ArmitronSport Retro Men's Digital Bracelet Watch, 40/8475

I've been a fan of the old 1970's LED watches made by brands like Pulsar, Hamilton and yes, Armitron since, well, the 1970's. I was a kid then and my family was not wealthy and these were considered luxury watches at the time - they were generally very expensive.Today you can buy fairly faithful reissues of some of the most iconic 1970's LED watches - Hamilton and Bulova make them, for example - and they are still pretty expensive (much less so than they were in the 1970's, though, with inflation taken into account). They're also not very useful relative to most modern watches, digital or otherwise. They usually just tell the time and that's it, but only after you press a button to display it since they do not have always-on displays. So the value isn't great; they just look cool.Or you can buy this. Which is *not* a particularly faithful reissue, but is still a pretty cool watch that definitely at least invokes some of that retro aesthetic, and costs a *lot* less. I think you get a really good value for the money with this watch. Just don't expect it to look like a real 1970's LED display, when the display is on. (Like other LED watches, you do still need to press a button to display the time on this watch.)I got the gold version of the watch, which is the most iconic look from the 1970's to me... gold and red just screams 1970's. The case and bracelet are listed as stainless steel, so they're just gold-toned (as you'd obviously expect for this price). But at least it's not pot metal or zinc or something. It is a pretty lightweight watch, so I wouldn't doubt that the links are hollow and even much of the watch case is empty.But the shape of the case, the color and even the type of bracelet it's using looks perfectly retro. As soon as I put the watch on I said to myself "I remember clasps like this!" I honestly have not used a watch with this kind of fold-over clasp in probably 30 years. I didn't think they made them anymore. It is typical for what I remember from digital watches from the 1980's, though, which is the earliest time I can remember owning a watch. And my early watches were all cheap digital watches.The downside of this style of clasp is that they're not very reliable. All of mine eventually started slipping and would just come undone. But that's with daily wear over a period of time, and I doubt most people will be wearing this watch every day. The upside of the clasp is that it's very easy to adjust. Just stick your fingernail under it, pull up the tab and move it, then push the tab back down.The watch is water resistant to "between 165 and 330 feet" according to the literature that comes with the watch, which is kind of a weird way of saying it's water resistant to 165 feet. (If you're *not sure* beyond that, then you're at risk of ruining the watch, which makes any further depth moot.) But that's still pretty good for a $50 digital watch like this. My Breitling that cost many times more than this watch will not go that deep.So, the one criticism I have of the watch, if you can call it that, is that the display just does not look like a 1970's LED display. It's kind of a modern interpretation of one, with much bigger digits and what looks like an artificial glow around the digits. I had originally thought, and originally wrote here, that there was probably just a full LED-backlit LCD screen back there with a completely artificial display. But I'm editing my review now because when looking at my own photos (it's less apparent in real life), it does look like there's a single large LED lighting each segment of the digits, with what has to be a really strong diffuser in front of the display. It's basically like a lot of modern desk clocks. The original LED watches instead used multiple very tiny LED's for each segment, with no diffuser at all (just a color filter/lens). The natural light bleed would make the digits look solid, but if you looked closely you could see the tiny little individual LED's. On this watch, there seems to be just one big LED in the middle of each segment.Again, it's a $50 watch, the watch is physically very cool looking, and it is as functional as you'd expect. It tells the time, it tells the date with a second button press, and the display it does have also looks very different from a regular digital watch. I'm not gonna moan too much about it not looking exactly like a vintage or higher-end modern LED watch that costs 15 times as much. I knew that going in anyway, based on the official pics here. And it's not like it's false advertising if it works how I now think it does; it is using LED's. It is an LED watch.The one other thing I should point out is that weirdly, like some others have said in other reviews, my watch did not seem to be *quite* "new". I don't think it had ever been worn before but it looked like it was displayed somewhere. It has one of those watch boxes cut into two "triangles" so you can open it, nest the two halves and display the watch at the proper angle, then the store clerk would just put the two halves of the box back together when selling it. My box was open like that, so clearly was done intentionally since the two halves of the box would not randomly nest themselves. The shipment just came in a non-padded rubber envelope and consequently the exposed and unclasped watch had come fully out of the box and was just flopping around in the envelope. Luckily it does not seem to have been scratched or anything. There were still *two*(!) protectors on the crystal, so that's another thing to be aware of. If it looks weird after taking the first one off, you still have another one to peel.

Very high quality case, display, crystal, and band for the price. Of all my watches the armitron steel case pieces "feel" the most expensive and high quality. I love the weight and band adjustability and while the display is gimmicky, it's very cool and a great conversation starter. I do think the display LEDs could be a little smaller. They're very easy to read and I understand wanting to improve on the illegibility of the old school pulsars, but it's a little overkill. If the type face was about 20% smaller this would look a lot more inspired and stylish. Absolutely great piece in the black finish which has held up very well over 6 months. Would recommend to anyone looking for something unique. Not great if you do work that requires you keeping your hands on things since you can't view the time without hitting the crown.

The watch is for an average or smaller wrist. A big wrist would look disproportionately large relative to the watch size. The body of the watch is well made in stainless steel. The numerals in the display are large and easy to read. Adjusting time and date is simple. My main complaint is the stainless steel bracelet which looks and feels flimsy. (I would have paid a few extra dollars for a better bracelet.) I am replacing the bracelet with a better made and better looking one. The watch has a retro/vintage look. It looks good for the price. If you want a modern looking digital with more functionality but significantly more cost, buy the Tissot PRX digital. For daily use, the Amitron works just fine.

cooler than cool.i love this watch because I compulsively look at my watch when i wear it and this watch has to be turned on with a button to see it. It keeps me from checking mt phone as well for the time and the phone sucking me!Really functional and great style 👍👍

I've always liked the classic style Casio digital watches. I got this in gold, like my gold A168. And overall it is just a better quality watch in looks and on-wrist. With this style, you lose continuous display, and things like countdown/stopwatch/alarm functions. But you get it in an all steel case with nice, if not simple finishing (the polished sides w/beveled top edges is great in natural light.) It has improved water resistance. Just right on its face, it's a bit classier, more stylish than a gold Casio A168.The biggest thing though... is they corrected the bracelet. It looks identical to Casio bracelets but as a guy with 2" armhairs, this one is far more comfortable and very rarely grabs hairs. And when it does, it's not nearly as aggressive.I think it comes down to how much better they articulate. The Casio's have a narrower "max radius" where if you try to bend them past a certain point, the curve locks in to become more circular. This one follows the boxy outside edge of my wrist more closely, rather than having a propped up, perfectly round little 'bridge' over it. At that bridge, the Casio bracelets pull all of the hair out in just a couple of days.They even seem to do better laterally. The links sway and twist a little more. When you're wearing it, and the excess of the bottom band is tucked under the top band, the top layer slides freely while the bottom part stays in place. So where the bracelet DOES move while worn, it's up above your skin and I think that stops 90% of the hair grabbing all on its own.

Had to return almost Immediately, The function button was stuck therefore not allowing me to change anything. It looks amazing and retro but just quality can be lacing

Nice one 👍