|
|
Post by mike on Nov 8, 2005 21:09:56 GMT -6
I have always had a special place for the GMT. But, I have always prefered the Triplock crown to the twinlock.
Both from a pratical standpoint as well as the way it looks.
Maybe someday Rolex will expand the Triplock into more sport models.
How about you? which do you prefer?
|
|
clifton
Guest
Since: Apr 29, 2024 23:32:49 GMT -6
|
Post by clifton on Nov 8, 2005 21:20:00 GMT -6
Humm, Mike that is a tough one.  I'm a big fan of the size of Triplock, but I'm not sure that would look right on a non-diver. I think they just need to make the Twinlock just a hair larger and leave the current style twinlock for the DJs and dress models. |
|
|
|
Post by Sam on Nov 8, 2005 21:52:51 GMT -6
Don't know that I can say. On the divers the triplock looks great and is functional, however I do like the look of the twinlock on the Exp II and GMT II. I think a triplock on a GMT II wouldn't look right. IMO Rolex has it right the way it is.  |
|
|
|
Post by udxtdk9 on Nov 8, 2005 21:56:37 GMT -6
Since I prefer the divers models, I had to go with the triplock.
|
|
|
|
Post by JJ on Nov 9, 2005 0:57:41 GMT -6
I voted Triplock 'cause I love the 'heavy' feel of the crown whilst winding. Also the larger crown is easier to grasp. Added security against the elements is ensured with the gasket around the stem. Triplock crowns are denoted by the 3 dots below the coronet on the crown (see pics below). Cheers - JJ  Note the 3 dots below the coronet on TRIPLOCK crowns...  ...and note the small 'dash' below the coronet on TWINLOCK crowns...  |
|
|
|
Post by JJ on Nov 9, 2005 1:04:46 GMT -6
Don't know that I can say. On the divers the triplock looks great and is functional, however I do like the look of the twinlock on the Exp II and GMT II. I think a triplock on a GMT II wouldn't look right. IMO Rolex has it right the way it is. Agreed, Sam. A Triplock on a GMT-II or Exp-II would look silly and disproportionate. Furthermore, the Triplock crown would stick way out beyond the top of the guards...would look plain stupid. Rolex have got it right the way it is. Besides, 99.99% of us should be more than happy with a watch that's waterproof to a depth of 100 m or 330 feet!!! JJ  |
|
|
|
Post by mailman on Nov 9, 2005 3:51:41 GMT -6
I like the triplock because it's easier for me to get ahold of with my large fingers. But for practicallity purposes, I think the twinlock would do just fine for 95% of us. Just my $.02
|
|
|
|
Post by bruces on Nov 9, 2005 4:19:51 GMT -6
I think they have it right the way it is!
|
|
CHIP
WWF Founder
Ad Astra Per Aspera
Posts: 37,799 
Name: Chip
Location: Dallas
|
Post by CHIP on Nov 9, 2005 7:09:31 GMT -6
Besides, 99.99% of us should be more than happy with a watch that's waterproof to a depth of 100 m or 330 feet!!! JJ What if you are like me and have a really really deep bath tub? |
|
|
|
Post by gmt16750 on Nov 9, 2005 10:43:19 GMT -6
I voted triplock purely because it's easier to get a hold of.
|
|
|
|
Post by JJ on Nov 9, 2005 10:56:45 GMT -6
Besides, 99.99% of us should be more than happy with a watch that's waterproof to a depth of 100 m or 330 feet!!! JJ What if you are like me and have a really really deep bath tub? My bath tub goes down to around 299 metres....surely, yours is not deeper than that now, is it?  ;D ;D ;D |
|
|
|
Post by atomic on Nov 9, 2005 11:11:48 GMT -6
I think they have it right. Besides, my TAG Kirium is waterpruf to 200m (100m more than my ExpII) and yet the crown is even smaller than the one on the ExpII. I don't suffer from crown envy.  |
|
|
|
Post by maverick on Nov 9, 2005 19:56:32 GMT -6
I think they have it right the way it is! I agree. =) maverick |
|
