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 2458  

post #36856 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleav View Post

Mate, you suckered me in...



I just love that watch inlove.gif
post #36857 of 48312

The 36mm Explorer 1 is such a great watch. It was my first entry into luxury watches and I don't see myself ever selling it

post #36858 of 48312
^ Good. Hang on to it.
post #36859 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWraith View Post

I gotta get me an Oysterquartz. I got me a hankering for one of those wink.gif

Go for it! I'm really pleased with mine so far; it's an understated watch that I don't find boring. (But please bear in mind that my taste in watches is questionable.)
This isn't my photo, but it's identical to my OQ right down to the dial colour — as well as Dino's and Non Serviam's. I think the design has aged well:


image credit: Old Expat Beast on TRF

The movement offers something a bit different, too:


image credit: MaggyPee on r-l-x.de

It was the lowest-production Rolex during its run and they certainly aren't making any more of them, but there are still good examples to be had out there. I don't think you'd have anything to lose by giving it a go.
post #36860 of 48312
^ Yep, I'm gonna get me one one of these days. Just a question of the look/colour to go for.
post #36861 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaplan View Post

For an alternative along those lines, I rather like this one:
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

Long been a fran of that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Moo View Post

I can't wear a 36mm watch - it looks too small on me. Sucks, but that's the conclusion at which I have arrived.

Aside from the Datejust, which I think due to lugs works, I appreciate where you are coming from.
Quote:
Stitchy, how come no go on the Vacheron?

Just dont like the looks of it.
post #36862 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWraith View Post

I prefer the Rolex Explorer in 36mm. Far better watch than the newer 39mm version. If you don't want used, then the OP in 36mm is the best bet.

I certainly love my 114270:

692203faf574579ca83199b73f2ed11b.jpg
post #36863 of 48312
I really envy you guys able to wear 36mm watches...
post #36864 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Moo View Post

I really envy you guys able to wear 36mm watches...

It's entirely personal preference, but I have a big wrist and I don't have any problems going even smaller than that with some of my old watches. My tastes have changed over the years, too; my first decent watch was a 38.5 mm Sinn 356, which I initially found very disappointing, but now I think it's spot-on for a pilot's chronograph and I wouldn't want it any larger.

This ad was supposed to show how the gigantic watch is more macho or something, but I think the smaller one looks a lot better, not to mention more traditionally masculine.



Extreme outliers aside, I figure the watch-size thing pretty much just comes down to what you're used to, and it's tough to set aside that bias when you're trying on watches in a shop.

Unless you're wearing something ridiculously far to either end of the scale, the range of what looks normal can pretty broad. It's good to know what you want, though, and I totally get preferring something larger (but still reasonable).
post #36865 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by in stitches View Post

Some sale prep going on today....


 

Beautiful Pasha.  Often an under appreciated watch, but IMHO another great design from Genta.  I love my Pasha 950 chronograph.  Its very distinctive, and it was one of the higher quality pieces from their non-CPCP line.  Hope your boss gifts it to you!  :cheers:

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Moo View Post

Guys, thank you for the feedback. I am still leaning towards the Explorer 1. However, just saw this watch (mentioned a few pages back as an alternative to the watches on my list), and I like it - and it's just about the same price as the Exp 1.

What are your thoughts?

www.govbergwatches.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/VACH300208_7.jpg

Its an interesting watch and the first truly successful sports watch from VC.  Although, they did have some teething problems, with the GP movements in some and also that bracelet was prone to links locking up at times.  Still a buddy of mine got the movement fixed and he does enjoy it as an daily wearer with sport jackets/suits and casual wear.  He's had his (with a blue dial) for many years.  Also, its generally not a lot of $$$ to get a VC on your wrist. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RFX45 View Post


My bad, couldn't upload pics through my phone.

Nothing ya'll haven't seen before.
25p4o4g.jpg



Entry to the cyclops club!
eskwo1.jpg
 

Congrats on the new additions!  Hope you get many years of enjoyment from them.  :cheers:

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by easy_golfing View Post


I'm also interested in the explorer 1 in 36mm but some sites / people have mentioned the movement is not reliable or very hardy. Is this true?

Non-sense.  There were some statements about the finish in the movements of the 14270, but no actual problems with reliability and ruggedness.  I owned the subsequent model, a 114270 for 10 years and liked it a lot.  Never had any problems.  Only reason I sold it was I had other watches that were time only models that were getting more wrist time.  No matter which version of Explorer 1 you get, new or used it should give you many years of great use and enjoyment. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by wurger View Post

Ah, VC overseas 37mm, I would definitely go for that, if it's not too small.

I found the finishing on my Overseas Chronograph bracelet more smooth than AP RO, however, that is the new cross bracelet.

The new bracelet is very different, with fewer moving parts, I think to get away from the issues of the previous bracelet that used to have links get jammed/locked up together.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWraith View Post

^ Yep, I'm gonna get me one one of these days. Just a question of the look/colour to go for.

Its a great watch, and most are a pretty reasonable price for a Rolex.  When it was released, it was actually their most sophisticated watch and their top of the line.  Its MSRP in 1984 was higher than that of a SS Daytona, Sub, GMT, SD, or Ex2.  In addition, it was the first of their steel watches to feature a synthetic sapphire crystal, it was more anti-magnetic than a Milgauss, and it had solid bracelet links.  I've had mine for about 10 years and its just a great watch.  Its really understated, and its also a watch that watchmakers appreciate even though its a quartz.  I was wearing it in an AP boutique and the watchmaker noticed it came closer and asked if he could look at it.  He said during it training as a watch maker he learned a lot about them and really liked them.  Wishing you luck with your eventual journey toward owning an OQ.   

post #36866 of 48312
^ It may not be anytime soon, but I will definitely get one at some point. Probably my next, big purchase, just not sure when.
post #36867 of 48312

@in stitches , silly question: that Pacha is the big manly one, not the little girly one, right?

 

@RFX45 that is outstanding koppage.  I think that Solo is a great size on the wrist, too.

 

@Mr. Moo, size is a very personal thing, but I would say that if you haven't put the more recent OPs or DJs on the wrist and looked at some pics of yourself wearing them, you should: the modern case shape gives them a lot more presence than the older models, especially on the oyster bracelet.  But each to his own.  

 

@Cleav  *sigh*

post #36868 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by RFX45 View Post

I don't know why many worry about the finish on the Rolex movements, it's not like they are visible anyways. They are very reliable, robust and easy to service. Who really cares if it is decorated when their watches doesn't even have a showcase back?

With that said, I do wish Rolex opened up and showed off what they could do in the new Cellini line. I know they can make nice as they demonstrated in the Cellini Prince casebacks. photo (Click to show)

Here's an unobstructed view of that movement, unusual clous de Paris decoration and all:

cellini_time_m5440-8-0001_movement_0001_840x107014279150547546os6?wid=840&hei=1070&qlt=85
image source: rolex.com

I'm not sure what to make of the pyramid-styles, but I definitely don't see any quality issues.

Y'know, that deficient-finishing myth is a very pervasive one; when I started getting into watches, took it as a given that Rolex movements were crudely-finished things due to all the casual racism against them from certain internet-expert types. Contemptuous comments along the lines of "there's a reason they hide the movements behind a solid back" still appear frequently, and it's natural enough to simply accept them as fact. However, watchmakers I've spoken with find that the current movements are well-finished, and credit even the maligned 3000 calibre with exemplary precision in its tolerances.

One sometimes also encounters dismissive statements regarding Rolex's design goals of low parts count and ease of service, as if those are bad things. When it comes to watchmaking, simple is more difficult than complicated. It's more of a challenge to design a single component instead of two or more to perform a given function, and it results in a more elegant solution.

As far as I can tell, the main source of these myths is two watch-enthusiast articles that inevitably appear in any discussion of the subject: Walt Odets' and one posted on Chronometrie by "A. Watchmaker" where a moisture-damaged 3135 is disassembled.

However, there are at least a few folks with professional training who would disagree with their conclusions:

"If you were to take apart a 3186 and a 2893-2 side by side for instance, you don't have to be a watchmaker to realize how much more has gone into the Rolex calibre, precision and quality of parts, general construction advantages etc..."
744ER on TZ-UK, WOSTEP-certified full-time watchmaker

"I have to say that the quality and finishing of every component is way ahead of anything ETA produce, the whole movement also seems more robust and the systems employed by Rolex clearly improve timekeeping. Overall I have to say that compared to a modern ETA 2892, the 3035 is clearly the better movement, the fact that it was replaced by the 3135 more than twenty years ago demonstrates that Rolex have been producing excellent movements for a long time. Obviously Rolex watches command a higher price point than most brands that contain ETA movements but there are brands out there using the 2892 in the Rolex price bracket. You would definitely be getting a better engineered and manufactured movement with the Rolex."
raulhorology blog


Note that the latter quote relates to a movement from the very same 30XX series that was largely the basis for the misinformation out there, and reinforces my impression that the infamous Explorer movement hadn't come straight out of the factory in its described state.

I don't have much opinion on the Cellini line, but I actually like that they use solid casebacks for their Oyster watches on principle. Rolex is as hardcore as they come when it comes to watchmaking, it's just that handmade art movements aren't their thing.

There's no foreseeable lack of uneducated opinions on the subject, but now you know better. As a famous rapper once said: "Don't believe the hype."

teacha.gif
post #36869 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Belligero View Post

  Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

Here's an unobstructed view of that movement, unusual clous de Paris decoration and all:

cellini_time_m5440-8-0001_movement_0001_840x107014279150547546os6?wid=840&hei=1070&qlt=85
image source: rolex.com

I'm not sure what to make of the pyramid-styles, but I definitely don't see any quality issues.

Y'know, that deficient-finishing myth is a very pervasive one; when I started getting into watches, took it as a given that Rolex movements were crudely-finished things due to all the casual racism against them from certain internet-expert types. Contemptuous comments along the lines of "there's a reason they hide the movements behind a solid back" still appear frequently, and it's natural enough to simply accept them as fact. However, watchmakers I've spoken with find that the current movements are well-finished, and credit even the maligned 3000 calibre with exemplary precision in its tolerances.

One sometimes also encounters dismissive statements regarding Rolex's design goals of low parts count and ease of service, as if those are bad things. When it comes to watchmaking, simple is more difficult than complicated. It's more of a challenge to design a single component instead of two or more to perform a given function, and it results in a more elegant solution.

As far as I can tell, the main source of these myths is two watch-enthusiast articles that inevitably appear in any discussion of the subject: Walt Odets' and one posted on Chronometrie by "A. Watchmaker" where a moisture-damaged 3135 is disassembled.

However, there are at least a few folks with professional training who would disagree with their conclusions:
 
"If you were to take apart a 3186 and a 2893-2 side by side for instance, you don't have to be a watchmaker to realize how much more has gone into the Rolex calibre, precision and quality of parts, general construction advantages etc..."
744ER on TZ-UK, WOSTEP-certified full-time watchmaker
 
"I have to say that the quality and finishing of every component is way ahead of anything ETA produce, the whole movement also seems more robust and the systems employed by Rolex clearly improve timekeeping. Overall I have to say that compared to a modern ETA 2892, the 3035 is clearly the better movement, the fact that it was replaced by the 3135 more than twenty years ago demonstrates that Rolex have been producing excellent movements for a long time. Obviously Rolex watches command a higher price point than most brands that contain ETA movements but there are brands out there using the 2892 in the Rolex price bracket. You would definitely be getting a better engineered and manufactured movement with the Rolex."
raulhorology blog


Note that the latter quote relates to a movement from the very same 30XX series that was largely the basis for the misinformation out there, and reinforces my impression that the infamous Explorer movement hadn't come straight out of the factory in its described state.

I don't have much opinion on the Cellini line, but I actually like that they use solid casebacks for their Oyster watches on principle. Rolex is as hardcore as they come when it comes to watchmaking, it's just that handmade art movements aren't their thing.

There's no foreseeable lack of uneducated opinions on the subject, but now you know better. As a famous rapper once said: "Don't believe the hype."

teacha.gif

 

Nice writeup, Belli.

post #36870 of 48312

Thought: "decoration" is one thing.  "Finishing" is a bigger thing, whether or not it's designed to be decorative.  Perhaps some merging of the two in the popular consciousness?

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...)