short that it doesn’t seem practical to attempt to read the entire time off this hand alone and there is a minute and second disk to let you know precisely what time it is if you need that level of precision. 2. There is simply a traditional appearance to the five divisions per hour even if it is not practical from the perspective of the hour hand. Traditional has an aesthetic place in watches even when departing from traditional function. 3. This is clearly a fashion watch, not a tool watch, so it doesn’t have to make sense. While it might be more functional with non standard divisions between the hours, I bet it might make something look “off” about the watch on a visceral level rather than your purely logical perspective.
I don't follow what you're saying about '5 divisions per hour', those marks on a traditional watch setup are indicators of minutes and seconds and have nothing to do with hours indication really. And in this case, you actually have 25 divisions between each hour marker. The hash marks are not shared between 3 hands as on a 'traditional' setup the hours marks are for hours and nothing else. So putting a little thought into it and making it actually make sense would be worth the effort. Personally if I could at least get a quick take on the time by looking at the hour indicator, I might consider this watch, but seeing that it's designer's didn't bother to even make it NOT nonsensical, that's a pass for me. This thing was slapped together with very little thought into it, that's the impression that idiotic meaningless hash marks leave with me.
I get what you’re saying and it is logical. The 5 divisions between each hour are specifically for the minute and second hands on a traditional watch, so yes you are right that they do not serve a functional purpose on this watch which only has an hour hand. My argument for why a designer might intentionally carry over the traditional markings into this design were stated in my 3 guesses for why one might do this: 1. People are used to seeing a watch with 5 divisions between the hour and anything different might look weird. 2. Th watch is a fashion watch so making it as functional as possible might not be the goal especially if it makes the watch look weird to accomplish this. 3. The hour hand is so short that it doesn’t even come close to touching any of the dividers to make them functional even if they were 6 instead of 5.
Recieved the watch, has worn it for several days. I loved it. Actually you don't need to remember any trick. The hour is pointed by a moving arrow (linked with a thin hand) at the out most circle. The minute dial turns, but is shown by a fixed arrow pointing down. Reading the time is that easy. You just need to notice the number on the minute dial aligned with the arrow.
Cool I'm glad it works well, I like these sort of concept watches as a category.
Yes, it’s a nice fun / fashion watch.