The Rolex Forums   The Rolex Watch

ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Old 2 February 2016, 01:56 PM   #91
RHIII
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Real Name: Roger
Location: ...
Watch: AP/Rolex/PP
Posts: 6,309
Personally, I like them all... and all for different reasons.

To each their own...enjoy what you like...

RHIII is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2 February 2016, 03:35 PM   #92
2Redbulls
"TRF" Member
 
2Redbulls's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Real Name: Tom
Location: Morgan Hill, CA
Watch: I give up..
Posts: 719
Quote:
Originally Posted by mapalfa View Post
I can think of watch forums far less mature than this one where a comment about Grand Seiko, on a thread about Rolex, could well end up in warnings and even bans.

One thing I really do love about this forum is that discussions don't end up in the more established members attacking newer ones, and those they've got a beef with, at the slightest excuse.
Amen!
2Redbulls is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2 February 2016, 06:52 PM   #93
BawlaDK
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Real Name: Morten
Location: Denmark
Watch: 16800 Submariner
Posts: 265
Thanks for all your comments and thoughts. This turned into a very interesting thread, and I get all of the different points and respect them ALL. Just to comment on a few things. I DON’T blame Rolex for evolving at all. I always expect Rolex to be ahead of the competition, I just don’t particularly like the way they have evolved. Todays Rolex is much more of a status symbol (at least for many non WIS) than it is a tool where form follows function. I guess the word that best explains how I think the new Gen. Rolexes feel (to me) is STERILE…. While that may work for others, it does not for me. That’s nothing against people who wear the new ones AT ALL. I would never judge someone based on the watch they wear – Nor do I care what other people think of the watches I wear. It’s entirely about the way I personally feel about the brand today, and subsequently about my own collection of watches. The fact that I don’t like the ceramic models is just a matter of personal taste, both in terms of aesthetics and functionality. I don’t like the look and, I don’t think that ceramic and glidelock are improvements – But again JUST my personal opinion. The point of the thread was just to ask if anyone else had experienced the feeling of becoming increasingly “disconnected” with the brand and loosing interest because they had perhaps been through most of the old models and couldn’t see themselves buying a new model?

I’m a sucker for good marketing and while Rolex surely does a good job at this, I just feel that a lot of other brands are better at connecting with their customers on a personal level e.g Omega, Hublot etc….

I could seriously consider selling all my Rolexes and just settle for 1 great Blancpain or something of that nature….
BawlaDK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2 February 2016, 09:40 PM   #94
Nsx_23
"TRF" Member
 
Nsx_23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Earth
Posts: 607
The important thing is that you buy and wear what you like - don't let others dictate what you should and shouldn't wear.
Nsx_23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2 February 2016, 10:10 PM   #95
ROLEX MAN
2024 Pledge Member
 
ROLEX MAN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Real Name: Martin
Location: land down under
Watch: you? "YES PLEASE"!
Posts: 3,674
Don't like the Ceramic.

And still don't like the sharp edges on the case.

I will stay with "Vintage"
__________________


it's not just about telling the time...

happy rolexing...



I'm just a man with a passion
ROLEX MAN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2 February 2016, 10:11 PM   #96
Snow-Dweller
2024 Pledge Member
 
Snow-Dweller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Real Name: Clive
Location: The Alps
Watch: collections change
Posts: 6,246
I thought I had fallen out of love with Rolex last year. I bought two APs, which I loved at the beginning, but over time they made me appreciate the robustness and engineering of Rolex more than ever before.

I find the ceramic bezel to be superb, and the newer bracelets are a joy (I really am no longer interested in any watch that does not have an easylink type system). As often happens, I agree entirely with Neil.


Quote:
Originally Posted by AK797 View Post
It's funny how some don't like the ceramic bezel and yet on other brands such as AP everyone is crying out for more ceramic models for better protection. I think Rolex have made great strides in recent years with the cerachom plus improved movements such as the new +2/-2 sec 3255 cal, the wonderful and should be compulsory glidelock clasp, parachom hairspring, innovative motif dials, an annual calendar and bezel command, a countdown timer and a few others.

They are as functional and "toolish" as ever, they are just more stylish and maybe more glamorous than before, not a bad thing at all on a highly luxurious and expensive item.
__________________
.
The path from WIShood to WISdom can have many turnings...
———————————————————————————————————

.
16803. 214270. 18038. 114300. BB58. GMW-B5000D.
Snow-Dweller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2 February 2016, 11:24 PM   #97
sgmgolf
"TRF" Member
 
sgmgolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Real Name: Steve
Location: MA
Watch: 16600,16710,Tudor
Posts: 1,372
I personally prefer the 5 digit references but also own 1 modern piece, a BLNR that is wonderful. As any company, Rolex must continue to evolve, innovate and grow. I certainly appreciate that they do all of this while being mindful of the past and the history on which Wilsdorf founded the company.
I think much of it has to do with my age and the 4 and 5 digit references were all I knew forever until they recently started producing the ceramic/maxi cases and glidelocks etc. Not better, not worse....just DIFFERENT.
sgmgolf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2 February 2016, 11:39 PM   #98
Verdi
"TRF" Member
 
Verdi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Real Name: Mitch
Location: UAE
Watch: Big Ben
Posts: 2,442
The adversity to change is normal. It takes time for ppl to accept it, especially with products like Rolex which made the same watches with little or no change for decades.

The beauty of it is that there are plenty of choices. If you like older models, there are plenty of them on the market so in the end it becomes a matter of choice.

I personally like the changes, especially when it comes to bracelets.
__________________
IG: @watch_idiot_savant
Verdi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3 February 2016, 12:07 AM   #99
DJF881
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: New York
Posts: 248
The idea that the ceramic bezels and polished center links are some kind of departure from Rolex's history as a maker of functional tool watches has always struck me as kind of ridiculous. That hasn't been Rolex's mission for decades, because a functional tool watch isn't a thing that exists anymore.

Clockwork is expensive to make and expensive to maintain, and its functional purpose has been completely eclipsed by very inexpensive quartz and electronic devices that keep time as well or better than the finest Swiss watches. There is no such thing as a mechanical "tool watch" anymore, and there hasn't been for almost fifty years. A mechanical movement is now entirely ornamental, a kind of jewelry. Rolexes are luxury products. The reason there is still a Swiss watch industry is that watchmakers shrunk their output and rebranded clockwork as as a luxury good. If Rolex had insisted on being a producer of utilitarian tools, it would have been out of business by 1980.

The purpose of the ceramic updates to the Rolex sports line seems to be to turn a line of watches that cost below $5,000 in 2007 into a line that costs nearly $10,000. I get that it's offensive that Rolex is being priced out of a range perceived as accessible to some people. But let's not kid ourselves: A $5,000 watch is a luxury purchase. Rolex is positioning Tudor to fill that price niche, and Omega still offers comparable watches to Rolex in a somewhat lower price tier.

The changes basically amount to revamping the elements of the classic watches that felt a little bit flimsy or cheap, specifically the bezel inserts and the clasps. The design really hasn't changed a whole lot; a sub still looks like a sub, and a GMT still looks like a GMT.

I've been wearing a ceramic GMT for eight years, and the bezel still looks the same as it did when I bought it. The old inserts seem to fade from exposure to light, and scratch much more easily. I get that the polished center links are controversial, but the new clasps are much sturdier than the old stamped ones, and there is little or no "stretch" in my bracelet after years of wear, likely thanks to the solid end links. The other major changes are the "maxi" dials with slightly larger indices, and a slight widening of the lugs. These are arguably concessions to modern tastes, but it's not like Rolex has turned into Panerai.
DJF881 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11 February 2016, 06:10 AM   #100
douglasf13
"TRF" Member
 
douglasf13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 5,615
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJF881 View Post
...The reason there is still a Swiss watch industry is that watchmakers shrunk their output and rebranded clockwork as as a luxury good...
This is true, and, to me, it's further indication as to why it's not necessary for Rolex to focus on making "better" watches with ceramic bezels, beefier clasps, beefier cases, etc. That's Omega's game.

The Swiss watch is an anachronism, and improving classic designs in such a dramatic way is akin to "improving" a Les Paul with electronic gimmickry, as Gibson occasionally tries and fails. There's a reason why vintage Sub prices have shot into the stratosphere. No one purchasing a Milsub worries that it doesn't have a Parachrom hairspring or ceramic bezel. They buy a Milsub because it's beautiful and has history.

Of course, Rolex has always made incremental changes over the years, but there's something about the SubC in particular, that, kind of like the Porsche 996, feels a bit too far to many of us.
douglasf13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11 February 2016, 10:10 AM   #101
m1911a1
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Real Name: Mark
Location: Maine, USA
Watch: 42mm Explorer-II's
Posts: 489
About 4 months ago I brought my 34 year old SS-Sub-Date, and 20 year old SS-White-Explorer-II into my AD for trade.....
They offered me a LOT of money in trade, then told me NOT to trade them....
Instead, give them to my twin daughters.....which I did....after sending them in to Rolex for FULL-Service....

I then bought a pair of 42mm Explorer-II's 216570 and couldn't be happier....

To me, the older watches were "just watches".....just like the new ones are "just watches".....except I like the new ones WAY better (for me)
The new watches are a perfect TEN in every way.....newer movement, solid bracelet and clasp, larger case & crown, etc....

That said.....I'm probably a grumpy old man who would time travel back to 1971 and all that came with it and do it again....

I'm so OCD and addicted to many things.....Music, Firearms, Rolex-watches, Fly-Rods & Reels, High-end Guitars and Amplifiers, etc....
In ALL of the things I mentioned above, I STRONGLY-DISLIKE "almost" everything available.
But the music and other items I DO like.....I LOVE!

I don't much care for the large majority of Rolex watches....nor any other brand's offerings either.....but I ONLY wear Rolex watches....and love them and wear them to death.

PS: Old-School?? I think the new offering 39mm Explorer-1 is as cool as any watch available....(just too small for me or I'd own TWO!!)
Tell me the watch in the picture isn't as cool as it gets....hearkens back to the 1960's John Cameron Swayze Timex commercials....plain and tough.

m1911a1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11 February 2016, 05:20 PM   #102
Dirt
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Brisbane
Watch: DSSD
Posts: 7,776
Quote:
Originally Posted by m1911a1 View Post
About 4 months ago I brought my 34 year old SS-Sub-Date, and 20 year old SS-White-Explorer-II into my AD for trade.....
They offered me a LOT of money in trade, then told me NOT to trade them....
Instead, give them to my twin daughters.....which I did....after sending them in to Rolex for FULL-Service....

I then bought a pair of 42mm Explorer-II's 216570 and couldn't be happier....

To me, the older watches were "just watches".....just like the new ones are "just watches".....except I like the new ones WAY better (for me)
The new watches are a perfect TEN in every way.....newer movement, solid bracelet and clasp, larger case & crown, etc....

That said.....I'm probably a grumpy old man who would time travel back to 1971 and all that came with it and do it again....

I'm so OCD and addicted to many things.....Music, Firearms, Rolex-watches, Fly-Rods & Reels, High-end Guitars and Amplifiers, etc....
In ALL of the things I mentioned above, I STRONGLY-DISLIKE "almost" everything available.
But the music and other items I DO like.....I LOVE!

I don't much care for the large majority of Rolex watches....nor any other brand's offerings either.....but I ONLY wear Rolex watches....and love them and wear them to death.

PS: Old-School?? I think the new offering 39mm Explorer-1 is as cool as any watch available....(just too small for me or I'd own TWO!!)
Tell me the watch in the picture isn't as cool as it gets....hearkens back to the 1960's John Cameron Swayze Timex commercials....plain and tough.


But the hands are too short.
The classic 36 mm explorers rule
Dirt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11 February 2016, 06:04 PM   #103
reloxt
"TRF" Member
 
reloxt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Real Name: Ted
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 383
I started with modern rolexes and moved to the 5 digit series as the newer series are to flashy for my taste. And that's what it is for me : taste. Like rolex today as much as the old days, but just like the older models better.
reloxt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11 February 2016, 06:50 PM   #104
m1911a1
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Real Name: Mark
Location: Maine, USA
Watch: 42mm Explorer-II's
Posts: 489
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirt View Post
But the hands are too short.
The classic 36 mm explorers rule
Maybe....but I have 8 inch wrists so both are too small.
If the Exp-1 was 42mm I'd buy one....or even two....
m1911a1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11 February 2016, 07:43 PM   #105
fskywalker
2024 Pledge Member
 
fskywalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Real Name: Francisco
Location: San Juan, PR
Watch: Is Ticking !
Posts: 24,521
Quote:
Originally Posted by m1911a1 View Post
PS: Old-School?? I think the new offering 39mm Explorer-1 is as cool as any watch available....(just too small for me or I'd own TWO!!)
Tell me the watch in the picture isn't as cool as it gets....hearkens back to the 1960's John Cameron Swayze Timex commercials....plain and tough.

Agree!
__________________
Francisco
♛ 16610 / 116264
Ω 168.022 / 2535.80.00 / 2230.50.00
Zenith 02.470.405
Henry Archer Eclipse

2FA security enabled
fskywalker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11 February 2016, 07:47 PM   #106
Chadridv
2024 Pledge Member
 
Chadridv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Real Name: Chadri
Location: LI, NY
Watch: 116610LV
Posts: 11,322
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maxy View Post
Agree and I find it ironic that most of the folks keeps blaming Rolex for their ceramic bezels as the only reason Rolex added them was to appear more 'flashy'

Yes, ceramic bezels are flashy but the main objective is fulfilled that its a better material than aluminum, never fades even though it comes with little flashiness!
Not that my example reflects on the OP, but it's funny when people show really great photos of their aluminum bezel Rolex and say things like "sometimes the light just hits it perfect!", I always wanna be like, if it were ceramic the light would hit it perfect all the time lol. :)
Chadridv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11 February 2016, 08:44 PM   #107
kopykopy
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Asia
Posts: 280
I don't think the OP is talking about the way that rolex's technology has evolved. I think the OP may be lamenting about the image and exclusivity of owning a Rolex. Back in those days, it may be that only a few of the OP and his friends own a Rolex. Now everyone and his/her grandmother have got a Ceramic model (or two) (or three).

But it's really not about the ceramic thing cause if Rolex made ceramic models back when the OP started wearing rolexes, then perhaps he would have thought that Ceramic are the bee's knees.

Back in the 80s, only a couple of us were into U2. But now, everyone says U2 is their favourite band (well, not everyone, but you get what I mean).
kopykopy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11 February 2016, 09:52 PM   #108
m1911a1
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Real Name: Mark
Location: Maine, USA
Watch: 42mm Explorer-II's
Posts: 489
Quote:
Originally Posted by kopykopy View Post
Back in the 80s, only a couple of us were into U2. But now, everyone says U2 is their favourite band (well, not everyone, but you get what I mean).
Ok....NOW you've gone too far....

Here is an example of my OCD and dislike for most things, but HUGE love for the few things I enjoy that I mentioned in previous posts above.

I love Apple products, but about 1 1/2 ago i-Tunes FORCED U2's new album down my throat by way of infecting it my pristine library of hundreds of albums all carefully ripped at the slowest speed from all new CD's.

I HATE .....OK....strongly DISLIKE U2 (sorry mom)

I called Apple and expressed my outrage.....
I was prepared to DUMP ALL APPLE PRODUCTS...
They actually called me back 2 days later with a link and a patch that scrubbed U2 from my library.
Some people simply told me to send it to the cloud.....BUT YOU STILL SEE THEM IN THE LIBRARY....NO GOOD!
I wanted it gone....and it is!

m1911a1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11 February 2016, 10:18 PM   #109
Sublovin
"TRF" Member
 
Sublovin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: USA
Watch: Lots
Posts: 4,349
To the OP...it happens. Tastes change and evolve.....go with what you like. I know for me, as a young boy, I was drawn to Rolex and considered it to be the best. As I began acquiring and collecting watches, there were times I intentionally shyed away from Rolex in favor of lesser known brands. I think it made me feel cool and knowledgeable that I knew about these boutique names, because Rolex seemed so mainstream.
I am now at a point in the hobby where I once again feel Rolex is at the top...
The fun of the hobby is going with what you like and learning about different brands. I am now more confident than ever as to why Rolex has achieved such great success and sits firmly at the top of the watch world.
Are there brands which could be perceived as "better"? Of course, but there will always be that...just buy what you enjoy on your wrist
Sublovin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11 February 2016, 10:19 PM   #110
J!m
"TRF" Member
 
J!m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Real Name: Jim
Location: Connecticut
Watch: this! Hold my beer
Posts: 2,811
From a company as huge as Apple, I have to say that is outstanding they sent you the "U2 scrub patch".

Near total derailment of thread warning but I had to comment on that.
J!m is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11 February 2016, 10:36 PM   #111
brandrea
2024 Pledge Member
 
brandrea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Real Name: Brian (TBone)
Location: canada
Watch: es make me smile
Posts: 73,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK797 View Post
It's funny how some don't like the ceramic bezel and yet on other brands such as AP everyone is crying out for more ceramic models for better protection. I think Rolex have made great strides in recent years with the cerachom plus improved movements such as the new +2/-2 sec 3255 cal, the wonderful and should be compulsory glidelock clasp, parachom hairspring, innovative motif dials, an annual calendar and bezel command, a countdown timer and a few others.

They are as functional and "toolish" as ever, they are just more stylish and maybe more glamorous than before, not a bad thing at all on a highly luxurious and expensive item.
Agreed Neil

To the OP, I understand the sentiment. Perhaps have a closer look at som elf the 4 and 5 digit references. There's room in your collection for old and new
brandrea is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11 February 2016, 11:40 PM   #112
m1911a1
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Real Name: Mark
Location: Maine, USA
Watch: 42mm Explorer-II's
Posts: 489
Quote:
Originally Posted by J!m View Post
From a company as huge as Apple, I have to say that is outstanding they sent you the "U2 scrub patch".

Near total derailment of thread warning but I had to comment on that.
It seems, and probably is a derailment.....but I was illustrating basically what a psycho I am about such things.....music to watches....

I LOVE the Rolex brand and only buy Rolex watches.....but wouldn't buy "most" offerings from them for various reasons.
Thought the music analogy tied-in a bit....or not....

And I was VERY nice of Apple to send me the patch.....but found out many other folks complained as well....

m1911a1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11 February 2016, 11:45 PM   #113
m1911a1
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Real Name: Mark
Location: Maine, USA
Watch: 42mm Explorer-II's
Posts: 489
PS:
For a long time I thought the Stainless-Steel-Submariner-Date was the only Watch to own.
If I were still wearing those, the Ceramic feature would be an up-grade.....along with movements, solid bracelets, clasps, etc....
I wear Explorer-II's and LOVE the upgrades!!
Thank you Rolex....
m1911a1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12 February 2016, 12:22 AM   #114
m1911a1
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Real Name: Mark
Location: Maine, USA
Watch: 42mm Explorer-II's
Posts: 489
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sublovin View Post
To the OP...it happens. Tastes change and evolve.....go with what you like. I know for me, as a young boy, I was drawn to Rolex and considered it to be the best. As I began acquiring and collecting watches, there were times I intentionally shyed away from Rolex in favor of lesser known brands. I think it made me feel cool and knowledgeable that I knew about these boutique names, because Rolex seemed so mainstream.
I am now at a point in the hobby where I once again feel Rolex is at the top...
The fun of the hobby is going with what you like and learning about different brands. I am now more confident than ever as to why Rolex has achieved such great success and sits firmly at the top of the watch world.
Are there brands which could be perceived as "better"? Of course, but there will always be that...just buy what you enjoy on your wrist
I've never bought a Rolex as Status.....and even now buy the ones under-the-radar.....

But I have considered the cool factor of dumping them and buying only IWC for example....
Not many folks even know what they are....and you see even fewer in public.
But I'll stick with my Exp-2's...
m1911a1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12 February 2016, 12:32 AM   #115
BawlaDK
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Real Name: Morten
Location: Denmark
Watch: 16800 Submariner
Posts: 265
Seems this thread wont die down entirely 

I took all your input into consideration and started thinking about what it is that I really love about Rolex, and my Sea-Dweller in particular…. It’s been a good opportunity for me to reflect on the way I have been collecting watches for the past almost 10 years. In the beginning admittedly I mostly stuck to Rolex because it was the safe bet. If I didn’t like a watch I could always sell it and for the most part recoup what I paid. But as time went on I started to appreciate Rolex for what it was/is. A reliable workhorse of a watch. I have had maybe 50 different Rolexes over the past many years and as far as I remember I have only ever serviced one of them. It was simply never needed.

As I started to buy other brands I found myself becoming more and more aware of what watch went with what type of clothes, and ultimately I got fed up with this and returned to my sports Rolex because, well, they just go with it all don’t they. Moreover I found myself servicing some of the other brands way more often than I ever would Rolexes.

The reason I was falling out of love with Rolex was mainly because of the evolution of the brand. While I fully understand that a brand like Rolex always has to stay ahead of the competition, I was just not ready for these improved ceramic watches. And I still aint – And probably never will be. But I do understand why they appeal to some people. I for example don’t mind a banged up bezel, but I cant STAND even the tiniest scratch on a sapphire. Some folks may be like that with the bezels – and I cant say that a ceramic bezel aint an improvement for someone who detests scratched bezels. Of course it is. To each his own. The same goes for the clasp. While I don’t like it because I feel it has too many components that can potentially lead to failure (I have seen several) – I also understand why other people love it. It DOES feel better and much more solid than the old versions and in terms of comfort the glidelock is just easier to adjust for optimal comfort…. But its just for me. I like the simplicity of the old ones as I am a big fan of the “less is more” mentality

That kind of leads me to the conclusion. There is a Rolex for everyone and both the new versions and the old ones have their loyal followers. One is not better than the other. Both versions have their qualities and flaws and while fans of the new version may argue that the old versions have nothing on the new ones, the same can be said vise versa. When its all said and done they are the same brand and there is a place for both of them – and a place for all the people who own one or desire to do so.. Many people who buy a Rolex does not start as a WIS, but a lot of them evolve into one and can be a potential future friend and fellow watch-nut that I’ll be talking to online – or in the real world. So Instead of falling out of love with Rolex I am now falling back in love with it all over again, because of the way it brings some people together and because of all the friendships I personally have established solely because of my interest for Rolex.

Thanks again for all your input - appreciated
BawlaDK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12 February 2016, 12:49 AM   #116
simongpaez
"TRF" Member
 
simongpaez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Real Name: Simon
Location: Houston
Watch: Some
Posts: 1,109
I went trough that phase a while back, I was kinda bored and the fact that "everyone" was wearing a Rolex didn't help much, so I started buying other brands ( PP, AP, JLC, Panerai, IWC ) just to realize how great Rolex watches are, today I wear my Rolex 90% of the time and I value every aspect of the brand, I don't care if every other person is wearing one I love mine and I know for sure there will always be a Rolex in my stable.
simongpaez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12 February 2016, 01:06 AM   #117
anothernewphone
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Real Name: Bill
Location: Plymouth Meeting
Watch: 116520
Posts: 3,209
Quote:
Originally Posted by simongpaez View Post
I went trough that phase a while back, I was kinda bored and the fact that "everyone" was wearing a Rolex didn't help much, so I started buying other brands ( PP, AP, JLC, Panerai, IWC ) just to realize how great Rolex watches are, today I wear my Rolex 90% of the time and I value every aspect of the brand, I don't care if every other person is wearing one I love mine and I know for sure there will always be a Rolex in my stable.
Very true - I did the same thing, but with Omega. I wanted a nice watch, but I didn't want the attention. Well, I found out that Rolex is the best watch I can buy in my price range, and that's probably why they're so "popular" and recognizable. I want to add a Royal Oak in the near future, so that will be my "nice watch," and my Daytona will be my "is it safe to wear an AP in ___?" kinda watch
anothernewphone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12 February 2016, 01:32 AM   #118
tomchicago
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Chicago
Watch: 16710BLRO, 214270.
Posts: 2,717
the use of "love" with respect to a hunk of metal and gears sold to you only to make a profit makes me cringe. get your heads on straight, people.
tomchicago is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12 February 2016, 02:09 AM   #119
m1911a1
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Real Name: Mark
Location: Maine, USA
Watch: 42mm Explorer-II's
Posts: 489
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomchicago View Post
the use of "love" with respect to a hunk of metal and gears sold to you only to make a profit makes me cringe. get your heads on straight, people.
For me, "love" in this context is similar to my "love" of Strawberry-Ice-Cream....for example....
m1911a1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12 February 2016, 06:18 AM   #120
Limey-
"TRF" Member
 
Limey-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Real Name: Nick
Location: WA
Watch: Your Six
Posts: 476
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason71 View Post
If I had my way, Rolex would make me a 16600 with a plexiglass crystal, and fixed lug bars
Limey- is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Takuya Watches

Bobs Watches

My Watch LLC

OCWatches

DavidSW Watches

Coronet


*Banners Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.





Copyright ©2004-2024, The Rolex Forums. All Rights Reserved.

ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Rolex is a registered trademark of ROLEX USA. The Rolex Forums is not affiliated with ROLEX USA in any way.