or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › The Watch Appreciation Thread (Reviews and Photos of Men's Timepieces by Rolex, Patek Philippe, Breitling, JLC etc...)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Watch Appreciation Thread (Reviews and Photos of Men's Timepieces by Rolex, Patek Philippe, Breitling, JLC etc...) - Page 2309  

post #34621 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Belligero View Post

OK, I have a bit of catching up to do in this thread, so here goes. Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
The number of posts each day seems to be increasing dramatically since the thread started (though not necessarily the amount of actual content), so regrets if I've missed anyone.
My previous Steven Seagal sugar-drink comparison wasn't entirely spot-on for the "DEEPSEA" colour, but it conveys my opinion of the watch closely enough, and I stand by my initial reaction. I'm not the biggest fan of the 116660 model in the first place, but it's still very disappointing to see Rolex putting a novelty dial on a stainless professional model. The fade-to-black thing isn't too high on the gimmickry scale compared to some of the joke watches out there, but the conglomerate-owned brands and the novelty-watch assemblers set the bar quite low. This sort of thing harms Rolex's design integrity, in my opinion.
Dino summed things up nicely, and I agree entirely with his assessment:

I also favour chronographs, so I might be a bit biased. But here's my take on the two models.

Despite the Daytona being the default choice for many — not only worn by some of the least-discerning, but also a consistent favourite among watchmakers and serious collectors — it's difficult to beat the overall package that it offers. The versatility and wearability is fantastic, and the design is all chronograph. I have no hesitation about taking mine in water, and do so regularly. There's absolutely no need for a diving-specific model unless you're planning on welding things on the bottom of the North Sea... and that's mostly done by robots these days.

DSC_0070.jpg

There just aren't many chronographs, if any, that offer its combination of slimness, movement quality, water resistance, and versatility. The 4130 is both refined and reliable, and though it's a sports movement that isn't about elaborate decoration, it is flawlessly and precisely finished. It's certainly not the rarest or fanciest chronograph available, but it's very solid watch for actually wearing if you like the style.


The chunkier Sea-Dweller is a bit more of a niche watch due to its thickness, but it's essentially a Submariner, which is the another default choice. Even more so than the Daytona, almost everyone with even a passing interest in watches has heard of the Submariner, but it's still very well-regarded among those who know their stuff. I think that the current Submariner is among the best divers' watches available, but prefer the satin dial, slimmer lugs, and raised crystal of the Sea-Dweller.

The raised crystal gives it a distinctive profile compared to the Submariner:

DSC_4550.jpg

Many companies make larger fashion divers, but it's substantial watch by reasonable standards, and the density is noticeable. I'm glad that Rolex resisted the temptation to ruin it by bloating the case and turning it into another oversized fashion fashion watch. The 39 mm Explorer, the 42 mm Explorer II, and the "II' versions of the Datejust and the Day-Date are more than enough.

Despite their obvious differences, there are some fundamental similarities between the Daytona and the Sea-Dweller. I'm sure that many people buy either one strictly as jewelry, but in essence, they're meant to be durable, functional watches. I'd consider either to be uncompromised; even if they're not always worn as such, the Daytona is a pure chronograph, and the Sea-Dweller is a pure diver's watch. They both have a raised and beveled crystal, which gives them a resemblance to the classic acrylic models that none of the other models have. I would consider either to be a no-excuses watch .

Here they are side-by-side. I wouldn't say that one is better than the other; it's strictly a question of personal preference.

IMG_0472.jpg


Fine, but if I had to pick one?

I'd lean toward the Daytona as well, just because I'm irrationally attracted to chronographs, and because the 4130 movement is unique to the model. But find that I wear the less-shiny Sea-Dweller more often. Although either could serve as an only watch, I prefer them as a secondary alternative to something more subdued. An older Zenith-movement Daytona with brushed lugs and an all-brushed bracelet would be more of an everyday wearer for me.

I've found that either can be a bit over-the-top at times. (Mind you, my taste in watches is exceptionally curmudgeonly and I tend to think that everything new sucks.) If I had to choose only one watch among my current ones it would be the plexi GMT, as it's less blingy than the Daytona, less bulky than the Sea-Dweller, and can be reasonably understated with a faded black insert.

DSC_4538_002.jpg

dsc8715001.jpg

That said, I have no regrets about either. Just pick whichever one suits you best.
Thanks, it's now in Oslo with an appreciative owner. It's a quality watch, it's but it just wasn't really my style. As soon as the Girard Perregaux central-minutes chrono arrived, I picked it over the Reverso every single time because I prefer the way the GP looks and fits. I'm much happier that someone is getting some wear out of that JLC instead of having it languishing in some box. Getting rid of stuff you don't use kicks ass.


I like normal-sized original designs in stainless steel, and although I have nothing against outsourced movements if they're suitable for the watch (whether it's an ETA in a basic watch, or a beautifully-decorated JLC movement in a Royal Oak), I don't like when companies misrepresent their watchmaking abilities or obfuscate their movements' origins. I also like my watches to have a specific niche without too much overlap, so I found the GP and JLC to be redundant, despite one being an automatic chronograph and the other being an 8-day hand-wound GMT. No point in having a watch that doesn't get used, especially when it's a complicated one from a Richemont company.

For some perspective on what I actually wear, here's a photo of a few I had sitting around recently; it's incomplete (the new Sea-Dweller, a couple of GMTs, and other watches are missing) but it should give you an idea of what I like. The Speedmaster is a friend's; I temporarily swapped for a GMT II. It's easily my favourite current Omega and I would gladly have one, but having three chronographs is enough of a maintenance obligation for now.

DSC_4496.jpg

To be honest, I could part with any of them except the plexi GMT and the GP; those two are a bit special to me, and more than enough for any realistic situation. For sentimental reasons, the Sinn chrono will always stick around — also because it's just really good at being a stress-free wristwatch without any bullshit. I like the others fine, but when it comes down to it, they're replaceable and/or forgettable.


Having more than two or three decent watches probably isn't a good idea for normal people, anyway. Really, a single well-chosen watch that complements the wearer's style is more than enough.

Nice post Belli

post #34622 of 48312

So I really feel that this watch was made to go with burgundy shell.

Excuse the water spots, as I need to clean up the strap.

 

post #34623 of 48312

really nice combo!

 

Now you need the new blue version to go with your navy shell!!

post #34624 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dino944 View Post

Tifosi, is correct the hands and hour marker surrounds are white gold.  

Yes, the surrounds to the lumed "Dots" and the hands are white gold.  

Yes, the hands and the surrounds for the lumed hour markers are white gold on SS models and yellow gold on the YG markers etc.  The steel models have had white gold used for the hands and hour marker surrounds for several decades.   

I believe I read that the 24 hour numbers on the bezel of the newest GMTs are done in platinum. Confirmation from anyone here?
post #34625 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dillardiv View Post

I believe I read that the 24 hour numbers on the bezel of the newest GMTs are done in platinum. Confirmation from anyone here?
If it is not a yellow gold model, yes.
post #34626 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Belligero View Post
  Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
OK, I have a bit of catching up to do in this thread, so here goes. The number of posts each day seems to be increasing dramatically since the thread started (though not necessarily the amount of actual content), so regrets if I've missed anyone.
My previous Steven Seagal sugar-drink comparison wasn't entirely spot-on for the "DEEPSEA" colour, but it conveys my opinion of the watch closely enough, and I stand by my initial reaction. I'm not the biggest fan of the 116660 model in the first place, but it's still very disappointing to see Rolex putting a novelty dial on a stainless professional model. The fade-to-black thing isn't too high on the gimmickry scale compared to some of the joke watches out there, but the conglomerate-owned brands and the novelty-watch assemblers set the bar quite low. This sort of thing harms Rolex's design integrity, in my opinion.
Dino summed things up nicely, and I agree entirely with his assessment:

I also favour chronographs, so I might be a bit biased. But here's my take on the two models.

Despite the Daytona being the default choice for many — not only worn by some of the least-discerning, but also a consistent favourite among watchmakers and serious collectors — it's difficult to beat the overall package that it offers. The versatility and wearability is fantastic, and the design is all chronograph. I have no hesitation about taking mine in water, and do so regularly. There's absolutely no need for the additional pressure resistance a diving-specific model unless you're planning on welding things on the bottom of the North Sea... and that's mostly done by robots these days. A watch with a higher pressure rating won't keep out any more water than a lower-rated one as long as stay with the limit. 100 m is deeper than anyone who's not getting paid a justifiably high day rate to live inside a tiny underwater prison for weeks at a time goes.



There just aren't many chronographs, if any, that offer its combination of slimness, movement quality, water resistance, and versatility. The 4130 is both refined and reliable, and though it's a sports movement that isn't about elaborate decoration, it is flawlessly and precisely finished. It's certainly not the rarest or fanciest chronograph available, but it's very solid watch for actually wearing if you like the style.



The chunkier Sea-Dweller is a bit more of a niche watch due to its thickness, but it's essentially a Submariner, which is the other default choice. Even more so than the Daytona, almost anyone with a passing interest in watches has heard of the Submariner, but it's remained in high regard among those who know their stuff ever since its introduction over sixty years ago. I think that the current Submariner is among the best divers' watches available, but prefer the satin dial, slimmer lugs, and raised crystal of the Sea-Dweller.

The raised crystal on the 116600 gives it a distinctive profile compared to the 116610: Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)



Many companies make larger fashion divers, but it's substantial watch by reasonable standards, and the density is noticeable. I'm glad that Rolex resisted the temptation to ruin it by bloating the case and turning it into another oversized fashion fashion watch. The 39 mm Explorer, the 42 mm Explorer II, and the "II' versions of the Datejust and the Day-Date are more than enough.

Despite their obvious differences, there are some fundamental similarities between the Daytona and the Sea-Dweller. I'm sure that many people buy either one strictly as jewelry, but in essence, they're meant to be durable, functional watches. I'd consider either to be uncompromised; even if they're not always worn as such, the Daytona is a pure chronograph, and the Sea-Dweller is a pure diver's watch. They both have a raised and beveled crystal, which gives them a resemblance to the classic acrylic models that no other current sports Rolex has. I would consider either to be a no-excuses watch .

Here they are side-by-side. I wouldn't say that one is better than the other; it's strictly a question of personal preference.




Fine, but if I had to pick one?

I'd lean toward the Daytona as well, just because I'm irrationally attracted to chronographs, and because the 4130 movement is unique to the model. Also, I use the choronograph function regularly, plus the subtle "click" and tactile response from cycling through stop/start/reset is just sweet. (I'm nerdy like that.) But find that I wear the less-shiny Sea-Dweller more often. Although either could serve as an only watch, I prefer them as a secondary alternative to something more subdued. An older Zenith-movement Daytona with brushed lugs and an all-brushed bracelet would be more of an everyday wearer for me.

I've found that either can be a bit over-the-top at times. (Mind you, my taste in watches is exceptionally curmudgeonly and I tend to think that everything new sucks.) If I had to choose only one watch among my current ones it would be the plexi GMT, as it's less blingy than the Daytona, less bulky than the Sea-Dweller, and can be reasonably understated with a faded black insert.





That said, I have no regrets about either. Just pick whichever one suits you best.
Thanks, it's now in Oslo with an appreciative owner who's a proper watch guy. It's a quality watch, it's but it just wasn't really my style. As soon as the Girard Perregaux central-minutes chrono arrived, I picked it over the Reverso every single time. I'm much happier that someone is getting some wear out of that JLC instead of having it languishing in some box. Getting rid of stuff you don't use kicks ass.


I like normal-sized original designs in stainless steel, and although I have nothing against outsourced movements if they're suitable for the watch (whether it's an ETA in a basic watch, or a beautifully-decorated JLC movement in a Royal Oak), I don't like when companies misrepresent their watchmaking abilities or obfuscate their movements' origins. I also like my watches to have a specific niche without too much overlap, so I found the GP and JLC to be redundant, despite one being an automatic chronograph and the other being an 8-day hand-wound GMT. No point in having a watch that doesn't get used, especially when it's a complicated one from a Richemont company.

For some perspective on what I actually wear, here's a photo of a few I had sitting around recently; it's incomplete (the new Sea-Dweller, a couple of GMTs, and other watches are missing) but it should give you an idea of what I like. The Speedmaster is a friend's; I temporarily swapped for a GMT II. It's easily my favourite current Omega and I would gladly have one, but having three chronographs is enough of a maintenance obligation for now.



To be honest, I could part with any of them except the plexi GMT and the GP; those two are a bit special to me, and more than enough for any realistic situation. For sentimental reasons, the Sinn chrono will always stick around — plus it's just really good at being a stress-free wristwatch without any bullshit. I like the others fine, but when it comes down to it, they're replaceable and/or forgettable.

Having more than two or three decent watches probably isn't a good idea for normal people, anyway. Really, a single well-chosen watch that complements the wearer's style is more than enough.

 

 

Thank you so much for the response, and all the context as well. Just beyond helpful. I have the current Speedy Pro, which I love, so overlap vs iconic chronos is part of the equation for me. I don't like the SubC all that much any more. It's just too much of several things that I don't find particularly attractive (lugs, squarish/chunky, and too many shiny surfaces). The SeaDweller checks a lot of boxes I liked with the older Subs while bringing it inline with Rolex's current tech. It's also a bit more subtle. I don't really worry about beating either around too much, I mean I'll beat them around, but I suspect both will handle it fine. I definitely prefer the contours of the Daytona, but then after that it just becomes apples and oranges I suppose. Both will need to be on the wrist at some point to really figure it out. I'm sure @no frills can help me with that one though.

post #34627 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by DLJr View Post
 

 Both will need to be on the wrist at some point to really figure it out. I'm sure @no frills can help me with that one though.

 

Yep - looking forward. :rimshot:

post #34628 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wes Bourne View Post

Just to backtrack a bit re refinishing: general consensus is that watches shouldn't be refinished much, if at all, for resale value and natural patina/wear, etc (esp. sport watches). But I'm curious if much stainless steel has to me removed and is lost if it's only light refinishing, i.e. to remove superficial hairlines that can only be seen and not really felt.

Yes, even on all steel watches I would avoid refinishing them or if you must get them refinished don't do it with every service that a watch undergoes. There is some metal loss when polishing watches because often what you are doing is leveling the surface above the scratches, to the level of the scratches or small dings. You probably don't have to work as hard to polish out very light scratches, but hair lines will be back in no time, so its sort of a waste.  

 

To be honest, a single refinishing, isn't going to make a huge difference (unless the person doing it does a terrible job).  However, if its a watch you plan to wear for a long time, over the years multiple polishings tend to result in crisp beveled edges on lugs, bracelets etc, becoming softened or rounded.  I've seen it done so often or so poorly on older Sub, RO's and Nautiluses that the watches look like bad cartoons/caricatures of themselves. 

 

In the end its your watch so do what you like.  

post #34629 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by mimo View Post

Don't be vulgar.

gtfo

---

Great stuff, Belli. Thanks for the write up.
post #34630 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Belligero View Post

I also favour chronographs, so I might be a bit biased. But here's my take on the two models....



 

Great write up and a beautiful group photo!  :inlove: 

post #34631 of 48312
Inorite! Since he said he could part with pretty much all of them , I think the right thing to do is to send them to me.
post #34632 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by in stitches View Post

Inorite! Since he said he could part with pretty much all of them , I think the right thing to do is to send them to me.

I have been shamelessly regurgitating Stitchy's "give it to me" and "send it to me" in other forums. I confess.
post #34633 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by no frills View Post

I have been shamelessly regurgitating Stitchy's "give it to me" and "send it to me" in other forums. I confess.
Has it worked yet?
post #34634 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by no frills View Post

I have been shamelessly regurgitating Stitchy's "give it to me" and "send it to me" in other forums. I confess.

Superb! It has worked for me on occasion in the past. Never with a watch though. frown.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by tifosi View Post

Has it worked yet?


Yes, please report back on this, frilly.
post #34635 of 48312

Back to posting Rollies again, I see...

 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
This thread is locked  
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › The Watch Appreciation Thread (Reviews and Photos of Men's Timepieces by Rolex, Patek Philippe, Breitling, JLC etc...)