ammandel

Reliable..? Chronograph..? Ha!

Hmm, I suppose this is quite bad, although this may not have been done as maliciously as you thought it may have been intended.. The tone of the msg doesn't come across as someone that wanted to out you because of your membership to this forum, more that it was a less than tactful individual that wanted to identify your alias' across the boards. I'm not too suprised about the lack of tact from some of the membership, the same membership that sometimes sends packages back with a custom declaration marked "REPLICA ROLEX WATCH".. I wouldnt take it to heart.. just my 2pence

I've personally think the 16610 is somewhat 'tacky' and 'tinny' in the current market. Not just talking about reps.. The luxury watch sector is a large market now with the bar set very high. The submariner was one of the models that was seriously in need of these modernised updates. Rolex has long been synonomous with innovation. There was little innovative about the plasticy bezeleling and flimsy bracelet. Even the way the bezel works is in somewhat like a paperclip in the middle of some jagged metal. The new sub design for me represents Rolex's flexibility while maintaining design staples. The thicker, rounder CG's go to show the look of quality more and add to the general 'boldness' of the design. Good to see the maxi dial now being used in all the new models too. As for the polished mid links.. this is a 18K watch.. a slight departure from the idea of 'tool watch'. Maybe the SS version will retain its fully brushed bracelet, as long as it has the new clasp!

I can't believe the authenticity of this watch is even slightly in question! haha

First time Ive seen one of these! Maybe this is old news to you all! I think this is an nteresting piece actually. The brightness of the gold is very unique actually and seems quite modern if anything. I always think of gold watches as old fashioned but this has a whiter look to it so it looks prettttty good. I could probably just about pull this off actually.. now where did I leave that

Is this gen? Looks it to me!

Pretty nice oyster bracelet on this one, actually!

While sitting here thinking about some possibilities of what'd be perfect beyond the explorer II.. I was thinking to myself "God not a Navitimer.. god not a Breitling at all!!" Then I thought, wait... (NOT MY PICTURE!!)

Haha, okok! I was kidding already I never understood how GMT functions work anyway edit add: (Ohhhh I see, this confused me because the GMT masters have a rotatable bezel (for the 3rd time zone to be measured I know), just didn't know that you had to read the outer bezel to get the actual reading of the time, I thought the time indicated by the dial was the one to be read. I learned something BIG today !)

Cuz I can see how an hour would be difficult to calculate... Just kidding bro Looks great! Nice pic! Those buildings look cool..

Billywhiz will you answer your PMs plz; I just asked Who has the best sub?

Datejust isn't a sports model is it?

I feel like this is a reponse to my mention of your suit combined with my choice to wear the Portofino chrono later BT, am I right!? Well, "suit" is a little broad to decide which watch to wear with one. A work suit is best accompanied by the White Dialed Explorer II though, I don't have one, but it certainly is the best dress-suit watch around. The right amount of reserved/extravagance combination with the white dial showing that you're there to be formal, and do some 'bidniz' edit: beat to it by dluddy... See?! its perfect. No better work suit sports watch imo. Although I do like your ebel BT and it looks great in the pic, I'm unconvinced about the sports chronographs.. just my 2 pence!

So I'll follow suit!.. Speaking of suits, nice cut BT! AM: PM: The big night for this guy

Looks great man! I feel like GMT IIc is really the piece that represents the move into the new age for Rolex, increased quality and finishes - finally finding a way to modernise their already timeless but classic designs on to compete with the other names that were starting to grow at a quickening pace. Of course I'm already very public about my love for the new 116200 DJ case too!.. I've never felt that attached to my sub, and I can't imagine that changing. I don't think it has anything to do with the fact its a rep, it was my first so the initial feeling will stay with me.. I just think the design is slightly too understated for me. GMT iic would suit me better I'm thinking.

Nice pics, your pearl looks very interesting, got any closer pics of it? perhaps through a loupe or something?

Not to leave this comment.. uncommented on.. I agree with this 100%. The REAL pearls are actually pearlescent and slightly recessed.. No reps seem to have this right at all... Infact.. I'd like to request that anyone with a WM9 take a decent macro picture of the pearl because I've noticed that there dont seem to be many macro pics of pearls about.

Just to add; I'd love to do this, except like you said.. I'm scared of the salespeople.

This topic is so interesting but at the same time very hard to discuss; we are starting to breach on the area of 'value'. Value in itself is very difficult to discuss because of its variation of importance. In essence, we should *really* only pay marginally over somethings cost. We are happy to do that with most groceries for example. Luxury items are different and value and its idea changes in each different persons mind. RobbieG for example has written about this a number of times and is a large advocate of something is 'worth' what people are willing to pay for it. Others question this motive and feel that prices for certain items are unethically driven up based on hype and marketing. Beyond the price is the idea of the human factor, and our item attachment. In short; I'm saying maybe in essense the simple, single fact that you are paying a large amount of money on something gives it its worth and is then romanticised by your mind. On the other hand, maybe not..

This is extremely interesting to me, like I said earlier: The higher nickel content in 904 SHOULD by all means make it appear somewhat whiter, of course this would be difficult to spot unless everyone only ever saw the same 2 pieces in the same 2 conditions under the same lights. The human factor is a big part of what is being discussed here. For example; Maybe to some of us CZ and diamond would look the same. To the others; not so.

This is turning into a very very interesting discussion. BT I am extremely surprised at hearing you say those things especially since you are an owner of a gen (or two?) Rolex's. In my experience; I've had even Non-WIS tell of the 'differences in the shininess of real rolex' vs fakes, but this word of mouth comparison is really nothing to go by I'm sure. It'd be easy for example to compare those horrid horrid, dull jubilee bracelets of old with even new polished rep ones. But beyond that, surely theres a huge difference in finish.. ? I was one that believed the difference would be largely apparent, for I do not own a gen. The machining, the weight, the perfection? .. Or maybe we really are buying into the whole marketing jargon. Thinking that this watch IS infact greater than the sum of its parts.. Keep this thread away from RobbieG man, I tell ya! He'll bring the hammer down on that 904L comparison

I actually LOL'd at this. It's easy to see why people buy them when you go to Geneva and see the ads plastered everywhere, mind you. This was the most prominently advertised watch I saw when I went there earlier this year.

This is true, still.. - I'd love to meet a WIS who is allergic to Rolex :D Oh the irony.

A little off topic, I was thinking about this the other day.. Since Rolex are made of 904L steel with a higher nickel content by which some people are actually allergic. Surely these people are like natural born rep spotters? A real Rolex would end up giving them a skin rash, a fake would not as its made of 316.. ! Suppose it depends how quickly this rash comes about

Took a quick pic for you guys to see the size; I'm pretty sure y'all have seen one of these I've compared it to before