Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › The Watch Appreciation Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Watch Appreciation Thread - Page 1129

post #16921 of 21202
1/16/13 at 9:50am
the latest object of my watch desires. want so bad. rolex 16760 gmt master II.

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)



Reply
Reply

Featured Stories on Styleforum

Allen Edmonds Appreciation Thread
Official Wedding Attire Question/Answer/Picture Thread
Join the discussions now - Join Styleforum
post #16922 of 21202
1/16/13 at 10:42am
Great weekend watch, stitch icon_gu_b_slayer[1].gif

I've started saving for a Mark XVII as my next weekender. Unfortunately that "saving" coincides with a couple bespoke commissions for next Fall/Winter... :sigh:

P.S. Fuck this thread for piquing my interest in watches. Ignorance was bliss...
Reply
Reply
post #16923 of 21202
1/16/13 at 10:46am
Quote:
Originally Posted by bourbonbasted View Post

I've started saving for a Mark XVII as my next weekender.

Hopefully this will give you time to reconsider devil.gif
Reply
Reply
post #16924 of 21202
1/16/13 at 10:49am
Haha not a fan of the XVII? You have the XV, correct?
Reply
Reply
post #16925 of 21202
1/16/13 at 11:20am
Quote:
Originally Posted by in stitches View Post

the latest object of my watch desires. want so bad. rolex 16760 gmt master II. Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)




Would you really use the second time zone function much?
Reply
Reply
post #16926 of 21202
1/16/13 at 11:25am
Quote:
Originally Posted by dopey View Post

Would you really use the second time zone function much?

I can honestly say I have no need for a second time zone watch.

That is a very cool rollie though. I think one of the few current models that I would not mind having. I still don't really see myself springing for a Rolex anytime soon though.
Reply
Reply
post #16927 of 21202
1/16/13 at 11:34am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newcomer View Post

I can honestly say I have no need for a second time zone watch.

That is a very cool rollie though. I think one of the few current models that I would not mind having. I still don't really see myself springing for a Rolex anytime soon though.
There are two Rolex's I want. An older, smaller Explorer and a decent looking Sky-Dweller. I have plenty of watches that substitute for the Explorer, so I doubt I will get that. But the day Rolex figures out how to clean up the Sky-Dweller dial, I will get one.
Reply
Reply
post #16928 of 21202
1/16/13 at 11:56am
Quote:
Originally Posted by dopey View Post

There are two Rolex's I want. An older, smaller Explorer and a decent looking Sky-Dweller. I have plenty of watches that substitute for the Explorer, so I doubt I will get that. But the day Rolex figures out how to clean up the Sky-Dweller dial, I will get one.

Really? I would love a 1016 Explorer (probably my vintage Rollie of choice), but I would not touch the Sky Dweller with a ten foot pole. I think I finally found what I hate about it. It is like an ultra bling-ed up version of what is classic Rolex DNA. They will have to do a LOT of cleaning up on that one. In my most humble of opinions, it just screams nouveau riche. At that price, ALS is available, Patek is available--the world is your oyster. Unless I had an extremely extensive collection (a la Depechedior... or is it Ddress... I forget who has one around here), I would pass.

And I am harsh on this just because I really respect your style Dopey.
Reply
Reply
post #16929 of 21202
1/16/13 at 12:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by bourbonbasted View Post

Haha not a fan of the XVII? You have the XV, correct?

Yup :-) And I think that it's pretty much a perfect watch, but then I'm mostly intrigued by design and history over in-house movements, etc.

You probably know this already, but what I (and some others, I guess) have against the Mark XVI and later models, is the bastardization of the original Mark design, which had been carried pretty faithfully from the Mark XI (based on the 6B/346 designation by the Ministry of Defense), through the Mark XII and Mark XV (with the latter two adding a date function). More on Mk here.

If I wanted a more germanic looking flieger / Beobachtungs-uhr (which is where IWC has taken the design of the hands on the Mark XVI and XVII from), I'd go with a unbranded Stowa or Archimede. The 'Mark' designation no longer seems appropriate on these designs, IMO.

Of course, there's no reason why you should be similarly hung up on the historic aspects of it all; in the end I think that how you feel about the design on it's own should be the determining factor.

That, and maybe a need to be able to tell at a glance not only today's date, but also what both the preceeding and following dates were/will be ;-)

iwc-mark-XVII-leather.jpg
Reply
Reply
post #16930 of 21202
1/16/13 at 12:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newcomer View Post

Really? I would love a 1016 Explorer (probably my vintage Rollie of choice), but I would not touch the Sky Dweller with a ten foot pole. I think I finally found what I hate about it. It is like an ultra bling-ed up version of what is classic Rolex DNA. They will have to do a LOT of cleaning up on that one. In my most humble of opinions, it just screams nouveau riche. At that price, ALS is available, Patek is available--the world is your oyster. Unless I had an extremely extensive collection (a la Depechedior... or is it Ddress... I forget who has one around here), I would pass.

And I am harsh on this just because I really respect your style Dopey.

I think we agree about the Sky-Dweller. The presentation is a mess, but I really like the function. That is why I would like to see it cleaned up. The only difference between us, I think, is you are just expressing yourself a little more emphatically. But if you created a clear, clean dial that retained all the function, It could be a great, tough as nails, never-take-off-your-wrist, everyday super-functional watch.

And thanks.
Reply
Reply
post #16931 of 21202
1/16/13 at 12:16pm
^

Thanks for the informative post. Enjoyed reading the links as well.
Reply
Reply
post #16932 of 21202
1/16/13 at 12:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dopey View Post

I think we agree about the Sky-Dweller. The presentation is a mess, but I really like the function. That is why I would like to see it cleaned up. The only difference between us, I think, is you are just expressing yourself a little more emphatically. But if you created a clear, clean dial that retained all the function, It could be a great, tough as nails, never-take-off-your-wrist, everyday super-functional watch.

And thanks.

Got it! I can certainly see that. I don't really see myself as the precious-metal-Rolex-wearer. I could certainly see that as well.



I feel like it would take a design miracle to really clean the watch up though. I think a good start could be a non-fluted bezel, SS, black, printed arabic numerals, black dial, white GMT ring (evoking the panda?) that is better integrated, less text, no cyclops. They could even call it the poor mans Sky-Dweller. I would like to see a black and white layout, perhaps with red accents. The hands can stay I guess, although I would not mind sword hands. The minute track also kind of bothers me, due to its lack of functionality.
Reply
Reply
post #16933 of 21202
1/16/13 at 12:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaplan View Post

Yup :-) And I think that it's pretty much a perfect watch, but then I'm mostly intrigued by design and history over in-house movements, etc.

You probably know this already, but what I (and some others, I guess) have against the Mark XVI and later models, is the bastardization of the original Mark design, which had been carried pretty faithfully from the Mark XI (based on the 6B/346 designation by the Ministry of Defense), through the Mark XII and Mark XV (with the latter two adding a date function). More on Mk here.

If I wanted a more germanic looking flieger / Beobachtungs-uhr (which is where IWC has taken the design of the hands on the Mark XVI and XVII from), I'd go with a unbranded Stowa or Archimede. The 'Mark' designation no longer seems appropriate on these designs, IMO.

Of course, there's no reason why you should be similarly hung up on the historic aspects of it all; in the end I think that how you feel about the design on it's own should be the determining factor.

That, and maybe a need to be able to tell at a glance not only today's date, but also what both the preceeding and following dates were/will be ;-)

I can certainly see what you're getting at there, and I am aware of the qualms many purists have with the watch. I was just interested to hear your take.

Strictly from a design standpoint I actually prefer the addition of the extended date window and the red arrow. I think it adds a bit of visual interest to the watch without the addition of a cumbersome chrono dial (which would obviously make for an even further bastardization of the original design). It strikes a more casual chord, making it decidedly sportier in an elegant opinion, IMO. For some reason I think a lot of the more spartan-faced pilot's watches, especially those with leather bands, flirt a middle ground too much; a certain degree of indecisiveness about whether they are dressier or more casual.

Obviously, this is just my opinion and far from the accepted connotation and use for Mark series. I'm sure one day I'll get a handle on my reckless proclivities and tastes smile.gif. Thanks again for the info, Kap! icon_gu_b_slayer[1].gif
Reply
Reply
post #16934 of 21202
1/16/13 at 12:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newcomer View Post

Got it! I can certainly see that. I don't really see myself as the precious-metal-Rolex-wearer. I could certainly see that as well.



I feel like it would take a design miracle to really clean the watch up though. I think a good start could be a non-fluted bezel, SS, black, printed arabic numerals, black dial, white GMT ring (evoking the panda?) that is better integrated, less text, no cyclops. They could even call it the poor mans Sky-Dweller. I would like to see a black and white layout, perhaps with red accents. The hands can stay I guess, although I would not mind sword hands. The minute track also kind of bothers me, due to its lack of functionality.

Another thing they could do, which would go a long way, would be to put the entire 24 hour ring under the dial with just an arced window for the home time. You only need to see the part of the dial around the actual time. That secondary dial is what causes the most damage and if you can work on that, you have done a lot.

And I also agree that there is no reason for gold. This should be a steel watch, but that is true of every non-Cellini Rolex.

I hate the cyclops in general, but I am so excited about a date mechanism that really [almost] works that I could grudgingly live with it.

One thing I like about the hands is that you can see through them to the home time dial (to be re-designed as a window) underneath. I would leave that alone.

I don't like fluted bezels, but I don't hate them either and they are so much a part of Rolex design that I would live with it. It certainly wouldn't put me off getting one. I dislike the cyclops much more.
Reply
Reply
post #16935 of 21202
1/16/13 at 12:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by PartagasIV View Post

Would love input on looking for a sister's college graduation watch. Originally wanted to give a birth-year vintage sub for a slightly 'chunky,' masculine watch--in that same vein, thinking of a medium SS/RG Santos 100 on croc, 36mm SS/YG Ballon Bleu on bracelet. I.e., less traditional than a Tank Francaise, even a men's sized variant, but still classic looks. Other watches along those lines?

Probably buying on TZ/secondary market, mint condition.

Have you talked to you sister about watches?  Have you considered what her job will be when she graduates college or interviews? 

 

If you haven not talked to her or considered interviews and her job after college, I think getting a mens watch that is as large and sporty as a Sub or even a Santos 100 is a mistake.  Guys often want to buy watches for women that they think are cool without thinking about how useful it is for her.  Sure you might like the look of it but its just not versatile enough for a young woman who will probably have just one good watch for a few years (unless you treat her to others).   If you got her a normal size watch from a good company she will be able to wear it to very dressy events, causual events, job interviews etc.  If you get her something that looks big and sporty on her it will limit its versatility and wearability.  I can't imagine a young woman dressing up for a job interview and wearing a Submariner or Santos 100 to her interview, or wearing them to a very formal function.  Also, some women would rather have a quartz just so they do not have to worry about it stopping if they don't wear it or wind it for a few days.

 

Many women I know really like Cartier, often far more than Rolex.  Many of their designs are more versatile and work better for womens wardrobes.  I can tell you my wife has a steel and rose gold Rolex Datejust and a mens size Cartier Tank Francaise (which isn't that large) and her Tank Francaise gets 95% of her wrist time.  In the end if you get her something thats a bit smaller or more of a womans watch it will probably be more versatile for her...just my 2 cents. 

 

Obviously if you have talked to her and a Submariner or Santos 100 is her dream watch then disregard what I have said above.  Good luck! 

Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear

Featured Stories on Styleforum

Allen Edmonds Appreciation Thread
Official Wedding Attire Question/Answer/Picture Thread
Join the discussions now - Join Styleforum
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › The Watch Appreciation Thread