Anything preventing me from putting that on an aluminum Sport? Seems like a worthwhile combo.
Would advise against putting two dissimilar metals that close together. First up it'll look a bit odd as they will be slightly different shades and have different reflective properties. Secondly, one metal will be harder than the other (almost certainly the stainless steel) and will scratch the other where they come into contact if there is any movement -- and there will be.
The band attachment design is very nice. But it's not a new invention. It looks like there's a push button release on the underside to allow the bands to slip off, but I do wonder how often you can switch the bands before the mechanism gets loose.
There no reason for it to get loose. It's likely spring loaded, and springs can last forever, relatively speaking.
The Apple Store seems to indicate spare chargers $29 for a 1m; $39 for a 2m. I think another commenter pointed this out - the price difference is not for 38mm vs. 42mm.
That's less disappointing.
I think it's more disappointing. As Apple says that the 42mm watch has a larger battery, a larger charger would make sense to keep the charge times equal. I wouldn't mind paying an extra $10 for that. But $10 for an extra 3 feet of $0.50 worth or cable is disappointing.
$500 for the link bracelet might be okay.
$150 for a Leather? mediocre
$49 for a plastic band? Crap, you can buy a Casio with comparable band for that price.
The good news for cheapskates is that 3rd party bands will be coming soon.
I want the link bracelet. Bit expensive, but nice. However, it's too nice to wear when doing heavy work (I tend to destroy watches; no Edition or Sport for me; I need the toughest unit they build). When 3rd party straps are available for $19, I'll get one of those for work.
You can easily get leather bands for hundreds of dollars. How do you know the Casio band is comparable? I doubt it is. This just looks much better, at the very least.
Would advise against putting two dissimilar metals that close together. First up it'll look a bit odd as they will be slightly different shades and have different reflective properties. Secondly, one metal will be harder than the other (almost certainly the stainless steel) and will scratch the other where they come into contact if there is any movement -- and there will be.
There's no problem putting two different metals together. To some it may look off, but to others, it might look great.
As far as hardness goes, anodized aluminum is MUCH harder than 316 stainless. It's harder than hardened steel. But the aluminum beneath is soft, so a hard blow will break through the anodized layer. That shouldn't be a problem with how this is used.
There's no problem putting two different metals together. To some it may look off, but to others, it might look great.
As far as hardness goes, anodized aluminum is MUCH harder than 316 stainless. It's harder than hardened steel. But the aluminum beneath is soft, so a hard blow will break through the anodized layer. That shouldn't be a problem with how this is used.
I would say that the Thermovoltaic Effect is somewhat more serious than "no problem."
I would say that the Thermovoltaic Effect is somewhat more serious than "no problem."
No. That's only certain use models. In plumbing, it's a major problem because of the liquid, and because there is a low current always flowing through the pipes and water.
But here, there is no problem with that. As it's also an electrical insulator. Your concern is unecessary.
No. That's only certain use models. In plumbing, it's a major problem because of the liquid, and because there is a low current always flowing through the pipes and water.
But here, there is no problem with that. As it's also an electrical insulator. Your concern is unecessary.
I did not say that the Thermovoltaic Effect is a major issue, but it is an issue. It may be a major issue in plumbing. However, it is an issue that must be addressed anywhere you join two dissimilar metals. Without steps taken to mitigate it, the Thermovoltaic Effect may initiate corrosion at the junction.
I did not say that the Thermovoltaic Effect is a major issue, but it is an issue. It may be a major issue in plumbing. However, it is an issue that must be addressed anywhere you join two dissimilar metals. Without steps taken to mitigate it, the Thermovoltaic Effect may initiate corrosion at the junction.
As I said, it's an electrical insulator. I was, of course, talking about the anodized surface of the watch, which is aluminum oxide. That isn't a problem. We also use dissimilar metals in many pieces of equipment without a problem. I have lathes with cast iron bodies, and bronze or Steel roller or ball bearings. Brass is often used with steel and iron in direct contact. Aluminum and copper are used that way as well.
Watches for a century have been using the pin and spring method of holding bands on. The watch case surface can be chrome over brass, or over steel, or nickel over another metal. The case could also be gold, or vermeil, or SS steel. The pins are steel, nowadays, SS steel, mostly. There are no corrosion problems there.
I don't see why this seems to be a problem for you.
Comments
Milanese loop is a winner.
Anything preventing me from putting that on an aluminum Sport? Seems like a worthwhile combo.
Would advise against putting two dissimilar metals that close together. First up it'll look a bit odd as they will be slightly different shades and have different reflective properties. Secondly, one metal will be harder than the other (almost certainly the stainless steel) and will scratch the other where they come into contact if there is any movement -- and there will be.
Who is stopping you?
There no reason for it to get loose. It's likely spring loaded, and springs can last forever, relatively speaking.
I think it's more disappointing. As Apple says that the 42mm watch has a larger battery, a larger charger would make sense to keep the charge times equal. I wouldn't mind paying an extra $10 for that. But $10 for an extra 3 feet of $0.50 worth or cable is disappointing.
You can easily get leather bands for hundreds of dollars. How do you know the Casio band is comparable? I doubt it is. This just looks much better, at the very least.
There's no problem putting two different metals together. To some it may look off, but to others, it might look great.
As far as hardness goes, anodized aluminum is MUCH harder than 316 stainless. It's harder than hardened steel. But the aluminum beneath is soft, so a hard blow will break through the anodized layer. That shouldn't be a problem with how this is used.
No. That's only certain use models. In plumbing, it's a major problem because of the liquid, and because there is a low current always flowing through the pipes and water.
But here, there is no problem with that. As it's also an electrical insulator. Your concern is unecessary.
As I said, it's an electrical insulator. I was, of course, talking about the anodized surface of the watch, which is aluminum oxide. That isn't a problem. We also use dissimilar metals in many pieces of equipment without a problem. I have lathes with cast iron bodies, and bronze or Steel roller or ball bearings. Brass is often used with steel and iron in direct contact. Aluminum and copper are used that way as well.
Watches for a century have been using the pin and spring method of holding bands on. The watch case surface can be chrome over brass, or over steel, or nickel over another metal. The case could also be gold, or vermeil, or SS steel. The pins are steel, nowadays, SS steel, mostly. There are no corrosion problems there.
I don't see why this seems to be a problem for you.