The Watch Appreciation Thread - Part two (Rolex, Patek Philippe, Audemars Piguet, Jaeger LeCoultre,

[Clouseau]

First Rolex (and only one so far) was an OP date 1500, that my brother gave me, and that I gave a few years ago to his daughter when she had a son.

 

[UnFacconable]

Even as recently as the earlier 2000's you could still get a 10% discount on steel Rolexes and 30-35% off Pateks, VCs, IWC etc.

I got 10% off my BLNR from an AD and bought it in the EU so got it ex-VAT.

Speaking of Rolex, Guys (if you had one) which model was your first Rolex, and what memories are associated with it ?

BLNR was my first Rolex and I remember getting it at 10% off and ex-VAT.

 

[patrick_b]

Speaking of Rolex, Guys (if you had one) which model was your first Rolex, and what memories are associated with it ?

My first Rolex from the AD was the first gen ceramic GMT 116710LN in 2008. It was released in 07 as the first SS sports watch with ceramic bezel. Even got a 10% discount in a small mom & pop mall store in upstate NY while traveling for business. Same model was impossible to find in bigger cities.

I have fond memories of the hunt. It was the early days of hard to find SS sports watches other than the Daytona. I called AD’s in every major city I visited for 6 months before I happened across it. At least then you could find a watch, not sit on a fake waitlist. You just had to do some leg work.

It’s my most worn watch by far but as @Dino944 mentioned it still gets mistaken for a sub. It accompanied me on countless trips here and abroad. Definitely not one that I’ll ever sell. It’s even quelled any desire for another GMT model (though a Polar Explorer II is on the table). I keep going back and forth between a current 226570 or a 5 digit 16570 which are easily found in good condition.

 

[acconrad]

No wrong choice here. Sounds like the NDS fits better in your rotation. Classic. Get the 14060!

(My first Rolex was a DJ. My second was a 14060)

any reason you prefer the 14060 over the 124060?

 

[acconrad]

I have a 114060, bought to coincide with my son’s birth. I am contemplating adding a DJ, reverso, or tank.

That said, I don’t think the reverso and DJ would necessarily be redundant. The DJ is so much more robust than a reverso. It really is more of a sport watch than a dress watch, despite the normal connotations and obvious blingy-ness. Like, I would wear a reverso when I gave my kid a bath, but I wouldn’t hesitate to wear a DJ.

I've heard the jubilee bracelets, while a hallmark of Rolex, are less durable than the oysters. Any truth to that?

 

[b-ill]

My first Rolex was an Explorer, bought earlier this year. It reminds me of missionary style.

 

[troika]

My first Rolex was a 36mm DJ, mint green dial, fluted bezel & jube. Got it late last year for my 10yr anniversary.

 

[9thsymph]

any reason you prefer the 14060 over the 124060?

I find 5-digit subs more true to the sub vibe in general - less blingy, more tool oriented, and simultaneously more whimsical and elegant (smaller indices, better case and bezel proportions, etc...). Ironically, the 124060 is a more capable, robust watch, but just less charming for me.

I love my 6-digit GMT, though!

 

[Wild Strawberry Rabbit]

 

[Dino944]

I got 10% off my BLNR from an AD and bought it in the EU so got it ex-VAT.

When I bought my BLNR in January 2015 from an AD, you could still get 10% most models, like a Polar Explorer II or Sub ND at a few dealers. However, I couldn't get a discount on the BLNR as it was still a relatively new and popular model.

keep going back and forth between a current 226570 or a 5 digit 16570 which are easily found in good condition.

Both versions of the Explorer II are great. I have black dial versions of the the 216570 (the previous model but the look nearly the same) and a 16570. As mentioned in a previous post 5 digit Rolex watches have a certain charm, and classic good looks. It's served me well for nearly 23 years. I can't complain about it at all.

The modern ones have much nicer bracelets and clasps. Of course the 226570 is larger, but still very wearable, and I have to admit as you get past age 50, the larger hands and hour markers do make telling time at a glance so much easier. I bought my 216570 on a whim in 2019, because it was the only sports model in the case when Lux Bond & Green still had a store on Boylston Street. Someone who had ordered one, it arrived and they decided not to buy it so they stuck it in the case. I used to think of it as just a watch cashing in on the retro orange hand of the vintage 1655. However, it really stands on it own as a better looking, and far more useful watch than it's great grandfather, as it has a more legible dial, independently adjustable hour hand, modern practicality, and better build quality. Back when the 1655 could still be purchased new in the early 80's when I was shopping for a GMT, I just thought it was weird and ugly. Now, I think its a fun retro piece, but not worth 30K+. I ended up liking my 216570 so much more than I expected it to.

I've heard the jubilee bracelets, while a hallmark of Rolex, are less durable than the oysters. Any truth to that?

That was definitely true of the old hollow link steel and steel and gold jubilee bracelets. Now it's less true, with solid links and ceramic inserts over the parts connecting the links. Still, fewer moving parts on an Oyster, probably lead to less chance of stretch or other issues. A Jubilee's smaller links probably hide scratches better, but I've always preferred the Oyster.

 

[Dino944]

I find 5-digit subs more true to the sub vibe in general - less blingy, more tool oriented, and simultaneously more whimsical and elegant (smaller indices, better case and bezel proportions, etc...). Ironically, the 124060 is a more capable, robust watch, but just less charming for me.

I love my 6-digit GMT, though!

I would just say, the larger indices are probably truer to the original Sub vibe, and maybe a tad more tool like by improving visibility. The original Subs had big hour markers - they only got smaller in the 1980s. - but that's just a small difference of opinion.

 

[UnFacconable]

When I bought my BLNR in January 2015 from an AD, you could still get 10% most models, like a Polar Explorer II or Sub ND at a few dealers. However, I couldn't get a discount on the BLNR as it was still a relatively new and popular model.

I purchased it around the same time, maybe a few months earlier or later. I don't have your eidetic memory for all things watch-related. I recall that I struck out trying to buy it locally at a few places (with very little effort) so decided to call an overseas dealer in an EU capital where I happened to have friends in town. A bit of serendipity.

It was a great outcome for me because I didn't have to deal with any ADs or establish "relationships" and my friends said they had a great experience picking it up.

A lot of the reason I pretty much refuse to go to watch stores is because of that initial experience. I ended up getting my Explorer through this forum and my Nomos and moonwatch from a dealer in Germany. The only time I've spent in a watch store in the last decade was with a buddy in NY last year who was ready to purchase so it didn't feel like a chore for me.

 

[Dino944]

I purchased it around the same time, maybe a few months earlier or later. I don't have your eidetic memory for all things watch-related. I recall that I struck out trying to buy it locally at a few places (with very little effort) so decided to call an overseas dealer in an EU capital where I happened to have friends in town. A bit of serendipity.

It was a great outcome for me because I didn't have to deal with any ADs or establish "relationships" and my friends said they had a great experience picking it up.

A lot of the reason I pretty much refuse to go to watch stores is because of that initial experience. I ended up getting my Explorer through this forum and my Nomos and moonwatch from a dealer in Germany. The only time I've spent in a watch store in the last decade was with a buddy in NY last year who was ready to purchase so it didn't feel like a chore for me.

I think I bought mine a little before one had to establish a relationship with an AD unless you wanted a steel Daytona. With my BLNR, I called a few local AD, most didn't have one. The one place I called where a friend had referred me, didn't have one, but they offered me 10% off on a polar 216570 or a Submariner they had in stock. I finally called a place I had never dealt with and they had a BLNR, so I went there the next day and bought it.

My first experience with "You need to establish a relationship" to get watch X was when I wanted to get on a list for a steel Pepsi. The problem for me, is most places that I've done business with have either lost their contract with Rolex or the gone out of business. Of all the Rolex ADs I've done business with since 1984, only the last two I dealt with in 2023 are still in business. Who knows, perhaps selling me a watch is the "Kiss of death" for Rolex ADs!

 

[patrick_b]

Both versions of the Explorer II are great. I have black dial versions of the the 216570 (the previous model but the look nearly the same) and a 16570. As mentioned in a previous post 5 digit Rolex watches have a certain charm, and classic good looks. It's served me well for nearly 23 years. I can't complain about it at all.

The modern ones have much nicer bracelets and clasps. Of course the 226570 is larger, but still very wearable, and I have to admit as you get past age 50, the larger hands and hour markers do make telling time at a glance so much easier. I bought my 216570 on a whim in 2019, because it was the only sports model in the case when Lux Bond & Green still had a store on Boylston Street. Someone who had ordered one, it arrived and they decided not to buy it so they stuck it in the case. I used to think of it as just a watch cashing in on the retro orange hand of the vintage 1655. However, it really stands on it own as a better looking, and far more useful watch than it's great grandfather, as it has a more legible dial, independently adjustable hour hand, modern practicality, and better build quality. Back when the 1655 could still be purchased new in the early 80's when I was shopping for a GMT, I just thought it was weird and ugly. Now, I think its a fun retro piece, but not worth 30K+. I ended up liking my 216570 so much more than I expected it to.

Thanks Dino. Excellent food for thought as always. I have to admit I was leaning towards the 16570 due in large part to nostalgia but you have me re-considering the newer 42mm version again. As a fellow 50+ year old dude, superior legibility is always a plus. The difference in the bracelet and stamped metal clasp is not insignificant and I much prefer the newer bracelets to those of old. 70 hour power reserve is also a nice improvement.

 

[Dino944]

Thanks Dino. Excellent food for thought as always. I have to admit I was leaning towards the 16570 due in large part to nostalgia but you have me re-considering the newer 42mm version again. As a fellow 50+ year old dude, superior legibility is always a plus. The difference in the bracelet and stamped metal clasp is not insignificant and I much prefer the newer bracelets to those of old. 70 hour power reserve is also a nice improvement.

You're welcome. I'd definitely suggest trying both on to see which is really the best fit for you. I checked EWC's website and they don't have a polar 16570 right now. I'd certainly be happy to meet up with you and let you try on both of mine, but I know you want the white dial, and I think the brightness of the white dial really compared to the black dial makes the watch look very different on the wrist, and could affect your thoughts on which one to go for be it the 226570 or the 16570. Wishing you luck with whichever model you eventually decide is right for you.