Why is blingy equated with dressy?

[cerendigit]

This Is something that has always puzzled me in the watch world (maybe the this actually specific to the Rolex world). Why is shiny and blingy often considered more dressy?

To me, it doesn’t make sense. “Dressed-up” means “subtle” and “under-stated”. For instance, a dark color suit is more formal and dressed up than a light color suit (which less discrete and more “showy”). Yet, in the watch world a fluted bezel and a jubilee bracelet are considered more “dressy” because they are more shiny ….

For me a “dress watch” is a simple three-hand, with no complications, of moderate size, and which doesn’t shine or draw attention to itself.

Thoughts?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Krash]

A simple Nomos Orion 38 (white) is a more appropriate dress watch than a Bluesy. It’s hard to argue with that.

Some people think a black dial Submariner is more “blingy” than a Datejust with a fluted bezel and jubilee bracelet. Not sure how they can draw that conclusion. Either way, I think both look great with a suit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Chester01]

Depends. Rolex are sport watches and none dressy per se. The excessive shine just makes a given watch stand out more and makes it less versatile to my eye. But certainly the 5 digit sub and a gold DD, the DJ or a DD is more “business-casual” where the sub more casual. Right, the sub would fit in on a dive or fishing boat where tie DD/DJ would stand out more.

[beshannon]

Originally Posted by cerendigit

Why is blingy equated with dressy?

No idea?

It is not for me

[Farsh14]

I never got that impression. I always saw blingy as tacky and attention seeking “look at me” as apposed to dressy. In todays world, dressy has taken a more casual push at least in the USA. You’ll see everything from a Patek, Rolex diver, and Casio on a suit as well as the other way around people wearing a dress watch casually. The rules have really gone haywire and it doesn’t bother me one bit. I mean, who ever made these rules? Stuffy rich men from the early 20th century?

For example: there’s a common rule that you shouldn’t wear hats indoors. But that rule is extremely dated and never followed. Why is wearing a hat offensive? There’s no real rationale just some rule.

Another example is leaving the bottom button in bottomed. I believe thst came from an English king, was it king George? Where one day he decided this is the rule and people just blindly follow it lol

[GB-man]

I think some people who don’t know what a dress watch is conflate the two. Calling a DJ dressy is just a nice way of saying it’s not exactly sporty.

[Krash]

Originally Posted by Farsh14

Another example is leaving the bottom button in bottomed. I believe thst came from an English king, was it king George? Where one day he decided this is the rule and people just blindly follow it lol

All these types of dress code norms (and other norms too) come from old England. We might have declared independence, but I don't think people realize how much British traditions are engrained into our culture. Not saying it's a bad thing, I'm just saying that it is what it is.

[macrowatch]

You have to match your counterpart, after all you are the accessory, and your watch is the accessory to the accessory. So if watching against a sequenced or shiny dress, well...gotta match! Lol.

[enjoythemusic]

That's new news. Had no idea the fashion industry pigeonholed blingy with dressy. Bling is usually associated with rapper / hip-hop style.

If you mean the elegant and artistic use of various stones, that could be high style.

[malba2366]

Originally Posted by cerendigit

This Is something that has always puzzled me in the watch world (maybe the this actually specific to the Rolex world). Why is shiny and blingy often considered more dressy?

To me, it doesn’t make sense. “Dressed-up” means “subtle” and “under-stated”. For instance, a dark color suit is more formal and dressed up than a light color suit (which less discrete and more “showy”). Yet, in the watch world a fluted bezel and a jubilee bracelet are considered more “dressy” because they are more shiny ….

For me a “dress watch” is a simple three-hand, with no complications, of moderate size, and which doesn’t shine or draw attention to itself.

Thoughts?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The unfortunate truth is that a lot of people buy watches so that others notice...you need a certain amount of bling to accomplish that. Most would not notice if someone was wearing a Patek Calatrava or VC Patrimony, but everyone notices a Rolex Day/Date in gold.

[DESH]

Shorts & t- shirt

I do not subscribe- I wear what I like.

[sgarrity]

That’s why I love my Explorer. Perfect with T-shirt and shorts. Looks amazing with a tuxedo and everything in between.

[metzgergt1]

I agree that subtle = dressy in my book.

I could see how others justify blingy as "dressy" in the sense that I wouldn't wear a blingy watch to work, but I may wear it to a social event or a party.


That said, I don't consider a Jubilee bracelet or fluted bezel to be blingy per say. When I think of something that's louder I think gold, diamonds (even if just for markers)

[OrangeSport]

Blingy is the opposite of dressy.

[illiguy]

Originally Posted by GB-man

I think some people who don’t know what a dress watch is conflate the two. Calling a DJ dressy is just a nice way of saying it’s not exactly sporty.

This.

[bradastra]

I don't think it's the case that more "blingy" is considered dressier in the Rolex world, at least among people who are interested in more than drawing attention to themselves. I think something like a Day-Date (perhaps more "blingy" than a SS Sub due to PM and higher price) is only "dressier" because it is further away from the "tool" and "casual" end of the spectrum where a Sub resides, yet still a far cry from the Calatrava/Patrimony/Saxonia side of things.

"For me a 'dress watch' is a simple three-hand, with no complications, of moderate size, and which doesn’t shine or draw attention to itself."

I generally agree. However, in more intimate "dressy" situations or when you are hosting, traditional etiquette may suggest that you wear no watch at all, signaling to your guests that you are there for them and are not concerned with the time.

[alphadweller]

There's dressy sports watch, dressy classic watch and then proper dress watch.

I'd never wear my Bluesy or any other dressy sports watch with a suit, not even my pt dial YM. These watches clash too much IMHO, to me they're just like wearing sneakers or boat shoes with a suit, it's kind of weird. Dress watch only with a suit, AFAIC. Examples: VC Patrimony, PP Calatrava, JLC MUT, Omega DeVille, Cellini.

[Mystro]

Doesn’t women tend to wear their best Diamond jewelry when they are all dressed up??

[bradastra]

Originally Posted by Mystro

Doesn’t women tend to wear their best Diamond jewelry when they are all dressed up??

Yes, but men and women have traditionally behaved differently in this regard and others owing to different evolutionary priorities. Within the past couple hundred years in the West, the man serving as a neutral background and allowing the woman to shine in dressy situations has typically been the norm (e.g., the tuxedo serves as a basic uniform for men in black tie situations and women are free to be a bit more flashy and creative).

[thekman]

I am not sure where you got that impression from. By definition dress watches are usually simple time only watches on a leather strap. Purists even claim they are not supposed to have a date function.

[OrangeSport]

Originally Posted by DESH

Shorts & t- shirt

I do not subscribe- I wear what I like.

Perfect for a casual / day to day watch

[Solo118]

Originally Posted by cerendigit

This Is something that has always puzzled me in the watch world (maybe the this actually specific to the Rolex world). Why is shiny and blingy often considered more dressy?

To me, it doesn’t make sense. “Dressed-up” means “subtle” and “under-stated”. For instance, a dark color suit is more formal and dressed up than a light color suit (which less discrete and more “showy”). Yet, in the watch world a fluted bezel and a jubilee bracelet are considered more “dressy” because they are more shiny ….

For me a “dress watch” is a simple three-hand, with no complications, of moderate size, and which doesn’t shine or draw attention to itself.

Thoughts?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It is all what you feel and believe. Personally, I would not choose to wear any professional watch (other than a Daytona) with a suit/tux even if it is bling-looking. I know Bond did the SS Sub, I know many people do it to this day, but I do not feel they are not "dressy" even if they are gold, rose gold, white gold, or have diamond dials. Again Daytona being the only one I would wear with any type of attire, that is one special/versatile watch.

On the other hand, is a Datejust a true dress watch? No not in my eyes either, but it is just not a very sporty watch and suitable for nearly any type of attire these days, including a suit or tux.

The true dressy/elegant watches are exactly what you said. Simple 3 hand watches, on strap and low key. Think Cellini or even Patek Calatrava. However these days, things are different, and nearly anything goes, so I say go with what you feel good with.

[cerendigit]

Originally Posted by thekman

I am not sure where you got that impression from.

I thought that was the general consensus. But reading the replies and thinking about it again makes me feel that this is the consensus in the _youtube_ Rolex community.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ensign]

It must be a generational thing.

Traditionally, flash, sparkle or “bling” was expensive. Going way back, dyes for clothes were affordable only for the rich; ordinary folks wore undyed fabrics. Gems and precious metals were rare. So, a man’s best set of clothes might include just a few ornaments: diamond tie pin, gold pinky ring, gold watch.

More recently, low price and fake jewelry and low price watches are everywhere. “Dressy” is seen by many as piling on the bling. For just a few bucks at Walmart, a guy have as much bling as any sultan or music celebrity. A guy could go without any bling, but that would risk looking dour - like an undertaker.

[28mm]

I have a black tie wedding next month. Since I'll be wearing my tuxedo, I like to be very traditional and not wear a watch..

That being said, I have two other weddings this year and decided (literally tonight) to get something and not wear a Daytona or any of my other watches.

Always wanted a Cartier Santos..and the stainless Medium looks perfect..love that it doesn't have a date! I'll get a black leather band as to me that's more appropriate for formal..Blingy is not dressy...to each their own but blingy detracts from the attire and can seems tacky, if anyone notices much these days anyway.

Sorry to hijack the thread but it pushed me over the edge...

again...

[ThePalletFork]

This puzzles me too. For example, and AP RO's bracelet is blingy aka shiny. I wouldn't call that watch dressy though...

[ivanos]

Some dressy watches are blingy. Some dressy watches are not blingy. Some blingy watches are dressy. Some blingy watches are not dressy.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by OrangeSport

Blingy is the opposite of dressy.

True

Dressy is in a lot of ways defined by subtle elegance or classy
Anything bordering on being showy in any way sort of precludes it from being dressy. IMO.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by ThePalletFork

This puzzles me too. For example, and AP RO's bracelet is blingy aka shiny. I wouldn't call that watch dressy though...

Virtually anything on a bracelet is precluded from the dressy category.
A clean looking simple black croc strap is irrefutably dressy.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Mystro

Doesn’t women tend to wear their best Diamond jewelry when they are all dressed up??

Yes, usually they does
But that's the rule which applies to women.