At work on Monday, it was a matter of some concern when a package arrived for me that was heard to be quietly ticking. However, this turned out not to be Graeme's long-awaited revenge for my use of the Squirrel Ballet joke, but rather a rather spiffy new watch that I had ordered last week.
Truly, it is a thing of beauty.
However, because nothing quite works out perfectly, there was a small wrinkle in the tale, for the braclet of the watch was too loose for my wrist, such that wearing the watch would be an exercise in fear that it might drop to the ground and be stolen by a passing squirrel (or other creature of nefarious intent).
And so, I elected not to wear the watch to the ceilidh I didn't attend on Wednesday (don't ask, for it is a terrible and tragic tale, of love, loss, and closed roads).
So, instead, I waited until today, before taking the watch to my favourite jeweller (and by 'favourite', of course, I mean "the first one in the list when I Googled for jewellers in Falkirk"). There, I explained the whole wrist/squirrel conundrum, and arranged to have some links removed from the bracelet in order to confound my nemeses.
I was told to leave the watch to be done, and come back in half an hour. Which raises the question: if I've left my watch, how am I to know when half an hour has passed? Surely, a mystery for the ages.
31.2 minutes later, I returned to the shop to collect my watch, which had been suitably modified. I then made my way back to my car, ever-alert in case there was a need to mock a passing squirrel for his inability to tell the time.
--
Of course, what remains now is the question: given that I had not one, but two perfectly good watches in my possession (and had, in fact, recently replaced one watch with a suspiciously identical cheap black watch), why did I feel the need to purchase a third watch? Was stereo time no longer adequate, such that I felt the need for a surround-time system?
The answer lies in the title of this post. See, when it comes to bling, I take the somewhat old-fashioned view that less is more, especially where men are concerned. Not for me a fistful of golden rings, or a plethora of fool-pitying medallions. And absolutely no piercings. Instead, I will confine myself to a suitably characterful tie, a smart set of cufflinks (and then only when wearing a dress shirt), and a dress watch.
Which of course necessitates the purchase of a suitable dress watch, as has now been done. Did I mention that it is a thing of beauty?
7 comments:
Bracelet? Surely you mean strap, you big manly, Scottish, manly, man?!
I thought so too, but apparently 'bracelet' is the right word in this case. It seems it's a strap if it's made out of a single piece of leather, but a bracelet if it's made out of many links.
There has to be a better term for manly men to use instead of bracelet. I do realise that a strap is leather (or plastic!) so I think that you should invent something more testosteroney for the male species. Even though I know you are not concerned about such trivial things, it makes me want to laugh every time I think of you saying "do you like the bracelet on my watch?"!
To be fair, I'm not entirely sure I would ever say such a thing. If nothing else, artificially attempting to draw attention to is just seems so declassé.
Still, I shall give it some thought.
Please do. This issue is keeping me awake at night.
How about wrist chain Molly? (Although, that does make me think of nasty men bling gold chains with tacky medallions, so perhaps not!).
Truly those dastardly squirrels have been thwarted in their evil machinations! Am tres envious of the Ceilidhs- they are so fun. It's rubbish being an Englander!
See, that's why you should come to Scotland.
Then again, ceilidhs are decidely less fun when you can't find them because you've very carefully memorised a specific route, only to find one of the key roads is closed. Grrr!
Post a Comment