|
Post by carl on Feb 2, 2014 15:29:27 GMT -6
I saw the GMT as well yesterday at the AD. Didn't try it on, though, nor did I try the Explorer II. I like both of them. This is my one purchase where, within reason, cost will not be a major factor. I had given myself the option of going as high as the Yachtmaster with platinum dial. But the Sub ND still came out on top. If the YM had been the one, it just would have taken longer to get it. I have, far too many times, talked myself into getting something that isn't really the one I want, just because I happen to be able to afford it at the time. Don't get me wrong, all have been lovely watches. But now they are gone, or will be sold, and I intend to get the one that I want. Those are beautiful photos, Rommel! I would never consider a pre-owned model, though, unless I could find a good one in Canada. On the other hand, the lovely used ones are still quite a bit of money, and I feel that I must go with a new one from the AD. They suggested at the AD I have the case back engraved, so that I really will hang on to the watch! It's the same AD where a bought my Explorer I a few years ago. cheers, Carl
|
|
|
Post by rw16610 on Feb 2, 2014 15:30:00 GMT -6
Wonderful reading guys. I've had 16610, 116610LN, 116710LN and now 216570. The Sub will always be the most iconic /favourite model for me. I think GMTIIc looks the best though. I wish I had the money to own 3 at a time My next Rolex must be a Submariner again . . . . and the great thing with Rolex - we dont lose our savings, we invest That's one of my favourite things about Rolex. I'm yet to find another hobby that secure that high of a percentage of our money short term and even somehow grow long term! This is what got me into collecting the Rolex accessories. Well that was the second reason after the number one being the fact I found them cool and wanted to own them. Rolex knows how versatile their watches are, especially the Submariner be it the sub date or no date: You can never go wrong buying a Submariner, Henrik! When I'm ready for my next Rolex (it's taking a while because I refuse to sell the Explorer II), I would buy any of the above watches with no regrets. I'll tell you, the first time I saw the ceramic Submariner date in person on someones wrist it had me blown away! More so than the Deepsea. I've only ever seen the 116710 GMT in person but can not recall seeing it on anyone's wrist in the "wild". Having a bezel that will never scratch or fade is a fair trade off for the fact it is technically possible to shatter it upon impact. My biggest thing about these watches is keeping them, for life. The newer it can appear after 20 years of daily use, the better. Faded bezels can have their appeal on some vintage pieces but for me on a modern watch, no. I saw the GMT as well yesterday at the AD. Didn't try it on, though, nor did I try the Explorer II. I like both of them. This is my one purchase where, within reason, cost will not be a major factor. I had given myself the option of going as high as the Yachtmaster with platinum dial. But the Sub ND still came out on top. If the YM had been the one, it just would have taken longer to get it. I have, far too many times, talked myself into getting something that isn't really the one I want, just because I happen to be able to afford it at the time. Don't get me wrong, all have been lovely watches. But now they are gone, or will be sold, and I intend to get the one that I want. Those are beautiful photos, Rommel! I would never consider a pre-owned model, though, unless I could find a good one in Canada. On the other hand, the lovely used ones are still quite a bit of money, and I feel that I must go with a new one from the AD. They suggested at the AD I have the case back engraved, so that I really will hang on to the watch! It's the same AD where a bought my Explorer I a few years ago. cheers, Carl The same has happened to me, Carl! The particular Omega watches I had were not "it" but the one that's it is VERY costly and tough to find: From - Google Totally agree in regards to importing watches, a total waste of time. Factoring in the duties, one is better off going to support a LOCAL dealer in that particular city. I'm all for preowned pieces as it means getting the best possible price so if I do decide to sell it, I'll take less of a hit if any at all. I took a B-A-T-H on my first Omega that was purchased new. No regrets still but if I can find a good preowned piece locally, why not? You should do so, Carl! Something to add character to the watch. Being the fan of no date watches that you are, this is in my opinion the only option.
|
|
|
Post by carl on Feb 2, 2014 15:37:08 GMT -6
I have always like that Photo of the Sub C with a business suit! After seeing it again yesterday, I would have no problem wearing it on a dressy occasion.
Oh, and I did see the new GMT-Master II with the two-colour bezel, that was indeed the nicest one yet. It looks gorgeous in real life.
Cheers, Carl
|
|
|
Post by rw16610 on Feb 2, 2014 15:39:22 GMT -6
I have to see that one in person! It has me wondering if they will launch another at Basel this year. Red and black possibly or maybe red and blue? Who knows! All I know is these watch companies keep making it harder and harder to decide on a watch at any given time. See what I mean?
|
|
|
Post by urtossen on Feb 2, 2014 23:14:18 GMT -6
With all this Submariner talk, I saw this video four times yesterday, and just got more hooked
linkcant get the videolink to work . . . will try later.
|
|
|
Post by rw16610 on Feb 3, 2014 0:40:06 GMT -6
Here we go: That was a well put together video review that was a blast to watch! Anyone who sees that could easily want a Submariner after. He mentions the advantages to the solid center link bracelets too I REALLY want solid center links now. When I do get the other watch the Explorer II will mostly be a safe queen long term. I feel as if the updated models in my opinion are 10 times better for daily long term use. Having a scratch and fade resistant bezel as well
|
|
|
Post by urtossen on Feb 3, 2014 2:43:59 GMT -6
Thank you for the video fix. Dont know what went wrong. I'm not a vintage man either, I love the new bracelets and Parachrom, Cerachrom . . . you name it. RW16610, what kind of ExpII do you have ? . . I cant remember.
|
|
|
Post by rw16610 on Feb 3, 2014 13:19:03 GMT -6
Not a problem I'm not too sure either but quoted your original post to get the video's coded link or whatever it is and did it similar to an image. I put 6XmcSaKnquA inside of this (spelt properly, it had to be done this way to show up for some reason) [UTUBE][/UTUBE] I have a 16570 Explorer II Black dial: Bought it preowned in June 2010 and absolutely love this watch. It's my daily wearer and the way prices have changed so much gives me yet another reason to hang onto this piece. My favourite Rolex watches have the rotating bezels (Submariner, GMT Master II) so it only makes sense to have something with a fixed bezel in my possession too. This way in the long run I can change back as desired but truthfully plan on wearing the updated watch and saving this for when ever it goes for a service. Would I take another discontinued model if the chance came up locally? Maybe, but I really prefer not to now after almost 4 years with my Explorer II. The hollow links can trap dirt and seem to take way longer to dry after the watch gets wet, of course. The AD lady back in 2007 was horrible. I went there to look at the 16610 and as I was playing with that watch in awe she goes here, have a look at this one... It was the 116710 LN and my life was never the same after that Once I saw that ceramic bezel, maxi dial and felt the better balance with the bracelet being solid I was not as motivated for the 16610. The GMT feature was another huge factor. Before having the Explorer II this was my collection: All are amazing watches but I wore the Fortis for a year and a bit, blue Seamaster for almost two years and the Planet Ocean for a year and got rather bored of them together as a whole. All were dive watches, did the same stuff just about and had a very similar look in many ways. This got me thinking the Explorer II would be a refreshing change after those because I knew after the Explorer it would 1000% for sure be a Submariner or GMT Master II. For me personally if it came down to having only one as I currently do it was nice to have a feature that can be used more frequently than the extreme depth rating.
|
|
|
Post by urtossen on Feb 3, 2014 16:03:18 GMT -6
Wow . . .thats a REALLY nice Explorer . We have about same taste in watches. I've had three Seamaster 300, and one PO. I miss the PO. It was XL, all orange and VERY comfortable on the rubber band. Amazing, when you think of the 45,5mm. I've had a couple of Fortis also. The 116710LN I had very briefly. The most wonderful Rolex. But it had a thing with the date, where it would only shift half at midnight. . .and then all the way around 3 at night. Not a SERIOUS fault, and could be fixed on warranty. But I could not bear the thought of having a brand new rolex opened, and flipped it with a little loss. The future will tell what is next
|
|
|
Post by rw16610 on Feb 3, 2014 20:32:17 GMT -6
Was that the early 3186 movement problems I read something about? I heard as well some of them had issues with the crown being pushed or pulled from position to position and serving the correct function or something similar. The whole point of a brand new watch is to be flawless. If it has to get opened up for a minor "service / repair" right off the bat that sort of ruins it for me, as well. Not knowing what will come next is all part of the fun!
|
|
|
Post by carl on Feb 3, 2014 20:41:51 GMT -6
Wow . . .thats a REALLY nice Explorer . We have about same taste in watches. I've had three Seamaster 300, and one PO. I miss the PO. It was XL, all orange and VERY comfortable on the rubber band. Amazing, when you think of the 45,5mm. I've had a couple of Fortis also. The 116710LN I had very briefly. The most wonderful Rolex. But it had a thing with the date, where it would only shift half at midnight. . .and then all the way around 3 at night. Not a SERIOUS fault, and could be fixed on warranty. But I could not bear the thought of having a brand new rolex opened, and flipped it with a little loss. The future will tell what is next Interesting, your comments on the Omega PO 45.5mm. I have never owned one, but have tried on the most recent 8500 models, both in 42mm and 45.5mm sizes. I found the more comfortable of the two is the 45.5mm size, and also like better how it looks on my wrist. Normally, a watch of that size would be out of the question for me. It may be the thickness/case size ratio. The PO is a very thick watch. Now, when I try on the Rolex Sub at 40mm, it seems just perfect. It does not seem like a big watch, that is by today's standards. And very comfortable.
|
|
|
Post by carl on Feb 3, 2014 20:59:20 GMT -6
In defence of Rolex's use of 904L steel. There is an excellent, short article here: beckertime.com/blog/2012/what-is-the-big-deal-of-rolexs-use-of-904l-steel/Of course, in use for all Rolex stainless steel watches now, and bracelets, not only diver watches. Having heard so many arguments for and against, and also about why does Rolex not provide AR coating on it's sapphire crystals, or exhibition casebacks, or engraving on the caseback. For me, the appeal is that less is better, and that they are consistent in maintaining this philosophy. I think that I should start compiling a list of why I want to own a Rolex, over other watches Cheers, Carl
|
|
|
Post by urtossen on Feb 3, 2014 23:12:59 GMT -6
Was that the early 3186 movement problems I read something about? I heard as well some of them had issues with the crown being pushed or pulled from position to position and serving the correct function or something similar. The whole point of a brand new watch is to be flawless. If it has to get opened up for a minor "service / repair" right off the bat that sort of ruins it for me, as well. Not knowing what will come next is all part of the fun! Dont know about that. It was a G-series, sold from EU AD Oktober 2012. Cromalight and parachrom.
|
|
|
Post by urtossen on Feb 3, 2014 23:15:10 GMT -6
Wow . . .thats a REALLY nice Explorer . We have about same taste in watches. I've had three Seamaster 300, and one PO. I miss the PO. It was XL, all orange and VERY comfortable on the rubber band. Amazing, when you think of the 45,5mm. I've had a couple of Fortis also. The 116710LN I had very briefly. The most wonderful Rolex. But it had a thing with the date, where it would only shift half at midnight. . .and then all the way around 3 at night. Not a SERIOUS fault, and could be fixed on warranty. But I could not bear the thought of having a brand new rolex opened, and flipped it with a little loss. The future will tell what is next Interesting, your comments on the Omega PO 45.5mm. I have never owned one, but have tried on the most recent 8500 models, both in 42mm and 45.5mm sizes. I found the more comfortable of the two is the 45.5mm size, and also like better how it looks on my wrist. Normally, a watch of that size would be out of the question for me. It may be the thickness/case size ratio. The PO is a very thick watch. Now, when I try on the Rolex Sub at 40mm, it seems just perfect. It does not seem like a big watch, that is by today's standards. And very comfortable. It was the older model, with Caliber 2500. It is more comfortable than the new ones. I think you are right about the 40mm though.
|
|
|
Post by rw16610 on Feb 4, 2014 13:58:44 GMT -6
In defence of Rolex's use of 904L steel. There is an excellent, short article here: beckertime.com/blog/2012/what-is-the-big-deal-of-rolexs-use-of-904l-steel/Of course, in use for all Rolex stainless steel watches now, and bracelets, not only diver watches. Having heard so many arguments for and against, and also about why does Rolex not provide AR coating on it's sapphire crystals, or exhibition casebacks, or engraving on the caseback. For me, the appeal is that less is better, and that they are consistent in maintaining this philosophy. I think that I should start compiling a list of why I want to own a Rolex, over other watches Cheers, Carl Very good reasoning there, Carl. Over the years I have gradually discovered that less is in fact more as they say. Especially when it comes to a watch that most people will typically hang onto for their entire lives. I guess it's mostly the WIS community that "flips" them every so often. The whole point of a top quality Swiss watch is to spend A LOT of money ONCE and be set, for life essentially. As neat as engravings on the back can be and all of that jazz, we do change a lot over the years and simple, timeless aspects seem to stand the test of time with us better than things that can more less be a phase or easily tiresome. To me, the sapphire crystals without the coating adds a nice classic appeal to the watch. The glare can add a nice smokey / pearly touch to the watch face. I guess it's the same way Rolex continued to make their crystals stick up like the old "top hat" style ones, just much less. Most other brands have it flush with the fixed or rotating bezel. Dont know about that. It was a G-series, sold from EU AD Oktober 2012. Cromalight and parachrom. Yeah, I wasn't too sure myself as I read some stuff on a larger forum where there were many reports of similar issues. That's awesome because I thought the GMT had just the regular SuperLuminova material on the hour markers. So it was the same green lume or it appeared blue like the Submariner?
|
|