My mild obsession with pens and pencils
I think I may have a problem with this.
Some years ago I decided to start writing notes again, and since then I have bought way too many pens and pencils in an attempt to find the perfect writing instrument.
My current pen of choice is Bic Cristal. Yes, it is a very light and smooth-writing pen... but possibly too smooth? I'm still trying to figure that part out.
Also in the fray are Ticonderoga pencils (admittedly a very good pencil) and a Bic 4-Color.
Prior to these I went through my Pilot pen phase, which included the G2, V5 and V7. I also tried PaperMate Profile too, which I might try again since the one I had is the "bold" 1.4mm type when the 1.0mm medium point would probably be better.
What I have determined is that blue ink pens are my favorite. I've tried a bunch of different colors, but blue is just what I like best.
I've also determined that clicky (i.e. retractable) pens, while nice, do add weight that I don't always like and seem to run out of ink quicker than capped pens.
Gel pens I will not do. I keep smudging ink whenever I use those.
Have I ever bought one of those highfalutin expensive pens? No. But I might try Bic Soft Feel next.
I guess do obsess over this a bit.
SX Hawk on the way, and why I bought it
I don't have this guitar yet, but will tell you the story of why it was bought.
The first thing I'll mention is that neither I nor anybody else has this guitar yet at the time I write this because it's preorder-only. There is also a Vintage Green version. Same guitar, different color. With either, you'll get it in January '22.
I made the decision earlier in '21 to go back to Strats, and ended up going 100% with vintage Squier. The one I bought works great, but as time went on, I found I wanted something new with modern engineering.
My first choice was the SX, but before I went ahead and made the preorder, I looked around to see if there was anything else that could match up to it.
The best thing about SX guitars in my experience (yes, I have bought them before) is you get what you pay for in a positive way. When you attempt to match up what you get with SX with any other brand, that's when you really see the drastic price difference.
With the Hawk, you get an American alder body, 21-fret Canadian maple neck with decent shoulder and a fretboard radius of somewhere between 12" and 14", plain pickups (probably ceramic magnet), nut of unknown material (probably plastic), sealed steel tuners (which are nice to use), vintage style 6-screw bridge/tremolo.
The Squier Affinity Stratocaster is over $50 more, but uses a poplar body. The Squier Classic Vibe Stratocaster is well more than double the price of the Hawk, but uses a nyatoh body.
What are you paying more for with the Affinity over the Hawk? Not much of anything, really.
What are you paying more for with the Classic Vibe? A bone nut and better electronics, with heavy emphasis on electronics. That guitar has what are described as "Fender Designed Alnico Single-Coil" pickups. What type of alnico? Unknown. But if it follows the previous generation of Classic Vibe, the '50s model uses alnico 3 and the '60s model uses alnico 5. I would personally choose the 5.
I couldn't justify spending more than double the price for a CV - especially when I can just outright buy a Fender alnico 5 pickup set for the Hawk, with guitar + pickups still having a total price way under what a Classic Vibe sells for. And again, I'm talking about Fender pickups here, not "Fender Designed" stuff. Heck, I can get Tonerider pickups for the same price, and those are great too!
Another thing that factors in is that I can't build (as in part together) a Strat guitar for under the price of a Hawk. Just the American alder body and maple neck alone with no electronics, no bridge and no tuners would bust over the Hawk's price.
And concerning the neck again, SX uses necks with more thickness and more shoulder without it feeling like a boat oar. Some cheap Strat copies have thicker necks with good shoulder, but there's thick done right and thick done wrong. SX gets it right.
It's not exactly easy to find a cheap-and-good Strat style guitar
Strat style guitar defined: Double-cutaway body with 25.5" scale, 3 single-coil pickups and inline tuners on the headstock.
If for example you go to the Guitar Center web site and search for any Strat style guitar sold new other than Squier brand that has the double-cutaway body with 3 single-coils and the 25.5" scale for under $250, you'll find that doesn't exist. You'll find HSS Strat style guitars for under $250, but no SSS other than Squier. You don't see SSS again until $300 with the Ibanez AZ line, and $300 is obviously much more than the Hawk sells for.
When you want a good, cheap guitar that follows what a Strat style guitar is supposed to be (more or less), SX is the go-to brand, and that's why I bought one.
And will the Hawk be truly good once I receive it? It should be. My last SX guitars, the pair of Furrian (Telecaster copy) models I had, were decent until I decided I didn't want to play Tele style guitars and go back to Strats. The Hawk should be just as good if not better.
A big problem with many quartz digital wristwatches
This is an ongoing problem... but only when the watch is expensive?
The updated G-SHOCK M5610U is out. Compared to the older 5610, it has several improvements. Instead of the old EL night night, it now has LED. The date can now be displayed in either month-day or day-month. The time now displays in the upper right panel using nearly every mode. A few time zones were added, including Katmandu. All very nice.
So what's the problem?
LCD washout. That hasn't changed. This wash I speak of is seen when viewing the panel at an angle (as one would do when wearing it on wrist) where all the segments "wash" together.
Some cheap digital watches have very obvious LCD washout, but this is also true for a ton of expensive models too. In fact, I've never seen a G-SHOCK digital with LCD panel that doesn't have washout when viewed at an angle. Where the M5610U is concerned, it's not ridiculously expensive (starts around $180), but not exactly cheap either.
Ironically, there are very cheap Casio digital LCD models that have almost no LCD washout problems at all. F-91W, F108H, W218H, W89HB and W735H? Barely any washout on any of those.
Why is LCD washout such a big deal?
An LCD panel with washout is annoying enough to make you stop wearing the watch, and that's why it's a big deal. Readability and legibility matter a lot.
With fashion watches, sure, I can understand legibility and readability not mattering all that much. For example, nobody buys a skeleton watch to read the time with, as that's just a fashion statement.
Most digital watches however are for function first. If you can't read the thing at an angle, that's not good.
This makes a good case for having a proper analog wristwatch
There's been a huge uptick in diver style watches since the 2010s. I find the Japanese brands really nail this well, such as the Orient Mako II and any Seiko Turtle model.
A proper automatic dive watch is ridiculously legible and can be read at any angle. True, you don't get a night light but you do get luminescent hands and markers.
Or, you can just get a Luminox watch that, while also legible, has tritium on the hands (glows in the dark, and the glow reportedly lasts for 20+ years). Those aren't stylish watches because they are designed as function-first, much like "tough" digital watches are supposed to be.
Personally, I prefer the lightweight cheap digitals. My watch of choice currently is the Casio W218H. Very light, big digits, great night light, no washout. It absolutely gets the job done and I can't complain about that.
I may however pick up a Luminox at some point. Orient and Seiko divers are great, but heavy. Luminox makes very legit tough watches, has quartz accuracy, is obviously very legible, and the tritium means I can always read the time in the dark. Again, not exactly stylish, but spot-on for maximum legibility and readability.
Why I'm afraid to buy a luxury watch
It's best to study your options really, really closely before committing to something like this.
Generally speaking, most luxury wristwatch enthusiasts consider the entry level to be TAG Heuer, such as the Aquaracer model. Most guys prefer the Formula 1.
I actually like the Aquaracer better than the Formula 1 because it has more choices of dials with no arabics (as in just blocks for hour markers). The majority of Formula 1 models have huge 12 and 6 hour markers. There's nothing wrong with that, I just prefer the all-blocks indices look.
Why do watch guys consider TAG Heuer the entry level into the luxury watch space? Probably because that's the go-to brand most guys buy when they want something expensive that's available right now with no waiting. And the connection with racing helps too, hence why the Formula 1 is the preferred model.
I'll now list my reasons why I still haven't bought a luxury timepiece. I've been examining luxury wristwatches for years now from afar, viewed many photos and videos on them, and so on. There are a few inescapable truths about these things.
Paying over $1,000 for a watch that tells time worse than a $15 Casio...
A plain digital quartz Casio watch has stated accuracy of +/- 30 seconds per month. It's actually better than that at about +/- 15 seconds per month. I've owned enough Casio watches to confirm this.
There are very few luxury watches that can get better numbers than that. Yes, there is the Bulova Precisionist, but that's not technically "luxury" since it's well under a grand. You have to go way more expensive than that to reach the luxury mark. Namely, Grand Seiko watches that use a Spring Drive movement. However, Seiko states themselves that the accuracy of Spring Drive is +/- 1 second per day, which means +/- 30 seconds per month, meaning it doesn't beat a plain quartz movement. At best, the accuracy is equal that of plain quartz and not better.
Also, let's not forget that any Casio G-SHOCK with atomic timekeeping syncs to the atomic clock every night for the ultimate in time accuracy. And the Casio Waveceptor does the same thing even cheaper than G-SHOCK (as little as 30 bucks!)
Most luxury watches still fall short when it comes to the bracelet
This is where many luxury watches just don't cut the mustard.
Sure, the head of the watch will be great. A decent one will have excellent finishing, great dial, great hands, smooth operation, and so on. You get your money's worth there.
Then there's the bracelet, and that's where things get not-so great.
It is just a sad state of affairs when Strapcode bracelets beat the pants off of what the majority of luxury watches come provided with.
Spending thousands of dollars on a watch only to end up with a bracelet that doesn't measure up is just outright insulting. You would literally be better off buying the leather or fabric strap version of whatever luxury watch you intend to get, remove that the moment you receive the watch and then install a Strapcode bracelet. That's what you have to do just to have everything truly feel like the luxury you paid for.
A very common complaint by many luxury watch reviewers on YouTube is something along the lines of, "Oh yeah, this X brand watch is great! Everything is so perfect! But that bracelet..."
That happens a lot.
I know what buyer's remorse feels like
This is what keeps me from buying a luxury timepiece more than anything else.
I've never bought a luxury watch, but I have bought what most would consider to be luxury electric guitars only to part with them later.
From my luxury guitar buying "adventures", I learned that brand and price absolutely do not dictate the level of quality you will receive. With upper end guitars, much of what sells them at the high prices they command is perceived quality and not actual quality.
With luxury wristwatches, the same applies. Totally different product, but like with luxury guitars, there's a lot of that perceived quality thing going on.
Maybe one day I will buy a luxury watch. A Rolex Oyster Perpetual? A Cartier Tank? Something else entirely? New? Used? I don't know these answers just yet.
Do I need one? No. Do I want one? Yes, even if it's something I just do once and never again.
Hidden Christmas gem: Frosty Returns
I just saw this for the first time recently, and was very pleasantly surprised at how good this is.
All of the Christmas classic television shows were made in the 1960s. There's Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer from 1964, A Charlie Brown Christmas from 1965, and of course Frosty The Snowman from 1969. For whatever reason, the 1960s was the decade when that all happened.
But then there's Frosty Returns from 1992.
Yes, 1992, which is obviously much later than the 1960s.
Before I get into Frosty Returns, let's talk about Frosty The Snowman for a moment.
I have never liked the original 1969 show because it's just plain weird, has questionable storytelling and is borderline creepy.
Here are a few things I notice every time I see that show:
- Frosty doesn't know what a traffic light is, but does know what the North Pole is. He seems to know things when it's necessary to move the story along.
- A train line to the North Pole from the United States does not exist.
- Frosty melting, as in dying, is what he describes as to "get all wishy-washy".
- Frosty's death is described by Santa Claus as really no big deal since all Christmas snow is magical(?)
- At the end of the show, Santa leaves a little girl directly on top of a snow-covered roof in the middle of the night with no way to get down. Thanks, Santa.
As for Frosty Returns, this show is many times better than the original Frosty The Snowman.
When I first started watching the 1992 show, I thought okay, this is going to be terrible, I'll watch a few minutes of it then go watch something else.
That didn't happen.
I noticed immediately the 1992 Frosty is very self-aware of what it is. The jokes are far better, and the show even pokes fun at itself here and there. There's actually a story that holds and it's paced very well. There were absolutely no cringe moments, no glaring plot holes and no errors. All the characters have just the right amount of screen time where nothing is too short nor lingers too long.
Yeah, I liked 1992 Frosty. A lot.
1969 Frosty is just weird as I said above. But the 1992 show? It's a gem. Everything very neatly fits together and it's a fantastic Christmas season show.
Watch Frosty Returns. You'll like it.