ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

frank bullit · 13 September 2006, 03:21 AM

IWC,Omega and plenty of other manufacturers have a Ti or Ti alloy watchcase in their stable. With all it's well known strength, hardness, resistance to corrosion, not to mention the 40% weight advantage over steel properties. I wonder why our favourite tick-tock merchants haven't ventured
along this avenue.
Polished titanium is beautiful, and can be persuaded to take on a fabulous range of colours. It's not a rare metal, Mr Boeing uses 43 tons of the stuff in a single 747!!

Blue Tit' Sub' anyone?

FB.

Any time you have, is luck.

hutchman · 13 September 2006, 04:22 AM

I'd live to see a titanium sea dweller but even more than that i'd love to see a 44mm or 47mm version!

mamas · 13 September 2006, 04:28 AM

never heard of a titanium SD, but ther does exist a titanium sub...
http://groups.msn.com/Bjornstoolwatc...38651656933052

JJ Irani · 13 September 2006, 04:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by frank bullit

IWC,Omega and plenty of other manufacturers have a Ti or Ti alloy watchcase in their stable. With all it's well known strength, hardness, resistance to corrosion, not to mention the 40% weight advantage over steel properties. I wonder why our favourite tick-tock merchants haven't ventured
along this avenue.
Polished titanium is beautiful, and can be persuaded to take on a fabulous range of colours. It's not a rare metal, Mr Boeing uses 43 tons of the stuff in a single 747!!

Blue Tit' Sub' anyone?

FB.

Any time you have, is luck.

Constructive suggestion, Frank, but want an honesty reply? NEVER.

The dull look of Titanium would completely distort the Rolex image. Rolex does look best in SS...be it polished or brushed. And of course, then there's the stunningly beautiful....TT BLUE SUB!!

s7horton · 13 September 2006, 04:40 AM

With the use of 904 Stainless, they are already ahead of the pack as far as durability. 904 isn't quite to the level of stainless as far as weight goes. But, if you look at the specs of 904 stainless, it's pretty impressive..

JJ Irani · 13 September 2006, 04:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by s7horton

With the use of 904 Stainless, they are already ahead of the pack as far as durability. 904 isn't quite to the level of stainless as far as weight goes. But, if you look at the specs of 904 stainless, it's pretty impressive..

astcell · 13 September 2006, 05:51 AM

I want a PLATINUM Sea Dweller.

Goodwatch · 13 September 2006, 06:26 AM

Very, very interesting!

Let me start by saying that Ti doesn’t tickle my fancy in any watch. It’s lackluster. The material itself is very suitable for high-end F1 parts, airplanes and bicycle frames.

JJ’s point is philosophical in nature of course. If Rolex decided to issue the Sub range in Ti from the beginning this would have been the yardstick and JJ’s remark would have been moot.

But I agree with him 100%. I like the heft and weight on my wrist and the last Ti watch I tried on was so light I thought it was made of plastic. But herein lies the heart of owning an expensive mechanical watch! It is illogical. (Mr. Spock’s words, not mine). Good quartz watches are more accurate and much cheaper. A quartz and titanium Sub would therefore be the most logical choice for a top-end dive watch. And the reason for my untimely death

Rodentman · 13 September 2006, 07:29 AM

I have a Breitling M1 quartz in titanium that I like as a semi beater. I would not like a Rolex in titanium. It just wouldn't be a Rolex...

robertd · 13 September 2006, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goodwatch

But herein lies the heart of owning an expensive mechanical watch! It is illogical. (Mr. Spock’s words, not mine). Good quartz watches are more accurate and much cheaper. A quartz and titanium Sub would therefore be the most logical choice for a top-end dive watch.

Well said.

IMHO, owning a Rolex isn't necessary logical; however, owning a Rolex (or 2 or 3 or...

) simply appeals to my love and appreciation of fine quailty and craftsmanship in whatever form it may take.

frank bullit · 13 September 2006, 08:03 AM

I hear what you're saying chaps and, in many ways I agree. It's the weight of any quality jewellery that reassures us that we've got our money's worth, But lead is also reassuringly heavy in the right kit!
My point is that Titanium is extremely attractive polished to the same degree as our S/S items. I don't know what the scratch and 'ding' resistance is of top grade Ti compared to the latest S/S used by Rolex. Anybody know?

I wonder if any prospective buyers are put off by the weight and if those people might be attracted to a lighter and perhaps more "high-tech" material?

Just a thought.....
FB.

Time, will tell,

Gedanken · 13 September 2006, 08:05 AM

I'd vote no. The lightness of titanium flies in the face of the heft I love in my SD.

mike · 13 September 2006, 08:18 AM

It ain't broke.

frank bullit · 13 September 2006, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mike

It ain't broke.

Steel will break before titanium!

frank bullit · 13 September 2006, 09:06 AM

Depleted Uranium Seadweller anyone?

Just heard a "chik" from GMT must be midnight, time for bedybyes!

Goodnight everyone.

FB.

13 September 2006, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JJ Irani

The dull look of Titanium would completely distort the Rolex image.

JJ you are 100% correct! You would never want to distort the image of Rolex, who have provided us with such icons as this fine example!

C.J. · 13 September 2006, 10:08 AM

I'd have to say no to Ti in a sport Rolex. I personally like the the heft and weight in that particular range of watches, but hey, there's a lid for every pot, right?

clogz · 13 September 2006, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avalon

You would never want to distort the image of Rolex, who have provided us with such icons as this fine example!

My eyes! My eyes!

TT Datejust · 13 September 2006, 07:40 PM

I say no to Ti. It's the heft and weight remind you that you're wearing a Rolex, It's the tradition of Rolex.

JJ Irani · 13 September 2006, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TT Datejust

I say no to Ti. It's the heft and weight remind you that you're wearing a Rolex, It's the tradition of Rolex.

Said the Man from Hong Kong!! Well said, pal!!

13 September 2006, 03:21 AM	#1
frank bullit Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: england Posts: 100	Titanium Seadweller anyone? IWC,Omega and plenty of other manufacturers have a Ti or Ti alloy watchcase in their stable. With all it's well known strength, hardness, resistance to corrosion, not to mention the 40% weight advantage over steel properties. I wonder why our favourite tick-tock merchants haven't ventured along this avenue. Polished titanium is beautiful, and can be persuaded to take on a fabulous range of colours. It's not a rare metal, Mr Boeing uses 43 tons of the stuff in a single 747!! Blue Tit' Sub' anyone? FB. Any time you have, is luck. Last edited by frank bullit; 13 September 2006 at 03:24 AM.. Reason: content

13 September 2006, 04:22 AM	#2
hutchman "TRF" Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Real Name: Mike Watch: All things Patek Posts: 515	I'd live to see a titanium sea dweller but even more than that i'd love to see a 44mm or 47mm version! __________________ "There are three kinds of people in the world: those who can count, and those who can't" Warren Buffett

13 September 2006, 06:26 AM	#8
Goodwatch "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Real Name: Frans ® Location: Rotterdam Watch: the sunrise... Posts: 10,230	Very, very interesting! Let me start by saying that Ti doesn’t tickle my fancy in any watch. It’s lackluster. The material itself is very suitable for high-end F1 parts, airplanes and bicycle frames. JJ’s point is philosophical in nature of course. If Rolex decided to issue the Sub range in Ti from the beginning this would have been the yardstick and JJ’s remark would have been moot. But I agree with him 100%. I like the heft and weight on my wrist and the last Ti watch I tried on was so light I thought it was made of plastic. But herein lies the heart of owning an expensive mechanical watch! It is illogical. (Mr. Spock’s words, not mine). Good quartz watches are more accurate and much cheaper. A quartz and titanium Sub would therefore be the most logical choice for a top-end dive watch. And the reason for my untimely death __________________ Member# 127

13 September 2006, 08:05 AM	#12
Gedanken "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2005 Real Name: Sir Location: Melbourne Watch: F-series SD Posts: 8,589	I'd vote no. The lightness of titanium flies in the face of the heft I love in my SD. __________________ You buy a Casio to make sure you're on time; you wear a Rolex because you don't have to be on time.

13 September 2006, 09:06 AM	#15
frank bullit Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: england Posts: 100	Diving weight. Depleted Uranium Seadweller anyone? Just heard a "chik" from GMT must be midnight, time for bedybyes! Goodnight everyone. FB.

13 September 2006, 04:28 AM	#3
mamas "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 792	never heard of a titanium SD, but ther does exist a titanium sub... http://groups.msn.com/Bjornstoolwatc...38651656933052

13 September 2006, 04:40 AM	#5
s7horton "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Real Name: Seth Location: Grand Rapids, MI Watch: 16613LB, 126610….. Posts: 995	With the use of 904 Stainless, they are already ahead of the pack as far as durability. 904 isn't quite to the level of stainless as far as weight goes. But, if you look at the specs of 904 stainless, it's pretty impressive..

13 September 2006, 05:51 AM	#7
astcell "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Real Name: Robert Location: Angelus Oaks, CA Watch: 116713 Posts: 6,828	I want a PLATINUM Sea Dweller.

13 September 2006, 07:29 AM	#9
Rodentman Banned Join Date: Aug 2005 Real Name: ACCT CLOSED Location: - Posts: 1,497	I have a Breitling M1 quartz in titanium that I like as a semi beater. I would not like a Rolex in titanium. It just wouldn't be a Rolex...

13 September 2006, 08:03 AM	#11
frank bullit Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: england Posts: 100	I hear what you're saying chaps and, in many ways I agree. It's the weight of any quality jewellery that reassures us that we've got our money's worth, But lead is also reassuringly heavy in the right kit! My point is that Titanium is extremely attractive polished to the same degree as our S/S items. I don't know what the scratch and 'ding' resistance is of top grade Ti compared to the latest S/S used by Rolex. Anybody know? I wonder if any prospective buyers are put off by the weight and if those people might be attracted to a lighter and perhaps more "high-tech" material? Just a thought..... FB. Time, will tell,

13 September 2006, 08:18 AM	#13
mike "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 22,683	It ain't broke.

13 September 2006, 10:08 AM	#17
C.J. "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: * Posts: 10,196	I'd have to say no to Ti in a sport Rolex. I personally like the the heft and weight in that particular range of watches, but hey, there's a lid for every pot, right? __________________ Me? I'm still looking for Kokomo. I just hope that damn golfer isn't there

13 September 2006, 07:40 PM	#19
TT Datejust Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: HongKong Posts: 72	I say no to Ti. It's the heft and weight remind you that you're wearing a Rolex, It's the tradition of Rolex.

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