Kinda stealth wealth

Anyone who would know what a Tank or Reverso is, will know that's not one. 

On the other hand it looks timeless, and classy. So if anyone does notice the watch, they'll think you know how to dress appropriately. 

It is a timeless design made by a historically important, perhaps preeminent, watch manufacturer. It is more accurate than any mechanical Cartier. It is also more easily readable than a Cartier because Cartier crowds the dial with oversized numerals.

This watch is superior to a Cartier tank. Don't be insecure about it, it is a flex.

(On the flip side, any JLC leaves this in the dust, accuracy be damned.)

I’m sorry but I disagree completely. No way does this outdo a Cartier Tank. No disrespect to anyone who owns this watch, but you only buy this if the Cartier is out of reach. 

Or you don't like the Cartier... not everyone who can afford a particular watch buys that watch. 

I’m sorry but I disagree completely. No way does this outdo a Cartier Tank. No disrespect to anyone who owns this watch, but you only buy this if the Cartier is out of reach. 

I've bought/owned about 3 Cartier tanks over the course of my life and maybe 2 of these Seiko Tanks.

There's certainly a quality difference (mainly in the straps) but not really as much of one as the price would imply.  Both are pretty great watches which I would love more if I were a fan of the rectangular style.

I often think about the Seiko Tank when I  think about how  I want homage watches to be.  Despite the shared shapes and Romans, there is no mistaking one for the other.  Yet they accomplish the same thing, low key dress watch that does not call attention to itself.

I think you made the right call with the steel, the gold painted one will age much faster.

As for what stealth wealth is (is that what the zoomers call it?), no one put it better than JL Collins.

https://youtu.be/eikbQPldhPY 

I've known enough very rich people who are simultaneously trapped in their lives to understand that the only measure of wealth that matters is being able to say no when someone asks you to do something.

My tongue was firmly in my cheek when I wrote that, but let's break it down.

1. Quartz movements are more accurate than mechanical movements, I don't think that this debatable.  This watch is quartz. It is more accurate than any mechanical Cartier. One of the prime functions of a time piece is accuracy. Point to Seiko.
2.  Both Cartier and Seiko have long and storied histories. Cartier invented this style of watch. Variations of this design dominated consumers' buying preferences through the Second World War. However, Cartier was and is primarily known as a jewelry manufacturer to the general public. They have never had a golden era where they were a major player in the watch industry, or perhaps, this is their golden era.  By contrast, Seiko has been an industry pioneer. I think that the "Quartz Crisis" is misnamed, but it is undeniable that Seiko ushered us into the modern age.  At the same time they created a line of mechanical watches that are the entry point for many watch enthusiasts. They create luxury pieces and bargain watches. Cartier reissues slight variations of old designs. They only occupy a luxury space. Point to Seiko.
3.  When the United States and British military issued specification for military watches they required Arabic numerals.  The reason is self-evident:  Arabic numerals are more legible than Roman numerals. When Cartier created the tank they were closer in time to the Crimean War than today. Roman numerals were common on mantle clocks and large public clocks. They have always been an affectation, a simulacrum of sophistication and taste. Cartier fills more dial space with them.  This leads to difficulty accurately reading near the VIII (the impetus for the California Dial). Seiko minimizes this legibility problem by reducing the size of the numerals. Half point to Seiko.
4.  Don't get me started on that crystal carbuncle that Cartier uses as a crown. Point to Seiko.
5.  "[Y]ou only buy this if the Cartier is out of reach." I think that I have given reasons why that is not true.  @KristianG makes a good point about personal taste.  But, I also want to point out that this is the very watch snobbery that the OP was concerned with: would he be judged for wearing this watch? And boom! You drop a judgment based on personal wealth. On the scale of wrongthink this is:

You might as well have said that he was wearing a peasant's watch.

The Seiko is a good looking and functional watch. Which do you think the farmer's son, Jack Pershing, would have chosen for himself?

My tongue was firmly in my cheek when I wrote that, but let's break it down.

1. Quartz movements are more accurate than mechanical movements, I don't think that this debatable.  This watch is quartz. It is more accurate than any mechanical Cartier. One of the prime functions of a time piece is accuracy. Point to Seiko.
2.  Both Cartier and Seiko have long and storied histories. Cartier invented this style of watch. Variations of this design dominated consumers' buying preferences through the Second World War. However, Cartier was and is primarily known as a jewelry manufacturer to the general public. They have never had a golden era where they were a major player in the watch industry, or perhaps, this is their golden era.  By contrast, Seiko has been an industry pioneer. I think that the "Quartz Crisis" is misnamed, but it is undeniable that Seiko ushered us into the modern age.  At the same time they created a line of mechanical watches that are the entry point for many watch enthusiasts. They create luxury pieces and bargain watches. Cartier reissues slight variations of old designs. They only occupy a luxury space. Point to Seiko.
3.  When the United States and British military issued specification for military watches they required Arabic numerals.  The reason is self-evident:  Arabic numerals are more legible than Roman numerals. When Cartier created the tank they were closer in time to the Crimean War than today. Roman numerals were common on mantle clocks and large public clocks. They have always been an affectation, a simulacrum of sophistication and taste. Cartier fills more dial space with them.  This leads to difficulty accurately reading near the VIII (the impetus for the California Dial). Seiko minimizes this legibility problem by reducing the size of the numerals. Half point to Seiko.
4.  Don't get me started on that crystal carbuncle that Cartier uses as a crown. Point to Seiko.
5.  "[Y]ou only buy this if the Cartier is out of reach." I think that I have given reasons why that is not true.  @KristianG makes a good point about personal taste.  But, I also want to point out that this is the very watch snobbery that the OP was concerned with: would he be judged for wearing this watch? And boom! You drop a judgment based on personal wealth. On the scale of wrongthink this is:

You might as well have said that he was wearing a peasant's watch.

The Seiko is a good looking and functional watch. Which do you think the farmer's son, Jack Pershing, would have chosen for himself?

Again. All valid points. Speaking as a generalisation. 
But specific to the Tank. Nobody buys a tank for the quality of its movement or legibility of its dial. If that is a primary factor in decision making then neither of these watches would be top of the list. 
This watch is bought predominantly for its style. Cartier invented this style. A lot of other brands replicated this style. Hence my comment, specific to this watch, if You want this style you want the Cartier. If it’s unattainable then you look at the alternatives. 

My intention was not to be snobby at all. I’m broke as s**t myself haha. 

The OP himself acknowledged that this watch is a symbol of “fake wealth”. Cartier is fashion and luxury. They just go beyond jewellery and into watches and they do it better than the other fashion houses (Gucci etc). They have also been pioneers. The Santos is often referred to as the first mens wrist watch or whatever. 
 

by no means am I knocking anyone who buys and wears homages of this tank but lets be real. If they were the same price then it would be a Cartier on everyone’s wrist. 

I get what you are saying, but the Seiko is WAY larger I think. Granted, I would much rather have the tank. I will get one someday. But to say that it is the same thing just on a budget is not quite true.

Not about the flex. I am very clearly a high school history teacher. Just fun to imagine other's reactions to seeing something that shape on my wrist.

I have the gold tone solar version of this watch, it really does punch up a notch.  My other half swiped it, I haven't seen it for months.

Yeah I haven’t handled the Seiko in person to be honest. But I was just making a point that anyone Who likes this watch would (99%) want the Tank first. 
Don't mind me anyway my intention wasn’t to diss the Seiko in anyway. I’m saving for a Santos atm so hopefully we’ll be hitting up our local Cartier stores soon 😅

I get it, enjoy the watch and thank you for being a teacher, it’s hard work and you guys don’t get enough praise!! teachers deserve more in my opinion 🍻 

My tongue was firmly in my cheek when I wrote that, but let's break it down.

1. Quartz movements are more accurate than mechanical movements, I don't think that this debatable.  This watch is quartz. It is more accurate than any mechanical Cartier. One of the prime functions of a time piece is accuracy. Point to Seiko.
2.  Both Cartier and Seiko have long and storied histories. Cartier invented this style of watch. Variations of this design dominated consumers' buying preferences through the Second World War. However, Cartier was and is primarily known as a jewelry manufacturer to the general public. They have never had a golden era where they were a major player in the watch industry, or perhaps, this is their golden era.  By contrast, Seiko has been an industry pioneer. I think that the "Quartz Crisis" is misnamed, but it is undeniable that Seiko ushered us into the modern age.  At the same time they created a line of mechanical watches that are the entry point for many watch enthusiasts. They create luxury pieces and bargain watches. Cartier reissues slight variations of old designs. They only occupy a luxury space. Point to Seiko.
3.  When the United States and British military issued specification for military watches they required Arabic numerals.  The reason is self-evident:  Arabic numerals are more legible than Roman numerals. When Cartier created the tank they were closer in time to the Crimean War than today. Roman numerals were common on mantle clocks and large public clocks. They have always been an affectation, a simulacrum of sophistication and taste. Cartier fills more dial space with them.  This leads to difficulty accurately reading near the VIII (the impetus for the California Dial). Seiko minimizes this legibility problem by reducing the size of the numerals. Half point to Seiko.
4.  Don't get me started on that crystal carbuncle that Cartier uses as a crown. Point to Seiko.
5.  "[Y]ou only buy this if the Cartier is out of reach." I think that I have given reasons why that is not true.  @KristianG makes a good point about personal taste.  But, I also want to point out that this is the very watch snobbery that the OP was concerned with: would he be judged for wearing this watch? And boom! You drop a judgment based on personal wealth. On the scale of wrongthink this is:

You might as well have said that he was wearing a peasant's watch.

The Seiko is a good looking and functional watch. Which do you think the farmer's son, Jack Pershing, would have chosen for himself?

It is a timeless design made by a historically important, perhaps preeminent, watch manufacturer. It is more accurate than any mechanical Cartier. It is also more easily readable than a Cartier because Cartier crowds the dial with oversized numerals.

This watch is superior to a Cartier tank. Don't be insecure about it, it is a flex.

(On the flip side, any JLC leaves this in the dust, accuracy be damned.)

My tongue was firmly in my cheek when I wrote that, but let's break it down.

1. Quartz movements are more accurate than mechanical movements, I don't think that this debatable.  This watch is quartz. It is more accurate than any mechanical Cartier. One of the prime functions of a time piece is accuracy. Point to Seiko.
2.  Both Cartier and Seiko have long and storied histories. Cartier invented this style of watch. Variations of this design dominated consumers' buying preferences through the Second World War. However, Cartier was and is primarily known as a jewelry manufacturer to the general public. They have never had a golden era where they were a major player in the watch industry, or perhaps, this is their golden era.  By contrast, Seiko has been an industry pioneer. I think that the "Quartz Crisis" is misnamed, but it is undeniable that Seiko ushered us into the modern age.  At the same time they created a line of mechanical watches that are the entry point for many watch enthusiasts. They create luxury pieces and bargain watches. Cartier reissues slight variations of old designs. They only occupy a luxury space. Point to Seiko.
3.  When the United States and British military issued specification for military watches they required Arabic numerals.  The reason is self-evident:  Arabic numerals are more legible than Roman numerals. When Cartier created the tank they were closer in time to the Crimean War than today. Roman numerals were common on mantle clocks and large public clocks. They have always been an affectation, a simulacrum of sophistication and taste. Cartier fills more dial space with them.  This leads to difficulty accurately reading near the VIII (the impetus for the California Dial). Seiko minimizes this legibility problem by reducing the size of the numerals. Half point to Seiko.
4.  Don't get me started on that crystal carbuncle that Cartier uses as a crown. Point to Seiko.
5.  "[Y]ou only buy this if the Cartier is out of reach." I think that I have given reasons why that is not true.  @KristianG makes a good point about personal taste.  But, I also want to point out that this is the very watch snobbery that the OP was concerned with: would he be judged for wearing this watch? And boom! You drop a judgment based on personal wealth. On the scale of wrongthink this is:

You might as well have said that he was wearing a peasant's watch.

The Seiko is a good looking and functional watch. Which do you think the farmer's son, Jack Pershing, would have chosen for himself?

Oddly enough, your Seiko Tank reminds me of my 2015 Hyundai. Feels more expensive than it is! (but the electronic trunk latch doesn't work, just to remind me that it's still a Hyundai) 

You’re wealthy in your own unique way man. Enjoy this classy watch. 

Being a high school teach you deserve to wear a nice watch!