Timex's old mechanical design was an escapement mechanism which wasn't
the most accurate, a good copy would give +/- 5 minutes a day, a bad
copy much worse, however they were rugged as all get out. Timex today
doesn't make any mechanical watches at all, and really current day
electrolytic watch movements are all pretty much interchangeable,
regardless of manufacture.
On 7/22/2013 10:22 PM, John wrote:
Never cared for either Rolex or Timex. The former is too expensive &
the latter is too cheap (in all the various definitions of the word).
I'll stick with the Swiss Army Watch (actual Victorinox) that I've
worn for the last 30 years.
And the days when I lusted after the A* 135mm f/1.8 are past as well.
Now it had better be a FA* 135mm f/1.8 and it needs a FF 135 DSLR to
go with it.
On 7/22/2013 2:54 PM, Darren Addy wrote:
Similar discussion for Rolex vs Timex. Mostly similar reasons for
owning both the Rolex and the A* 135mm f1.8.
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Bill <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 22/07/2013 12:38 PM, [email protected] wrote:
Can it really be worth $2569 ?
Save yourself $2400.00 and go for the f/2.8.
bill
--
There are two kinds of computer users those who've experienced a hard drive
failure, and those that will.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
