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 2465  

post #36961 of 48312
One of the best things about having the date function is the functionality. I don't mean to sound facetious, but I find the date very useful.
post #36962 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by TC (Houston) View Post

I know I'm in the minority, but I'm a huge fan of the 41mm. smile.gif HUGE

I would not say I am not a fan, its noice, but I do like the proportions and the look of the explorer better than the DJII.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Moo View Post

My wife's reasoning in favor of a cyclops watch: "If you are going to get a Rolex, make sure it looks like a Rolex." Now, among the TWAT brethren that may sound ridiculous, but I completely see what she's saying and where she's coming from.

I agree with your wife, but not for her reason. I quite like the cyclops, and I find it very convenient when looking at the date, which I do many times a day.
post #36963 of 48312

New shoes to go with an older watch.

 

post #36964 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by in stitches View Post

I would not say I am not a fan, its noice, but I do like the proportions and the look of the explorer better than the DJII.

Good cover. I will not have to call you out when I post the arrival of my next watch. smile.gif
post #36965 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by dddrees View Post

New shoes to go with an older watch.
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)


Noice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TC (Houston) View Post

Good cover. I will not have to call you out when I post the arrival of my next watch. smile.gif

Lol. HANJOY!!!

We actually just bought and sold 3 of them in the past month or so, we are just starting to see them on the secondary market. Its a great watch (admitted Rolex homer here), but I still have not quite adjusted to the proportions. The 36mm is perfectly proportioned imho.

Looking forward to you changing my mind tho. smile.gif
post #36966 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by in stitches View Post


Noice.
Lol. HANJOY!!!

We actually just bought and sold 3 of them in the past month or so, we are just starting to see them on the secondary market. Its a great watch (admitted Rolex homer here), but I still have not quite adjusted to the proportions. The 36mm is perfectly proportioned imho.

Looking forward to you changing my mind tho. smile.gif


Thank you sir.

post #36967 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by dddrees View Post

New shoes to go with an older watch.

Both amazing. Great pic.
post #36968 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by TC (Houston) View Post


Both amazing. Great pic.


Thank you sir.

post #36969 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by TC (Houston) View Post

Well, to be fair, he used the word "flashy" here, and not "blingy". LOL
Same difference, no?
post #36970 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by in stitches View Post


Looking forward to you changing my mind tho. smile.gif

We will see. I've officially gone off the deep end on this one . . . I know it will be polarizing. Lol
post #36971 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Moo View Post

The romans on slate grey, you no like? It looks really, really good IMO.

Sorry, but I really dislike the dial.  I wouldn't have been a bit fan of the black Romans, but could have lived with them if it didn't have that single white stick marker at the 9 position.  It just looks out of place and ruins it IMHO.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Moo View Post

My wife's reasoning in favor of a cyclops watch: "If you are going to get a Rolex, make sure it looks like a Rolex." Now, among the TWAT brethren that may sound ridiculous, but I completely see what she's saying and where she's coming from.

I can understand that opinion.  For me the cyclops isn't a make it or break it feature on any of their watches. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by in stitches View Post
I do like the proportions and the look of the explorer better than the DJII.

:fistbump:  Some watches can go up a size or so and its not an issue.  To me the DJ going from 36-41 is too drastic.  I find the DJII has a sort of bloated and out of proportion look to my eye.  

 

To Moo ....Maybe if it had gone from 36 to 38 or 39 ...but I've yet to see a DJII that I thought looked better proportioned than either the 36 mm DJ or 39 mm Explorer.  YMMV.  I think in the photo you posted the 41s proportions don't look bad, but in person its proportions bother me.  Good luck with whatever you decide.  

post #36972 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by TC (Houston) View Post

We will see. I've officially gone off the deep end on this one . . . I know it will be polarizing. Lol

Oooooh! Im intrigued!

---

cheers.gif Dino
post #36973 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Moo View Post

This guy:
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

Really, really hate this. The applied Roman numerals are way too clunky and blingy. The only thing worse is the lone baton at 9 o'clock. It looks like a mistake.

I liked the previous generation Datejust with the thin batons.
post #36974 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by TC (Houston) View Post

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Very, very timeless and classic! Aaaandd, I can't not say something . . . LOL Coincidentally, my wife actually wears that as her daily. I'm attaching an old pic just so you know I'm not just saying that to give you a hard time, and my wife will tell anyone she prefers "men's sized watches". Seriously, that's a nice choice.

5283374555_24d2aaa317.jpg

I am rather worried about the driving position...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Belligero View Post

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Not at all. Most watch photos are taken with a phone camera these days, and those are invariably fitted with a wide lens. To fill the frame with a small object like a watch, you have to hold it pretty damn close. If you stick your face a few inches away from your wrist, it'll look about the same as it does in that photo.

Here's an example of the difference that focal length makes.

More wide (20 mm):

image credit: philip greenspun

Less wide (35 mm):

image credit: philip greenspun

Even though the subject is about the same size in both images, the difference in perspective from the camera's position changes the relative size of things that are nearer and farther away from the lens. Note the difference between the apparent size of the headlights.

Same deal with watches; the relative size of the watch and the wrist change with a wide lens jammed in close. To get a more natural perspective, use a longer lens held farther away.

Here are a few photos taken with a longer lens that I gripped from Hodinkee which show the DJ's proportions in the same way that they appear in real life:

?format=750w

?format=750wWarning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
from A Week On The Wrist: The Rolex Datejust

The current Datejust has a substantial look but still has the classically-elegant thing going on. I think 36 mm is spot-on for a normal wristwatch, even on a larger wrist.

PS — How good do 993s still look!?

I prefer the Jubilee over the Oyster bracelet. Just fits the watch better imo.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Moo View Post

This guy:


To quote La grade Bellezza:
The old is better than the new.
post #36975 of 48312
That dial is awful.
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...)