mick92627

It would be pretty swell to find something like that anywhere in So Cali.

Those are beautifully photographed. I always appreciate when someone goes to the trouble of getting the pictures right. I've got the 1911 Discovery Panda and with 7.5" wrists, it's a pretty snug fit, but I really like the watch. Wear it in good health.

Fine watch, nicely photographed. I think the APs are my fave reps after the Omegas. Gotta save up for the safari, but I don't want to have to deal with the secs @12 issue. Enjoy it.

Sorry about the delay. As promised, wrist shots.

Agreed. I've bought 3 Invicta's only to have one arrive DOA, and a second crap out in a few months. Third is with my brother and he's happy with it. I won't buy Invicta anymore.

Fascinating. I knew only the barest outlines. Thank you.

Really first class photos. I'm not a Rolex guy, but you make it look good. Well done.

I keep waiting to hear you say, "Just kidding..." I give you a tip of the noggin' Dude. You got big brass ones. And those are prolly iced too, amiright?

You can find it on Josh's site HERE.

Today's Horoscope: Scorpio Oct 24 - Nov 21 Scorpio represents the descent of the self into the collective ocean of spirit and thought. Also, Scorpio represents whatever other bullsh:t you're willing to believe this week. ADVT: Financial reward could be in your future, as Gemini is offering limited-time zero-percent interest on all balances transferred from other Zodiac signs. Apply now.

I'm wearing the AP Wempe today. Love the APs. The Safari is my next move. Had 2 different gens of it on my wrist this weekend. One AD wanted $14K and the other wanted $18K. The second AD had 2 Volcanos in stock as well. Sweet ride, that.

I posted in this thread yesterday. It was the first time I'd seen or heard of the Safari. Today, I'm walking along a side street in Newport Beach and I duck into a tiny watch store. He's got PAMs and Pateks and most of the usual suspects. And right in the middle of all this horological win, there's a beautiful genuine Safari with the hornback strap. I was gobsmacked. I had to try it on. It's a very good thing that I didn't have $14,200 burning a hole in my pocket, because I've got zero impulse control around such a sublime piece as this. I wanted a rep of this watch yesterday and I'm twice as want it today.

I had a gen Safari on my wrist an hour ago. The guy wanted $14,200, before haggling. I told my wife to start saving up, because my birthday is in August. What a sweet ride in person. (The watch, not my wife. You think I didn't see that coming?) But I have to tell you, I have two AP ROO reps and the look and feel is amazingly similar to the gen. I don't have the Safari rep yet, but I will soon. Once I've had it for a couple of days, I'm going to go back and try that gen on again. And if it looks and feels pretty much the same, I won't be shocked. And I won't be pining away for the gen, or feel that I'm missing out. Unless I had WAAAYYY more money than sense, for me, it seems nuts to spend 14 large on a stainless steel watch and an admittedly great movement, when for a couple of pennies on the dollar, I could have something so close to the original. I've been wearing a Bvlgari Diagano Titanium rep for a couple of days this week. Yesterday at lunch I walked into the Bvlgari store and tried on the gen. Other than the fact that the gen was so light I thought it might float away, I thought the rep was at least as good as the gen, and the rep strap was BETTER than the gen strap. The text on the rep was crisp and clear and on the gen was kinda sloppy and smeared. I was really surprised. The quality of the reps these days is hard to believe, compared to the fake Rolex I bought in Tijuana 20 years ago.

Goddamn, this one gives me a chub. Is there a rep of it available with that strap?

TRANSLATION: "Jeez, I've always been able to mindlessly propagate these cynically created right-wing smears without being called on it. They depend on me to be too lazy to see if there's any actual truth to it, and they're never disappointed. The obvious political slander it embodies is masked by posting it as Humor. Lighten up people."

From the Urban Legends website: http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/soupkitchen.asp The photograph is genuine, a snapshot taken on an occasion in March 2009 when Michelle Obama spent some time serving lunch to men and women at Miriam's Kitchen, a social service agency in Washington D.C., as part of the First Lady's effort to "spotlight local organizations, connect with the city and help those in need amid the economic crisis." However, all the assumptions and implications of the text accompanying this picture are incorrect or unsubstantiated. To wit: The photograph does not depict anyone "receiving a government funded meal." Miriam's Kitchen is a privately funded organization with the goal of "providing individualized services that address the causes and consequences of homelessness in an atmosphere of dignity and respect"; it is not government run or taxpayer funded. The photograph does not necessarily depict a "homeless person" who is receiving a "free meal." As far as we know, the person shown taking a photograph of Michelle Obama with a cell phone has never been identified, and his presence might be explained by any one of a number of other circumstances: he was a Miriam's Kitchen staffer or volunteer (or acquaintance of same), an onlooker who learned that the First Lady was present and simply popped in to snap a picture of her, a guest who had been slipped a cell phone by a third party in order to photograph Michelle Obama for him, etc. A cell phone capable of capturing images is not necessarily a "$300 phone." Many much more affordable options are available, and a homeless person might very well carry a cell phone, as Scott Schenkelberg, the Executive Director of Miriam's Kitchen, observed when questioned about this photograph during an interview: Q: Since the First Lady's visit, both your guests and your food have been the subject of some criticism within the blogosphere. For example, some critics noted that one of your guests had a cell phone and suggested that it was inappropriate to serve free food to someone who could afford a cell phone. A: I suspect some people don't understand how inexpensive cell phones are, or how critical they are to this population. These days, you can purchase a cell phone at 7-11 for $10, then pay for minutes as you go. Our clients have a very fragile safety net. Many of them don't have shelter and are extremely vulnerable. For them, cell phones could literally be a lifeline. If they're looking for a job, the cell phone would also be incredibly important - can you even imagine trying to apply for a job without a phone number? Cell phones simply aren't luxuries anymore. If a guest can scrape together some money to purchase a cell phone, I think that's wonderful. The assumption that a truly homeless person wouldn't have (or couldn't afford) a cell phone is also a mistaken one. As Scott Schenkelberg noted, the ranks of the homeless served by organizations such as Miriam's Kitchen include not just the long-term, chronically homeless, but also the "newly homeless": those who had recently been getting by economically until a sudden job loss or other reversal left them with nowhere to go: "Until recently, we served mostly the chronically homeless, people who had fallen out of the economy long ago. More recently, we've been seeing more new faces, people who just fell into homelessness or other hard times. These people are generally high-functioning individuals who were hurt by the poor economy. It's very troubling to see previously self-sufficient people coming to Miriam's Kitchen in such high numbers."

Jeebus, but that's a dull looking watch. Sorry.

I read Francisco's outstanding review of the modded movement and the answer on the 'improved' question seems to be a cautiously optimistic 'YES'. So in the middle of June 2009, is it too early to ask what the informed consensus is, with respect to reliability and durability? I expect I'm going to pull the trigger on this either way...

That's why I won't wear a Rolex, gen or rep. I used to be more dogmatic in that opinion because, in addition to the issue mentioned above, I had simply never seen one that didn't strike me as fugly. In recent years however, I've seen a few that weren't so bad, so I've softened my opinion. I still would not wear one though because, even if it were a gen, I assume people would think it was a fake. I know I would.

Dealers only, or member to member sales as well?

My karma just ran over your dogma.

Dude, you're going to love this watch. I have one in the Omega Row section of my watchbox and it gets a lot of wrist time.

Thanks. I'm going to ask my guy if that's what he did. Not in any kind of accusatory way. The watch was not working and now it is. But it would be a good thing to know what my $60 bucks bought me.

That seems like a lot of $. Maybe because you're in a big city? I had a watch guy here in Costa Mesa, (Orange County, CA) just clean, lube and service my IWC rep, (manual wind Unitas 6498,) and he only charged me $60. I gave it to him on Monday, picked it up today, (Friday.) It had stopped working and I thought it was broken. He opened it up and said it was only dirty and dry - Needed servicing.