By-Tor

I still cannot imagine ever wearing it anywhere but on my yacht (if I owned a yacht) or at the yacht club (if I ever buy a yacht, I promise to join the club).

That was a GREAT first post.

Welcome onboard!

Chief, I agree about DateJust. 36mm is un-wearable for a larger man.

And I'm a HUGE fan of the Explorer II. Huge. But I honestly felt that it was always missing a millimeter or two. Actually I feel the same way about Daytona. It would be much nicer if it was just 1-2mm larger.

I'm amazed how perfectly the classic 40mm Sub and GMT still wear... even after wearing thick watches like Skyland. They feel perfectly balanced and the size is great. They did NOT need the "fat lugs" upgrade, which just ruined the slender lines.

The new ExpII... I gotta see it in the flesh to make my final decision.

I thought you liked the GMT II c though?

Yeah it was "ok". It's not a terrible watch at all, but it was a bad replacement. The novelty wore off in a few weeks. Gotta admit that the gen is much nicer though... the gen bezel shine is nice. And it looks brown in a certain lighting. You only realize the difference after you see the gen.

I'd improve that "meh" watch with all-brushed bracelet, red GMT hand and Pepsi bezel... but even with all those things it wouldn't be as amazing as 1675 or 16710. I'm a bit biased here though... it's my favorite Rolex. For me the old Pepsi models are iconic, real Rolexes, the new one is not.

Here's a boring and controversial rant from a conservative and dull Rolex man. If you strongly disagree with my offensive views, feel free to post just as controversial replies.

Biggest recent design mistakes by Rolex:

1. Super Sea Dweller.
How can they replace the beautiful, attractive classic Dweller with this mumbo-jumbo watch? I tried on the genuine yesterday and it's utterly terrible, with all those cheap gimmics. The only thing missing was a radio antenna suddenly popping up from somewhere. It's been popular replica on the forum though. I gotta wonder why... PloProf is purposefully ugly, but it's ugly in a cool way. DSSD wears awful and is ugly as a mule's butt.

2. GMT IIc
How can they replace the classic Pepsi with this utterly boring watch? Where is the original GMT tool watch spirit? The best word to describe this model is the color "GREY". Great watch if you're walking around in a rainy Monday afternoon (sic). And polished middle links on a tool watch? Really.

3. ROLEXROLEX rehaut engraving.
Now that was just plain stupid idea. It destroys the smooth and beautiful rehaut shine.

4. Fat lugs on the classic Submariner.
This is like the Porsche 911 -> 996 transformation. Water cooled engine and Boxster headlamps. Purists say NO. Porsche quickly moved back to the traditional headlights later. People say how the clasp has been improved and blahblah. The fact is that you can't update perfection.

5. Yacht-Master II.
Maybe the ugliest watch Rolex has ever made. If I didn't know better, I would think that it's directly from Canal Street.

The only updates that make any sense are the new Exp, ExpII and perhaps Day-Date/Datejust. Those watches (imho) needed an extra millimeter or two. But they should have left the classics alone, and not made them look like Invictas.

I'm afraid the current Daytona is next on the chopping block. Be afraid, be very afraid.

Thoughts?

That's a nice BB!

I'm wearing my Bond Seamaster now.

I have changed my mind about Rolex Oyster bracelets during the years. I appreciate the lightness and comfort. Nothing wears as comfortable as my gen 16710 and WM9 16610. "Heavier" doesn't correlate with quality... I believe they originally decided to go with hollow links on the Oyster bands because they wanted to keep the watch weight down. Remember, Sub used to be a huge watch, by the 60's and 70's standards anyway...

The rep Rolex bracelets can never quite match the silkiness and smoothness of the gen though. It's really weird... you can oil them and do all kinds of tricks but the feel is still only like 90%. Not that it matters though, it's just something I can't figure out.

And the gen sapphire models' SEL fitment is usually very, very good... at least compared to reps. Only WM9 v1 Sub had them done 95% gen like. But of course when the springbar twists or bends the fitment goes out of place... on reps and gens. I suspect that's the case on the Daytona pictured in this thread.

Also, I never understood how a lowly $5K Rolex could portray anything about anyone's "lifestyle".

Any working average adult (who's not working at McDonalds) can purchase a $5K watch if he really wants it.

Lots of (relatively) poor people put a lot of money on a new car, like 20K on a boring Toyota Corolla. How come that doesn't raise any eyebrows, especially when you can buy decent, working old cars for 1K?

And besides, you can always get your money back from a Rolex (if you buy a preowned steel Sub/GMT). In 10 years it's worth just as much as when you purchased it. In 10 years that 20K Toyota is worth nothing.

How can you take a picture that bad?

I mean, how it is even possible?

Loved the pictures and now have a definite craving for the Broad Arrow. Wonder if anyone has one or if a rep dealer would re-tool if there was a enough demand.

I doubt it. It's very old rep model.

They made another version with sapphire crystal (same that hackr has). That's nice too, but not quite as nice.

I would LOVE to buy one brand new as well. That's a mighty watch... really hard to believe it's a rep.

After submitting a post, I get logged out immediately.

Bye.

Edit: actually this time I didn't.

Mike, are you talkin' about buying the gen?

Go for the blue dial man. It's amazing.

I know I'm in the minority but I really like my rep B01. Cool and different design.

GMT today.

That's genuine mid-size Seamaster, which is MUCH cheaper on the preowned market than the actual Professional version.

Stay away unless you have Karen Carpenter's wrists.

Damn. Didn't know that.

Try bklm1234. He used to sell them. Maybe he has some left.

Or try to buy one through member trades.

Good luck.

In what sense it's "better"?

Wokky rehaut, no front crystal thickness/cylindrical shape. It looks absolutely terrible. Nice dial though... but how does it help when the watch case (WOK) looks fundamentally wrong?

If a pushy salesman is going to sell you something, would you take his advice as gospel? Take mine. I'm not trying to sell you anything. I'm just trying to keep you away from bad replica watches.

Get this one instead. I really dislike the bad engraving but it's light years better rep. Not sure if they come with that kind of "yellowish" dials these days though... but maybe it's just the lighting.

Good luck.

Cool.

It takes time to develop an eye for the flaws and become obsessive-compulsive rep nerd.

Hint: Look at the crystal appearance (front thickness) and position of the cyclops/datewheel.

No it's not a Noob.

Once again, you could have browsed for my forum and found the Noob YM review & compare the pics. I have reviewed almost all Rolex rep models from that particular factory.

LINK

After all these years, this one still gets the most wrist time. Wearing it today (again).

Sunny day, white watch.

This just announced: 2012 Growler Jaguar E-Type

My new dream car!

Jaguars...

Thanks man.

@Ronin: I agree that the old Explorer II is visually perfect. The new one isn't an improvement based on the looks only. The white version that you have... it's really beautiful watch.

But as much as I enjoy wearing the 16610 and GMT 16710, ExpII always felt a tad too small for me. Just a little bit... and I think it really needed an extra mm or two. 42mm is not big by today's standards. The smooth bezel does it... that makes Daytona wear very small too. 16610 and 16710 actually wear pretty big, despite being only 40mm. Just perfect really.

Other than than the increased size, I'm not sure about the maxi dial, either. Strangely, I like the old tiny twinlock crown. Just imagine ExpII with a triplock... it wouldn't look correct. It sure doesn't look correct on the GMTIIc.

As I said... new Submariner was a clear downgrade. Ok, maybe the clasp is better but so what... that flimsy old clasp is so "Rolex"... just like air cooled rear engine is so "Porsche".

And 16610 is MUCH nicer looking watch. Classic Pepsi vs. new GMTIIc... not even worth discussion to me. Old Seadweller vs. super ugly DSSD = no brainer. It was a mistake to screw up those beautiful classics. Those three new models do absolutely nothing for me, and I think Rolex lost something essential with them... the real Rolex "spirit" that I've been talking about. But I'm not sure about the new Explorer II... I think I like it.

Would I choose it over the classic white that you have? I'm not sure.

Fish today.

I wouldn't swap the rep black dial. It's excellent. Just enjoy the watch as it is. It's very good Rolex rep that never got much attention when it was still available.

That rep is/was one of the "forgotten greats" for sure.