Love my Squale GMT

I NEED👹 a Squale for my collection.. Love their designs..plus everyone says they're really well made..gotta gets me one!

agreed, I have zero use for a quick set 24 hour hand. I wish Monta would modify their movements for a travel GMT

And cheaper

No.

It does not, its the jumping 24 hour hand.

@@PixlPutterMan Thanks for clearing that up.

This is on a totally different level than Farer. 🤘

I’ve spent similar time with both Farer and Monta watches... Farer doesn’t have bracelets anyway near the same comfort or build quality. Farer doesn’t have case finishing even coming close to this Monta’s. Perhaps I’ve worn the wrong Farers? 🤣🥴🤫

Man, “do some research” is so overused by people that have no argument whatsoever. 🤣 Just because I’ve come to a different conclusion than yourself doesn’t mean I haven’t done my research, it means we don’t agree- but since you gave me some advice, I’ll return the favor: grow up. 🤣🤘🤫

We all like watches just sometimes not the same ones. It's mostly objective. Agree to disagree you don't have to be righ

Christopher needs to take a nap. Dudes cranky AF. 🤣🤫🤫🤫🤫

Right, but the name is terrible.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA🤣

@@thetimeteller what part was funny?

@@thetimeteller both are Swiss made micro brands. Other than the GMT function, they have fundamentally the same movement. Both have beautifully finished cases. Both have AR coated sapphire crystals. Both are very attractive sports watches. The Echo Neutra has a far better lume. So what justifies one costing nearly three times as much?

Seiko and Hamilton will give you ZERO layers of lume for that price

Or a Aquis.

You mean like Rolex were for decades with their movements, made by Aegler but branded and sold as Rolex.

@@garyboyle695 Exactly! Rolex should also be clear about their hands being Fiedler SA and their crystals Stettler Saphire AG. One brand's mistake does not justify another's.

A lot of watchmakers do this and I while I do not find it explicitly deceptive, it is intentionally ambiguous and I have a problem with ambiguity when it comes to references. Glycine does this (I know, Re: Invicta) with their movement nomenclature without adding a suffice or sub-reference number to indicate a variant. Junghans does use sub-reference numbers for "their" calibers, however, I do not like how fundamentally different movements share the same base caliber name-J880.1 and J880.2 are based on the Valjoux 775x while the J880.3 and J880.4 are based on the ETA 2892 with a Dubois Depraz chronograph module. If the architecture is different, it should get a different reference so I guess I am giving Monta a pass here if they tacked on an alphanumeric suffix to each movement variant.

@@MrJamesDuffy Well, giving nicknames, different suffixes, to movements that are not in-house should be a curbed and condemned commercial practice. A Hamilton H10 should not be called H10 but only ETA C07.611, simply because it is, in fact, an ETA C07.611.

@@juniorgallo8786 Sure, in an ideal world where we can set reasonable standards that all companies should follow, that would be great. However, I think brands DO have the right to rename the movements they use for their own cataloging purposes. I think it only becomes problematic when they are intentionally ambiguous about a caliber's base movement in their sales and marketing message. I think there CAN be some middle ground where naming schemes are at least consistent within a company or across companies using the same base movement. Then again, I am just a guy who buys watches and have no influence on what any big brand decides to do, nor should I.

You mean like this one: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/i6lhhdyVubqZfYk.html Or perhaps the other 5 Rolexes I own? 🤣👍

CW? 😂 If you only knew how ridiculous your post is. CW is not even in the same ball park. Bought the new Noble as a beater every day GADA as to not ruin my explorer or Speedy. Ended up worrying about scratching that the same as my Omega or Rolex. The fit and finish on my Monta rivals that of Omega or Rolex. CW, 😂. Tudor or Tag cannot even be compared to Monta in the build dept.

I own 5 Rolexes- I disagree with your statement.

That sounds like a comparison to me.

I own 2 Rolex and I disagree with your statement

Sure, if you mean location-wise availability of their steel models, Rolex probably really is available exclusively on other planets ;)

Rolex is not at all what dudes make it out to be.

It stands for Greenwich Mean Time and is basically a complication on a watch to keep track of a second time zone, usually 24 hour instead of 12

@@MrValve-fr8hd thank you for explaining that in a language I can understand.

Rolex makes a very durable quality watch. It isn’t worth what they charge for it and certainly not worth more than retail people are spending.

Someone sounds angry