[Maynard]

Daytonas are way out of my league right now, but for me, any Rolex nowadays has the unwanted turn off of the d'bag popularity/bougie showoff image. No offense - I realize those on this forum aren't into them for that reason, but I hope some can relate to my conflict. I always wanted a Rolex, since they are obviously an icon and trailblazer in creating the kind of mechanical exemplar that I love, tool watches at the performance level of surgical gear or F1 machinery. But now they are popular with the wrong kind of people for the wrong reasons, and I cringe at the association (kind of like P-cars). I have to ask myself, would Steve McQueen or Paul Newman have used their contacts to get a Daytona today, or would they go with something as robust and underappreciated as the Daytona was in those days? Or am I just rationalizing my current love of Seiko?

[ASAP]

Originally Posted by Maynard

Daytonas are way out of my league right now, but for me, any Rolex nowadays has the unwanted turn off of the d'bag popularity/bougie showoff image. No offense - I realize those on this forum aren't into them for that reason, but I hope some can relate to my conflict. I always wanted a Rolex, since they are obviously an icon and trailblazer in creating the kind of mechanical exemplar that I love, tool watches at the performance level of surgical gear or F1 machinery. But now they are popular with the wrong kind of people for the wrong reasons, and I cringe at the association (kind of like P-cars). I have to ask myself, would Steve McQueen or Paul Newman have used their contacts to get a Daytona today, or would they go with something as robust and underappreciated as the Daytona was in those days? Or am I just rationalizing my current love of Seiko?

What you say is true, but I still think the Sub is the best traditional looking watch in existance. It's plain, looks very expensive, has a great tradition and its size is near perfect. I can't think of another watch in this class that I would remotely want... the Omega Seamaster comes to mind but it it literally the size of Alaska on your wrist.

[rad doc]

Originally Posted by Maynard

Daytonas are way out of my league right now, but for me, any Rolex nowadays has the unwanted turn off of the d'bag popularity/bougie showoff image. No offense - I realize those on this forum aren't into them for that reason, but I hope some can relate to my conflict. I always wanted a Rolex, since they are obviously an icon and trailblazer in creating the kind of mechanical exemplar that I love, tool watches at the performance level of surgical gear or F1 machinery. But now they are popular with the wrong kind of people for the wrong reasons, and I cringe at the association (kind of like P-cars). I have to ask myself, would Steve McQueen or Paul Newman have used their contacts to get a Daytona today, or would they go with something as robust and underappreciated as the Daytona was in those days? Or am I just rationalizing my current love of Seiko?

Just buy what you like. Who cares what others think and if it is in or not. I think Rolex is less of a status grab than others like Hublot and Panerai. As to bougie, Bmw is probably the worse than all brands and I would suggest there new offerings almost entirely cater to that crowd and not the auto enthusiasts.

[ryem3]

Originally Posted by ASAP

Broke enough to buy a Rolex.

As crazy as I thought it was to buy a Daytona, as I said, they are asking 80% more than I paid only a year ago. What a crazy market.


For many, this is enough...

Yes, but if you don't invest, your money will never grow.

[c1pher]

I like Citizen watches teehee.

[TSM330i]

Originally Posted by Maynard

Daytonas are way out of my league right now, but for me, any Rolex nowadays has the unwanted turn off of the d'bag popularity/bougie showoff image. No offense - I realize those on this forum aren't into them for that reason, but I hope some can relate to my conflict. I always wanted a Rolex, since they are obviously an icon and trailblazer in creating the kind of mechanical exemplar that I love, tool watches at the performance level of surgical gear or F1 machinery. But now they are popular with the wrong kind of people for the wrong reasons, and I cringe at the association (kind of like P-cars). I have to ask myself, would Steve McQueen or Paul Newman have used their contacts to get a Daytona today, or would they go with something as robust and underappreciated as the Daytona was in those days? Or am I just rationalizing my current love of Seiko?

To each his own.

As you stated, there are those of us that do not purchase a Rolex as a status symbol. I think for many, we get started that way, but then something else clicks. For me, my first Rolex Submariner (20 years ago) was the status symbol of owning a Rolex. My love for the watches has grown and changed.
Now, I'm into the older, collector pieces. Not at all because they're a status symbol, but because for the most part, they are different from modern watches. The idiosyncrasies of the worn watch, the patina, the non-perfect case/band/insert from years of wear (in my case - almost 50 years) all play into what drives my passion.
If I see an old watch and it's just been polished, it loses it's luster for me. I want the knicks and scratches on it. Especially my next buy - either a DRSD or Comex. They are considered the ultimate tool watch.

Your argument could go against BMW as well regarding popularity. They were the drivers car with the best chassis/handling (3-series) that were sold to enthusiasts. But for me, they've lost it and have caved to try to sell more cars. Numb steering, chassis tuned towards ride comfort and engines that are good, but not great anymore.

[Lennon997]

Originally Posted by TSM330i

To each his own.

As you stated, there are those of us that do not purchase a Rolex as a status symbol. I think for many, we get started that way, but then something else clicks. For me, my first Rolex Submariner (20 years ago) was the status symbol of owning a Rolex. My love for the watches has grown and changed.
Now, I'm into the older, collector pieces. Not at all because they're a status symbol, but because for the most part, they are different from modern watches. The idiosyncrasies of the worn watch, the patina, the non-perfect case/band/insert from years of wear (in my case - almost 50 years) all play into what drives my passion.
If I see an old watch and it's just been polished, it loses it's luster for me. I want the knicks and scratches on it. Especially my next buy - either a DRSD or Comex. They are considered the ultimate tool watch.

Your argument could go against BMW as well regarding popularity. They were the drivers car with the best chassis/handling (3-series) that were sold to enthusiasts. But for me, they've lost it and have caved to try to sell more cars. Numb steering, chassis tuned towards ride comfort and engines that are good, but not great anymore.

No....the GMT is the ultimate tool watch, or even a GMT2.

but the comex and the DRSD, for those who know like us, ughhhh :happy anim:: happyanim::happya nim:

[rad doc]

Originally Posted by Lennon997

No....the GMT is the ultimate tool watch, or even a GMT2.

but the comex and the DRSD, for those who know like us, ughhhh :happy anim:: happyanim::happya nim:

Thats why I love the deep sea if you can wear it. Something awesome about a watch designed to commemorate such a ridiculous dive. Plus the knowledge that each and every piece is tested to depth equivalent of 16k ft!

[ASAP]

My only issue with the sea dweller is that it is farrrr to big. The Subs size is near perfect. The GMT also feels bigger although it is similar in size.

[1MOREMOD]

Deep sea is big sea dweller is not

[shay2nak]

IIRC same 40mm, but case is thicker. Plus the bezel has ticks at every min vs the sub. Sub looks cleaner & better sizing, IMHO.

[rad doc]

Originally Posted by shay2nak

IIRC same 40mm, but case is thicker. Plus the bezel has ticks at every min vs the sub. Sub looks cleaner & better sizing, IMHO.

No, current sub is 40. Sea dweller 43, deep sea 44. Better sizing is subjective, maybe if you have a small wrist/frame.

[1MOREMOD]

Oh didnt known sea dweller had grown mine was 40

[rad doc]

Originally Posted by 1MOREMOD

Oh didnt known sea dweller had grown mine was 40

Yeah definitely big by Rolex and classic watch standards. Not too big compared to many current brands like Hublot or Mille though totally depends on individual.

[1MOREMOD]

Have worn bigger but 40 is my sweet spot I think

[ryem3]

Originally Posted by rad doc

No, current sub is 40. Sea dweller 43, deep sea 44. Better sizing is subjective, maybe if you have a small wrist/frame.

Ah, the sea dweller has gone through an interesting evolution. The 116600 is smaller than the predecessor that also included the huge deep sea. It only lasted a couple years. The brand new model is also smaller. That's why I think the 116600 will be collectable. The private market is full of the deep sea and the Cameron version, I expect they are harder to wear than an AP offshore.

[rad doc]

Originally Posted by ryem3

Ah, the sea dweller has gone through an interesting evolution. The 116600 is smaller than the predecessor that also included the huge deep sea. It only lasted a couple years. The brand new model is also smaller. That's why I think the 116600 will be collectable. The private market is full of the deep sea and the Cameron version, I expect they are harder to wear than an AP offshore.

Why do you say the new model is smaller? The 126600 Its larger, 43 mm.

The deep sea is 44 and the new version, 126660 is very wearable to me more so than old deep sea. Never tried an ap offshore though for comparison.

[ryem3]

Originally Posted by rad doc

Why do you say the new model is smaller? The 126600 Its larger, 43 mm.

The deep sea is 44 and the new version, 126660 is very wearable to me more so than old deep sea. Never tried an ap offshore though for comparison.

Thanks for finding that, I was just checking. I was referring to the 116660, which is larger and wears larger. I thought the Cameron edition was even larger. I think people look at them and then reject them after trying to wear them. The 116600 drops in as a 2k at a nice size.

[New2Roundel]

Originally Posted by Maynard

Daytonas are way out of my league right now, but for me, any Rolex nowadays has the unwanted turn off of the d'bag popularity/bougie showoff image. No offense - I realize those on this forum aren't into them for that reason, but I hope some can relate to my conflict. I always wanted a Rolex, since they are obviously an icon and trailblazer in creating the kind of mechanical exemplar that I love, tool watches at the performance level of surgical gear or F1 machinery. But now they are popular with the wrong kind of people for the wrong reasons, and I cringe at the association (kind of like P-cars). I have to ask myself, would Steve McQueen or Paul Newman have used their contacts to get a Daytona today, or would they go with something as robust and underappreciated as the Daytona was in those days? Or am I just rationalizing my current love of Seiko?

There are plenty of undercover rolexes you can buy. Most people know gold datejusts and steel subs. No one would know what an exp I is or Milgauss for example. I have a polar explorer and no one has made mention of it or treated me in any unusual way when I'm wearing it. If you want a Daytona, go for it. It's just a regular chrono to most people.

And there's nothing wrong with seikos. I love my prospex SUN023.

[shay2nak]

Originally Posted by rad doc

No, current sub is 40. Sea dweller 43, deep sea 44. Better sizing is subjective, maybe if you have a small wrist/frame.

Originally Posted by ryem3

Ah, the sea dweller has gone through an interesting evolution. The 116600 is smaller than the predecessor that also included the huge deep sea. It only lasted a couple years. The brand new model is also smaller. That's why I think the 116600 will be collectable. The private market is full of the deep sea and the Cameron version, I expect they are harder to wear than an AP offshore.

yeah, it was 40mm.

This one
https://www.bobswatches.com/rolex-se...amic-40mm.html

[TSM330i]

I was able to procure a 1974 DRSD that is fully documented over the weekend from Germany, it'll arrive tomorrow.
The case looks unpolished, which is the exact way it's going to stay. The dial has a great yellow/pumpkin patina to the markers.
I can't wait!

If anyone is interested in a 1972 Rolex 1680 Red Sub or a 2011 Rolex Daytona White Dial SS Bezel that is BNIB, LMK.

[rad doc]

Originally Posted by TSM330i

I was able to procure a 1974 DRSD that is fully documented over the weekend from Germany, it'll arrive tomorrow.
The case looks unpolished, which is the exact way it's going to stay. The dial has a great yellow/pumpkin patina to the markers.
I can't wait!

If anyone is interested in a 1972 Rolex 1680 Red Sub or a 2011 Rolex Daytona White Dial SS Bezel that is BNIB, LMK.

gorgeous!