Victoria

:lol:

FACT: During the Prussian siege of Paris in 1870-1 (and subsequent Commune), no foodstuffs could come in and out of Paris as the Gerries surrounded the city pitilessly. So the Parisians turned to...their pets, for survival.

Rats, mice, pigeons always a fave, of course (sorry Ryannon).

But in the Black Market, the most sought-after meat, apparently because it was the tastiest, was...poodle.

Christ, the things I know with my History degree.

Something just doesn't sit right with me about this rep - maybe it's just me, but the datefont, logo, bezel etc look really wrong. If I was buying a rep for my lady I'd be looking at the Tag Link Ladies... in fact I might pick one up. I'd want my girl to be under zero risk of anyone finding her watch suspect.

I will go on record as saying that if any person catches her out wearing the blue Breitling shown above, I'll eat my hat.

Guys, you are thinking like guys, and moreover, like guys who know about rep watches.

With all due respect, that's just not the way women think about or approach watches. I just about died laughing hearing the pickiness about datefonts. Yeah, she'll be TOTALLY embarrassed by a woman in the salon when her datewheel is revealed as a rep. Watch out!

FWIW, though apparently PG4TR is not interested in this model anymore, the white looks absolutely cheap and manky. But the blue is just fine.

If you're REALLY concerned about having someone spot a rep, for pity's sake, DO NOT BUY HER A ROLEX OR TAG. Whenever I see a lady wearing a Tag Link, I automatically think, fake.

I would post the link, but the last time I tried telling folks here about a good watch deal, I got accused of being a shill. PM me and I'll send you a link.

I surely appreciate it, HammerTime, but see, I don't buy into all that cartel talk. And I'm a pretty conservative girl, small c. I'd rather to stick to what I know than chance my luck elsewhere.

Borrrrrring.

Perhaps others might be interested, though.

@Hammertime: Thanks so much! U can't touch this! ...always wanted to say that.

My fianc

Humans can certainly survive without meat, I know many who do so, and for millenia humans have been surviving without the need to kill animals and eat them. God has given us the ability to grow our own food, a lion and a tiger can't. So they have designed to hunt and kill other animals for food.

Humans can survive without meat, yes. But why is it then, that so many crave it? In fact, the majority do.

If God, evolution, whatever had made it so that we were meant to be herbivores without the strength of beasts, then He should've created a being without the ability to make weapons to kill said beasts.

This ain't no Planet of the Apes.

then the watch self destructs and the envelope melts away leaving no evidence

If it worked for WMDs, it can work for TTK.

SMP is genuine. The PO is a rep

Yes, I can see your point of view now. The datewheel on the PO is off, and though the lume was brighter than the SMP, it looks touched up.

Thanks for the bigger pics, Dave!

No expert am I, but I'll say the PO is gen, and the SMP is the rep. Pearl seems ever slightly tilted on the SMP, a common-enough fault.

HOLD THAT THOUGHT, Part Deux. :p

We seem to be oddly in synch, Lani.

(Only mine doesn't look nearly as good as yours! Care to share the source for your strap? Unless it's the rep one)

And I will remain humbled by the character and sense of family which is a part of this community.

We're the one humbled by you, Rob. Good luck to you, with my prayers to boot. More, privately...

Ask Victoria, she may be at 100 reps by now.

Passed that early January. Same with the straps, only double that figure.

I'd say a reasonably-sized collection for any rep watch owner is as follows:

- 3 "Ultimate" or "Super" reps @$300-400+ a piece (uPO, SSD, MBWs, IWC Aquatimer, Fiddy, HBB Lite & Ultimate)

- 2-4 top of the line 7750s etc. @ $200-300, just under the "Super Rep" category (Rolex DJ, loads of PAMs)

- 2-3 cheapies, A21js @ $100-$150 (Vacherons, Pateks, cheaper Rolexes like Noobs, PAMs, fantasy watches)

So basically, 7 to 10 watches.

Factor in the modding, and that's a minimum haul of $3000 for a veteran collection. The tendency is less not more as time goes by, though, as tastes & expectations crystallise.

In my case, I'm concentrating on the very cheap and the very expensive. I don't have $200-$300 watches anymore.

CC, I'm still working out my feelings after having read Rob's post. So when I clicked on yours, I said, oh not another one -- my heart sinking. Thank God, you will be back in April. And God willing, so will POTR.

I myself am in a tizz of activity as I'm going to be out for a while, on holiday next week. So it'll be a quieter time on RWG. Alas...

Be good, have fun, bon voyage!!

The short answer it depends on the series early years c series and back have no AR, later models have one sided AR, but if you use the search function you will find tons of more information about this subject.

That reply, Chuan, is correct (about PAMs in general).

However, to answer your specific question about the DSN 005 -- it is apparently the only 005 in repland with a correctly slanting OP logo (the "mosca"). Unfortunately, it is also considered too large by knowledgeable members.

However, this has ALWAYS been the deal-breaker for me, and I've never bought a 005 because of it. I can't take a badly slanting logo. I'll take an overlarge one, happily.

DSN 005 Thread Here

Welcome to my pain, my world, my insanity...the club!

@Ukmerctechie: First of all, nice that you are a Mercedes techie. Big thumbs up from me! Alas, to answer your question, Tags are not my strong suit. By-Tor is your man. Good luck though!

If not, just wait and it'll all sort itself out.

Just in case this helps someone, I deleted my bookmark, and typed the url. Working. Just about to log on.

The ticker on top says "RIP Arthur C. Clarke". HOOBOY, my first post back and its controversial.

The genocides perpetrated by Shaka Zulu make Hitler's little European sojourn look like a Sunday school outing by comparison but few in the 'educated' world would know.

Sometimes I totally agree with you, despite your gentleman brawler tone, Narikaa. But allow a HUGE DISAGREE here.

Not only is this factually incorrect, it's also incorrect at some deeper level.

In Russia alone, millions of people were slaughtered by Ivan the Terrible. Millions died in the marshes trying to build St. Petersburg, at the behest of Peter the Great. An estimated 10-20 million peasants died in the first Collectivisation of Russia by the Communists in the 1920s. That's not even counting the horror stories of Stalin, which came later.

NONE of this can compare to the industrialised killing of Hitler and his henchmen. It was so evil, it was almost brilliant in its organisation.

Did you remember to unedit your HOSTS file?

I "Good Idea"d you in case someone knows what this means. Alas, it's technicalese for me. What should I do, Pug?

(I did use my bookmark, so I cleared my cookies, restarted Firefox, and typed in the address. Same deal. Worse, I allowed pop-ups, so now, I get 3 when I refresh RG)

@Pug & Cornerstone: Thanks lads. No, I didn't do anything, so I'll try to see what I can do (since waiting is not my fort

Outstanding and unusual shot.

You'd be surprised what a "Slai shot" (Peek-a-Boo from sleeves) or "Scoobs shot" (sideways tilt) can do to perk up the Wristchecks.

There's a lot of controversy surrounding that review, to be honest. It's not as cut and dried as it would at first seem.

Hmm. Angus gets around.

When do we start worrying? Is this a normal placeholder during repairs, or has the site been deregistered?

I will tell you this. It would be great if we got some updates on RWG by RG Mods by now, even if they're swamped.

"The Power of Christ compels you!"

Where's me garlic and crucifix?? Yikes, that is a VERY evilish (?)-looking watch. Uh, wear it in good health, Pho?

This?

At this piont, I don't even know if I want to continue with my new rep hobby. It seems if you're not a supporter and a noob you're second rate citizen to some like the guy I dealt with. I really hope I'm wrong here.

Ztech, how can you say this after your lovely acknowledgement of HikeUSA's gesture (and subsidiary gesture by me) to you? Did a Supporter get that strap? No, it was you, a newbie!

Be sensible now, darling.

I know you must be smarting. There has to be an explanation. Also realise that yes, you're a newbie, and certain things others take for granted, or don't sweat over, will be magnified by newer members. I cringe over my earlier posts of complaint.

But don't burn your bridges over what is really easily explained in a matter of minutes. You're a great new member, and it would be a shame to lose you in this forum.

IMHO, but I think few would disagree.

Last I heard, he was no longer "into" watches at all...Having moved on to fine art collecting...

Walt made a lot of enemies in the WIS world @ 10 yrs ago when he did a scathing expose of Rolex quality control...I suspect that the post he made is still in circulation on the net somewhere...I always respected his talents and wisdom, and found him to be helpful and generous with his time..A real gentleman!!

Well, at least there are some people that appreciated him. Thanks for the link, too, Frank.

In fact...Here it is!!:

http://www.timezone.com/library/horologium/horologium0036

"I doubt that this watch is representative of Rolex's historical production. Fifteen or 20 years ago, I believe the Rolex was what I expected this watch to be: a sturdy, minimally finished but workmanlike, reliable, work-horse. In thinking about how representative of current production this one sample might be, one must consider how a company produces 700,000 or 800,000 watches in a year. They are produced on assembly lines. Each part installed in the watch is selected randomly from a bin of hundreds or thousands of like parts. Likewise, each operation performed--or omitted--occurs randomly from among thousands of like operations. Thus, to believe that this watch does not represent the current approach to watch making at Rolex, we must believe that this single watch is the unique recipient of a dozen or more randomly-selected defective parts and randomly performed deficient or omitted manufacturing procedures. There are too many defects in this watch to support such an explanation. A mass-produced product with multiple defects represents, in itself, a form of statistical sampling of the total pool of parts and manufacturing operations and procedures.

Clearly, the Oyster Perpetual Explorer is not a watch that I could recommend. The cost-efficient engineering of the movement is not remotely reflected in its price; and the extreme ease of service is not reflected in routine service costs provided by the manufacturer. The watch represents an extremely poor value if purchased solely to provide accurate and reliable timekeeping. And it is of no horological interest whatsoever. The contrast between the relatively good external appearance of the watch and the internal appearance is absolutely unparalled in my experience. I cannot think of another consumer product in which the gulf between the publicly perceived quality and the reality I saw is as broad as with the Explorer."

Hmm, this burnt bridges?

How ironic that in the rep world, had this been written by By-Tor or others, it would've been hailed as a masterpiece of honesty.