TeeJay

Just took these pics of my rings.

All this talk of rings, made me think of someone a former manager of mine knew, who they (his group of friends) always refered to as Rings. I asked once if Rings was thus named as he wore a lot of them. That wasn't the case. Apparently, Rings was a serial engager, who would engage a girl (giving her a ring) as a way of persuading them to take anal So it refered to both 'rings'

"I'll suck your c0ck for a thousand dollars..."

-Big Lebowski

@carlsbadrolex...

You sure are trying to change things around here, and you are NOT even a supporting member! Why not cough up a few bucks, then we can talk about this...

-MM

The use of a does very little, if not nothing, to take the sting out of what is ultimately a very elitist and nasty post.

Carl has made a totally valid point. His 'status' does nothing to change, invalidate or affirm that point, and for the record, I don't believe he was actually trying to change anything.

Carl, as Offshore said, these are not trivial issues, it would not be unfair to name the supplier if they have not offered proper restitutions. As you say, $700 is a lot of money. It's certainly a lot of money to 'be down' due to bum merchandise.

Best of luck getting a satisfactory resolution.

Dare I ask, was the L Swiss L markings on the watch advertized? Pics of the watch you received would also be awesome

Model: PVD 111g.

Crown: Lock down.

Seller: Tonyxkf.

Rain: No problem.

Shower: No problem.

Bath Immersion: No problem.

Surface Ocean Swimming:Not yet tested.

Depth Immersion: Not yet tested.

Model: Radiomir.

Crown: Screw down.

Seller: Tonyxkf.

Rain: No problem.

Shower: No problem.

Bath Immersion: No problem.

Surface Ocean Not yet tested.

Depth Immersion: Not yet tested.

Although I'm now technically married, (in an unofficial way ) I still wear my engagement ring on my left hand ring-finger. It's a 5mm thick sterling silver court ring, with engravings rather like the fine detail on the Stargate. The intention, is to have it replicated in Platinum as a wedding ring, for the 'official wedding'. I have a Stainless Steel ring on the middle finger of my right hand, which is similar in style to the Tiffany ring Victoria has shown, as it comprises two raised ridges, but they are not broken, as on the Tiffany ring, but two continuous bands. It's 10mm thick. I've also got plans to replace it with a custom-made version of the Master's signet ring, from the latest series of Doctor Who, which will have a stainless steel insert in a sterling silver ring. (makes an awesome color contrast between the two metals) I probably won't be comissioning it for a while though, as I have more important stuff to get first

I'm saying that several times I think they delayed crediting a payment until the day after the due date in order to impose the late and finance fees. Example: Electronic funds transfer from my bank initiated four days before the due date, but only credited to my account the day following the due date. With mailed checks you need to allow even more lead time.... at least seven days.

Banks do that as routine. Bunch of shylock c*nts (not intended as anti-semitic, I just think that aptly describes financial institutions)

For example, I paid money into my wife's account, so she could make a paypal payment on my behalf (as I'd hit my sending limit without validating) A server glitch led to an error, meaning that the amount (intended as USD) was sent as GBP, so about twice the original amount was taken by paypal from her account (theoretically putting her overdrawn) The seller was contacted, the situation explained, and they rejected the payment (which saved the delays of if they had issued a refund, which would then have had to been transfered from the PP account, to the bank account) So in theory, the money only went as far as paypal. Once the payment was rejected, one would have thought the money should have been immediately credited back into her bank account. Not so. While it was indeed 'put back in', it remained 'in clearing' over the weekend, for absolutely no reason whatsoever. On the monday, we spoke to someone in the bank, they called someone on the phone, and had the 'ear marking' removed from the funds, so it was immediately available to her.

Why was the money being 'held'? For no reason other than so they could get the interest on it.

PS While this was going on, I set up a new PP account, so we transfered the money back to me, and I was able to complete the transaction in the end Admitedly, a bit of a mess up on several fronts, but a good example of banks trying to hold onto money they have no right to, just so they can get the interest.

"YES....Sponsored watch reviews are OK....as long as they are appropriately conducted....(An appropriate system has yet to be created)...."

If anyone really thinks this is going to happen , then they are just out of their tree.!!

Kenberg and Offshore have allready stated as much.

So why on earth would a question like this go into a poll?

It aint goin to happen. Understand? , comprendez ?

I'm sure folks understand that it's not going to happen, but are giving the option they hypothetically agree with. Basically, as said:

"YES....Sponsored watch reviews are OK....as long as they are appropriately conducted....(An appropriate system has yet to be created)...."

That allows slightly more flexibility than:

"NO....It is NOT OK for ANYONE to provide a sponsored review of a watch on our forum where as the person doing the review is given a free watch for providing the review"

If, and that is a big 'if', an appropriate system was created, then it would negate the above option, as the person doing the review would not be receiving a free watch.

[Edit for clarity]

That's just crazy money. Okay, so my 127 is my favorite watch in my collection, but, even if I had the money to buy a gen one, there's nothing about it that I can see that justifies that pricetag... I think I'll stick with mine, which, if I recall, cost me

Damn that was funny

In terms of pure purchase, then it's a matter of it having been in a movie I enjoyed, or, worn by an actor I like, in a movie.

In terms of selection to wear, the criteria has always been practicality (ie is it suitable for the activity planned, and then how easy will it be to read the time. I wouldn't wear a watch which was easy to read, but 'less durable', in a situation where it could be unnecessarily damaged) Following practicality, I used to chose and vary my watch depending on my wardrobe. Now I've got my 127, I just change straps to match and keep the same watch on It's that versatile

Maybe John has become a watch collector, and switches them round depending on the circumstances

"Does RWG as a forum condone reviews of rep watches which are gifted to the reviewer for an IMPARTIAL review?" Yae or nay.

It depends entirely how 'the transaction' is handled. If it was as TTK suggested on pg5, then yes. It it was a case of someone being sent a watch gratis (with the specific intention of it being reviewed (and then getting to keep it) ) then no, as the issue impartiality comes in to question. As above, with Pugwash, it was not as if he promised to write a review, just made a comment about posting photos if he were given the watch. I'd say by posting high quality photos of the watch, he kept his end of the bargain. Wether the promise/ability to post high quality photos merrits a free watch, is a whole different kettle of fish As is being on the receiving end of a random act of generousity (afterall, Angus could've told him to jog on rather than giving him a freebie, so no real conflict of interest there )

[Edit for clarity]

Awesome watch, and awesome review I quite agree, the watch would look awesome on a NATO strap

When I first saw the thread title, I thought "This is a bad idea..." and generally think that people 'getting stuff for free for review' is going to create mistrust. I think Pugwash's situation was totally reasonable: He made a comment, the dealer chose to go with it, knowing that Pug is a damn good photographer, so indeed, that's good publicity, but, I can totally understand how people may feel that any positive reviews (under such circumstances) could be related to having received something for free.

I think TTK has made the best suggestion in his above post on this page.

I'll be the first to admit, that taking photos and writing a review take time, and, people do deserve to be compensated for their time, but, I feel that in the sense of true impartiality, if someone writes a 'sponsored review', then they should not keep the watch afterwards, but it should either be returned to the dealer, (balancing shipping costs) or auctioned off with proceeds going towards forum upkeep. That should prevent anyone from saying "But they only wrote a good review because they got a free watch out of it!"

I don't think it would discourage people from reviewing their own pieces at all, but, I would agree that such 'sponsored reviews' might be viewed with suspicion if guidlines such as TTK suggested are not adhered to. As someone else mentioned, if there are dealers who can't operate without LWL, how can 'sponsored reviews' be viewed as anything other than suspicious?

Were it not for Pugwash explaining the situation, then someone of a suspicious nature could even say that it is simply a Cartel ploy to gain more favorable publicity. That clearly was not the case here though, as it was an existing conversation.

Time to read the review

Or you can buy it now as its for sale in the watch trade section -

I would, but I'm after a base Radiomir. The one I ordered for my friend's birthday, while not quite what I want for myself, has definitely convinced me to get a Radiomir

As for the PVD 183, it still gets a "F*CK YEAH!!!" and a big thumbs up

Sorry to hear about that

Personally, I'd say that sourcing the pin might be more hassle than it's worth (unless Ofrei can provide the precise part) so I'd suggest seeing if you can buy a new bracelet from the supplier, or, maybe using this as an opportunity to try it out on a rubber strap Best of luck

I hereby dub this the Team America watch... As in:

"America... F*CK YEAH!!!"

That's what I think of that watch. F*CK YEAH!!! I think I'll definitely be ordering a Radiomir and having it PVDd at some point in the future

Baby Come Back - Player.

Makes me think of:

Right now, I'm listening to a home-compiled DaftPunk CD. As Cusack said in High Fidelity "I just want something I can ignore!"

Who wants to smash the customer with the phone before jumping the counter to kick the [censored] out of them and dump an air-conditioner on them? Top film

The problem with all the terms that we use is that none of them are clearly defined....1:1....Ultimate....Super....what do all of these terms mean and how are they defined....they mean different things to different people....

I think the dictionary definition of 1:1 would be sufficient. As I said in the poll, personally, if something is described as 1:1, then it should be 1:1. Terms like 'ultimate', 'super' 'ultra-special' are just easily ignored marketing hype. Every new generation of something is 'ultimate' compared to the previous generation, where 1;1 will always be 1:1 (unless it's actually not ). I agree, the term clone does exist in the watch world. Personally, I take it to refer to either unbranded versions of a watch, or extremely close copies of a watch, with a minor difference, and a company's own logo slapped on (Alpha and Invicta, being good examples).

Indeed, we a re the people who need to do something about terms, but, as has been clear in the past, most people aren't so bothered about things, as long as they're getting what they personally want.

Much agreed that this 1:1 term should be ablolutely 1:1 in all visual aspects. I almost like the term "Ultimate" better. I think that most of us that have been around the rep world for a while, take the 1:1 term in stride and not too seriously other than that it is a pretty good rep. Not so good for the newbies to the rep world though. If 1:1 is to be used, then it should be specific to the trait of the watch where the 1:1 accuracy is. Like 1:1 case or 1:1 dial. I have yet to see a rep that is truely 1:1.

Indeed, I think "Ultimate" is a much better (and more accurate) term. As you say, most know to take 1:1 with a pinch of salt, but, as you say, n00bs might not, and, in all honesty, no one should have to. 1:1 should mean 1:1.

It is really funny how finicky we are when it comes to reps.

The one thing I don't understand, is, if people have a water resistant watch, why take it off rather than getting it wet? Okay, I won't wear a PAM (or any other watch) in water if it's on a leather strap, but, if it's on rubber or SS, then why remove it? Most watches are water resistant simply by the mechanics of their design and manufacture. I know I've read about people having watches leak, but they must be very badly constructed to do so...

As mentioned before, I wore my 111h when I went swimming in the Med, the caseback had been removed and replaced with the caseback from my 029 (as the original caseback had broken glass at the time) which was tightened only by thumbs in rubber gloves. The crown gasget, had actually been partially damaged by the watchsmith who botched it's servicing, and yet it did not leak. The Radiomir I bought for a friend's birthday, again, not a problem with water immersion.

Okay, so watches not designated water resistant, or on leather, I can understand, but other than that, why the hydrophobia? Do folks have that little faith/trust in the promises of their dealers or their products?

(You're on your own with ppppick up a Penguin!)

I wondered if that might be your response to a Penguin

BISCUIT (USA) SCONE (UK) -- only American biscuits are salty not sugary

That's just wrong