Casio G-Shock watches have never failed me. I have two in use now, one rather nice like the one in ireckon's post and the other a standard black solar model without the atomic time function. There are times when pulling out a cell phone or GPS to check the time is not practical while a simple wrist movement can put a timepiece in front of your face.

Perhaps we need to revisit the original post and take note that someone is willing to spend up to $800 dollars for something that he intends to last a good long while.

We can't presume that he's going to abuse that costly a watch the same way any of us would treat a G-Shock.

My position was simply that for that amount of money, he's in territory that opens him up to a lot more choices.

Don't mistake my intent here. One of my favorite watches is my Casio G-Shock DW-5600. It's original BR2032 battery lasted over 11 years. Yes, it really did. I love that watch. But I've also always loved the simple, efficient, timeless design of the Rolex Submariner. I lot of people (guys) instinctively feel this way too, but then apply a reverse snobbism once they see the price tag.

In the price range the original poster asked about we're not talking about tough, disposable watches. Plenty of easy choices there already.

We're talking about something to treat as if we really do intend for it to last a lifetime. If it's really fantastic looking to boot, is largely hand assembled, and legitimately water resistant, well those are all bonuses.

I don't wear my watches to show off. I don't care what anyone thinks. My simple pleasure is purely selfish every time I look at my Seiko Divers. It would remain that way even if I were the only person on earth.
And that is something you just don't get when wearing something you're considering a plastic "time appliance".

Good point, but after having gone through a Rolex rebuild, I can tell you that while they're tough, they won't run forever. . .without a Rolex certified jeweler. Don't get me wrong, after years of not wearing it because it would not stay wound enough to keep time (during which time I started wearing G-Shocks), I had mine rebuilt and it came back running better than new. However, it cost plenty and required new factory parts.

The Rolex waterproof is only good for the life of the seals DOHH, mine were 15-20 years out of cert and there was slight humidity damage to the face and hands. I have a feeling that all watches in this class need occasional TLC or they too will go TU.

Meanwhile, my Casio just keeps on keeping great time. $.02

I'd like to point out that we are having this discussion at The Survival Forum. A fair assumption is that the original poster will use the watch in harsh conditions on a regular basis. With modern technology, there is no more ruggedness achieved after one has spent about $200 on a rugged watch (e.g., G-Shock). It's important to make this point because perhaps the original poster or others came here unfamiliar with this concept.

I've heard arguments about why it's necessary to spend about $800 or more to get a truly lifetime watch. I have not been convinced because the caveat is that such a watch, if put through the elements, must undergo regular expensive maintenance at a certified jeweler. In the 1960's, I suppose such a watch would pass for being "lifetime". However, I don't consider such a label to be legitimate in the year 2010. By the way, I do own some overly priced, rugged watches.

I've got a drawer full of watches that have failed me - nice Seiko's and an expensive Wenger LST Field Chronograph. But I am in the same boat insofar as vision is concerned. I have finally ended up with an analog Casio diver's watch, quartz movement, battery powered with an led that lights up the watch face. So far, it keeps good time and has not failed me. If it does, for $45, I'll throw it away and get another one. It's a MDV102-1AV model, waterproof to 200 meters and fairly shockproof, I hope. See it at MDV102-1AV http://www.amazon.com/Casio-MDV102-1AV-Analog-Illuminator-Watch/dp/B00134JNM8. I got rid of the cheesy rubber strap and replaced it with a black Maratac strap. Looks fine to me, but I don't have to worry about anyone examining my wrist while I reach over the table for a spoonful of Beluga.

I apologize for my comment above about my watch being seen while I'm reaching over for the Beluga. It was unnecessarily snarky. Who am I to negatively comment on those who like expensive watches. I'm the same way about firearms. Again, my apologies.

Not nice to be excessively snarky to people with firearms.

Anyway, I agree with the idea of buying cheap but tough watches.
Modern quartz watches are so accurate that the extreme machining of mechanical chronographs is moot and they are obsolete.
(unless you expect to be unable to get batteries)

So Cardinal or Timex quartz and the only question is digital or analog.
I like analog for day to day and for things like taking pulses.
I like digital for stop watch and for navigation uses.

I like my Timex currently one of the Expeditions. It's analog & digital. I have an Early Winters Last Watch from many years ago. Lifetime guarntee. It broke where the pin holds the band on the watch. Long story short they didn't carry it so they wouldn't replace it.
One of these days I might try to build it up & drill a new hole for the pin.
I personally find analogs easier to read.

Izzy, it usually means it is time to replace the battery when they start doing that.