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 2731  

post #40951 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaplan View Post

I first saw it yesterday, when reading up on Type 20/XX models. If the Breguet Type XX you and Mimo talk about is the new one with the polished bezel, then I have to say I prefer the more utilitarian look of the Dodane (and I don't get the Breguet's 30 minute counter - seems unnescessarily hard to read with only having markings every second minute and no numerals). Though if that second screw in the Dodane's lug doesn't do anything (which I guess it doesn't), then that would annoy me too.

Type XX Aeronavale (Click to show)

Of the ones I'm aware of, my favourite Flieger chronos are the IWC 3706 (and the double, 3711/3713). How do you rate those against the Sinn 103?

3706 (Click to show)

I only like the old Breguet pilot's chronos. The new ones don't do much for me, either.

The 3706, 3711 and 3713 are my favourite non-vintage IWC models. They're better-finished in all aspects than Sinn (not that Sinn is deficient), the bracelets are just outstanding, and the design is true to its British MoD roots. They're better watches, and it's reflected in the cost, and I'm still not super-keen on expensive 7750s. The movement was designed from the outset to be inexpensive, though fortunately not at the expense of reliability.
post #40952 of 48312

Very cool pics @aleksandr

post #40953 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Belligero View Post



The 3706, 3711 and 3713 are my favourite non-vintage IWC models. They're better-finished in all aspects than Sinn (not that Sinn is deficient), the bracelets are just outstanding, and the design is true to its British MoD roots. They're better watches, and it's reflected in the cost, and I'm still not super-keen on expensive 7750s. The movement was designed from the outset to be inexpensive, though fortunately not at the expense of reliability.

agree completely. The 3706 can be had for fairly reasonable. As much as i like Sinns offerings...to me they just seem to be a $500 watch. The IWCs finishing really are top notch. Looks and feels like a higher quality watch.
post #40954 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Belligero View Post

Thanks!

Here's a little-known tidbit about the OQ: that is the most expensive movement Rolex has ever produced, according to my watchmaker buddy after his visit to HQ. As Dino has noted, they cost double what a Submariner did at the time of introduction. There's just so much to appreciate about the watch; the bracelet design is unique among all the ones that Rolex has produced, and the bevelled edges give it a subtle bit of pop that nothing else of theirs has. It's an elegant and refined watch, but with substantial presence — and it's magic on the wrist.

Of that whole pile, it's the one I'd likely choose if I needed a single do-anything watch. The 1675 is and will remain my favourite, but Rolex's über-quartz is still relatively unknown and I just love the style. It's also the toughest, most accurate and most anti-magnetic movement they've ever produced, plus it's completely rebuildable. The last one sold in 2007, so parts supply is assured for decades. Seriously, I haven't adjusted the time since the dial swap of two or three months ago, and it's still bang-on. Picking up a watch after a week or something and knowing it's within a second of reference time is kinda nice. Heck, it's worth having to any collector just to set the other Rollices to. I think they're going to start taking off...

Late to the party, but I wholeheartedly concur, as you well know Belligero nod[1].gif The OQ is a stealth gem.

20140306_143050_zps487bfddd.jpg
post #40955 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by aleksandr View Post

I know the discussion has moved on since then, but to rewind the clock back a day or two and revisit the issue of gold - I posted the original question but didn't have time yesterday to respond. Thanks all for your thoughts and I agree mostly. Solid yellow gold dress watch on a leather strap - for sure. Rose gold - most of the time yes. That PP Eclipse - no not really.

Now to the point of contention. Specifically, two tone Rolexes. My love / hate affair started with this:
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

... which was almost universally panned by the twaterati, mostly for the strange marker at 9 o clock. But I have since moved on.

Anyhow, in the course of my quest for a Pepsi / Coke GMT, I visited quite a number of pre-owned dealers (there is a huge market here for pre-owned Rolexes, ranging from watch only no box no papers to basically brand new complete set), where for some unfathomable reason, my eye kept irresistibly being drawn to a couple of two toned models: Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)


Even the two toned Daytonas were kinda nice: Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
I suspect I'm in a place right now where I don't really /need/ anything (then again, when do we ever need a luxury watch..), and all my window shopping is just providing unnecessary eye candy and temptation. I should just stay home and quit while I'm ahead. "Ahead" being a state of affairs where money sits in the bank and I don't have to sleep on the sofa.

Go brown. The blue dial Sub was the first Rolex I bought.
post #40956 of 48312
Thanks Belli.

And nice OQ NS, with two great dials.
post #40957 of 48312

What do you gentlemen make of the spring drive movement used in some of the Grand Seikos? From what I can see, the GS GMT watches seem to be an incredible value and that sweep is just lovely. But I had one of those Kinetic watches that Seiko built the technology off of once, and had to change the capacitor after about four years.

post #40958 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by BostonHedonist View Post

What do you gentlemen make of the spring drive movement used in some of the Grand Seikos? From what I can see, the GS GMT watches seem to be an incredible value and that sweep is just lovely. But I had one of those Kinetic watches that Seiko built the technology off of once, and had to change the capacitor after about four years.

I personally don't think it's a good idea. I'd rather go all-mechanical or normal quartz. Seiko offers some amazingly good conventional quartz movements.

The complex hybrid approach seems to combine the worst of both worlds: the maintenance requirements and constant tension/wear of mechanical, and the unserviceable failure mode of micro-electronics. Also, unless it's on your wrist every day, quartz accuracy is essentially meaningless when the watch stops after a few days off the wrist and needs resetting. I suppose one could keep it on a winder, but I'd say that's a case of the cure being worse than the disease.

Seiko devotees like to point out that the movement took 25 years to develop. I'd wager that what actually happened is that they came up with a concept , quickly realized it had absolutely no advantages (and significant disadvantages) compared to existing designs, shelved it for about twenty years, and then thought it might be viable as a pointless luxury — which expensive wristwatches essentially are.

teacha.gif
post #40959 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by mimo View Post

Some would see that as a grotesquely ostentatious display of ego and unashamed alpha peacockery.  They might even be right. But bloody hell, it is pretty, isn't it?

Yes. And, yes. The 16613 is definitely a guilty pleasure of mine.

For years I was continually put off the watch not only for its trumpet of conspicuous consumption, but also due to the insufferable boorishness of the usual bearer. I've met many imbecilic Philistine jackasses who, having found themselves with the resources to afford a "nice watch," choose a 16613 and consider it the ne plus ultra pinnacle of Horology. These guys are usually as loud as the watch itself and could not care less about the passion for Time.

I also still see large concentrations of the (1)16613 in both blue and black dial form littering the resort areas where I live, with the average age of the owner being around one or two thousand years old - Very off-putting for sure.

I never thought I'd actually own one, but mine was offered to me at such a deal that I would have been a fool to pass on it. A close friend's father had purchased it, worn it once and decided that it wasn't for him, and left it in his safe for years. It is an M serial, supposedly the last of the 16613s before Rolex moved to the V serial 116613 (although there are now reports of V serial 16613s from what I understand), and the offered price was thousands less than its preowned market value.

Coupled with the fact that I have always admired the watch from afar despite its deficiencies, real or perceived, it was a no brainer for me. I made it my wedding present to myself. Although nine times out of ten I reach for my stainless Duo in the morning, I have come to really enjoy the 16613 when I do wear it and, given the sentimental value and story of the watch, I'm very glad to have it.

A casual day today, so 112F on JV for me.



post #40960 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaplan View Post

Maybe PP should partner up with Zenith and just put the movement in a crystal case (though it does come with its own share of engraving), like so:

I think Cartier did it better with their ID2 concept watch...no silly engraving.  However, perhaps when Zenith did the engraving it was to help distinguish it from other lesser clear watches.  The Cartier looks cool, but after a while I kind of look at it and say with the exception of the movement it starts to take on a resemblance to a clear Swatch. 

tumblr_m7z7nn5uHG1qzns6no1_1280.jpg

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by aleksandr View Post

Anyhow, in the course of my quest for a Pepsi / Coke GMT, I visited quite a number of pre-owned dealers (there is a huge market here for pre-owned Rolexes, ranging from watch only no box no papers to basically brand new complete set), where for some unfathomable reason, my eye kept irresistibly being drawn to a couple of two toned models:




Even the two toned Daytonas were kinda nice:


 

While I probably wouldn't purchase a two tone Rolex (as my preference is for a single color case & bracelet), I think the two tone GMT and two tone Sub are sort of classics in their collection. If someone gave me one as a gift I'd be very comfortable wearing it.  If you like the two tone, why not add one to your collection to add some diversity of case metal.  I am not really a fan of the current two tone Daytonas...I think the El Primero based models look better particularly the early white dial with black subdial trim rings.  I find the current brassy colored gold trim rings very unappealing on the gray dial Daytona above.  I'd probably go with a black dial GMT or Sub to tone things down a bit...or if you want a blue two tone Sub, look for an older model with dark starburst dial...love the dark blue starburst color!

 

Wishing you luck with wherever the journey leads you.  :cheers:

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by aleksandr View Post


This is harder than I thought it would be. Are the viewing angles right?


 

Yes, both are nice and demonstrate that the lugs are sort of bold and have an interesting curvature to them.  I also like the large visible screw from the side, very cool!  Thanks for sharing some more pix with us. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by CMT1 View Post

I'm a fan. I own an older 16613 and adore it for the robust "starburst" blue dial and bezel:

I have loved this watch for its blue dial and bezel since I first saw the 16803 in the 80s. I was initially disappointed by the ceramic 116613 replacement when Rolex changed the blue to a more flat, pastel hue, but Rolex has since returned the dial to a blue that closely resembles the classic/original version that I (and others) love.
 

I always thought the initial flat pastel blue of the early 116613 was very unattractive.  I think the starburst blue is far more attractive.  I actually, like the early starburst blue from back in the days when they still used tritium as lum as those dials were often super dark and regal looking. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by NonServiam View Post


I'll crawl out of winter hibernation to say: 4 pimp.gif

I prefer rose gold, but yellow gold can be super nice! It helps if you (unlike me) have a darker-than-pasty-white complextion, and vintage yellow gold often have a warmer glow to it than new (at least it seems to be the case with Rolex). On a brown leather strap yellow gold can be amazing and for everyone!
Or hell, just wear that bracelet proudly! icon_gu_b_slayer[1].gif

 

Yellow gold oxidizes over time and can take on a sort of rosy or bronze-ish look.  I noticed that on my 16528 from 1994.  I've even had a few people ask if its rose, because it has darkened over time.  Even the ridges in the winding crown have a sort of reddish-brown hue.  And I agree...if you have it on a bracelet, wear it proudly and enjoy! 

 

P.S.  the photo to the right, the lighting is off so the yellow looks very bright, but the color is more accurate on the photo to the left.  I only posted the photo on the right to show how the ridges on the crown have turned a reddish-brown hue as have the top area of the bracelet and lugs. 

 

 

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaplan View Post


Of the ones I'm aware of, my favourite Flieger chronos are the IWC 3706 (and the double, 3711/3713). How do you rate those against the Sinn 103?
  3706 (Click to show)

 

Love the old Flieger 3706 and the Doppel 3713.  Possibly the only 7750 Valjoux based watches I've ever seriously considered.  The bracelets on the originals from say the 1990s through about 2002 are just amazing (comfortable, subtle, and understated).  If I ever do go with a 7750 based watch, it will probably be a vintage 3706 or 3713!  

Quote:
Originally Posted by Belligero View Post

The 3706, 3711 and 3713 are my favourite non-vintage IWC models. They're better-finished in all aspects than Sinn (not that Sinn is deficient), the bracelets are just outstanding, and the design is true to its British MoD roots. They're better watches, and it's reflected in the cost, and I'm still not super-keen on expensive 7750s. The movement was designed from the outset to be inexpensive, though fortunately not at the expense of reliability.

:fistbump:  Those are my favorite non-vintage IWCs and the only ones I've ever given any serious thought kopping.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BostonHedonist View Post
 

What do you gentlemen make of the spring drive movement used in some of the Grand Seikos? From what I can see, the GS GMT watches seem to be an incredible value and that sweep is just lovely. But I had one of those Kinetic watches that Seiko built the technology off of once, and had to change the capacitor after about four years.

Not much.  They are well made, but unless its a screaming deal, and I mean cheap, I just can't get excited about spending thousands on Seiko.  Maybe its the brand whore in me, but I just see an expensive Seiko as diverting funds that could be used on other watches I'd prefer to own.  

post #40961 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dino944 View Post

I always thought the initial flat pastel blue of the early 116613 was very unattractive.  I think the starburst blue is far more attractive.  I actually, like the early starburst blue from back in the days when they still used tritium as lum as those dials were often super dark and regal looking. 

I remember staring at the watch, being unable to believe my eyes. I couldn't understand why Rolex would make such a dramatic change to one of their classics, and I do wonder if the forums' belief that Rolex could not match the ceramic bezel color to the deep royal blue dial was true. The new 116613s do not match their bezel and dial colors as well as the 16613, but it's hardly a deal-breaker.

It does crack me up that the original/pastel 116613s were panned for their pastel dials, but now seem to be increasing in desirability due to be discontinued after a somewhat short run.
post #40962 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Belligero View Post


I personally don't think it's a good idea. I'd rather go all-mechanical or normal quartz. Seiko offers some amazingly good conventional quartz movements.

The complex hybrid approach seems to combine the worst of both worlds: the maintenance requirements and constant tension/wear of mechanical, and the unserviceable failure mode of micro-electronics. Also, unless it's on your wrist every day, quartz accuracy is essentially meaningless when the watch stops after a few days off the wrist and needs resetting. I suppose one could keep it on a winder, but I'd say that's a case of the cure being worse than the disease.

Seiko devotees like to point out that the movement took 25 years to develop. I'd wager that what actually happened is that they came up with a concept , quickly realized it had absolutely no advantages (and significant disadvantages) compared to existing designs, shelved it for about twenty years, and then thought it might be viable as a pointless luxury — which expensive wristwatches essentially are.

teacha.gif

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dino944 View Post
 

Not much.  They are well made, but unless its a screaming deal, and I mean cheap, I just can't get excited about spending thousands on Seiko.  Maybe its the brand whore in me, but I just see an expensive Seiko as diverting funds that could be used on other watches I'd prefer to own.  

 

Very good points. And while they're very nicely finished and no doubt quite accurate, the whole spring drive gimmick is just not time-tested. I feel as if I'd always be haunted by the specter of possibly having to change out a capacitor or somesuch part. They probably don't strike me as watches that can feel very "special" for the same reason I'm not drawn to any sort of hybrid cars.

 

I guess there's no trying to skirt around it. I'm biding my time to find a reasonable deal on a blue and black GMT Master II.

post #40963 of 48312

Dino, love the way that watch has aged. It's just stunning.

post #40964 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by DLJr View Post
 

Dino, love the way that watch has aged. It's just stunning.

Thank you! :cheers:

post #40965 of 48312
IWC 3706 is nice but the 3705 is my favorite of the bunch.Hard to find though.
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...)