condemore Posted February 1, 2009 Report Share Posted February 1, 2009 Pretiest Rolex to date, imho. V3 is very well done. My advice, Saphire is a must in this watch. This is the first chunck of a possible series of 4. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Padge Posted February 1, 2009 Report Share Posted February 1, 2009 Beautiful pictorial, really fantastic shots Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mo_till Posted February 1, 2009 Report Share Posted February 1, 2009 Great pics! Post more! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yaron Posted February 1, 2009 Report Share Posted February 1, 2009 Great pics but I think we got the idea. Wear it well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephane Posted February 1, 2009 Report Share Posted February 1, 2009 Wonderfull Photos! It makes this watch growing even more on me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asf Posted February 1, 2009 Report Share Posted February 1, 2009 Now post the other side! I want to see the crown Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valerian Posted February 1, 2009 Report Share Posted February 1, 2009 Aaargh! Go away with this! I thought I hated the SDDS and was quite content with it! Now I wanna get one too! Great pics, really awesome. I got to train my left biceps so I can wear this too. Yours kindly Valerian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fireman_Fred Posted February 1, 2009 Report Share Posted February 1, 2009 @condemore - I'm with you !! Hate Rolex - Love the Deep Sea !!! Fantastic pics ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freddy333 Posted February 1, 2009 Report Share Posted February 1, 2009 The more I see this watch (gen or rep), the less I like it. But I enjoyed the pics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dluddy Posted February 1, 2009 Report Share Posted February 1, 2009 Lovely pics but it is still not growing on me. Too big for the skimpy oyster bracelet. Like Panerai, a 44MM watch needs to be on leather. I'm afraid this design just doesn't work with leather. I'll stick with a 44MM Sub that does work for me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobbieG Posted February 1, 2009 Report Share Posted February 1, 2009 Well as they say, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. In my case, I just love Rolex and gave come full circle with the brand. I started with a gen Sub, gen DJ, and gen YM. Then I got into reps and then gens again and tried all the other brands but Rolex, kept a few, then came back to the classic Rolex designs realizing that they had staying power because they needed no refinement. But I swear that being a classic Rolex fan has nothing to do with what I'm about to say... I feel that the Deep Sea, like the Day Date II, and the YM II (...no, I'm not talking about the ugly dial in this case which has nothing to do with it) is more than a bit unrefined. I'm not sure why, but Rolex seems to be making these larger watches without compensating bracelets, lug widths, or dial designs to grow with them. The DDII is the same way. Just the exact same everything as the smaller brother but a bigger case and then they just widen the bezel so they can use the same dial footprint/movements as well. Is that all you have Rolex? I mean we know you are the big daddy but can you at look like you are trying to be a serious player in the industry? I just don't get how anyone could either not notice or not care that Rolex is trying (and succeeding) to get away with something so copped out design wise. The funny thing is that if they really designed any of these to be larger watches from the ground up I'm certain I wouldn't be saying this. Oh well, I know I'm not the only one, but hey, this is an opinion forum and we are all entitled, right? Anyway, for me, all these things make for a sort of clunky and un-refined design. I suspect those who enjoy these designs find a larger watch the most important criteria, but if so, I wonder why not just own something that is supposed to be large and didn't just grow because Rolex decided they needed a bigger watch for the craze. Plus, they are a little late for that, but no matter. The classic designs are still around and always will be so there will always be a Rolex for all of us. Sorry for speaking my mind here, but obviously it is something I'm very passionate about. But before I go, kudos to to the OP. You made the watch look wonderful in your pics. Your photoskills are top notch my friend! .02 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikellem Posted February 1, 2009 Report Share Posted February 1, 2009 Nice Stuff my friend... I would love to see more! MM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
condemore Posted February 2, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 2, 2009 Well as they say, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. In my case, I just love Rolex and gave come full circle with the brand. I started with a gen Sub, gen DJ, and gen YM. Then I got into reps and then gens again and tried all the other brands but Rolex, kept a few, then came back to the classic Rolex designs realizing that they had staying power because they needed no refinement. But I swear that being a classic Rolex fan has nothing to do with what I'm about to say... I feel that the Deep Sea, like the Day Date II, and the YM II (...no, I'm not talking about the ugly dial in this case which has nothing to do with it) is more than a bit unrefined. I'm not sure why, but Rolex seems to be making these larger watches without compensating bracelets, lug widths, or dial designs to grow with them. The DDII is the same way. Just the exact same everything as the smaller brother but a bigger case and then they just widen the bezel so they can use the same dial footprint/movements as well. Is that all you have Rolex? I mean we know you are the big daddy but can you at look like you are trying to be a serious player in the industry? I just don't get how anyone could either not notice or not care that Rolex is trying (and succeeding) to get away with something so copped out design wise. The funny thing is that if they really designed any of these to be larger watches from the ground up I'm certain I wouldn't be saying this. Oh well, I know I'm not the only one, but hey, this is an opinion forum and we are all entitled, right? Anyway, for me, all these things make for a sort of clunky and un-refined design. I suspect those who enjoy these designs find a larger watch the most important criteria, but if so, I wonder why not just own something that is supposed to be large and didn't just grow because Rolex decided they needed a bigger watch for the craze. Plus, they are a little late for that, but no matter. The classic designs are still around and always will be so there will always be a Rolex for all of us. Sorry for speaking my mind here, but obviously it is something I'm very passionate about. But before I go, kudos to to the OP. You made the watch look wonderful in your pics. Your photoskills are top notch my friend! .02 Hi RobbieG, you are very welcome to express your opinion!!. I see you are a truly Rolex fan. I have put that title to the thread because a couple of years before any Rolex "horrorized" myself. But one day I bought a sub, and I liked. Then, three YM (inclusive a blkm one) cause I can not get one with the good dial, 3 GMT II with and without ceramic bezel, and some others. But I have also some newer Breitling and I ended up forgeting the rolexes because they look like toys to me (for the size). So Deepsea has a good basement in the traditional models and is bigger and has a very functional bracelet, clasp and lume. For me, not beeing a real fan, is a good evolution but I understand the purists are not convinced. Thanks for your thoughts on that and for being so nice with the pics. Regards Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StormTooper4 Posted February 2, 2009 Report Share Posted February 2, 2009 WOW Awesome Photos, that watch does look very good indeed. Don't think I could pull it off, But I reckon if you can then you "should". Very Tasty ST4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobbieG Posted February 2, 2009 Report Share Posted February 2, 2009 Again, as dluddy mentioned also, if they would just deal with the proportions and make a truly "big" watch to be big from the ground up I would probably love it. It is just with a few of the new designs I can't even get to the point to try and like what they are doing as I feel they have only made new cases and not completely new watches. The cop out makes me think less of the brand and I don't want to. I love Rolex. Maybe not as much as Ubi or Stephane or Bytor, but I have had one or more of them for fifteen or more years and they are kind of like an important part of my life - a right of passgae to manhood - whatever you want to call it. Always there at key points in my life you know? If anyone else did it I couldn't care less and I would just move on. But I think Rolex has a bigger respnsibility than anyone in the sports watch arena to set the bar high, since after all, they put the bar there originally... Thanks for allowing me to voice this opinion. And my comment on the pics was very sincere. Superb photos - and despite pur different design opinions it looks like (and I have heard elsewhere) that they did an excellent job with the replication. Hi RobbieG, you are very welcome to express your opinion!!. I see you are a truly Rolex fan. I have put that title to the thread because a couple of years before any Rolex "horrorized" myself. But one day I bought a sub, and I liked. Then, three YM (inclusive a blkm one) cause I can not get one with the good dial, 3 GMT II with and without ceramic bezel, and some others. But I have also some newer Breitling and I ended up forgeting the rolexes because they look like toys to me (for the size). So Deepsea has a good basement in the traditional models and is bigger and has a very functional bracelet, clasp and lume. For me, not beeing a real fan, is a good evolution but I understand the purists are not convinced. Thanks for your thoughts on that and for being so nice with the pics. Regards Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cib0rgman Posted February 2, 2009 Report Share Posted February 2, 2009 Fantastic pictorial. Do you mind telling me where do you get it. Thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lanikai Posted February 2, 2009 Report Share Posted February 2, 2009 Great images C. !! thank you, just some thought's regarding DS .. IMO .. it is a "working, Functional" Rolex... being that the design is inherent to it's purpose.. and that would be a timepiece built for depth. The slimmer bracelet makes for great balance.. (for my taste). I think my minset is of that of a Operations , Crisis Management type, and not one of the Executive desk type. So my mind set reflects my options for watches I beleive the design of the DSSD reflects it's purpose ... Go DEEP jus my thought's Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertk Posted February 2, 2009 Report Share Posted February 2, 2009 I agree with Lanikai. This is a tool watch and serves it's function perfectly.....including the bracelet. This one ain't about looks as much as function........Though I really enjoy it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trailboss Posted February 2, 2009 Report Share Posted February 2, 2009 Nice pics but I still don't like the watch. Love the clasp but that's about all. Seems the traditional Rolex crowd don't like this 'un as much as those who have never been Rolex fans. To me that says they have got something wrong. The watch is not appealing to their client base rather to someone elses. I beleive the design of the DSSD reflects it's purpose ... Go DEEP cool.gif Yep, you may just be correct there. The problem is, however, these are never used for their intended purpose. Not nowdays anyway. No one actualy uses a dive watch as a tool. That's what dive computers are for. The bezel on a Rolex (like most "dive" watches) doesn't even meet the international standerd for a dive watch. Face it, few if any of these are ever going to "go deep" Col. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllergyDoc Posted February 2, 2009 Report Share Posted February 2, 2009 When this watch was first announced everyone here panned it. Now look at how many of us own a rep! Nice shots! Amazing how you can get the shots with you holding or wearing the watch with so little or no camera/hand shake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tintin Posted February 2, 2009 Report Share Posted February 2, 2009 Sorry for speaking my mind here, but obviously it is something I'm very passionate about. Lol, don`t be sorry, why would anyone be offended by your personal taste? And you are very passionate about your present collection, that`s why you and many more Rolex collectors feel a big need to tell the rest of the watch world that you personally don`t like this watch. Read below... Seems the traditional Rolex crowd don't like this 'un as much as those who have never been Rolex fans. To me that says they have got something wrong. The watch is not appealing to their client base rather to someone elses. To me that says they got EVERYTHING right, Rolex never tried to accomodate hard core collector fans (you think they wan`t customers who spends a year thinking about their next second hand purchase?). They wanted a brilliant designed watch that collectors across the brands would like, and look at forums for IWC`s, Paneristi, etc... it`s appearing everywhere. This watch is speaking to people who don`t are Rolex fanboys. Like the Luminor, Big Pilot, AP ROO... a defining watch that gets appreciated across the boarders. That`s why it get so much hate from the classic Rolex collector. The most desirable Rolex all of a sudden looks nothing like the watches they all have... what can they do, sell their collection, renounce all they believe inn and feel so strongly for... much easier to proclaim to their forum buddies "i don`t like it"! I`ve even read statements like "I hate it"! and "i feel sick"... lol, tell me that`s not psychological. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobbieG Posted February 2, 2009 Report Share Posted February 2, 2009 LOL. Any watch that isn't selling big isn't a hit. It isn't even remotely significant to Rolex. And you are right, the watch doesn't appeal to Rolex collectors. But those collectors simply aren't their principle market. Rolex exists to sell Day Dates to the 50+ crowd who knows nothing of watches at all. They want a comfortable hunk of gold on the wrist with a name they have 'heard of'. Rolex is slow to change because they don't need to. Believe me. Most of the profits go dto the family foundation which is a charitable trust. The brands you mention are "designing to survive". That is the difference my freind. Rolex doesn't need to and that is the only reason they get away with it. If IWC copped out on a design like this they would get f'n lynched brother. Rolex is just poking around in the dark to see if they can make a splash with the youth market. Playing with your mind. It never works, but they don't care. Go to Las Vagas to the hotel shops and what do you see? Nothing but DD's and DJ's. THOUSANDS of them. It will blow your mind. You don't even see hardly any Subs or YM's or GMT's. Funny really. That tells the whole story. Even other brands too. You don't see the sports watches. The sales line in high end watches starts at 20K. That is the price point they all want to sell to. It is more about precious metals than horology. Big markup in gold over steel. Collectors are a gnat on the ear of watch companies sales and forum going collectors are the waste matter of that gnat - insignificant - and of course forum going replica collectors mean even less to the brands. But I digress... One day they will give up and realize that the fact that they don't really compete in the "latest/greatest" chase market of the 20-somethings is what makes them great - and every great manufactory great IMO. Rolex should continue to stick to the design expertise that got them where they are - not that they need to do anything given thier position in the industry. LOL. I sort of see Rolex as more like Patek or VC than like IWC orf Panerai. They simply share nothing with those brands and never will and good for that - we don't need another IWC or Panerai - and we don't need a "new" Rolex... Oh, and make no mistale - I'm no Rolex fanboy. I have just one gen Rolex and an otherwise diverse collection. I just want watch companies to use bigger or smaller dials, bracelets & bezels when they make a watch bigger or smaller - instead of slapping something together to make a quick buck from 20-somethings who must just have a BIG watch - no matter if it is a refined design or not. But they don't seem to notice these things, so I guess they must have known and the joke is on me. LOL. Still a copout any way you slice it though and my comments are of respect to Rolex not the opposite. And if Rolex feels the need to continue to cater to fads, so be it, but they are going to have to do a lot better at it if they want to compete with Panerai and IWC as you mention who are doing a fine job at DESIGNING big watches that occupy their own space as opposed to just making a thick case and calling it a new watch... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
narikaa Posted February 2, 2009 Report Share Posted February 2, 2009 Kinda loathe to admit it but Ive succombed to one myself !! Beaucoup wrist time since doing so too ! . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobbieG Posted February 2, 2009 Report Share Posted February 2, 2009 Reg, a guy who passes so many watches through his hands has got to have some variety. Looks good on ya. I just wish they would have gone all the way and made the whole watch a cool "deep sea" piece and not just the case. They are definitely on to something... Kinda loathe to admit it but Ive succombed to one myself !! Beaucoup wrist time since doing so too ! . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trailboss Posted February 2, 2009 Report Share Posted February 2, 2009 Robby beat me to it. Tintin: If you consider the DSSD or even the humble sub a "defining watch" for Rolex you are very mistaken my friend. As robbie says Rolex exists to flog large quanities of DDs and the like to to folk who can drop 14 to 60 grand on a watch. The Sub/SDs are an icon yes,but not a defining one. The SD itself was basicly a one off project for Comex that took on a life of it's own. They exist simply to support the lower end of the range and supply a ready stream of folk who will buy that overpriced lump of gold when they get older. The GMT gives these people something to wear to work (out of the office, of cause ) and the Daytona somthing to play in but basicly they are all life support and feeders for the DDs and DJs which are what Rolex are realy all about. How many dials are there for the DD Robbie? Hundreds of them. Robbie: we don't need another IWC or Panerai - and we don't need a "new" Rolex... Yep, it reminds me of Porsche stuffing with the 911. It works, people buy as many as you make so why change it? Narikaa: nice mate, now all you need is a gen bezel + insert, date wheel, crystal, crown and a CG shave! Col. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.