• SlurpingPus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    That one is pretty good, though the Roman numerals are rather busy and uneven.

    This one is closer, though now I have to wonder if all non-square rectangular clocks have an old-timey whiff for me, or it’s just the border here:

    This is also impressive:

    • huppakee@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      14 hours ago

      I like the second one a lot, especially how the upper and bottom numerals face the floor and the left and right ones face towards the center, and to allow for that there has to be a sudden flip from 3>4 and 8>9. But the indices are not playing by the square-clock rule and unlike the cartier one form a regular oval shape.

      I like how the upper one had to find a way to make clear which indice represents the numerals - it really shows the problem in projecting the circular movement of the hands into a rectangular (thanks, that’s the right word) shape.

      It think most analog clocks/watches will give you an old-timey whiff much more often than not, just because there is a more new-timey alternative. I went looking for some watch faces for smart watches, but couldn’t really find any interesting one. Most are either digital numbers or a round clock on a rectangular display.

      A clock face for an apple watch branded with Hermes A clock face for an Apple watch branded with Rolex

      Neither of those interest me like the Cartier tank, which I find really ugly watches to be honest. It’s just this double outlined rectangle(-ish shape) which is unevenly split into 60 boxes that I like (seen below on the first, third and fifth watch).

      Six different Cartier watches in one image