Rolex 1655 " the Steve McQueen" Orange Hand Explorer II

[KellyM3]

Originally Posted by Vincent65

"KellyM3"

But you do NEED to lighten up, seriously!

We all get it. It's you that's missing the point - repeatedly. We all know it's not a "S.M." watch; there is clearly no such thing. Even the Sub he wore doesn't bear his name, only a loose association amongst enthusiasts (as with the Heuer Monaco), along with millions of others (many notable/famous people) who wear them. It doesn't say 'Paul Newman' on a Daytona, either. The thread was not about this topic, but you jumped on it, and quite aggressively, or at least very sarcastically and dismissively, which you now maintain was humour. And then, when people respond in a similar tone which you have set, you're the victim...

It's a misnomer - we get it! It has nothing to do with dials, bezels or any component of a watch being original, or indeed in its entirety. A name of which you do not approve does not make it a fake watch.

Nor has it any bearing on the spherical nature of the rock which we inhabit, and you are implying that anyone who thinks you are taking this all a bit too seriously is merely 'following the herd', which, using your MO is a personal attack at which I should take offense, which I don't! It's ridiculous, and hilarious, and you just won't let it go, will you?

Bringing gender into the debate was right out of order, in my opinion, which you then tried to make some sort of 'political correctness' crusade, further alienating yourself, combined with being an alleged series of personal attacks on you, if someone didn't share your 'opinion'. No-one knew what gender you were until you decided to drop it on the discussion for dramatic effect. It carries none, in my view.

It's not a matter of opinion to agree or disagree with, either. The fact remains that the name stands, in its apparent, unproven incorrectness, however much of a devoted fan of Mr.McQueen you are. There's nothing to disagree with on that topic. It is what it is. Like it or leave it.

Cheers!

as to what to like, dislike, or to stay or leave. Further, you don't get it. I am not the one continuing the thread other than to respond to continued inapropriate comments, or other views, it seems that you are the one with the problem here, and frankly, you are entitled to your own opinion, and views, however, and notwithstanding the same, I will not follow your mandates or directives, nor do I care whether you care what the model is called.

And I assume that you have annointed yourself a demi-god, as you have not only mandated that I need to "like it or leave it" but, you have also mandated that "the name stands."

It will only continue to stand so long as people like you don't care or accept it, and others misrepresent it. I have as much right to disagree and voice that disagreement as you have to ignore it, or others have to misrepresent it.

[Vincent65]

Originally Posted by KellyM3

as to what to like, dislike, or to stay or leave. Further, you don't get it. I am not the one continuing the thread other than to respond to continued inapropriate comments, or other views, it seems that you are the one with the problem here, and frankly, you are entitled to your own opinion, and views, however, and notwithstanding the same, I will not follow your mandates or directives, nor do I care whether you care what the model is called.

And I assume that you have annointed yourself a demi-god, as you have not only mandated that I need to "like it or leave it" but, you have also mandated that "the name stands."

It will only continue to stand so long as people like you don't care or accept it, and others misrepresent it. I have as much right to disagree and voice that disagreement as you have to ignore it, or others have to misrepresent it.

Who said anything about whom should 'stay or leave'? Not I, for certain. Completely false accusation - where did I say that? 'Mandates and directives'?! 'Anointed myself a demi-god'?! It just gets funnier, or more tragic... Yes, you "assume" - and grossly incorrectly. Assumption can be hazardous.


You say you don't care whether I care what the 1655 is called, yet clearly you care disturbingly deeply about the whole trivial topic, as you made such a big (and ongoing) issue out of it in the first place, based solely on the OP's inadvertent titling of the thread, and it still seemingly perturbs you so much that the evil may be perpetuated. And, I [yet again] obviously need to remind you that I have never referred to it as anything to do with a much-revered and deceased US film star. Nor will I ever. It know what it's called; it says it on the dial. All I did was point out that the name is still used by some, and there's not a lot anyone can do about it, even you. I don't care how you feel about it or what you call it, either, but I don't think your hapless 'Bedrock' character will catch on. Good luck!

[QueueCumber]

This may win the Most Psychotic Thread of the Year award.

[pngates]

Originally Posted by QueueCumber

This may win the Most Psychotic Thread of the Year award.

Agreed. I feel dumb of even starting this nonsense...by the way you have a beautiful collection.

[QueueCumber]

Originally Posted by pngates

Agreed. I feel dumb of even starting this nonsense...by the way you have a beautiful collection.

Thanks!

[CrownMe]

Originally Posted by QueueCumber

This may win the Most Psychotic Thread of the Year award.

Or thread of the "Month"

[Robbyvm]

Maybe it should be locked and the OP can start a new (S...) explorer thread
This turned out veeeery strange ???

I appologise "to the forum" because i guess my " get a life" reply hit a (sensible) nerve...

[subtona]

Originally Posted by queuecumber

this may win the most psychotic thread of the year award.

+1

Beyond ridiculous.



But i really enjoyed the pics of the explorer

[Jason71]

Originally Posted by Robbyvm

Maybe it should be locked and the OP can start a new (S...) explorer thread
This turned out veeeery strange ???

I appologise "to the forum" because i guess my " get a life" reply hit a (sensible) nerve...

Yea Rob.....you were the problem.

[steptoe]

Originally Posted by KellyM3

"Steptoe" you know nothing about my personal life, or my interactions, so, again, instead of addressing facts, you make some kind of personal attack about my social life, again, of which you know nothing.

And yes, it is something that I and others can "do something about." People on this forum opine about incorrect bezels, endlinks, bezel inserts, bracelets, dials, re-lume versus original indices, matte versus gloss dials, I see many people send in pictures asking about authenticity, whether watches are genuine, and the undercurrent to all of this is really, and the real query is whether the watch is what is is puported to be. I see people in the know to tell them to stay away from watches due to improprieties, fakes, "frankenwatches," or to be wary as the endlinks are wrong, or that the insert is wrong, and significantly, the dial is incorrect or a service dial. And many are told to stay away from the watch or wait for another one to come up for sale, because the watch is not what it is purported to be. And those of you who continue to call the 1655 the "Steve McQueen" watch something that it is not, are doing the same exact thing. Why bother with all these technicalities about condition, original parts, worrying about polishing versus non-polished, correct insert or not, because nothing matters if we aren't truthful and at least as accurate as possible in describing the watch.

And to the OP, perhaps it was not clear, but, the Fred Flinstone thing was the injection of humor to try to hit home the point, which was clearly missed, it may as well be called a Fred Flinstone watch, or by anyone else's name for that matter who didn't wear the 1655, because neither that cartoon character nor Steve McQueen wore the watch.

And quite frankly, I do not follow the herd mentality, and thankfully, many people in the world do not. If we did, we would all still think the world was flat, because for centuries, that is "just the way it was...the world is flat..." So using your mentality that "that is just the way it is and always will be" if adopted by everyone in the world, would mean that nothing was ever questioned and we would remain in permanent stagnation.

Changes, whether social, factual, or otherwise all need to start somewhere, so those of us that do not like the watch being misrepresented as something it is not will hopefully have some impact until the misrepresentations stop. And change doesn't happen overnight.

Your personal attack on me does not change the fact that the watch is not a "Steve McQueen" watch.

See what I mean ..............

[Goula1979]

http://www.hodinkee.com/blog/2009/1/...e-best-ma.html

Hodinkee calls it the Steve McQueen watch for what that's worth.

[QueueCumber]

Originally Posted by Goula1979

http://www.hodinkee.com/blog/2009/1/...e-best-ma.html

Hodinkee calls it the Steve McQueen watch for what that's worth.

That article is from 5 years ago...

[Goula1979]

fair enough... just saw the headline and couldn't resist.

[SUBversive]

Originally Posted by Goula1979

http://www.hodinkee.com/blog/2009/1/...e-best-ma.html

Hodinkee calls it the Steve McQueen watch for what that's worth.

With a name like hodinkee i don't care what they call things.

[LCDR]

ENOUGH.....Steve McQueen didn't wear an Explorer. Google it. Plenty of photos shooting revolvers wearing his Hanhart.

If you want to quote HODINKEE, (11/14/14) then here is the article. No Explorer.

From HODINKEE:
"There are two watches that most men of a certain mold would associate with Steve McQueen: the automatic Heuer Monaco with blue matte dial (reference 1133B) and the Submariner reference 5512. But McQueen wore many other watches throughout his life, including the Hanhart 417 (or 417ES) chronograph. Hanhart is a German manufacturer that specialized in producing chronographs for the German Air Force, including the Luftwaffe in World War II through the West German Air Force in the 1950."

http://www.hodinkee.com/blog/2011/11...eens-othe.html

[steptoe]

Originally Posted by LCDR

ENOUGH.....Steve McQueen didn't wear an Explorer. Google it. Plenty of photos shooting revolvers wearing his Hanhart.

I think we all know that 100%. It's a mere name, nothing more, nothing less and won't alter anyones life whatever it's called .

But we've got into a 1st world problem about the importance of the name of something and it should be changed. As it appears you can't just leave things as they are as that leads to nothing ever changing.....

Never mind that 90% of the world doesn't earn in a year what most on here spend on something as inconsequential as a watch.

Now that's something that needs changing. But i doubt the discussion would reach more than a solitary page of single line replies.

[QueueCumber]

Originally Posted by steptoe

I think we all know that 100%. It's a mere name, nothing more, nothing less and won't alter anyones life whatever it's called .

But we've got into a 1st world problem about the importance of the name of something and it should be changed. As it appears you can't just leave things as they are as that leads to nothing ever changing.....

Never mind that 90% of the world doesn't earn in a year what most on here spend on something as inconsequential as a watch.

Now that's something that needs changing. But i doubt the discussion would reach more than a solitary page of single line replies.

This such and such "percentage of the world doesn't earn in a year what most on here spend on something as inconsequential as a watch" type of argument is such a hyperbolic approach to winning an argument that it is akin to Godwin's Law. Maybe we can call it "Poor Man's Law"...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

He who first draws comparisons to "spending money on watches when there are poor people in the world" as a point for winning an argument has automatically LOST the argument, and consequently the argument has devolved so completely into the ludicrous that the other side automatically wins the argument.

Thus, stop calling it the Steve McQueen...

It's like saying you shouldn't critique and rate restaurants because there are starving children in Africa.

[Darlinboy]

Let me know how much longer this thread will run...

I'm running out of popcorn!

[SUBversive]

Originally Posted by QueueCumber

This such and such "percentage of the world doesn't earn in a year what most on here spend on something as inconsequential as a watch" type of argument is such a hyperbolic approach to winning an argument that it is akin to Godwin's Law. Maybe we can call it "Poor Man's Law"...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

He who first draws comparisons to "spending money on watches when there are poor people in the world" as a point for winning an argument has automatically LOST the argument, and consequently the argument has devolved so completely into the ludicrous that the other side automatically wins the argument.

Thus, stop calling it the Steve McQueen...

It's like saying you shouldn't critique and rate restaurants because there are starving children in Africa.

to that

And I'll second that by adding that many of these prior posts - and it's quite clear and evident by going back an reading them - resort to Ad hominem attacks...

Another way the McQueen lie defenders lost the argument. And just look bad.

[QueueCumber]

Originally Posted by SUBversive

to that

And I'll second that by adding that many of these prior posts - and it's quite clear and evident by going back an reading them - resort to Ad hominem attacks...

Another way the McQueen lie defenders lost the argument. And just look bad.

Absolutely, logical fallacies lose arguments...

Don't forget the many "appeal to authority" fallacies (e.g. Hodinkee and other experts call it McQueen, therefore we should call it McQueen...).

[Beaumont Miller II]

Finally on post number 137, I learned something.
Thanks Q for that.
Enjoy your weekend everyone.

[Goula1979]

For the record, I don't care what anyone calls it. I put forth the Hodinkee article as example of the name being promulgated by a respected source of watch information (albeit five years old). That doesn't mean I call it that or that I think anyone else should. It's just an example for the debate.

Great link on Godwin's law... truly fascinating and freakishly poignant.

[FTX I]

[Gaijin]

Epic thread. Total train wreck. I just had to post to be a part of it.

[Robbyvm]

[QUOTE=QueueCumber;5401205]This such and such "percentage of the world doesn't earn in a year what most on here spend on something as inconsequential as a watch" type of argument is such a hyperbolic approach to winning an argument that it is akin to Godwin's Law. Maybe we can call it "Poor Man's Law"...




learned something indeed Q ! thx for that...

i wonder if Skitt’s Law would be applicable in this post ??
"any post correcting an error in another post will contain at least one error itself"


i don't intend to go and search for it but i'm sure some will

[SMD]

Originally Posted by QueueCumber

This such and such "percentage of the world doesn't earn in a year what most on here spend on something as inconsequential as a watch" type of argument is such a hyperbolic approach to winning an argument that it is akin to Godwin's Law. Maybe we can call it "Poor Man's Law"...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

He who first draws comparisons to "spending money on watches when there are poor people in the world" as a point for winning an argument has automatically LOST the argument, and consequently the argument has devolved so completely into the ludicrous that the other side automatically wins the argument.

Thus, stop calling it the Steve McQueen...

It's like saying you shouldn't critique and rate restaurants because there are starving children in Africa.

If I ever see the phrase "first world problem" again it will be too soon.

[QueueCumber]

Originally Posted by Robbyvm

learned something indeed Q ! thx for that...

i wonder if Skitt’s Law would be applicable in this post ??
"any post correcting an error in another post will contain at least one error itself"


i don't intend to go and search for it but i'm sure some will

Of course I'll look it up! I love that kind of stuff. I learned about Godwin's law via AOL chat rooms in the 90s. 😉

[jdmi32]

The ironic thing is that I hardly ever see people who are selling a 5512 refer to it as the "Steve McQueen".

[Gaijin]

Originally Posted by jdmi32

The ironic thing is that I hardly ever see people who are selling a 5512 refer to it as the "Steve McQueen".

Yea, you would think. People would be milking that "FS 5512 Steve McQueen Submariner!"

[KellyM3]

Why is Brittany bashing that car with her Steve McQueen umbrella?