The most exciting part about owning a Rolex!!

[JJ Irani]

Hi guys,

What would you consider the most exciting bit about owning a Rolex?

1. Would it be the fact that it's a famous brand image and you consider yourself privileged enough to own one?
2. Or would it be the fact that it's a rock solid watch that can go through hell and high water and still live to tell its tale?
3. Or would you just like to own one 'cause it's world famous and almost every Tom, Dick or Harry has heard about it?
4. Or, and this I think is the most important issue....or just 'cause it makes you feel bloody warm and all tingly inside knowing fully well that you have on your wrist a solid piece of equipment and a reputed brand at the same time?

Let's hear what you guys have to say. I'd go for #4 personally. Yes, strapping a Rolex on my wrist does send a tingling sensation down my spine...I love it, love it, love it....gives me confidence, vitality and a strong libido!! And, boy, do the sheep revel in it!!

JJ

[RogerF]

2 and 4, but I am with you #4 is very true. Everytime I look at one of my watches and read that huge essay written on the dial I get that warm gooey feeling inside

[Rto]

Hi JJ,

I would say that is all the history behind the brand, credibility, outstanding quality, beauty etc etc etc...

Or #5....

Cuz the chix diggit. LOL

[Wayno]

I agree with Atomic ..but they are sooo beautiful...feel sooo good ...but I digress...could be talkin about something else

[Rockrolex]

Originally Posted by JJ Irani

Hi guys,

What would you consider the most exciting bit about owning a Rolex?

1. Would it be the fact that it's a famous brand image and you consider yourself privileged enough to own one?
2. Or would it be the fact that it's a rock solid watch that can go through hell and high water and still live to tell its tale?
3. Or would you just like to own one 'cause it's world famous and almost every Tom, Dick or Harry has heard about it?
4. Or, and this I think is the most important issue....or just 'cause it makes you feel bloody warm and all tingly inside knowing fully well that you have on your wrist a solid piece of equipment and a reputed brand at the same time?

Let's hear what you guys have to say. I'd go for #4 personally. Yes, strapping a Rolex on my wrist does send a tingling sensation down my spine...I love it, love it, love it....gives me confidence, vitality and a strong libido!! And, boy, do the sheep revel in it!!

JJ

I was going to say YES, but then you started talking about sheep, so I'll leave it at 1-3.

[JJ Irani]

Originally Posted by Rockrolex

I was going to say YES, but then you started talking about sheep, so I'll leave it at 1-3.

[diablojota]

I'm with #4. Plus I know the thing is rugged as hell, and I'm not really worried about it failing on me.

[JJ Irani]

Originally Posted by diablojota

I'm with #4. Plus I know the thing is rugged as hell, and I'm not really worried about it failing on me.

Psst......hey, Frank, you like the sheep bit?

[Launch Mini]

Combo of all of the above.
It's also that you can wear it literally anywear. Even if you had a Gold Pres, you're fine wearing it in shorts & T shirt.

[JJ Irani]

Originally Posted by Launch Mini

Combo of all of the above.
It's also that you can wear it literally anywear. Even if you had a Gold Pres, you're fine wearing it in shorts & T shirt.

How right you are, John...here I am at home in my shorts and singlet wearing a TT Blue YM!!

[dman]

Numbers 1, 2 and 5.

5 being that it can sit on the winder for literally three weeks straight and still be within a 1.5 seconds a day fast.

[C.J.]

Number 1 mainly. Number two is just a little added incentive, hell, a Casio could take the same beating, if not more, than a Rolex. I look at it as kind of a gift to myself for working hard enough to be able to own one.

[mailman]

Originally Posted by C.J.

Number 1 mainly. Number two is just a little added incentive, hell, a Casio could take the same beating, if not more, than a Rolex. I look at it as kind of a gift to myself for working hard enough to be able to own one.

Right on with your last sentence Craig

[Gedanken]

I'll go for the Zen approach: it's a Rolex sitting on my wrist and I know it - what else matters?

Originally Posted by Gedanken

I'll go for the Zen approach: it's a Rolex sitting on my wrist and I know it - what else matters?

Not sure the Zen approach goes with the question.......is the Zen appraoch very exciting? I would think not. BTW, Zen and the Art of Archery is a great read......and it's not really about archery.

I say "none of the above." I don't find anything about owning a Rolex very "exciting."

[Gedanken]

Sure the Zen approach applies, Al - it is what it is, and that's all it is. I like it, I buy it, I wear it, so why worry about the why?

Originally Posted by Gedanken

Sure the Zen approach applies, Al - it is what it is, and that's all it is. I like it, I buy it, I wear it, so why worry about the why?

So is Popeye Zen?

ie, "I yam what I yam, and dats all dat I yam."

Originally Posted by Gedanken

Sure the Zen approach applies, Al - it is what it is, and that's all it is. I like it, I buy it, I wear it, so why worry about the why?

I agree, it is what it is - not exciting. That's why the Zen approach does not apply to JJ's question.

C'mon James, stop trying to spin this or I'll start the name calling......you "lawyer" you! Ouch!

Okay, I apologize for calling you that nasty name. It was out of line.

[RobDad]

Drooling over the ads in National Geographic, I could never take my eye off the solid, functional Rolex sports watches, in particular the Subs and Pepsi GMT's - there's just something right, something iconic about the case, the dial, the Oyster bracelet. It's a purity of design which captured my imagination, and sums up what rings my bell in terms of beautiful 'things' - James Bond's Aston in Goldfinger, any Porsche 911, E-type Jags, Church's Brogues, DuPont lighters, Ray-Ban aviators, French-cuffed shirts, you get my drift!

As I type this, I don't own a sportscar (wife, 2 kids, buggies, live in London!), don't smoke (no lighter), it isn't sunny (no Ray Bans) and I'm not meeting clients (so it's a sweater, jeans and trainers day) - but I am wearing my 16610, and it looks fantastic, like it did in that magazine when I was 7 years old.

I'm sure my parents thought I was in the bathroom looking at the topless native girls, but it was those damn rollies floating my boat (I was just looking at the watch ads, don't worry, I don't love them in that way!!!!!)

[Rockrolex]

Originally Posted by Avalon

I agree, it is what it is - not exciting. That's why the Zen approach does not apply to JJ's question.

C'mon James, stop trying to spin this or I'll start the name calling......you "lawyer" you! Ouch!

Okay, I apologize for calling you that nasty name. It was out of line.

Al, if you want to get rid of the lawyers, get rid of the lawmakers first. We don't make the laws; we merely use the laws to our clients' advantage. If there were no laws to interpret, there would be no need for lawyers.

So everytime you vote to send a representative to Congress or Parliament or whereever it is you vote to send them to "represent" you, you are doing us lawyers a great service. Because your representatives are in the governing body to make laws. Laws are written in words; words are always subject to interpretation. And that's where we lawyers come in.

What most people haven't figured out (and I may be violating our code of secrecy by telling you this) is that any change in the law always helps one group of people. Can you guess which group that is?

So Al, the bottom line is, if you want to get rid of the lawyers, first get rid of the lawmakers. Until you do that, just sit down and quitchyerbellyachin'.

Originally Posted by Rockrolex

We don't make the laws; we merely use the laws to our clients' advantage.

I took out all the irrelevant information you posted, and only left behind your biggest lie. Whether the laws are used to the clients advantage or not is not the point. The point is that the use of the law is always to the lawyers advantage.........

[Rockrolex]

Originally Posted by Avalon

I took out all the irrelevant information you posted, and only left behind your biggest lie. Whether the laws are used to the clients advantage or not is not the point. The point is that the use of the law is always to the lawyers advantage.........

Al, where's the lie in that statement. Of course we use the law to our client's advantage. The fact that the changes in the laws are to our advantage is merely a side benefit of our profession. Neither statement is a lie.

BTW, did you know that lawyers are the third oldest profession?

The second oldest is advertising; and the lawyers were then needed to get the adverisers out of jail when they kept getting busted.

[Launch Mini]

My mother used to say " If a town has only one lawyer, he will be the poorest man in town, If there are two lawyers, they will be the two richest"
Just quoting mother.

[Rockrolex]

Originally Posted by Launch Mini

My mother used to say " If a town has only one lawyer, he will be the poorest man in town, If there are two lawyers, they will be the two richest"
Just quoting mother.

Your mother is absolutely right.

Originally Posted by Rockrolex

Al, if you want to get rid of the lawyers, get rid of the lawmakers first. We don't make the laws; we merely use the laws to our clients' advantage. If there were no laws to interpret, there would be no need for lawyers.

So everytime you vote to send a representative to Congress or Parliament or whereever it is you vote to send them to "represent" you, you are doing us lawyers a great service. Because your representatives are in the governing body to make laws. Laws are written in words; words are always subject to interpretation. And that's where we lawyers come in.

What most people haven't figured out (and I may be violating our code of secrecy by telling you this) is that any change in the law always helps one group of people. Can you guess which group that is?

So Al, the bottom line is, if you want to get rid of the lawyers, first get rid of the lawmakers. Until you do that, just sit down and quitchyerbellyachin'.

Typical lawyer always blaming the government. Don't you know lawyers RUN the government? Isn't that a conflict of interest?

[Goodwatch]

Originally Posted by JJ Irani

Hi guys,

What would you consider the most exciting bit about owning a Rolex?

1. Would it be the fact that it's a famous brand image and you consider yourself privileged enough to own one?
2. Or would it be the fact that it's a rock solid watch that can go through hell and high water and still live to tell its tale?
3. Or would you just like to own one 'cause it's world famous and almost every Tom, Dick or Harry has heard about it?
4. Or, and this I think is the most important issue....or just 'cause it makes you feel bloody warm and all tingly inside knowing fully well that you have on your wrist a solid piece of equipment and a reputed brand at the same time?

1. Most feel rogered in the rear entrance for this 'privilege', considering the price.
2. What's the use if YOU won't be around to tell it's tale? At 4000 ft. under water I mean.
3. Almost every Tom, Dick and Harry owns one, that's something completely different.
4. I just felt warm and tingly but that was because I wet myself laughing.

Just pulling your leg JJ, you don't have to PM me

No, I don't consider it a privilege. Rolex should feel privileged with such a loyal customer base. I think the Sub and Sea Dweller are among the finest examples of good quality sportswatches. Icon's. But warm and tingly? No.

However. When I first had my Sub I glanced a bit more often then usual at my wrist. So Anne couldn't help but making the following remark: "You really like that watch, don't you?".

Originally Posted by Goodwatch

No, I don't consider it a privilege. Rolex should feel privileged with such a loyal customer base. I think the Sub and Sea Dweller are among the finest examples of good quality sportswatches. Icon's. But warm and tingly? No.

However. When I first had my Sub I glanced a bit more often then usual at my wrist. So Anne couldn't help but making the following remark: "You really like that watch, don't you?".

Frans, I couldn't agree more.

[Rockrolex]

Originally Posted by Atomic

Typical lawyer always blaming the government. Don't you know lawyers RUN the government? Isn't that a conflict of interest?

Not if we say it isn't. After all, as you say, we run the government. Therefore we make the laws. So we can make up any old laws we want. And if we say it's not a conflict of interest to make and interpret the laws, well, that makes it OK.

See how much power we have.

Originally Posted by Rockrolex

Not if we say it isn't. After all, as you say, we run the government. Therefore we make the laws. So we can make up any old laws we want. And if we say it's not a conflict of interest to make and interpret the laws, well, that makes it OK.

See how much power we have.

Where's a smart-arsed engineer when you need one?