New users: Please register in the usual way and then send an email to jasper(at)jasperfforde.com with your username, and write something 'Ffordesque' so we know you are a real reader, and not some idiot trying to flood the forum with dodgy Nike and Gucci gear. Thank you - Jasper
I regretted my deception the moment I'd posted it. That message was intended to deceive, and I feel shame.
No, it was not a watch, it was closer to delacuesta's other choice.
The answer, as retrieved from the Pink Cardboard Box of Maximum Security was:
The -13.8 dioptre right lens of my glasses.
I'd have accepted "a lens" or "glasses," of course.
Things changed for me last year, when a cataract operation left me with bright and shiny new eyes, but unfortunately no changeable focus. I can now see without glasses, focusing at about 60cm. Any change of focus requires a change of glasses. I found the variable focus type not suitable and bifocals equally uncomfortable, but as long as I have reading glasses to hand (I bought several pairs at about NZ$3.00 each) life is great.
Previously, a pair of glasses cost me about NZ$500. You can probably tell from the $3 price that fashion considerations played no part in either purchase.
Enough digression.
What now? I'm all too willing to pass on the mantle.
06 Practical rather than decorative? Yes.
05 Moving parts? Yes.
04 A cup? Nope.
03 Edible? Strictly speaking, no.
02 Bigger than a breadbox? Not usually.
01 Animal? Definitely not.