Smart or not so smart?

Well, later this year we are going to be inundated with these peculiar little gadgets called Smart Watches, though to me it seems almost more like a surrealistic exercise in technology for technologies sake.   A test of just what else we can miniaturize and stick on the wrist.Collage
Now Smart Phones I understand. I mean these were initially small portable phones using a cell and tower transmitter system, that allowed you the freedom NOT to be tied to the office land line.  This then expanded to take link capabilities with Bluetooth then via WiFi to allow integration with other devices and communication with the Internet – and OK all useful in a progressive sort of way.

But now to insist that what we need is another smaller device – a Smart Watch – to attach to your wrist, that will allow you to communicate to your Cell/Smart Phone that’s in your pocket? just a short reach away and probably reached with the same the wrist is attached to – frankly seems bizzarre.

That this “Smart Watch” tries so hard to partly duplicate the features of the Smart Phone and generally failing miserably in that regard, as the main functionality is fully contained IN the Smart Phone already, which begs the question – Why try?

Now if the Smart Phone was tethered to your house – OK, this is fine – but Hey! we’ve done that already – it’s called the Smart nee Cell Phone!

Hellooo!  your phone is in your pocket!

I have to suspect we’re all getting carried away and just a tad silly, possibly unreal – and let’s be honest that’s what we’ve got to get back to – reality.   We don’t need it!   Or more accurately I don’t need it – and I’m a registered, paid up gadget freak!

Now if it this so called Smart Watch took the place of the Smart Phone, completely, then Ooo..K, it’s just possible though debatable it might be handier than the phone in your pocket – and there are some around now that apparently can do just that.

Google Glass

Google Glass

Though another option might be the spectacles or glasses idea (Google) on your face (IF you want to wear the thing), though again it would have to supersede the SmartPhone completely – now that too might be a viable option in future years (maybe next year by the speed things are moving!).

I just have the feeling that whatever we do over the immediate few months and year is disappointingly going to be a series of stop gaps – and being a cynical sort of guy these days, maybe more a transient retail incentive, to cough up for the development costs of all this new technology, most of which will be out of date before you can say –

“Virtual Communication Implant with virtual HUD capabilities” or VCI(HUD) – because that’s what’s coming next – Oh Yes!

OK maybe not this year, but perhaps in 3 to 5  . . . .  No watch or cell phone required, but rather a virtual projection system in front of your eyes, surgically implanted just above the ear . . .

Wow! – and I’m thinking here it might make my golf easier too with all the course and hole data right there!   With HUD Head Up Display info in 3D projection!

Talk about having your head in the clouds!

I think I’ll give it a miss for now and anyway I’ve got to make a call – now where IS that phone?

Why the “Sub” is not for me.

Well it had to happen, someone asked me that perennial question: Why don’t you have a Rolex?

The Submariner - but not for me.

The Submariner – iconic, expensive – but not for me.

The answer is complicated, though I hasten to say that I actually DO have a Rolex, a vintage one from around 1928 – a Rolex Oyster, plated case, 15 jewels, bi-metallic balance, Breguet hairspring and in mint condition.   I bought it many years ago as a vintage piece and funnily enough not because it was a Rolex, but mainly as it was a very good waterproof cased model of it’s day.

Rolex Oyster 1928

Rolex Oyster 1928

In fact I bought 3 other models with regards to water resistance – a super old Seawolf Zodiac and a Movado and another one that now escapes me – I must have sold it on.
But these and the Rolex were bought for what they represented in technical terms and of a period and not because I had to have a Rolex.

So the question I suppose is in relation to the fact that in my “modern” collection, it is quite correct, I don’t have a Rolex represented at all.

The problem for me is that the questioner was talking specifically about the model that dominates the Rolex look – the Submariner – and the trouble here is that I really don’t and never have liked the styling of it at all and ever since it appeared all those years ago, this model is synonymous with that “look I’ve got a Rolex” persona.

At a watch auction recently I saw literally dozens of them, all very similar models and after an hour or so watching these amazing and in my opinion unjustified prices – it was frankly – boring!
I mean marketing aside which is brilliant of course, Rolex have turned a fairly ordinary watch by today’s standards into an iconic fashion statement, which is pretty much unsurpassed by any other product I can think of.   If you want to be noticed get a Rolex.   It shouts a certain status, though completely fashion and celebrity driven, but it’s that sameness and the sheer numbers that are around that by the same token actually puts me off.

Now don’t get me wrong here, I don’t dislike Rolex as a brand, it’s just that ubiquitous “Submariner” that always, always typifies Rolex.   It’s also been copied by almost everyone and his dog at some time and do I want one on my wrist – well no is the answer.  And as to the “are they any good?” question, well my personal opinion is, they are OK and quality and technically I would estimate mid range, nothing more.   Status wise and fashion wise, well that’s another thing altogether and in that game, they are the high flyers.

Another Cellini Rolex - and so unlike that submariner

Another Cellini Rolex – and so unlike that submariner

Prices of course are status fed and from a technical viewpoint somewhat overinflated to say the least – and of course these prices are like paintings, they are driven by the movers and shakers of this secretive world of market manipulators and little to do with real value at all.

Nothing wrong in that (well there is actually but that’s another argument) but I have never bought any watch because of the name – I buy because I like it.

The Cellini

The Cellini

In regards to owning a Rolex, today I might be interested in something that doesn’t start with “sub” –  the Cellini range for example and there are other models too – ones that have sort of broken away from that boring and obvious Rolex look and instead have an elegant and individual style of their own and surprisingly there are quite a number around that are really much more interesting.

To get past the usual Rolex advertising and hype is also quite a challenge and not helped by one comment I read recently.   One advocate of Rolex implied that a Timex would be lucky to last 25 years unlike his Rolex – which says to me the writer is a little overexcited as to ignore simple facts.   Now I’m not a collector of Timex as such, but in my collection of well over a hundred watches I have (and this was a surprise to me) actually 4 vintage Timex models ’63, ’67, ’74 and 1982 and 3 or 4 modern models.   And not a problem with any one of them.   Of course the commenter omitted to mention the slight price differential between the brands – and neither will I.  😉

Now this is a proper Rolex

Now this is a proper Rolex

However it’s all a bit of a shame as there are some Rolex models around that are very different and do look good, but you rarely if ever see them.   Instead you’re fed the same old diet of that boring Submariner this and submariner that.

I’ve included some of the models I do like here in this Post –

So no I won’t be buying the ubiquitous Rolex classic “Subby” model any time soon, nor will I reach the age (I’m well past it!) as some say where I’ll feel I’m ready for one – have you ever heard such pretentious claptrap –  used of course (and why not) by those clever marketing people perpetuating the Rolex myth.

But as I say, the Cellini and a few selected others are a certainly worth considering.

And not because of the name but because I rather like them and OK they’ll say Rolex on the dial, so I’ve satisfied the followers, but at least not with that iconic boring same old model I see day in and day out and worn by the “look at me I’ve made it brigade”.

They should perhaps change the marketing blurb and try highlighting individuality – I mean we don’t ALL have to wear blue denim do we?

Of course at the end of the day, what do I know?  Rolex have carved out a fantastic iconic product and made the name synonymous with style, ambition, status and wealth.   The fact they’ve managed this successfully for all those years basically on the merits or otherwise of one particular model, has to be admired, though for me, Rolex should be and actually is more than that, but you’ve actually got to look hard to see it.

A quick glance?

Why is it that many of the “New” watches, “cool” watches, or “unusual” watches appear to have the same problem – you can’t tell the darned time on them.   Or at least it seems that way to me as to read them takes an age of staring at the dial until you figure it out.   I mean what is the point of that?  You know we’re trying to read the time, not waste it trying . . . .

I like to have a quick glance at my watch to tell the time – it’s that simple!

Let’s look at a few examples – of a couple of models that require a lot more than a “quick glance”.   First the Deja Vu watch @ around £100.

The Deja Vu

The Deja Vu

Well I look at this one and I simply don’t see the point and whats more I find it quite difficult to decipher the time and that being the case – it’s pretty pointless as that’s the prime function of any watch. !  And yeh, yeh I see that the leading edge is sort of representing the hand if you will, but when the hour “hand” physically comes close to the minute hand, that perception all but disappears.

More a case of Jamais vu (French, meaning ”never seen”) used to describe any familiar situation which is not recognized by the viewer . . . .

Then there’s the Free Time Watch – and yet another case of peering at the dial, that is IF you can see it in the available light.

Never ending spiral, wheel within a wheel - reminds me of a song!

Never ending spiral, wheel within a wheel – reminds me of a song!

Firstly is the contrast good enough to see it for starters and secondly you then have to try and make out little gaps in the concentric rings, as these are – you guessed it, supposedly representing the hands?  As the blurb says –  “The three concentric circles rotate clockwise with each gap in the circle communicating the precise time. The hour, minute and seconds are defined by the outer, middle and inner rings respectively”.

Oh, that makes it OK then?   Even at £85 – not really – and certainly not for me!

I’m afraid by the time it takes to work out the time, the departure gate has closed and my plane has taken off!

But all is not lost as I’ve just spotted a “New”, “Cool” and rather “Snazzy” model that I CAN tell the time from – and at a glance too!

The SOND - one of the few NEW and SNAZZY models that only requires a glance

The SOND – one of the few NEW and SNAZZY models that only requires a glance

This is the SOND™ by VOID Watches injection molded in a single piece, uses the watch itself to secure the nylon watchband and makes the strap easy to change and adjust.
A battery life of two years can be changed via a coin hatch in the stainless back (haven’t seen one of those for a while) and it’s good enough for
3ATM (30m) and the size quite compact at 38mm x 44mm with a 22mm nylon band.

As said with this model I can tell the time (or the date) at a glance – isn’t that brilliant!  And in this company it’s the best price too at around £60.

Of course I’m maybe biased being of the older generation, so if you like these guys, even the first two and you like a challenge – then I have seen them I think on that very good “new watches” web site – Twisted Time – HERE

Anyway I have to go, I’ve just had a “quick glance” at my 16″ kitchen clock and the big hand is pointing to “dinner” – so bye!

British (made) Watches – do they exist?

Unfortunately, today you’ve got to look very carefully to find a British watch – and this would have been unthinkable 200 years ago, when Great Britain produced over 200,000 pieces, or half the world’s supply.  Though we are talking of another world in terms of watchmaking, as most all of them would be hand made.  This incredible fact I picked up the other day when checking out the web site run by Colin Andrews, who knows a thing or two about watches and watchmaking.  If you want to know more about him and British Watchmakers, then HERE is where you can find this excellent site and some great information.

It is indeed fact that to find a true “Made in Britain” watch is not that easy and in my watch collection I only have a few models, which apart from one are vintage models.  So as this is about British Made, I thought I’d re-post an excerpt from an older 2010 feature I wrote on one particular model, which is as good today as the day it was made.

Called England’s finest.(excerpt)

August 14, 2010

A simple and stylish English under-statement of timekeeping – a Smiths Astral gold plate Gents watch from the 1950′s.

Smiths Astral 17j

An elegant watch indeed and with “Made in England” below the 6 makes it a rarity these days.  Produced by the Smiths Watch Company in the 1950′s it shows all the best attributes of English watchmaking.
Lovely blued steel hands on a virtually unmarked clear dial plus a red filled tip centre seconds hand and with neat raised numerals – it is quite simply – a classic.

Not a UK built or assembled watch with a Swiss movement, but an English watch built with an English movement too – and in reality a darned good one at that – so a bit unique in my opinion.  AND as it happens this one is pretty much original and in superb condition – another plus.

I’m sure this one will receive quite a bit of wrist time which is always a good sign as my philosophy on watch collecting is simple – if I get it I have to wear it.


So back to today –

That was an excerpt from my article about the Smiths Astral watch I posted in 2010.   I can also confirm that has been worn quite regularly ever since.  In fact it shares equal wrist time with my vintage Swiss Blancpain dress watch and both a delight to wear.
I also have a non vintage 60% “Made in England” J&T Windmills watch, which within it’s elegant solid silver case sports a Swiss ébauche movement.

For the uninitiated an ébauche (blank) is a generic movement from vendors such as Swiss ETA or Sellita, who supply clients who don’t have in-house movements (and let’s be honest, few do).  The client assembles and fits this movement to their watch, often modifying certain elements for their own purposes.

So the J&T designed in the UK, has a Swiss hand wound movement and is UK assembled and worked.  I bought it in 2009 and it’s an elegant model with an interesting and original Windmills design dial.

J T Windmills "Threadneedle" Made in England model (60%)

J T Windmills “Threadneedle” Made in England model (60%)

Today as I understand it there are only two (2) true 100%  “Made in Britain”  watchmakers (according to plus around half a dozen others with varying percentages of British parts or manufacture.

So perhaps seeking a 100% “Made in Britain” watch brand is being unrealistic.  A 100% “Made in Anywhere” watch is just about as rare!  However finding a watch maker who sources from good quality components and assembles, perhaps modifies and produces an own Brand watch is something else – and easier to find.

After all there are relatively few Watch Makers who do produce 100% of their own models.   Parts are often out-sourced, perhaps too the watch case, dial and movements.  Movements are sourced from Japan to India to Switzerland and China, then assembled in the home country (as the J&T Windmills) and far from being the precedent, it’s very much the normal.

So what about British Watchmakers – are there any and if so  – are they any good?
Well we have J & T Windmills with about 60% Made in Britain, so pretty much on a par with the Swiss edict, but we can do better than that . . .

Our only 100% British watchmaker (as I understand it) is Bremont, located in Henley on Thames in England.

Not as well known as Swiss brands perhaps and relatively new with their first watch appearing in 2007 after 5 years in development.  They tend to specialize in mechanical Military and Aviation inspired chronometer models.

Bremont Alti-B Chrono Made in Britain

Bremont Alti-B Chrono Made in Britain

They do however assemble and manufacture as much as they can in the UK and quoting from their web site –

“Bremont is on a long term staged investment program to develop mechanical watch manufacturing expertise in the UK”, so are very committed to being very much a British Made company”.
Prices are from around £2000 upwards, so not “man in the street” range, but for quality/price ratio, their watch models appear to represent extremely good value.

Bremont and the other UK Watch Manufacturers I’ve come across I hope to feature in a new series of Posts “Independent British Artists” in the very near future.

So – Made in Britain watches do exist, from designed & assembled to 100% British Made – but you really have to look for them.

NoteIt’s interesting that so many watch brands today are simply smart designer watch cases and dials, with a low cost Japanese or Asian quartz movement dropped in and that’s it.  Then market the product under “whatever” Watch Company – and job done.
And I should emphasize here that there is absolutely nothing wrong in doing just that.

But when it comes to Britain, maybe it’s something to do with heritage, when the British decide to come up with a British Watch company – it seems we have to be the best, top quality, innovative, inventive (after all we used to be!) and all about true watchmaking, using mechanical movements and not a quartz among them . . . . Now is that British or what?


The G-Shock range from Casio is such an iconic one I’m constantly on the lookout for “the” one that will suit me best.  But unfortunately so far this year here in the UK anyway, I’ve been disappointed.  Invariably the models are too big and too often overloaded with “dial clutter”, with one exception perhaps – the PRW3000 Triple ABC model I featured recently and which would fit the bill, IF I could get hold of one!  It manages to get ABC functions (and most of the alphabet!) into a smaller watch case, which is my “grail” as far as Casio G-Shocks are concerned.

I really wish Casio would re-introduce the GW2500B-1A or any variation of this model, which appeared a good few years ago now (2008-9?) which in my opinion was and still is better than the current “Aviator” series, for the simplest of reasons – it is smaller.  As someone else said in a previous Casio review, why do I need a wall clock on my wrist!  This model is about as small as you can get with these functions, so far.

The GW2500B-1A

The GW2500B-1A

So the first point, as said – it is smaller than the usual G-Shocks – and that is a real plus when it comes to G-Shocks.  Secondly it arguably (definitely, in my opinion) has the best dial configuration of Analogue and Digital data display of any G-Shock.  It’s neater buttons and sleeker case make it a much nicer watch to handle.  I also noted the crystal is recessed in the case so has some protection.  The analogue hands arrangement is super simple and effective – large luminous hands, a 12/24 hour sub-dial with a neat red indicator hand, plus the usual Selector sub-dial which is also neat and clear to read.  Digital displays are again, simple.  Basically one at the top and one at the bottom (like Breitling, Tissot and Victorinox) with pretty good contrast and quite large enough to read.

For me this is one of the best dial set ups Casio have ever managed.

As to the features – well it has a lot of them.  Radio Control and Solar Power are the main ones.  World Time, (you can display your home time and destination time and swap between analogue and digital display of each, which is useful when traveling).  Neo-brite hands and numeral/markers and 200m Depth Rated.  LED dial light, 4 daily alarms plus snooze alarm, 1-60min Countdown Timer plus optional repeat, 1/100 sec Stopwatch, full Auto Calendar to 2099, Power Indicator and dimensions of 46.9mm width x 15.8 height.  Plus the usual Casio resin strap.

Of course there are a few niggles, but not enough to stop me getting my hands on this model IF I could.  The LED dial light is fine but doesn’t back light the digital displays.  Though at night I can’t see me needing to know much other than the time anyway (it’s got lume for that).  The Stopwatch is not 1/1000 sec, but again for me 1/100 sec is fine.  So nothing major to worry about.

But an updated version of this model could be something very special.  I’m told the latest modules are slightly smaller, so potentially an update on this series maybe, just maybe, could produce a watch that’s smaller than it’s predecessor – now wouldn’t that be something!  Well for me anyway!

Anyway I live in hope!

Note The current Aviator models (GW3500-1A2) are once again larger at nearly 50mm diameter – and with increased “dial clutter” – this is NOT good!

The new Casio Aviator - larger and more dial clutter

The new Casio Aviator – larger and more dial clutter

Clear or not so clear!

So, Clarity – What’s all that about?  Well it’s about the number of watches you bought over the years, not over the counter, but over the Internet.  The models that seemed, on screen, so clear to read with their high contrast hands to dial looks, only to find out later that the hands were silver/chrome and taken very cleverly by the photographer.  That other watch with the gold coloured hands against the gold dial and when you turned on the lights in the house, the hands disappeared into the background.  Then there are the ones with those little sub dials that in the picture seem so clear, but in reality the reflections and their real actual color makes them so difficult to even see, let alone read.

Airforce inspired? The Invicta 1514l Force Collection.

Airforce inspired? The Invicta 1514l Force Collection.

The reason I bring this here as a post is that a friend the other day, who buys as many new watches as food (sorry, talk about calling the kettle black!) complained to me that so many of his watches ended up in his drawer, never to be worn again.  He said he couldn’t pin it down, the reason that is, but just fancied something new.  Intrigued I asked to see the old watches and after looking at them for a bit, realized that what was missing from virtually all of them was – yes – you guessed it – clarity!  I don’t think I’d seen such a collective heap of models with the worst hand/dial contrast ratio in the one place at the one time!  And some of them, and I checked, looked pretty dire even on the online clever photographic adverts.

Here is one that’s still around I believe – the Invicta 1514l Force Collection Gents Chronograph.  Now I don’t know about you but I for one struggle to see the time on this, as the hands are just about merged into the background.  Inspired from the Airforce it may be, but they forgot the basics – you have to read the thing!  He did point out to me another thing he initially thought was great, but once in his hands not so – and that was the fact the crown and pushers are on the left side of the watch.  Now he’s right handed as are around 85% of the world’s population and he wear his watch on his left hand so operating anything was difficult to say the least.  So yes he should have thought of that and not one of his greatest purchases.
Now OK a left handed guy with exceptional eyesight might think this is a beauty and I can only congratulate him.  But let’s be honest – for clarity – it really could be better!

Tommy Bahama TB1074 Pilot

Tommy Bahama TB1074 Pilot

And here is another one I struggle with, as again the hands which are also part skeletal are in a colour that just doesn’t do it for me and I really struggle to read clearly.  It is also quite a “busy” dial with all the tacho rings and so on around the perimeter.  So another model he wore for a few days and consigned to that bottom drawer.

However this problem is not the sole preserve of my friend as I spotted the other day this expensive and quite rare Chopard Jackie Ickx Limited Edition 24 hr Chronograph totaliser model.

Chopard Jackie Ickx Limited Edition - not the most legible per $

Chopard Jackie Ickx Limited Edition – not the most legible per $

The silvered hands against the white/silver dial background really compromise legibility, though I note that Chopard allegedly promise that in poor light its analogue display readout will be perfect thanks to the Super Luminova coated hands and hour indices!  Well that’s just great – a night time only watch!

I’ve heard everything now!

As I said to my watch buying nut of a friend, not to worry as he’s in good company and at least he doesn’t spend that kind of money each time.  Anyway he’s trawling around in my watch cabinet at the moment and has already selected a few that seem to appeal to him.  However – and I’ve locked the door at this point – he’s not getting his hands on any of ’em!

But seriously this is an important point to bear in mind, re’ the images on the internet.  If they have those 360º images of the real watch, that of course is preferable to just the art enhanced images, but if you can actually see the watch in real life – then so much the better.
Also read the descriptions (if accurate – another bugbear I have) and if it says “gold coloured hands” and they’re shown black because the photographer has used best contrast angles, then think about it.  They’re not black are they!  And if the indices or numerals are described as silvered or chromed highlights etc – again think carefully about just what you are looking at.  These may be difficult to read in daylight and may have reflections.

Otherwise you’ll join that happy band (I think my friend is a founder member) of guys who have a bottom drawer full of these nice looking, but ultimately poorly designed watches.  You will also probably see one or two even in your own circle – you know, you ask your friend the time and who’s now squinting at his watch . . . . . .

You could of course have a sneak peek first at his watch and then ask him the time on purpose.   😉

What you really want?

A bit of a conundrum isn’t it – What do you really want from a watch.  What are the features – the true features I mean, that dictate which model you buy.  What is it that makes you realize for example that maybe that wonderful all singing and dancing watch you got the other day, doesn’t really do it for you after all?  Maybe a disappointment in that, “Oh I wished it had this” or that and “Why doesn’t it do this” or . . . I think you get the picture.

Looking at all the daily beaters (that is those watches that you like to wear most of the time) I’ve bought over the years, you do start to see the same story.

I now realize that whatever day watch I buy today, it has to have luminous hands and markers – this is an absolute must, because I don’t know about you, but I don’t see too well in the dark!
It’s also got to be comfortable – hence my thing about straps and bracelets and contrary to popular belief I do have bracelet watches.  My Breitling Aerospace for example has a titanium solid link original bracelet that is so silky smooth, it’s a delight to wear.  Conversely I bought a Traser, that bracelet wise, was sharp twisted metal!  And yes it now has a nice soft silicon strap and I’ve kept the watch.
The dial has to be configured in such a way that reading the time is simply a quick glance, not a case of figuring out which is the hour and minute hand, in amongst that retro calendar pointer, or GMT hand, or battery reserve indicator and so on.  The dial also must NOT be reflective and there should be good contrast between hands and background – simple common sense really.

Not rocket science, but all too often we’re blinded by the wonderful features of that NEW model, because it’s got this or that and so useful?  Here’s a few examples –

And the time is -- quickly now!

And the time is — quickly now!

Just let me get my classes!

Just let me get my glasses!

Now - just wait a minute . .

Now – just wait a minute . . it’s ten past two or three?

Now if I could remember which was local time?

Now if I could remember which dial was local time?

Huh?  Hang on I'll get the instructions!

Huh? Hang on I’ll get the instructions!

As the examples show, it’s sometimes a tricky business this telling the time and don’t get me started on the blinking light digital efforts that appear from time to time, the binaries and the hidden disks, so hidden that I am forced to approximate the time of day by checking the sky!

Anyway as I was saying, it is apparent that many of us actually and truthfully, only need a watch that is easy to read day or night, is comfortable to wear and maybe assists you in that it states the day and/or the date.  And this is an odd thing –  being retired, I find the DAY of the week, so much more important than the DATE, as weekends and weekdays sort of roll into one another.  I know some younger folk think we older ones don’t know what day of the week it is – and they’re right! LOL . . .

Maybe what we oldies need is a nice clear dial with big time and big day – period.

Well?   Maybe not, but you get the idea.

Well? Maybe not, but you get the idea.

Sorry about that, got a bit off track I suppose, but you get my drift?  We all too often get carried away with this new watch and that new model and yet we always end up wearing that old favorite, simply because it does just what you want it to do, no more and no less.

Dull day, indoors, poor light - but this is all I need.

Dull day, indoors, poor light – but this is all I need.

Took this just a minute or so ago – it’s 2.30pm on a wet, very dull dark day in this northern hemisphere, indoors, my camera struggles in this light to even take the darned picture, but my old Breitling (my true daily beater for the last 14 years) simply says it all.  Easy to read uncluttered matte dial and hour and minute hand – clear digital day and date – truly luminous hands and markers when dark.  And funnily enough it does have a chronograph and a timer and a stopwatch and goodness knows what else, but just one simple crown – BUT – on my standard setting, it’s just as I like.

I really don’t know why I bother getting all these new watch models, I really don’t . . . . .