Talk:Pulsar (watch)

Brands Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Watches

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Watches, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of watches on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WatchesWikipedia:WikiProject WatchesTemplate:WikiProject WatchesWatches articles

Untitled[edit]

The Hamilton Pulsar was notable because it was the very first digital watch you could buy. I used red LED 7 segment displays, and in order to conserve the battery, you had to press a button to display the time. It was extremely expensive at the time, and it was so hip, that it is featured in a James Bond film (I don't remember which one). James Bond presses the button and the time appears (!!!) digitally! It is amazing how quaint that is. I don't remember the year: was it 1970 or 1973? I would like to put this in the wiki page, but the background and facts would have to be checked and references found. I am not a watch expert. Any takers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.107.15 (talk) 05:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Advertisement?[edit]

Does anyone else think that this article sounds like advertisement copy? I owned one of the original LED Pulsar watches and the battery was always giving out. That's why I was able to purchase a heavily discounted one. BUT, nobody told me that the battery drain was horrible. When the LCD technology was perfected, that was the end of the LED watches. But, then again, it WAS cutting edge and "state of the art," the design and styling were considered futuristic at the time. I wish this article wasn't saturated with "peacock" type writing. This watch really could be described as it really was. That is, almost ahead of its time except for the severe battery drain by the electronic movement. T.E. Goodwin (talk) 08:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just re-read this article and if I were a gambler I would make book that this was written by an employee of the company. The entire article is devoid of citations and reads like ADVERTISING. This article needs to be wikified. The watch is notable and deserves a better written treatment, IMO. T.E. Goodwin (talk) 08:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Provided ref and removed tags. Joema (talk) 00:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]