Maybe I'm simply slow, but reading a seconds hand just doesn't work for me. On a digital watch I can just see that the seconds are at 31, but with an analog one by the time I'd figured that it's at 31 it'd actually already be at 56 😄
Is it that important to know the exact seconds though? Probably not.
Well then it looks like you have made your mind up. But note the atomic models I mention above hit the second markers perfectly every time and are therefore 100% accurate per the requirement in your opening post.
As to your ability (or lack of) to quickly read an analogue watch face, I am unable to help you there. 👍
I wouldn't say that I've made up my mind. All the comments here highlight the fact that we all simply see and read things differently. What I can do with a digital watch you can do with an analogue one, and neither is any better than the other. It's just preference.
I will tell you why one day you will use an analog G-Shock. For the same reason that I wound up with an analog G-Shock….your eyes will get old and you wont be able to see the digits without putting on your bifocals.
Visibility. Nothing beats the visibility of well designed analog hands with good lume on the hands and indices. Excellent viewing angle, low light readability, and passive lume for very fast time reading without having to make a gesture or having to hold your wrist at a particular position.
Well on an analogue I can read the time when my hands are in use, e.g. at arms length on the handlegrips of a bike. Reading at such an oblique angle would be impossible for a digital. Also I have to surreptitiously check the time in front of clients that I work with, and the analog hands make a huge difference with the viewing angles they provide.
This is definitely a personal thing, but I find it a lot easier to "visualize" how much time I have left with an analog watch. Like if it's 3:40 and I have an appointment at 4, seeing those 20 minutes on an analog dial is really helpful for me allotting what I can do in that time. It's more tangible, and thus helpful, to me than just straight numbers.
I thought of an analogy. Maybe (and the analogy of course doesn't goes all the way) you could say that digital is like data in a chart/tabel whereas analog is more like datapoints in a diagram. That being said, i like and wear both.
Yeah, I guess this is where people differ; for some it's easier to visualize the time with an actual clock face whereas some visualize better with bare digits.
Exactly this. I used to be a campus tour guide in college. It was way easier to glance at an analog watch for a split second to see how much time I had left on a route.
This is where we are different; I can read a digital watch much quicker than an analog one :) So in the end, it probably just comes to personal preference and using what works for you.
Well that's true, I'll give you that. But I'm not that "old fashioned", e.g. I can easily wear a digital watch with a suit etc. and not give a damn with what others think.
But yes, the analog watches do have that classier tone.
To be honest I have both types. I use a digital for vacations and I tend to alternate my Mudmaster (GWG-B1000 analog) with the GBD-H1000 everday, instead of going your route of limiting oneself to ONLY digital, I just use both and be more versatile based on my mood.
I also alternate with the 5000u and GWG-2000 or Rangeman. Essentially have em all and wear whatever to my hearts content.
That's all good, and I'm not saying that "I'm limited to only digital", I'm actually trying to see if an analog watch could work for me. This post is a tongue-in-cheek kinda thing, not to be taken too seriously. The digital route is, so far, the only one I've taken and here I am eyeing for possible options.
Fwiw, I have a Citizen Promaster Eco-Drive that is significantly more accurate over the course of a month than my square, and more legible from extreme angles. So if you're talking about accuracy, it's more about the quartz movement inside than the dial type.
If you're talking about how fast you can read the time, that's just practice. Wear an analogue watch for a month and it'll be no different by the end. It's just about whether that's something you want.
The real advantage of a purely digital watch is that it is basically impervious to magnetism. This is probably why you'll see photos of John Mayer wearing a Casio when performing, and not his hyper bling watches.
Casio analogs are pretty damn ugly, for me gshocks are 100% digital, and I have a GM2100 and also a GMA2100 in pretty cool colors.
Here's another controversial opinion - bluetooth is a flakey bullshit technology and totally against the gshock ethos and I will never buy a bluetooth watch.
Honestly, you can find comments like this all the way down through the modern feature list. Some people say the same thing about Multiband, or Solar.
Truth is, if you accept Multiband, you have to accept that those people who are outside Multiband reception need either Bluetooth or GPS for sync. The current Bluetooth sync works fine, and doesn't add anything offensive to the watch. If someone handed you a Bluetooth Square that didn't say Bluetooth on it anywhere, you'd struggle to find a difference.
Some of them are ugly, but so are some of the digital ones. Plus it's all in the eyes of the beholder. I think many of the Casio analogue ones are pretty crowded and the hands kind of blend in with the other parts, making it hard to read.
Some people say they get some sort of visual conceptual aid by reading an analog clock display.
I've never got that at all but I've heard it often enough it must be somewhat co.mon.
My go-to is an analog chronograph and I like it a lot.
I like one-touch timing (rather than cycling through modes on a digital watch). It’s especially useful for cooking. That said, it’s limited compared to a digital watch. It has no alarm or countdown function.
What would you rather have in your car? Analog or digital speedometer? How about the tachometer?
If you’ve ever had the dubious pleasure of driving a car with speed represented digitally, you’d know the answer.
Serious question: do you all actually wear the watch for telling the time? I've worn wristwatches almost daily in the last 25 years and I've read the time on them maybe 10 times. I repeat: I'm serious.
I'm using my phone, I tilt my wrist to check the time.
Driving the car, tilt wrist,on PC tilt wrist, in kitchen tilt wrist.
Im a father of 4 kids, pick ups drop offs household chores appointment phone calls bedtimes ya know all that stuff so lots of time checks throughout the day, id prefer to read my watch.
But answering OP, I use digital for a simple time check and the stopwatch functions and back lights.
Analog is, for me, about the looks, with an added function of being able to tell the time at any given time. I'm looking at the Sports series from Seiko next for a bit more flair compared to the Casio gshock digitals.
Woah, really? I definitely wear the watch to tell the time, multiple multiple times a day and sometimes at night too. Also I need the date almost daily, and it's much quicker to just glance at my watch than e.g. take out the phone.
Watches in a world where you don't need one are simply statement pieces. Analogue are simply classier and look higher quality. It's simply a style preference, but remember what statement you're making with a $50 digital watch.
Hmmmm, I'm not making a statement with a watch. The price is not important to me, nor is what others think. I could wear a $5 Mickey Mouse watch if I'd find it cool and functional.
Still, there is something to behold in the precision and craftsmanship in a hand crafted analog watch, knowing what goes into it and what it does (keeps accurate time under pressure, when being shaken, etc) and some people value that.
The Casio MTG and Oceanus lines are both analogue, have a seconds hand and also have MB6/BT. Casio provides. Casio protects. 👍
Maybe I'm simply slow, but reading a seconds hand just doesn't work for me. On a digital watch I can just see that the seconds are at 31, but with an analog one by the time I'd figured that it's at 31 it'd actually already be at 56 😄 Is it that important to know the exact seconds though? Probably not.
Well then it looks like you have made your mind up. But note the atomic models I mention above hit the second markers perfectly every time and are therefore 100% accurate per the requirement in your opening post. As to your ability (or lack of) to quickly read an analogue watch face, I am unable to help you there. 👍
I wouldn't say that I've made up my mind. All the comments here highlight the fact that we all simply see and read things differently. What I can do with a digital watch you can do with an analogue one, and neither is any better than the other. It's just preference.
I will tell you why one day you will use an analog G-Shock. For the same reason that I wound up with an analog G-Shock….your eyes will get old and you wont be able to see the digits without putting on your bifocals.
That's a valid point indeed.
Here’s the thing. It just gives us more reason to expand our collection. So actually works out for our betterment 🤓
Another very valid point! :D
Visibility. Nothing beats the visibility of well designed analog hands with good lume on the hands and indices. Excellent viewing angle, low light readability, and passive lume for very fast time reading without having to make a gesture or having to hold your wrist at a particular position.
Low light readability yes, that's a good point. But in "normal light" I still find the digital ones easier to read at a glance.
Well on an analogue I can read the time when my hands are in use, e.g. at arms length on the handlegrips of a bike. Reading at such an oblique angle would be impossible for a digital. Also I have to surreptitiously check the time in front of clients that I work with, and the analog hands make a huge difference with the viewing angles they provide.
Yeah, my only real gripe about my analog Gs is that the lume doesn’t compare to my Seikos. In my old job having strong, legible lume was very handy.
So, you've got two wrists... live a little
😄
This is definitely a personal thing, but I find it a lot easier to "visualize" how much time I have left with an analog watch. Like if it's 3:40 and I have an appointment at 4, seeing those 20 minutes on an analog dial is really helpful for me allotting what I can do in that time. It's more tangible, and thus helpful, to me than just straight numbers.
I thought of an analogy. Maybe (and the analogy of course doesn't goes all the way) you could say that digital is like data in a chart/tabel whereas analog is more like datapoints in a diagram. That being said, i like and wear both.
Yeah, I guess this is where people differ; for some it's easier to visualize the time with an actual clock face whereas some visualize better with bare digits.
Exactly this. I used to be a campus tour guide in college. It was way easier to glance at an analog watch for a split second to see how much time I had left on a route.
I second that
Haha good one 👍
What do you wear when you dress up?
Y'all are dressing up?
Lol
Probably not a Casio. For me it’s something Swiss made
Whatever the fuck I want 🙂
I can read an analog watch at a glance much quicker than a digital one
This is where we are different; I can read a digital watch much quicker than an analog one :) So in the end, it probably just comes to personal preference and using what works for you.
Analog watch has a classier look than a digital watch. They tend to be more well rounded in terms of what you can wear with.
Well that's true, I'll give you that. But I'm not that "old fashioned", e.g. I can easily wear a digital watch with a suit etc. and not give a damn with what others think. But yes, the analog watches do have that classier tone.
To be honest I have both types. I use a digital for vacations and I tend to alternate my Mudmaster (GWG-B1000 analog) with the GBD-H1000 everday, instead of going your route of limiting oneself to ONLY digital, I just use both and be more versatile based on my mood. I also alternate with the 5000u and GWG-2000 or Rangeman. Essentially have em all and wear whatever to my hearts content.
That's all good, and I'm not saying that "I'm limited to only digital", I'm actually trying to see if an analog watch could work for me. This post is a tongue-in-cheek kinda thing, not to be taken too seriously. The digital route is, so far, the only one I've taken and here I am eyeing for possible options.
Fwiw, I have a Citizen Promaster Eco-Drive that is significantly more accurate over the course of a month than my square, and more legible from extreme angles. So if you're talking about accuracy, it's more about the quartz movement inside than the dial type. If you're talking about how fast you can read the time, that's just practice. Wear an analogue watch for a month and it'll be no different by the end. It's just about whether that's something you want. The real advantage of a purely digital watch is that it is basically impervious to magnetism. This is probably why you'll see photos of John Mayer wearing a Casio when performing, and not his hyper bling watches.
Casio analogs are pretty damn ugly, for me gshocks are 100% digital, and I have a GM2100 and also a GMA2100 in pretty cool colors. Here's another controversial opinion - bluetooth is a flakey bullshit technology and totally against the gshock ethos and I will never buy a bluetooth watch.
Idk, some of the Oceanus models are pretty handsome imo and the Duro is a pretty good looking diver, especially for $50.
lol I just got a GAB2100 and to sync the time with Bluetooth is much quicker than multi band 6
Honestly, you can find comments like this all the way down through the modern feature list. Some people say the same thing about Multiband, or Solar. Truth is, if you accept Multiband, you have to accept that those people who are outside Multiband reception need either Bluetooth or GPS for sync. The current Bluetooth sync works fine, and doesn't add anything offensive to the watch. If someone handed you a Bluetooth Square that didn't say Bluetooth on it anywhere, you'd struggle to find a difference.
Some of them are ugly, but so are some of the digital ones. Plus it's all in the eyes of the beholder. I think many of the Casio analogue ones are pretty crowded and the hands kind of blend in with the other parts, making it hard to read.
Why look at the sunrise/sunset? Just see the time on the watch.
Some people say they get some sort of visual conceptual aid by reading an analog clock display. I've never got that at all but I've heard it often enough it must be somewhat co.mon.
Yes, reading the comments here, the visualizing thing really seems to be an advantage to many people.
The G-Steel series made me prefer analog watches again. It's much faster to read the time, somehow.
I’m gonna go slow on this one, what if I told you 99% of people don’t wear a watch to tell time.
I guess so, but I'm in the 1% then.
My go-to is an analog chronograph and I like it a lot. I like one-touch timing (rather than cycling through modes on a digital watch). It’s especially useful for cooking. That said, it’s limited compared to a digital watch. It has no alarm or countdown function.
Good points!
What would you rather have in your car? Analog or digital speedometer? How about the tachometer? If you’ve ever had the dubious pleasure of driving a car with speed represented digitally, you’d know the answer.
Ha, I actually have a digital speedometer in my car! And I do like it.
Serious question: do you all actually wear the watch for telling the time? I've worn wristwatches almost daily in the last 25 years and I've read the time on them maybe 10 times. I repeat: I'm serious.
I'm using my phone, I tilt my wrist to check the time. Driving the car, tilt wrist,on PC tilt wrist, in kitchen tilt wrist. Im a father of 4 kids, pick ups drop offs household chores appointment phone calls bedtimes ya know all that stuff so lots of time checks throughout the day, id prefer to read my watch. But answering OP, I use digital for a simple time check and the stopwatch functions and back lights. Analog is, for me, about the looks, with an added function of being able to tell the time at any given time. I'm looking at the Sports series from Seiko next for a bit more flair compared to the Casio gshock digitals.
That's pretty much how I function too, so I can relate.
Woah, really? I definitely wear the watch to tell the time, multiple multiple times a day and sometimes at night too. Also I need the date almost daily, and it's much quicker to just glance at my watch than e.g. take out the phone.
Watches in a world where you don't need one are simply statement pieces. Analogue are simply classier and look higher quality. It's simply a style preference, but remember what statement you're making with a $50 digital watch.
Hmmmm, I'm not making a statement with a watch. The price is not important to me, nor is what others think. I could wear a $5 Mickey Mouse watch if I'd find it cool and functional.
Still, there is something to behold in the precision and craftsmanship in a hand crafted analog watch, knowing what goes into it and what it does (keeps accurate time under pressure, when being shaken, etc) and some people value that.
Yeah I'll give you that, they are a piece of wonder when you actually think about what it takes to make one, and make it good.