RobbieG

I'm pretty fortunate really. All my close friends and a pretty good chunk of business associates are really hardcore watch guys. So I kind of get the best of all worlds. I'm only really collecting gens at the moment so I get to interact with them on that front without spilling the rep beans and then I get that and the really hardcore WIS stuff I want here on RWG. Pound for pound I have found more watch knowledge (and interesting personalities I might add) here than anywhere else on the web and beyond. I only wish many of my RWG friends here could come down and I could trun them on to some people I know and their enviable collections locally. I know many here would really appreciate some of the pieces I have been lucky enough to see and hold that you don't see everyday at AD's. If anything I wish I can't share any of that enthusiasm with anyone except the owner of the collection. But anyway, I guess in my case the watch Gods have blessed me and I never find the hobby lonely in the least.

http://www.rwg.cc/members/index.php?showtopic=88847

I have never been much of a fan of yellow gold. My complexion just isn't suited to it so I usually gravitate to steel, WG or PT in terms of taste. Obviously, there has been a meteoric rise in the popularity of red, rose, or pink gold as they are all correctly called. I do think it is cool to bring back these alloys as historically they are much more significant than yellow gold. I also think that when done right, rose gold can be just breathtaking. Really soft and understated and not blingy at all IMO. That said, I have noticed recently the differeces in color and patina of the different alloys used by the various companies and how some are just aweful. You all know I am a pretty big UN fan and have two pieces now, but man, their rose gold is just terrible. It is like the worst yellow gold with a touch of brown and green thrown in and then you have only to look forward to it looking worse as it ages. Anyway, some rose gold is really great on the other hand. Some of my favorite rose gold is that frome Hublot, Breguet, Lange, and Vacheron. All of which are really deep and warm and very clearly rose gold as opposed to many others which look too much like yellow gold. But the one that takes the cake IMO is the Rolex creation called Everrose, which given the way Rolex nails the look of its other metals (best looking steel in the world too), I'm not surprised. The look of this stuff is just dreamy and of course as Rolex has done with its WG - the color is essentially permanent due to completing the alloy with a small amount of platinum which serves to "lock in" the color. Rose gold, for those who don't know already, is extremely sensitive to swimming pools over the long run due to a reaction with the copper and chlorine. So anyway, knowing already that I loved Everrose I have been sniffing around at some different dial combos and found this a bit ago at an AD. It may be hard to tell in the pic, but it is just stunning in person. I fell in love right there. So allow me to present my newest love and favorite combo. Everrose gold and black tahitian mother of pearl. One may think that ity would be loud and blingy from this pic, but in person it is anything but. It just blends into the wrist and is very understated actually all things considered. I'll be interested to hear what the masses think. Dial preferences aside - its the metal baby - the metal - Rolex metal rules...

Nice Bentley man. Pics are the lifeblood of this forum. Keep them coming.

Amen. That is my only connection to the old world with these new phones - although there are less and less true old tones around. Even the classic phone ringtones are starting to sound like they were on Star Trek to me. I have a usual phone system here in the office but all the ringers are off and we have an old style analog phone with a bell in it that is the only one that rings. Wouldn't have it any other way. We don't dial much with it though.

The spot market is fundamentally flawed which is another discussion but yes, the liquidity now make it tougher to do without huge trade sizes and a very well orchestrated campain for sure. It would certainly take billions to pull off and so to that end it wouldn't be worth the risks really. But theoretically it can be done. It isn't really manipulation though per se that can wreck things out - that is kind of a misnomer. I hate when Bear Stearns said they were the target of market manipulation when they wrecked out. They were fundamentally trashed and got shorted into the toilet because they were ripe to fall. Nothing new. But people had to take major risks in those trades and I say good for them for making the money. I don't trade individual equities but I did throw my algo on it in a back test to see what I would have done and I would have made a fortune shorting my signals too. It is what it is. Sustained selling in any market or individual stock, currency can take it to zero fairly easily and liquidity isn't always protection for that. But keep in mind, the whole way down, there is always someone else taking the other side of the trade, other wise, there would be noone to sell to. I think a lot of people forget that sometimes. If someone is shorting, someone else is buying them. Market manipulation doesn't happen as much as people think and it is much tougher to do than just using size to create a self fulling prophecy which continues to fuel your own trades. Even small, orchestrated selling by program trading algos does it. Even little old me can see it happen from my trades in the S&P alot. I have multiple signals firing even in times of max liquidity and my 300-500 contract buys and sells in succession have people chasing me up or down. Kind of funny and you wouldn't think that could happen but it does. Just a couple weeks ago I remember one flat morning where my shorts started a sell off that ending up being 12 points afterall. If I can do that with a $5M account by accident really, what might happen if I kept pounding 500 lots into it all day every two minutes? But it isn't cut and dried of course. Meanwhile, other days I'm getting great long signals and shooting big orders in and she just smiles, sucks them up and procedes to sell of and whack my stops like I'm not even there... Ah, Mother Market, that elusive evil temptress...

Well when it comes to Rolex nobody knows, but virtually all of the conversations by so called Rolex experts, AD's I know, etc. have been geared towards this issue when it comes to these future models - the ceramic watch in the Coke and Pepsi two color bezel variants. I mean they even discontinued the 16710 prior to finishing and that seems a pretty heavy comitment. My AD even said that he thoughT Rolex was leaving options open and had said to me the other day when I asked him about this, "Well if they don't nail it and have to abandon it for whatever reason there is no law that said they could'nt bring back the 16710 later anyway..." Personally, I think they must have been pretty confident they could nail the one piece bezel if they went ahead and discontinued the original. No doubt that is a bread and butter watch for them and I doubt they would just quit it for no good reason unless they had a replacement close to ready. So anyway, given Rolex has never had a problem with the single color ceramic as it is essentially just a color mix I wouldn't doubt that this is the only real issue with the watch. Everything has been ready forever now. If the intention is to get the bezel insert like it has always been in one piece it is certainly not easy to create that perfectly edged line between the colors when you realize how the ceramic is made in this case. In fact, I still haven't heard from any experts here or elsewhere how the engineers among us think it might be able to be done. Anyway, what we don't know and will probably never know until release is whether Rolex solved the problem with this by figuring it out, or if they ran out of time and decided to use a two piece insert abandoning the one piece concept if that was the original plan (although I doubt it). So I'm not really assuming anything. Rolex experts have uniformly said (at least the posts I have read on TZ, etc.) that the company was having some trouble with the two color inserts in ceramic. So the question is really whether they know or assumed it. I wouldn't know, but as I said it seems plausible to me. But again, if it is one piece, and since the reps so far aren't real ceramic, the question becomes how would the rep insert me made other than two piece regardless of what Rolex does and if and when? Certainly has my curiosity peaked...

It has been a pleasure knowing you over the years Mike, truly. You are a gentleman of the highest order and in this world it is a rare thing. Here's to another great year around here and to us getting together on my next trip to the other side. Looking forward to it. Rob

Some of the older YM's had a thicker case for a while. At one time I bought two from the same dealer and they had two different cases. The thick cases were born out of the rehaut wars. At that time, many makers incorrectly tried to get deeper rehaut of the YM's like the Subs. Problem is of course YM's don't have deep rehaut. But that is why those cases are thicker. They don't feel right on the wrist at all - even if you don't really notice the thickness difference in pics...

One thing is for sure and that is Rolex really struggled with getting two ceramic colors in "one piece" with a really straight, stark perfect line between them. This was what has delayed the watch for longer than expected of course. The question becomes whether the rep guys can go the insert without using two pieces (assuming Rolex ended up using one piece which they were attempting).

Rolex IMO makes Rolex rep collecting easier. They think they are detering counterfeiting by making subtle changes to the watches every year but they are actually helping it. It makes it easier to always have a "correct" rep - even though it may be different than the current year. Consider this watch as an example. A factory finally got the nice, thick blood red font ranging from the Y, F, D, & Z serials from 2002 to late 2007... Then with the M serials Rolex changes it and makes the YM font nice and thin now. Go figure. I love it. It is not as if anyone with this rep will ever be called out for wearing it because it has a font that is too thick. LOL. Actually, I'm sort of surprised they did it really. Visually, although subtle, it always was in my opinion a feature that drew me to the watch when I bought the gen quite some time ago. I sold it and got the UN Diver I have now as a replacement, but at this price I think I'm going to have to grab one of these. What a great replication. It looks like they really nailed the texture and color of the PT on the dial to me - old style thick YM font and all (although it really is a hair too thick actually). The blood red color looks pretty good too and I especially like the datefont which seems not to suffer from being to thin like most Rollie reps... "F, Y, D, Z" Serial Gens: "M" Serial Gen:

Well this could turn into a whole other thread and I certainly don't have the inclination to go off on this tangent, but take this from a guy who makes his living in these markets: The main reason why these items are newsworthy is because of the Wall Street lie that has been circluating forever. What do I mean by that? This: Major markets (at least the ones that the average investor are exposed to) are essentially perfect and there is no such thing as "knowing what you are doing" in this business in terms of appying superior intellect to help investors protect themselves from risk and make consistent returns. The problem is that 99% of investors are under the impression that there are actually guys who are smarter and they use past performance as a straight line measure to have faith in these people. The lie is that Wall Street makes a living by making you believe that they know something. They earn fees that way. God forbid he should ever tell the investor the truth which is that returns (or losses) are what they are and all we really do (or should do) is quantify and manage risk. What nobody can do is earn guaranteed returns, but they will do all in their power to keep you thinking that is what it is about. In our business, trading is about what I call omni-presence. Being available to catch a move long or short if - IF - it happens - which nobody knows when and to what degree it will. You take what comes and manage your risk. If John Doe thinks I'm smart he gives me his money and I get a fee. Look, you can be trading just the 500 index futures as many of my funds do and manage risk way better than any so called "diversified portfolio". All relative. But instead they will have you believe things like what I call the diversification lie. Brokers would have you believe that by buying both a large cap index and a small cap index you are exposed to less risk. Yeah right, show me five days in your lifetime when the S&P500 went down and the Russell 2000 went up. Diversification is NOT risk management! Diversification of strategy exposure is more important than diversification across markets - unless they are truly non-coorolated. Stocks and bonds are NOT uncoorolated. They move opposite each other in tandem and by the same amount. What is the point of that? Hedging is not diversification. It is about deciding how much to risk on each trade with stop management and exposing yourself to a variety of entries based on different market conditions. It isn't really complicated but in the short run, investors don't stand a chance betting only on rising prices. Mutual funds are about being long. Sure, the US big cap equities have a good track record since 1926 with a 10% annual gain uncompounded, but 1926? What about now. How people can be invested in mutual funds in ANY bear market and think it is newsworthy that they have lost 20/40/60% of their value baffles me. Of course you did. You are 100% long in a 100% short market. That anyone would think that diversification into different stocks or indices is going to help is just beyond me. Yeah, help the broker make a commish for the transactions. LOL. If you want to make money in the short run you have to trade both ways and never bet solely on a bunch of stuff all going up. People should buy some books and read and educate yourself as to the lie and how not to get trapped in it. Align yourself with a trader or traders who don't make a dime unless you do. Then you will be working with someone who's interests are truly aligned with yours. And guess what? When you find those guys you will find that not one of them buys and holds stuff long. And the big houses - you wanna know what they do with thier own money and how it differs than what they do with yours? I'll tell you. They pick stocks and mutual funds for you to create transactions and commisions. They then take those commissions they made and trade them intellegently with risk management and complex long/short strategies now that it is their money in the back room. That isn't a conspiracy theory. It is a fact. Most of the money Goldman makes in a year on its books is from trading their own money. And that money becomes "their own money" from fees they collect from suckers. Sorry to be so brutal but that is the truth. And I'm not picking on GS. Every big house does the same thing. While you are hammered by 50% from their keeping you long, many of them have been trading your fees short to great success. I know a house right now (and I will not name their name) who manages client capital as stockbrokers. They are huge and you have all heard of them. I bet hundreds here probably have accounts with them even. Well they also have a proprietary trading operation that the "stockbroker" clients are not brought into (perfectly legal and ethical BTW - different biz unit) which has returned over 200% intraday trading Dow, Crude, and Metals futures in this crash. Meanwhile, their brokers are on the phone every day telling clients to "average down" (did you hear that? it was the sound of me spitting up puke in my mouth...) and buy bank stocks on the cheap. Look, this isn't bragging but trading times are good for a lot of us. The volatility has made big intraday moves we feed on. My alpha fund booked over 160% for the year, with 81% coming in just October. And I'm not riding high. Feet firmly on the ground It happens - and most importantly I have sense enough to know the market decided to pay us off and it wasn't me that created it. I just created a robust strategy that is based on omni-presence - and the big moves came, and came in droves. My systems are not designed to make money, they are designed to limite losses while being available for profits if the market gives them. Big difference. Maybe next year will be a typical 20-26% levered or even flat - or we might even lose 10% in a month or two. But I'll tell you what I won't be doing and that is buying and holding fundamentally sh*tty companies in bear markets because some broker tells me I should be OK by the time I'm 80 or that it is a "good value down here". I don't pick bottoms or tops. I don't "buy down" here. I buy contracts when the price is going up and I sell them when the price is going down but not before because I think something. I trade what is. Speculation is fine but without sound risk management is folley. We all look like a hero when we are right, but if you can't keep from going broke when you are wrong you won't be playing the game anymore. Common sense, but the masses don't do it for some reason. They just tell us at parties how during heydays how they bought some internet stock because they "knew" this internet thing was going to be big and they were right at made 400% in a year but they leave out the part about how they were 100% long in the Q's in December 2000 and went broke "averaging down", because these stocks were "such a great value at these levels...". I'm spitting puke in my mouth again. Those people didn't learn and did the same thing just now with the bank stocks. Rode them into the dirt, booked the loss and then bought more. You see the point. Just don't do it. Learn and grow and don't be a sucker anymore. We all have been at some point in our lives. I was for my whole 20's and part of my 30's. Big sucker. I bought actively managed mutal funds with big fees and loads even. Yuk... And for the record, I'm not soliciting clients and I never will here or anywhere. I don't even trade for individuals - only institutions, but for God sakes listen to what I say in terms of educating yourself. I have no motivation to steer you wrong. Believe me. I'm happy to share the playbook that saved me from ruin and continues to pay me handsomely in all kinds of markets. It isn't that tough as long as it isn't important to you to "outsmart" the market. Just listen to what it tells you and you will be fine. You should read and learn about trading - maybe not so you can actively trade, but so you understand what the game is and how it is played at the highest levels. You will discover that there are no gurus and the whole thing with timing and picking is bullsh*t. There is no need. You should be able to make all you want trading indexes via ETFs. Thanks to some new products you don't even need to borrow with margin to short sell anymore. There are ETF's now which you can be short by being long. How cool is that? You may still need someone to help you, but once you know what the score is seek out someone to trade at your direction (or his if YOU like and agree with what he is doing). But please, make sure he effectively manages your risk and above all - DON'T PAY HIM A DIME UNLESS HE MAKES YOU MONEY. In my world, I earn or I don't eat. Wouldn't have it any other way. If my clients have a lean year I will too. And if we are ripping, I'm ripping too - like this year. Sermon over and I'm sorry I'm so passionate about this stuff but I just see so many people following lame advice and it makes me sick. Oh, one more thing. There is a current running through media lately that seems to paint a picture that hedge funds are topping the losers list. To help you sort through that you have to consider the big picture which is quite simple. In order to trade both long and short, hedge funds use instruments such as futures contracts which require the trader to essentially post a bail bond known as margin. Mutal fund investors just use cash to buy stocks and options on stocks in the form of premium. Big difference. May of the hedge funds that the media is painting as failing are not failing at all strategy-wise. Their investors are getting scared by the media and putting in redemptions. These redemptions effect hedgies differently as they can't just exit the postions because one investor wants to get liquid. They have to make margin adjustments to keep positions open with less equity and this can ruin absolute returns creating a self fulfilling prophecy of failure at a rate sort of exponential as compared to a mutal fund who just sells stock for cash and nothing really changes. Keep in mind that this happens even in less troubled times as well. Just know that many of these so called "failing" hedge funds are "failing" with a flat to 5% loss for the year which for a big trader is not so bad really when the broad markets are off by half. You should also know that when the news reports on hedge funds they are only speaking of a narrow group of regualted funds and exlcude the thousands like mine that are unregulated and trade less money. We operate as private investment partnerships and really aren't "funds" at all. We fly under the radar so nobody really knows our numbers. But from my peers talking, most of us are doing very well this year. Anyway, again, educate yourselves and stop the madness of the Wall Street "knowledge" lie. There is knowledge in the ranks - but picking stocks and market timing aren't it. That just generates commissions and fees and fuels their own methodical and sane trading. And trust me, you want to get on that side of the fence... The average short term trading hedge fund gained 6.13% for the year. Not bad at all considering... Meanwhile the famed Fidelity Magellan Fund has lost a staggering 53% for the year... PS: A market is never wrong Pug, it is ALWAYS right as it represents the true price as argued and won by a jury of its peers. And the ruling is down, down, down. The "wrong" in the equation is certain people consistently claiming that they have it all figured out enough to call a crash, rally, top, or bottom to the day, month, year, or hour. To that end I have never met anyone other than the market itself that was consistently "right" year after year.

Yea, and any interested memebers reading this thread would do well to take a history lesson and learn about a trader named George Soros and how he wrecked the Sterling Pound once upon a time for great personal gain. The lesson being never say never. History is filled with thousands of key events that were previously thought to be impossible. Mix that with economists who literally believe that if you flip a coin you have a 50/50 chance of a head or tail on every toss...

The glacier blue dial is only available on the platinum Day Date's and the Datejust is not made with that configuration at the moment. You should also know that the rep dials in that color are not very accurate. You might want to consider a rhodium dialed DJ, or the dark blue or black instead as it will look more realistic. Even if the glacier rep dial was accurate on the Day Date, it would be both incorrect for a steel watch, and it is kind of a tell since anyone who knows Rolex will know that the dial is only available in platinum. So unless you are known to be fairly wealthy or whatever folks might wonder why you are wearing a $48,000 watch. That said, some of the DJ rep watches and dials are really great but you might want to pic something else dial wise. DJ's have changed a lot over the years so you don't have to look as closely at these as others. Here is a pic of a rhodium dialed DJ rep I got from Josh that I used to have and a pic of a gen I have now for comparison. Please note that the rep has the older style case (which is correct for the F serial watch that it reps) with narrower lugs and a larger logo font than they use now. But as I said, that stuff changes over time. The rep bracelet and clasp was really nice and the watch had a great feel to it IMO... Rep: Gen:

Yeah I am of that opinion too, although that wasn't really what I was after here. It sort of goes beyond a size opinion or loyalty to the original. I just think it is obviously a pi*s poor cop-out design not bothering to even scale up the parts of the watch to fit the new size. So lame. And yes, my guy did confirm what you say though also. He was recently at Rolex in Switzerland and a memeber of management there said they will never stop making the DJ or DD in their current forms. Bread and butter for them. Rolex won't reveal percenteges but they did manage to tell him that the original DD and DJ's are by FAR the best sellers in the line and they are just trying to add value by expansion with the bigger watches. But make no mistake, the DDII is a flop at the sales level. They just aren't selling like Rolex thought they would with the size craze. It was a critical error really. Rolex assumed that people who want a big watch will not buy another one and were sort of waiting for Rolex to make one. The truth is that it isn't just the size. People aren't stupid. They may love the traditional Rolex model but they can clearly see that the other alternative brands for larger watches are just doing a better job at designing big watches. IMO it is because a BIG and ELEGANT watch is an oxymoron. The big watches that are drawing the attention and selling today are the sporty ones - or at least more cutting edge designs. Rolex should have at least known they weren't going to get away with slapping the same dial, hands, indices, bracelet, etc. in a big out of proportion case, call it a new design and get away with it. The point being that anyone who doesn't like the original DD because of its size isn't going to jump on this without a thought just because it is larger when there are so many other choices out there - hence the low run rate on these...

Yup. That is what makes the trades so tough. We have started to form the opinion that the best opportunity for speculative actions are in the EUR/JPY cross and its volatility changes in response to the underlying factors driving the EUR/USD and USD/JPY crosses. There are just too many conflicts for appropriate biasing. Currency is tough in general without all this stuff going on. On the one hand it trends better than any other market when it is trending. However the mess that is the unregulated spot market comprising most of the liquidity is problematic for short term traders with its widening spreads on increased volume and constant news events. In other words, scalp trading is actually amzingly great in equities with all this volatility, but is harder than ever in currencies. By contrast the inverse of longer term trading being a nightmare in equities is not paired with a relative ease in currency to trade longer term as it usually is with solid news. Too many conflicts showing up as implied volatilty there too. I think Chief may be right to stay away from it. That said, I did stick a bunch of money in a Geneva account and convert it to Francs as a hedge for my personal dollars. I'm considering doing it with some Sterling and Yen too in the same fashion at the right price. Certainly not for speculation or any trade per se - just riding the fences in case of a short term disaster.

I was at my AD yesterday and looked at another one closely in yellow gold. My God, what an utter failure. Even seeing it in the case is annoying. The bulbous shape of the case, the out of proportion fluted bezel are bad enough. But the bracelet? I mean what are they thinking. The exact same bracelet with only a larger endlink? Come on Rolex. You have to be kidding when that is what you call a new design. The one I saw had Romans and they even recycled the same indices from the smaller watch which actually make them harder, not easier to read. Just dreadful. And my friend the AD said they are a total flop sales wise too. They are not appealing to his youth market and only being grabbed by collectors who already have several other Rolex watches just looking for something to buy to pass the time. If you haven't really looked at these things, go to your AD and grab one, then grab a 36MM one in the same configuration and compare them - seeing what Rolex did which was to just make a new case and end link and recycle everything else. So lame. Why anyone would patronize such a cop out - especially at those inflated prices is beyond me.

Exactly, hence all I have been saying. Currency is always a relative concern. Relative to another currency in order to express its true value. And this is what makes the trade so difficult long term. The fat tails at the outer conditions are unknown. We simply haven't seen them before. The word massive you use in your post is the whole key and what makes it so tough. The sensitivity is higher at the edges of the curve. Devaluation/inflation or hypervaluation/deflation will both be on the table until the bitter end depending on the severity of the corrective measures...

Sorry, I just saw this line late. So your position is that long term you a confident in the recovery of USD or am I reading it wrong? And if so, define LT if you would. Also, I wonder from the macro side what you think about the price of the printing press to save equities essentially and how with the debt of that looming how the buck might find a path to strength again. Tough questions to be sure...

Well sure & we don't trade much currency as we mostly focus on S&P futures, but that is sort of my point. By definition, if you are out of the Dollar you are long something else given that the currencies and values, hence trades, are all expressed in pairs. So I guess what you mean then is you won't be looking for any way to hedge your Dollar position at all and just take what comes? What I'm after is finding a model to trade others against the dollar intraday. As I said now we hedge some equities trades with EUR/USD and USD/JPY via the CME futures contracts, but we are soliciting opinions as to what others are doing with core trading as opposed to hedgin models with these and also the buck vs. CHF and GPB. These four will be the limits of our Dollar trades. We have some OK mechanical momentum models now, but I always like some kind of novel "sentiment" component to guide the ship. That "sentiment" is what is pretty clear in equities (short) but very vague in currencies at the moment - hence my question. But of course we don't believein crystal balls either. More like 4 parts machine, 1 part fairy dust. LOL...

I couldn't wear anything but this on such a special day. Merry Christmas to all and raise your glass to another great year at RWG!

Hey don't mean to beat this to death TJ but I found this for you while looking for something unrelated. This page shows a ton of different collars for a custome shirt place I buy from sometime. Not that they go to great lengths to emphasize it, but you can see how the knot style and size is (or should be) heavily influenced by the collar style. Cheers... http://www.mytailor.com/Shirts.aspx?gclid=...CFQITswodaw2sCw

That is really nice. Probably one of if not the nicest fantasy rep I have ever seen.

+1 Really nice watches but kind of out of my demographic. I need to grow about a foot, lose 20 years, move to Lauderdale, buy a niteclub, and start driving a custom jacked up black and chrome Hummer and then I'll be ready to give one a shot. In all seriousness though, it looks like they did a really good job repping these, no? All you need now is for Chief to score you a gen dial and you will be set...