I've done it!

After hours and hours of deliberation over the last few days - reading and watching reviews, looking at alternative choices, and so on - I have now taken the plunge and bought the Citizen Promaster Tough mentioned in my last post. 

I didn't mess about: I got it from Citizen themselves, paying £379 but with free delivery. I thought about spreading the cost - various jewellers offered instalment terms with no interest - but I could afford to pay for it outright. And besides that, I was by now heartily sick of loan arrangements. I'd had three years of HP on the car (thankfully almost finished), but there were three still more years of bank loan repayments left on the caravan. I hate any kind of debt. I wanted no more of it. 

Oddly enough, when I inserted the purchase transaction onto my Money Diary 2026 spreadsheet, to study the effect on my future cashflow (I did this before committing myself, of course), I was surprised to see that despite being £379 worse off in the period up to Christmas, at no point was I in any danger of going into the red. I still had a cushion for unforeseen expenditure. It varied, but at its lowest point it was still £340. That's enough for a new tyre or a set of disc brake pads on the car, if suddenly needed. 

So I'm breathing easy. I'm not going to create a financial crisis for myself.

I think this rather adventurous-looking watch will encourage me to get out walking on the South Downs and elsewhere, as I used to do. Or to explore country paths in my area. Or do a section of the English Coastal Path, as I did the other day on Chichester Harbour. All good exercise. And I already have all the other equipment needed for rough walking. 

The new Citizen watch won't give me any fitness metrics, but I don't think that matters. What does matter is my mental attitude towards fitness and strength-building generally. I think the obviously super-tough and all-weather Citizen will work better for me than the less assertive (and comparatively fragile) Garmin can. I won't want to let the Citizen down by shirking a brisk walk I need to take. 

One aspect could be a lot of fun. I don't have to stick with the strap it comes with. There are many others I could swap in, in a variety of materials and styles and colours. I could have a collection of these to suit different outfits and different occasions. Archer Watch Straps, for example, have plenty to choose from.

You can see that I regard this new watch as not only an eye-catching timepiece, but as a fresh approach to fitness. I'm no extreme-adventure junkie. Nor am I a Ray Mears disciple (although I enjoyed his TV shows back in the day, when he'd demonstrate things like how to set up a comfortable hammock for sleeping in winter woodland, or how to bake a salmon to perfection in an earth-covered 'oven'). I just don't want to lapse by default into a weak and wobbly old crone, unable to do much, and apt to nod off all the time.

Ah, this may be exactly what I want

Indulge me just a little more on a new watch choice. I've now come across a watch that is nearly perfect. Definitely the new front runner.

It's the Citizen Promaster Tough. 

That's a strong kevlar fabric strap. I could swap in a silicone rubber strap. White would look stunning, but grey would be nice too. Thus enstrapped, the watch would go with any clothes I am likely to wear. But I am not treating it as a fashion accessory. It's for practical use. I agree that it seems so ready for adventure that people might think I spend my weekends and holidays in rugged terrain, battling against severe weather, and getting myself deliberately soaked in some river. If they do, I don't mind. 

The watch itself is built to withstand knocks and scrapes and very wet conditions. It's a one-piece hardened-titanium affair, with a thick sapphire crystal and a screw-down crown, completely waterproof and able to defy the worst weather. Why should I need such toughness? Well, let's be frank: I am likely to be accident-prone as I get older. I'll get clumsier, overbalance more, trip up more easily, and generally bump into things on the edge of my clear vision. Anything strapped to my wrist could easily get damaged. But this watch won't.  

Except for one thing, the face of the watch is just right for simplicity, large-figure clarity, and luminosity at night. That one exception is the date window. It's small and recessed, and not readable at a quick glance. But it's the only minus point I can think of, and not necessarily a deal-breaker. After all, there's nothing as good as this watch under £400. 

The Promaster Tough is light-powered. So there are minimum mechanical bits, and no regular servicing is needed. And once its light cells are activated, it'll keep going indefinitely, so long as it gets a dose of light energy, preferably sunlight, at reasonable intervals. But I'm out and about in daylight more than enough to ensure that it gets bombarded with sufficient light particles. Very much 'set and forget' then.

Charging a light-powered watch by simply wearing it is obviously much more convenient than recharging my current Garmin watch every week, which involves a cable, a charging plug, a power socket, and an hour or so off my wrist while I hang around for the procedure to finish. (Mind you, an automatic mechanical watch would be equally convenient, if one were active enough)

This watch is a very good timekeeper. I wouldn't need to reset the hour and minute hands (and the date) more than five times a year. (Best done at the end of February and each 30-day month: April, June, September and November)

The Citizen Promaster Tough's current full price is £367, which is not an outrageous amount for something that could last me a very long time. 

 

But I'm not going to make any impulse purchase. It occurs to me that a good watch would be a great way of marking my 75th birthday. I reach that milestone on 6th July next year. And by then I'll be able to spend more then £367. On the other hand, I haven't seen anything as convincing as the Tough for even double the price. 

Watch this space.

More on buying a new watch

The cashflow problem that is preventing me book the Orkney leg of next year's Scottish holiday is also stopping me buying another watch.

As with everything else, I can do it in the new year, but not right now. 

This is probably just as well. I've been researching watches on the Internet, and enlisting the AI help of Google Gemini and Microsoft Copilot in making a sensible choice from the frankly bewildering number of possible watches out there. They have been helpful. I now have a good idea of what I want. Here are the key points.

# Any new watch must be distinctive. I don't want anything ordinary.

# The watch must be robust and waterproof, with a sapphire crystal and an oversized crown. But not rugged in an ugly way. It must be proof against the occasional clumsiness of older life, and shrug off the odd knock or scrape. 

# I don't want to mess about with batteries that need replacing. So it must be a mechanical watch with an automatic movement, or perhaps a solar-powered quartz watch. 

# I want simplicity. I want to know only the time. I don't need to know the day and date, nor anything else.

# I want great clarity - bold markings, easily read, with bright lume to glow in the dark. If I wake up during the night, I want to make out what time it is without putting my glasses on.  

These things all point to a field or pilot watch, or the simpler kind of diver watch. I like black cases, and black watch faces with bold white figures or markers. An out-and-out 'military' watch, such as the Stirling Norton, might do nicely. Here it is:

It costs £425, plus shipping. I very much like its stealthy, very simple, no-nonsense look. I like large watches - they are something of a fashion statement after all - and I don't care two hoots that this is something a soldier might wear. Bling is not my thing. If people see it and suppose that I'm an outdoorsy type, or a rough-travel junkie, I'm not going to argue. 

I should mention that if this watch had a chrome case and a grey leather strap it would look like the first proper watch I had as a child. Nostalgia plays a part sometimes.

I could bump up the cost a bit and swap in a third-party white silicone rubber strap. Then it would resemble what I already have - my rechargeable Garmin Vivoactive 5 smartwatch. Except that the Stirling watch always shows the time, and doesn't have a display that goes dark after a few seconds; and is in that way somewhat more convenient in daily use. Being an automatic mechanical watch, it doesn't need recharging, nor does it have a battery that slowly degrades until the watch needs replacement. The Seiko NH38 movement inside the Stirling is easy to service, so I need not be frightened at the cost of keeping it in fine fettle indefinitely.  

But £425...sadly unaffordable until early 2027 at the soonest.

Next year's Orkney trip will have to be abandoned

It's a disappointment, but the Orkney part of next year's Scottish holiday in April, May and June will have to be abandoned. 

It's like this. There are two big Orkney costs. A pitch at the Stromness camping site for two weeks - say £550. And of course the return ferry from Scrabster to Stromness, and then back again, for a car and caravan - say £300. That's £850 altogether. And it all has to be paid up front in advance, and long before going. In fact to be quite sure of getting a place on the right ferry, and a good caravan pitch at Stromness, I should be booking about now. Certainly not later than the end of November. 

The snag is of course money. I have a cashflow problem that I can't get around. It's all about the interaction of my bank balance, my savings account balance and the credit card direct debit (I pay off the entire balance due every month). When my savings are at a decent level, I can easily cover the credit card repayment and more besides. But I severely depleted my savings last January, when buying the new caravan, and paying for the new hardstanding. They have never recovered, because all through 2026 I have been hit with a succession of big bills - some foreseen and planned for, many others quite unexpected. I've had to raid my savings as necessary. They have flatlined. The long and short of it is that I can't find the cash for that £850 this side of Christmas, which in turn means I'll have to wait until January, when it will surely be too late to book the Orkney ferry and caravan pitch. 

I had so much looked forward to that fortnight on Orkney! But if I don't have the money for the bookings, I can't go. I can still have a long and satisfying Scottish holiday in 2027, but it will now be two weeks shorter than originally intended. It will also be £850 cheaper. Well, I suppose that's some consolation. 

So instead of travelling all the way to the far north, I'll go no further than Fife. I'll see my friends as already planned, although sadly there will now be no little presents from Orkney to give them. 

Still, I can adapt my Scottish holiday to include other places. On the way to Fife, I'm already thinking of spending a week and a half, or maybe two weeks, in south-west Scotland - Galloway and Ayrshire, not visited since 2015. Ayrshire gives access to the Firth of Clyde, and the possibility of a quick voyage to the Isle of Arran, not seen since Easter 1969 when I went there on an A-Level Geography field trip. The crossing from Ardrossan takes only an hour, so I'd have ample time to explore Brodick and see its castle. Brodick is no Rothesay, of course. But I can go to Rothesay too if I want. There's a thirty-five minute ferry from Wemyss Bay. 

It'll be all right. Orkney can wait for another year. 

Here is the news

I do keep up with the news. Every day. Two or three times a day sometimes. I get it from the BBC News app on my phone, and LBC on my radio. Two respected sources. 

I know the BBC is in disfavour in some people's minds. Apparently they have sucked up the notion that it's hopelessly biased, and suppresses things that the public should know about. Ditto, LBC. I would say that any broadcasting outfit that is run by human beings is going to make editorial decisions that are sometimes wrong. The BBC and LBC do however have to adhere to certain stringent standards, and they know what happens when errors or misjudgements occur and they seem to stumble. So it isn't surprising that both steer away from any story that relies on unchecked or unsubstantiated reports, or dodgy statistics.  

Not so newspapers, whether paper or online. They need to generate income for their owners and are much more likely to chase a lurid and passion-provoking story that their readership might enjoy. I have never in my whole adult life taken a daily newspaper. I perceived how truly biased they were long ago when I could study the selection available in my school library in the late 1960s. I read, at sixteen and seventeen, what appeared in their editorials - the insinuations, the venom even - and was forewarned that all such publications had a political point of view - sometimes a prejudice - and wanted you to be persuaded to it. 

What surprised me then, and still does now, is how easily ordinary people who should know better will swallow some ludicrous idea that an obviously partisan figure is banging on about. Currently, things like immigration. Or the energy crisis.

Well, I like to think for myself, and form my own view. It isn't hard if you stand back and apply general knowledge, geography, a degree of common sense, and make proper allowance for human nature and motivation. I don't rely on what I'm told. I don't accept statistics unless the source is impeccable. I certainly expect all kinds of stuff to be hidden and kept out of discussion. 

Even in 'open' societies not everything is revealed. Here in Britain we have a history and social organisation that is both permissive and restrictive, with those at the top traditionally secretive. I think it is still status-driven, full of snobbery and one-upmanship, loaded with taboos and pride and prejudice. 

At the same time, I think that most British people (indigenous or otherwise) see themselves as living in the best country, however much they may moan. And unless some special reason draws you away, or you have succumbed to the lure of big money overseas, nobody wants to leave. Indeed, half the world wants to come here. 

In a way the 'news' pushed at us day by day is just a catalogue of what British Life is all about. It's a mirror, and much of it is mere opinion and analysis, the reporters tut-tutting over a stream of standard stuff that sometimes seems very worrying, but doesn't get fixed, nor does it fundamentally affect the everyday lives of anyone. For instance, the price of car fuel may go up, but I don't notice empty roads as a result. Even the international news has come through a sieve, so that we hear about appalling matters there, but not here, that simply reinforce the notion that Britain is a very safe place. Which it mostly is.

But two much bigger things are creeping up on us that I find concerning.

One is of course global warming. It's now unstoppable, and nobody really knows how it will pan out. I suspect that in the next twenty years there will be much mass-migration to cooler land around the world. So watch out, Scandinavia and Canada. And watch out, Russia: you particularly. An irresistible tide is coming your way. 

Beyond human population movements - or mass die-offs, if attempts to travel are left too late or become impossible - will be unpredictable climate alteration. Think of jet streams and ocean currents altering their courses. I'd been thinking about heading north to escape the summer heat in the south-east of England. But what if the Gulf Stream weakens, and Britain becomes a cold country? Should I best stay where I am? 

Hand in hand with mass-migration will be a serious hardening of attitudes on who can be let in. I'm not surprised at all that parties like Reform beat their tin drum on this topic, although I think they currently oppose immigration for crude reasons based on hateful prejudice. But looking ahead, I think there will be an 'overcrowded low-in-the-water lifeboat' scenario, where only so many people can be allowed to come on board and join the huddled survivors. The unlucky ones will be pushed away with oars. Fortress Britannia in fact. Not a pleasant thought.

I sound like a doom-monger, but short-sighted greedy money men at the top in every country have brought the world to its knees, and are still doing so. We'll just have to find ways to get rid of them and cope with the disaster that is looming.

Time to go back to a mechanical watch?

I've been very content with the Garmin Vivoactive 5 fitness watch I bought in May 2024. 

It's light and easy to wear. It shows me the things I want to see: the time, the day, the date, how many steps I've taken, and what my heart rate is. I can also use it as a timer.

Its rechargeable battery lasts at least a week, and it comes up to full charge again in only a hour or so. The procedure is very straightforward and no trouble if there is a power socket handy.

I've modified its original appearance. It still has its black aluminium case, but I've replaced the original black strap with a white silicone one. It's now a standout black-and-white watch. I installed a very simple black face with white numerals, a red hour hand, a green minute hand, and a white seconds hand. That combo looks good, and - most importantly - is easy to see and decipher at night in bed, when I'm not wearing my glasses. Perfect - for my needs anyway.

The Vivoactive 5 has several smartwatch features, but I don't use them. I have my phone for all that, and there is no point in duplication. There is never an occasion when I don't want to have my phone with me.

It has - of course - a fair number of fitness-related features. But I've progressively turned most of them off. A couple of key metrics will do: only the believable ones. It's not a medical-grade device, and whatever it tells me needs to be taken as only a rough indication. I am confident that in ordinary circumstances it can record the number of steps I take to the nearest hundred or so - which is good enough. And I am reasonably sure it gets my heart rate right. 

Beyond that, I have my doubts. It seems unwise to take the watch's analyses and graphs and textual comments too seriously. And certainly not to start obsessing about any of them. That's why I've turned them off. I don't want to be fixated on some too-low or too-high metric that is unlikely to be accurate. Such concern causes stress, which definitely will adversely affect my general wellbeing. I have come to see fitness watches as potential worry-machines. I'd rather address real-life causes of stress, obvious things that don't require a fitness watch for recognition, and focus my attention on finding a solution for them. 

Much better to use the watch to spur modest but beneficial achievement. My only fitness goals are to take at least 7,000 steps a day (10,000 or more if possible); and to put in enough physical effort to exercise my heart, so that it gets up to 100 beats per minute at least once a day. 

Apparently I have a rather slow heartbeat, slower than most people in their seventies. I've had prolonged monitoring as recently as last December. Blood tests show nothing amiss, and my circulation is good. Perhaps an unhurried heartbeat indicates a heart that pumps strongly but slowly, pushing the blood along through wide, unclogged arteries. (I'd be delighted to know for certain that this is true)

Is it really worth strapping on a fitness watch? After all, I don't need a watch to know that I've had a good brisk walk, and have tackled a hill or steps without running out of breath too quickly. Could I therefore manage without one? I used to, for many years up to 2018. At home there was always a wall clock in view. Away from home, I consulted my phone. 

What about returning to a conventional watch? Just to tell the time with? And perhaps the day and date? Not one with a replaceable battery. One with a mechanical movement, that ticks, and merely needs to be wound up. Indeed, an automatic watch that winds itself, and only needs to be reset every few days, to maintain reasonable accuracy.  I wouldn't want a 'luxury' watch with complications and a fancy finish. I'd only want something that's plain and very easy to read. priced at not more than £300, like these Seiko watches:

This isn't an urgent thing. I could buy one as a Christmas present to myself, but my Garmin Vivoactive 5 is doing fine and I'm not longing for a change. It's just something that's now in my mind. 

There are some things that could make me hesitate. 

● I'd be wearing my mechanical watch 24/7. Or at least all the time I'm not in bed. It's a dense metal and crystal object. Would its weight bother me? 

● I'm rather noise-sensitive. How would I react to its constant tick? Would I need to shut it away in a bedside drawer at night? 

● I like the idea of an automatic watch, which winds itself up via a swinging weight inside, set in motion by wrist movement. Apparently the swinging can be felt. Would this be pleasant, or an irritation? I'm right-handed. Would I need to wear the automatic watch on my right wrist to ensure that it winds itself sufficiently? (If so, I'd have to take it off to adjust it)

● I'd enjoy setting up the regular reminders associated with resetting the hands to the correct time every week, and adjusting the day and date each month, but I have fat fingers. Would the actual adjustment processes be a fiddle? (A big, easily-turned crown would help here, though) 

● What about maintenance? Am I letting myself in for an expensive cleaning/lubrication bill every few years? (I once had a Tag Heuer watch that had to be sent away to Germany each time at surprising cost)

On the other hand, a mechanical watch would be 'alive' in a way that a silent battery-driven watch wouldn't be. That really would be something. And it might last forever, so that I wouldn't need to buy a long succession of soulless electronic watches.

One thing's for sure: I'm not keen on spending money on another fitness watch. I don't think they are good for your health or happiness.