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 2827  

post #42391 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWraith View Post


Don't worry, mate. The watch is worth the wait. I've had mine since 2006. It's a great watch!
You've got an Omega SMP coming. Focus on that beauty first wink.gif

 

Yes, you are quite right! This will be my only 'big' watch purchase this year; I've thinking of beginning to buy less but better (read: expensive) watches from now on. Mind you, I might indulge in the occasional affordable timepiece to scratch an itch (read here: Seiko Orange Monster and SKX009), but I think in the long run, researching, saving up and plunging to buy one desirable watch might be more rewardable than buying all the affordable that comes my way - a little like with clothing.

 

That said, I can't wait to get my hands on the SMP!

post #42392 of 48312
^ Good on ya, ShawnBC. Looking forward to seeing some pics.
post #42393 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by no frills View Post

It is a ridiculously over engineered, impossibly top heavy and large piece (though at 44mm it really isn't as monstrous as other watches out there). There's not much more one needs from a dive watch that a Submariner can't provide, and the DSSD is a Sub on steroids. I got so much advice telling me to stay away from her, but her siren song kept calling to me. Now I have her sister too, the DBlue, equally busty but a bit more colorful. And I love them both.

The dial on the deep blue is mesmerising, but other than that both hold no appeal to me.
post #42394 of 48312
I have never handled one (a DSSD) but I imagine they are meant to appeal to Rolex collectors in particular rather than real buyers. No one needs one and, in fact, it is probably more of a PITA than it is useful for most people. But it is a cool watch that shows what Rolex can it's like a double helping of dessert for people who like Submariner sundaes.
post #42395 of 48312
Not sure what's the difference between a Rolex collector and a real buyer - The DSSD is my one and only Rolex. I certainly am no Rolex collector and doubt I'm a 'real buyer'. I agree it's not for everyone but I love it. It's worth saying again. It's as very much Rolex as it is UNRolex..
post #42396 of 48312
Real buyer was a bad choice of words. I guess I meant whatever is the opposite of a Rolex collector or aficionado. I have no idea what are the statistics, but I would guess very few people have the DSSD as their only Rolex.
post #42397 of 48312

It is a monster and perhaps not for me, but I can see the appeal: sometimes, more is just more, and I'm all for people getting something just because they love it.  After all, since when was any of this fascination logical?  Mechanical wristwatches are inherently unnecessary in the modern age, impractical and inefficient. But it's OK to love them anyway.

 

Also, I see the DSSDs are still popular with actual deep sea divers: of course they have more modern technology,but they seem to like to have the old school alternative - I don't know if they use it as a back-up, or just a sentimental badge of their profession, but either way I think is equally valid.

post #42398 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by mimo View Post

It is a monster and perhaps not for me, but I can see the appeal: sometimes, more is just more, and I'm all for people getting something just because they love it.  After all, since when was any of this fascination logical?  Mechanical wristwatches are inherently unnecessary in the modern age, impractical and inefficient. But it's OK to love them anyway.

Also, I see the DSSDs are still popular with actual deep sea divers: of course they have more modern technology,but they seem to like to have the old school alternative - I don't know if they use it as a back-up, or just a sentimental badge of their profession, but either way I think is equally valid.

On a somewhat related note I took my BLNR travelling a couple of weeks ago (first trip since I picked it up, first GMT watch too). I would randomly keep staring at it just to check 'home' time, even though it was only a 3 hour time difference and I could just have easily done the math in my head.
post #42399 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by no frills View Post

It is a ridiculously over engineered, impossibly top heavy and large piece (though at 44mm it really isn't as monstrous as other watches out there). ... (Click to show)
There's not much more one needs from a dive watch that a Submariner can't provide, and the DSSD is a Sub on steroids. I got so much advice telling me to stay away from her, but her siren song kept calling to me. Now I have her sister too, the DBlue, equally busty but a bit more colorful. And I love them both.

Actually having one of them around for a while has made me recant my anti-Deep-Sea-ism. While the pressure rating is excessive by multiples, even for someone going for the all-time depth record, the watch does what it says it does. It's a fun and massive steel sculpture with a lot of details worth appreciating, and it's nice to see one on the wrist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dino944 View Post

Sorry, no love here for the Geophysic.  Its a good watch, but I just don't love anything about it....but if you love it go for it.  



Bracelets on Rolex were not as high quality back then as they are today, but the watches also costed a lot less even if one takes inflation into account.  They used hollow center links on the center bracelet links of steel and steel and gold watches, the end links were hollow "clams shells" rather than solid end links, and the clasps were stamped steel not machined.  However, unless really abused, most Oyster bracelets, even those that are 30 plus years old hold up quite well and have a lot of life left in them. ... (Click to show)
 The only bracelets I'd probably avoid are the really old rivet bracelets, unless well taken care of, or Jubilee bracelets that are more than 25 years old...as those tend to show a lot more "stretch" than similarly aged Oyster bracelets.  Also, one has to consider the overall condition and remember that although these are vintage watches that often get babied now, back then people didn't baby them, some people beat the hell out of them.   

I looked on line and the SD appears to be in pretty good shape for its age and the dial and hands look good. I can't really see any great shots of the lugs to see how clean and sharp they are or are not.  From what I could see the bracelet looks ok, although not as high quality as the bracelets those were getting by the early to mid 90s (when those got solid end links).  Although the Rolex box in the photo with it isn't the correct Rolex box for that watch.  That box came out several years later.  The vintage cream Ex2 is a transitional model, and is relative rare. The dial looks to be in good shape, but them saying it had little or no polishing seems like BS.  Three out of the four lugs in the photos don't appear to have anything close to the original beveled edge...they all look a bit too rounded.  Granted I haven't seen either of them in person and you can only get so much from photos.  Good luck with them if you are in purchase mode!

The Geophysic doesn't do anything for me, either. It almost seems that sites like Hodinkee are trying to hype it into one of those things that the enlightened have to pretend to like lest they be shunned by other watch nerds. I appreciate simplicity, but the design strikes me as being lazy and uninspired; "simplistic" is a more apt term. At $9800 in steel and you've-got-to-be-kidding in precious metals, I'm calling BS on it.



On the subject of Oyster bracelets: ain't nothin' wrong with the old ones. Sure, they don't weigh as much as the current versions, but the hollow-but-continuous links are just as strong as the new solid ones, as there's an equal amount of material where it counts, and both types use equally burly screws. I will say that the new clasp is fantastic, however.

An older bracelet style shouldn't put someone off getting a nice watch like that Sea-Dweller that was mentioned. The heavier ones certainly feel more impressive, but there's something to be said for simplicity and light weight as well. They're great for wearing.

I sometimes see impressionable types claiming that old Rolex bracelets are somehow extra stretch-prone, without taking into account that they're on watches that have been worn daily (often without maintenance or cleaning) for decades. They certainly will elongate over time, particularly if they're worn loose and aren't cleaned properly, but as you said, it's not uncommon to see old ones that have plenty of life left.

Speaking of which, here are a few examples:



The red 1680s have the even-flimsier-feeling folded-link design that was phased out about forty years ago even for service replacements, and they're still doing fine. It was cool to see two of them actually being worn today; they're not doomed to an existence of being stashed in a safe by some fastidious collector. One belongs to the coworker who posts as Loevhagen on Instagram, but it was a suprise to come across a second one in the office!
post #42400 of 48312

I like the Geophysic, a lot.  But I think I'd like it a lot more for $5k in about 30 months...

post #42401 of 48312
I don't have the Monday morning blues with this pair

4652b762eb5ced7d598e4d2264b69d21.jpg
post #42402 of 48312

Beautiful watch, beautiful shoes.  Carminas are amazing.  

 

Metal band tool watch with balmorals would make some people's head explode - though I'm happy that's a different forum and shouldn't happen here.

post #42403 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by mimo View Post

I like the Geophysic, a lot.  But I think I'd like it a lot more for $5k in about 30 months...

Just think of what that $5K could get you in proper- rather than pseudo-vintage, though. wink.gif
post #42404 of 48312

Oh I do, several times daily.  And yet, my mind seems to be on the modern at the moment...why is that? :satisfied:

post #42405 of 48312
Not that it disproves dopey's theory that few people do this, but a friend of mine wears a DSSD as his only watch.
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...)