Comments:
White gold versus stainless steel
A question posed on another forum -- why would you get a watch isn white gold if you could get it in stainless steell?
This begs another question: how different do the two metals appear?
I think it is unlikely any of us have two identical watches in both stainless steel and white gold, so a perfect comparison is doubtful to appear.
But I do have two similar watches, both Omegas, both with silver faces, both on a bracelet with polished and brushed area, that will do in order to show a side by side comparison of the metals in similar usage.
By way of introduction, this is a 2001 Omega Speedmaster Rattrapante, having left its stainless steel bracelet behind to sport this blue alligator strap while on vacation in Panama. It contains chronometer calibre 3600, a rattrapante modification of the familar Valjoux 7750
The white gold representative is this old-timer, the 1968 Omega Seamaster Day-Date, with a chronometer calibre 751, on awhite gold expansion bracelet. I understand it is solid white gold and is not rhodium plated.
This erudite group may be able to tell me how one could tell. Certainly, the appearance does not suggest that of modern Omega movement plating, but . . . Here is a side by side comparison of the two watches
The radially brushed bezel of the Seamaster seems is more elegant than the broader, concentrically brushed aluminum tachymeter bezel of the Speedy
The white gold has a subtle and faintly exotic radiance, a sort of not quite glow that is hard to describe. Once seen, it is much easier to recognize in the future. Some state that white gold is "whiter" and I tend to agree.
The difference in appearance is exaggerated in this photo. Not one person in ten would spot the Seamaster as white gold without prompting or accidental placement by stainless steel that allowed comparison.
Let's examine the bracelets, isolating our view to just that of the metals in similar usage.
The Seamaster has polished outer edges of the outer links, while the Speedy has polished outer edges of the inner links. The Speedy brushing is much finer than that of the Seamaster.
Under the bracelet is a knurled cheap aluminum Exacto knife handle, giving a third metal for contrast.
White gold draped over stainless steel
Stainless steel draped over white gold
Why would you buy a white gold watch when stainless steel was available
My view?
Because it is gold . . .
Because it is subtle, and allows you to sport an X thousand dollar watch without any flash or drawing any attention. Sort of the same way you can spend X dollars and get a Breguet and be completely under the radar or buy a Rolex for the same money and attract attention . . .
Because it is uncommon and a little exotic . . .
I have one other white gold watch and have had no different experience with scratches with the white gold versions versus the stainless steel. Both get the same sort of normal wear and tear.
How do you see both questions -- difference in appearance and why buy white gold?
But I do have two similar watches, both Omegas, both with silver faces, both on a bracelet with polished and brushed area, that will do in order to show a side by side comparison of the metals in similar usage.
By way of introduction, this is a 2001 Omega Speedmaster Rattrapante, having left its stainless steel bracelet behind to sport this blue alligator strap while on vacation in Panama. It contains chronometer calibre 3600, a rattrapante modification of the familar Valjoux 7750
The white gold representative is this old-timer, the 1968 Omega Seamaster Day-Date, with a chronometer calibre 751, on awhite gold expansion bracelet. I understand it is solid white gold and is not rhodium plated.
This erudite group may be able to tell me how one could tell. Certainly, the appearance does not suggest that of modern Omega movement plating, but . . . Here is a side by side comparison of the two watches
The radially brushed bezel of the Seamaster seems is more elegant than the broader, concentrically brushed aluminum tachymeter bezel of the Speedy
The white gold has a subtle and faintly exotic radiance, a sort of not quite glow that is hard to describe. Once seen, it is much easier to recognize in the future. Some state that white gold is "whiter" and I tend to agree.
The difference in appearance is exaggerated in this photo. Not one person in ten would spot the Seamaster as white gold without prompting or accidental placement by stainless steel that allowed comparison.
Let's examine the bracelets, isolating our view to just that of the metals in similar usage.
The Seamaster has polished outer edges of the outer links, while the Speedy has polished outer edges of the inner links. The Speedy brushing is much finer than that of the Seamaster.
Under the bracelet is a knurled cheap aluminum Exacto knife handle, giving a third metal for contrast.
White gold draped over stainless steel
Stainless steel draped over white gold
Why would you buy a white gold watch when stainless steel was available
My view?
Because it is gold . . .
Because it is subtle, and allows you to sport an X thousand dollar watch without any flash or drawing any attention. Sort of the same way you can spend X dollars and get a Breguet and be completely under the radar or buy a Rolex for the same money and attract attention . . .
Because it is uncommon and a little exotic . . .
I have one other white gold watch and have had no different experience with scratches with the white gold versions versus the stainless steel. Both get the same sort of normal wear and tear.
How do you see both questions -- difference in appearance and why buy white gold?
Hey Sam.... found this old photo of one of my 751s
Hi Sam
This is a Steel day date 751 in Steel.
The white gold has a more mellow look it also has a "silky" feeling to the touch in comparison to the steel version.
Good Hunting
Bill Sohne
This message has been edited by Dr No on 2007-08-06 06:54:08
This is a Steel day date 751 in Steel.
The white gold has a more mellow look it also has a "silky" feeling to the touch in comparison to the steel version.
Good Hunting
Bill Sohne
This message has been edited by Dr No on 2007-08-06 06:54:08
Insightful Comparison
I've been wondering how WG compares to SS. You've shown us that the difference is subtle. I'm glad that to hear that you haven't noticed a difference in scratching between the two metals--I was under the impression that WG would be much more susceptible to scratches. Personally I like that one can wear a WG watch and not attract undesired attention. I hope to own a WG watch someday.
Thanks for the comparison.
Thanks for the comparison.
Having both on the same watch ...
This Speedmaster Pro has a white gold bezel ring:
The difference is barely visible, only in direct sunlight, I have the impression of the white gold being a tiny bit more yellowish.
The bezel has collected several nicks, but I assume this is more due to the unique shape that exposes it to all kinds of bumps, than to the relative softness of the material.
Generally, I think the white gold vs. steel issue is tradition. Fine and complicated watches normally were not available with steel cases, but in times of economic recession, many people preferred (especially in Central Europe) not to show their wealth too prominently, and thus white gold (later platinum) gained popularity.
Regards,
Marcus
The difference is barely visible, only in direct sunlight, I have the impression of the white gold being a tiny bit more yellowish.
The bezel has collected several nicks, but I assume this is more due to the unique shape that exposes it to all kinds of bumps, than to the relative softness of the material.
Generally, I think the white gold vs. steel issue is tradition. Fine and complicated watches normally were not available with steel cases, but in times of economic recession, many people preferred (especially in Central Europe) not to show their wealth too prominently, and thus white gold (later platinum) gained popularity.
Regards,
Marcus