ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Interested Bystander · 14 August 2007, 03:53 PM

I've got to give the older Omega a shot, it keeps time within 2 or 3 seconds a day and looks very nice. It is from around 1968 I believe. It's a great watch.

The older 1961 Rolex is still coming in at about 1 to 2 seconds off a day. That's pretty good even for a newer watch. I know its the absolute "entry level" Rolex, but to me its just great. Even small enough that when my little boy gets old enough to take care of a good watch it won't dominate his wrist.

The picture makes it look WAY more linty and flawed than it does to the naked eye, only the DATE looks really old in person. Still looks mighty good.

Interested Bystander · 16 August 2007, 01:26 PM

Maybe these are a bit better pictures. Maybe.

14 August 2007, 03:53 PM	#1
Interested Bystander Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Real Name: David Location: Arlington, Texas Watch: Rolex Oysterdate Posts: 102	Improved picture of my Rolex 6694 and Omega Constellation I've got to give the older Omega a shot, it keeps time within 2 or 3 seconds a day and looks very nice. It is from around 1968 I believe. It's a great watch. The older 1961 Rolex is still coming in at about 1 to 2 seconds off a day. That's pretty good even for a newer watch. I know its the absolute "entry level" Rolex, but to me its just great. Even small enough that when my little boy gets old enough to take care of a good watch it won't dominate his wrist. The picture makes it look WAY more linty and flawed than it does to the naked eye, only the DATE looks really old in person. Still looks mighty good. Last edited by Interested Bystander; 16 August 2007 at 01:19 PM..

16 August 2007, 01:26 PM	#2
Interested Bystander Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Real Name: David Location: Arlington, Texas Watch: Rolex Oysterdate Posts: 102	Maybe these are a bit better pictures. Maybe.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)