ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX
9 May 2020, 03:40 AM | #121 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Galaxy
Watch: Explorer
Posts: 897
|
I used to own the 114060 but sold it because I couldn't stand the fat lugs anymore. I tried to convince myself they were ok but finally I just accepted they weren't for me. Also, I got a 16710 during the time I owned my Sub and its near perfection overshadowed the Sub, especially the superior case proportions.
If Rolex wants to make bigger watches, then just make bigger watches. Trying to make a 40mm watch look like a 41-42mm by screwing the proportions was a mistake. |
9 May 2020, 03:54 AM | #122 | |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2017
Real Name: Jaime
Location: Here
Posts: 5,606
|
Quote:
|
|
9 May 2020, 10:23 AM | #123 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Brisbane
Watch: DSSD
Posts: 7,913
|
Quote:
I put it to you that opinions freely expressed/shared on the forum without prejudice are a legitimate snapshot of a cross section of views which are likely reflected throughout society more broadly without going onto any internet forum. After all, we are all a part of society outside of this forum so if some don't like the soap bar look then surely that's ok? Let's face it. Some people prefer larger examples of the opposite sex and others like them trim taught and terrific. Neither is right or wrong |
|
9 May 2020, 10:55 AM | #124 |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: May 2015
Real Name: Mike
Location: Pacific Northwest
Watch: 116610LV 16710 SD
Posts: 10,650
|
|
9 May 2020, 10:56 AM | #125 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: May 2020
Location: US
Watch: Two Tone DJ
Posts: 339
|
I heard this was true, but have since come to learn that it's not closer to the original. There is one variation that looked sort of like the maxi case, but I'm not sure of the reference.
|
9 May 2020, 11:37 AM | #126 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,761
|
|
9 May 2020, 11:56 AM | #127 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Brisbane
Watch: DSSD
Posts: 7,913
|
|
9 May 2020, 12:01 PM | #128 | |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Northwest
Posts: 1,349
|
Quote:
|
|
10 May 2020, 08:12 AM | #129 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jun 2013
Real Name: Dave
Location: NYC
Posts: 7,181
|
Quote:
|
|
10 May 2020, 08:19 AM | #130 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jun 2013
Real Name: Dave
Location: NYC
Posts: 7,181
|
Lively debate going on here. As a long-time Sub lover I’m enjoying the discourse. I’ve had four- and five-digit Subs for many years, but when the ceramic age dawned upon us those lugs gave me pause. I didn’t buy a modern Rolex diver until the SD 116600 was released, with its sexy lugs.
I still consider buying a new 114060, it does look cool and aggressive with the maxi case. Honestly, and I hate to throw more fuel on the fire here, but mostly the thing that bothers me is the fact that the hour hand is thinner than the minute hand. Why can’t they just make them the same width like the GMT, SD, DSSD, etc.? |
10 May 2020, 09:09 AM | #131 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: _
Posts: 1,877
|
Quote:
The... entire internet, really... seems to suggest otherwise. The whole reason dedicated enthusiast communities exist is that mainstream society is almost entirely indifferent to the opinions expressed by the enthusiasts. And mainstream society is Rolex's target audience. |
|
10 May 2020, 09:19 AM | #132 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Brisbane
Watch: DSSD
Posts: 7,913
|
Quote:
However, I believe you are engaging in disingenious behavior by the skewing the context of my post by selectively substituting my words. Especially since you chose to take a section of my post and re-quote it. Must try harder Old Mate. |
|
10 May 2020, 10:57 AM | #133 |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: May 2015
Real Name: Mike
Location: Pacific Northwest
Watch: 116610LV 16710 SD
Posts: 10,650
|
|
10 May 2020, 12:39 PM | #134 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: England
Watch: 16710, 16628
Posts: 7,757
|
That's great. The amount of people who simply dislike the maxicase and on-the-fencers who put up with it for the bracelet/new ceramic indicates that it was a questionable design decision at the very least. It's STILL a raging debate and predictions (and hopes) for a 5 digit esque case remodeling abound. I don't think it will happen btw as Rolex have gone all in with the fat lugged jubilee thing. Shame Imo.
__________________
GMT II 16710 TRADITIONAL ( D- Serial #) ROLEXFANBOY P-Club Member #4 |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
*Banners
Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.