5 easy read watches that are NOT oversized
This is a list of watches with legible displays that pass a very specific test.
The test is this:
If, while driving or walking, you can tell the time from your watch at a glance in less than 2 seconds, the dial passes the legibility test.
The vast majority of watch dial designs fail this test just because they're designed more for fashion than function.
Before listing off some watches that are actually readable and aren't too big for their britches, two questions answered.
How big is too big (what does oversized mean)?
An oversized man's watch as far as I'm concerned is any non-diver over 39mm in case size. For me personally, it's anything over 38mm because I have smaller wrists. For larger wrists, add a millimeter.
How small is too small?
It depends on the watch shape.
For round watch cases, 35mm is the bare minimum for a man's size these days. While it's true that vintage men's watches go to as small as 33mm, 35 is the minimum from what I see these days.
For the rectangle shape, the Cartier Tank pretty much sets the standard. The Solo model has a 27mm case. Most men would consider that women's size, but the rectangle gives the illusion of the case being larger than it really is. The women's Cartier Tank is actually 24.5mm (or less) in case size.
In other words, yes, you can totally get away with a 27mm case if the shape of the watch is rectangular. Remember, Cary Grant wore a Tank in North by Northwest. If he can wear one, so can you.
An example of a man's round 35mm watch with an easy-read dial is the Timex Easy Reader T20041. This is a cheap watch and if you're in America, it's probably at your local Walmart. You'd think 35mm would be really small for a man's watch, but it really isn't.
What's the problem with the Timex Easy Reader? It totally looks like an old man's watch. Simple, basic and functional, but with an uninspired, boring design to it...
...but don't let what I say deter you from getting one. If you like that Timex, by all means, get one. It is a top seller because a lot of guys like it.
Here are 5 easy-to-read watches that aren't oversized and actually look good
Frederique Constant Slimline FC-245M4S5
I'm starting off with a ritzy (as in expensive but not too insanely priced) Frederique Constant model. It's labeled as a slimline and they mean it, because this watch is just 5mm thick. Really thin is usually 7mm, and this goes 2mm below that.
The FC-245M4S5 is a 37mm size day-date that has a white face and black hands which makes for great contrast. This thing can be read very easily.
I would not call this an everyday watch. It's pretty much for dress use only. It would look silly wearing this while, say, buying a lotto ticket at the local convenience store.
You'll find several versions of this watch, including a black dial version. Obviously, this watch is stupidly easy to read, and does so in a way without looking ridiculous.
This watch with its 35mm case does address a very common complaint by watch wearers. On any watch with a date window, if there isn't a magnifier lens on it (or "cyclops" as Rolex calls it,) wearers will say the date is too small to be read. The Mondaine is one of the very few analog watches with a truly big date window with big numbers.
I wonder why more watch companies don't do this? It's actually a really good idea.
This watch, unlike the Frederique Constant, can be used as an everyday wearer. However, you have to like the dial design to want it; it's a style that's not for everyone.
An automatic self-winding watch with day-date that you can read easily and has a nice 37.5mm case size for under 65 bucks? That's an Orient Tri Star.
One of these days I am going to buy one because it's too good of a deal to pass up. The Tri Star has a look and style that the more you look at it, the more you want it. From the link you'll see other dial colors. Black dial, gray dial, red dial, green dial and so on.
For some strange reason, the gold really works on the dial of an Orient Tri Star. I can't even explain why. It just does.
This watch is absolutely good as a daily wearer. Buy it, beat the hell out of it and just use the thing. Just make sure to get one with some good contrast between the gold hands and the dial. I suggest getting one with black, dark polo green or dark navy blue dial.
Does an Orient Tri Star stand the test of time? Many owners of them say that yes, they do.
Guys who know Hamilton will pretty much agree that this brand owns the field watch segment. When you want something very readable with a military flavor to it and nice fit and finish throughout, you get a Hamilton. This one in particular has a 38mm case size.
I call this a "cowboy watch" because it looks like something a rancher would wear. That, and I can't really see this watch working well for dress. For everything else, yeah. But not for dress. Military field watches aren't meant for that sort of thing.
This watch has an interesting story behind it.
"Railroad approved" is a real thing. It's supposed to be an established vision standard where a train conductor who wears one should easily be able to read the dial very easily, day or night. Ball watches are famous for this with their Engineer and Trainmaster series (with super-high price tags included.)
It has been said that the Pulsar is one of the best railroad style watches for the money, simply for the reason you get exactly what you pay for; it's priced very fairly for what it is. While the luminescence isn't top drawer, the rest of the watch is.
Here's the really interesting part. Pulsar is owned by Seiko. Seiko makes the SNE045, which is almost identical to the Pulsar and uses an automatic movement (the Pulsar is quartz.) But for some ridiculous reason, Seiko put silver hands on a white dial with the 045. This makes absolutely no sense because it strips away all the readability of the dial.
In other words, the Pulsar, even though it's half the price of the Seiko, is the better watch because it has a white dial with black hands.
The case size of the PJ6007 is 36.8mm, just shy of 37mm. This can easily be a daily wearer, and you could even get away wearing it with a suit if you had to.
Which is the best all-around of the 5 above?
If you haven't guessed by now, it's the Orient Tri Star. Easy to read, right size and a right style that works anywhere, whether casual or dress.
Like I said, I'm probably going to get one someday. Tough to beat what you get for the money...
...although that Pulsar is looking mighty good, too.
Souldier recycled seatbelt guitar strap review
I received this because someone else hated it.
Yes, really.
A little while ago I put up my donations page, and a reader, Paul, emailed me and said he wanted to donate but in the form of a thing and not money. The end result was him sending to me what you see above, the Souldier recycled seatbelt guitar strap. Thanks to Paul for sending this out to me.
Paul figured it was better to send the strap my way rather than donate it to Goodwill. Yes, he hated the strap that much.
Do I hate the strap? No. But I won't say I'm in love with it either, and I think I know why Paul didn't take to the strap very well.
The thing about seatbelt material is that while very strong and will last basically forever, there are a few things about it some don't like.
First, it's "slippery" when wearing it over a shirt, as it's supposed to be. Seatbelt material doesn't "grab" at all.
Second, you absolutely cannot wear this strap shirtless. I personally don't do that, but if I did, I would not use this material. Sweat + seatbelt strap = not a good combination.
Third, the thinness of the strap may cause discomfort on the shoulder because this has zero padding to it.
With all that out of the way, now that I actually have one of these straps, here's my review:
- Yes, it is absolutely real-deal seatbelt lasts-forever material, no question about it.
- Looks nice, definitely upscale.
- Easy to clean (but do not put in a washer, hand-clean only.)
- Not good for heavy guitars. Lightweight instruments only.
- The ultimate for those that like a strap that slides real easy.
- The worst for those who want a strap with padding as this has none.
To note, this strap is very well-made. The construction of the strap is very, very good. And I will say again that this is an upscale strap. You are getting what you pay for with it...
...but you just have to be aware that yes, this is made out of seatbelt material. Works for some players and not for others.
You can consider this the same as with some upscale guitar picks. Some players really like paying extra for picks made from ultem (arguably the best tortoise shell-like pick material). But you have to like picks like that. If you don't, stick with the cheap celluloid picks.
Guitar of the week #51 - ESP LTD TE-200 (and others) Guitar Kit
This is what a guitar kit should be.
Most guitar kits are only for beginner guitar players...
...but not this one. You get a really good guitar with tuner, cable, strings, picks, strap and a hardshell case. Not a gig bag. An actual hardshell.
The price? Fair for what it is. It's cheaper than a Fender Standard Stratocaster that comes with next to nothing!
LTD has really stepped up their game with these offerings. I'd hazard to say that they are the best guitar kits you can buy right now where you truly get what you pay for.
Soylent Green movie review (is the story plausible today?)
I finally got the chance to watch this.
Soylent Green is a movie made before I was even born, so I could not have watched this when it was first released, obviously.
The first time I even heard the phrase "solylent green" was on Saturday Night Live. It was a skit where Phil Hartman would just run in periodically and yell out the catch phrase the movie is known for. I can't say the phrase here because it would spoil the movie if you've not seen it. The guy did a damned good Charlton Heston impersonation.
Now oddly enough, soylent does exist for real. It's meant to be a meal replacement and can be had in liquid or powder form to make the liquid. I find this to be disturbing to say the least.
The opening scene of the movie has this text on screen:
THE YEAR: 2022
THE PLACE: NEW YORK CITY
THE POPULATION: 40,000,000
At the time I write this, 2022 is - get ready for this - just 6 years away.
You will be happy to know that NYC's population is nowhere near 40 million. And I seriously doubt the population would spike up that high in just 6 years.
Does the movie hold up today?
No. It looks and feels old. Remember, this is pre-Star Wars science fiction, a time when sci-fi movies were just bad. As in Logan's Run bad.
But let's forget all that for a moment.
Is the story, or at least the story told in the movie, plausible?
I don't think so.
The film is, rather loosely, based off the 1966 book Make Room! Make Room!, and because of that you really can't say, "The book is better than the movie" since the film really doesn't follow the book story.
In other words, Soylent Green is its own story as a standalone film.
My take on the flick is that the story is about the damning effects of overpopulation. But I don't think the way the story was told really works.
I simply can't buy the idea that NYC would be able to operate with 40 million residents in it. To think that many people could be crammed inside 469 square miles is just something I cannot wrap my mind around.
If you watch this movie (or watch it again), ask yourself this question: How in the hell could New York City staff or even afford a police force capable of handling 40 million residents? How would that even be possible? That's the kind of stuff going through my head while watching Soylent Green. It's like a big FORTY MILLION PEOPLE is flashing like a loud neon sign in my mind during the whole movie, and I just can't forget it long enough to enjoy what's going on.
The way the film explains how NYC can operate with that many people is that everything has been cut down to the bare minimum of what humans need to survive. Since the population is so high, food supply is affected negatively, so the solution is to have one big-ass corporation, Soylent, produce a food-like substance that everyone can afford, even if just barely. Other things like water are in short supply, as are simple things we take for granted such as soap and even forks and knives.
While the movie is a fun watch for what it is, the story isn't believable.
Did I like the movie? Actually, yes, I did just for the art of it. It has that gritty, milky '70s film look to it where some scenes are way too dark and others lit way too bright. The pacing is weird, the audio echoes too much in some spots and is compressed to hell in others. The whole movie is Old Hollywood and filled with the stuff they could get away with back then.
On a final note, if Soylent Green isn't your thing but you like a '70s cop thriller/drama movie, see Serpico. It was released the same year, 1973. It's not sci-fi at all, but wow, what a movie. Same gritty look, but way better story that keeps you in the pocket from beginning until end.
Casio A158, the "steel" version of the F-91W
I figured I'd give a dedicated article to this since it's currently my daily wearer.
The Casio A158 is functionally identical to the F-91W in every way. Why did I buy it? I wanted a "steel" version of the F-91W.
Now while true the A168 with its electroluminescent backlight is far superior to the wimpy green backlight of the A158, the A168's styling doesn't agree with me. That, and I wanted a copy of the F-91W in a more steely/shiny form, and the A158 is it.
Does the A158 keep time as good as the F-91W? No, but most people wouldn't notice it. I only notice it because.. well.. I just do. The A158 loses a few seconds a week. Not a big deal. Sync it once a week or once a month and you're good to go.
Currently, yes, the A158 is my daily wearer. I was wearing the F-91W as my daily, but the A158 just grew on me. The more I wore it, the more I didn't wear the F-91W until the point came where I just wear the A158 every day now.
Why?
Two reasons.
First is the fact that the A158 just looks better. Having something shiny on the wrist just looks better than flat black.
Second is the metal bracelet.
With watches, you have choices of what material and style the band is. A metal bracelet is something that is just really comfortable. The Casio A158 in particular has a very thin metal band that just has a nice feel to it.
The A158 does not suit big-wristed people. Not at all. Since I have small wrists, the watch works really nice for me. I can wear it slightly loose and it's not really a bother. It doesn't weigh much, either. Granted, it's not nearly as light as the F-91W, but it is still light regardless.
There's really nothing I can review about the A158 because like I said, it's functionally identical to the F-91W. If you know that watch, you know this one.
Basically, if you know and love the F-91W, grab an A158. Or if you want something with a better backlight, the A168 - but pay attention to the styling. As noted above, the A168 styling doesn't agree with me, but you might like it.