Most Classic Rolex

Which Prole-X


  • Total voters
    15

doghouse

King Of The Elite Idiots
Messages
12,388
Which Rolex should doghouse get to interact with Basic White Motherfuckers™

Keep in mind he doesn't really like Rolexs.
 
Which Rolex should doghouse get to interact with Basic White Motherfuckers™

Keep in mind he doesn't really like Rolexs.

Why you no consider Sea Dweller if you want it the bezel? Igents & Basic White Motherfuckers™ never consider it because they want it the sub sub sub.

Worry too much about the added weight & thickness (2mm) and how they think it wears giant for the wrist

Imbeciles
 
Why you no consider Sea Dweller if you want it the bezel? Igents & Basic White Motherfuckers™ never consider it because they want it the sub sub sub.

Worry too much about the added weight & thickness (2mm) and how they think it wears giant for the wrist

Imbeciles

jajajajajajaajaja

I like super thick (that's what she said) PO 600M, so 2mm is no issue.

I do like the colors on the batman GMT II though.
 
Y' gotsta get a 'lex dat dey understandz, somefin komman: So a Sub, GMT or 'tona iz da rite choyse.
 
Most excellent choice. I have a legitimate fear of opening the wormhole of vintage watch collecting though.

Whilst vintage watches can be charming, and a conversation piece for the knowledgable, I think you should buy new, you're getting a better watch. A new Sub is better than a 20 year old one in every way.
 
Whilst vintage watches can be charming, and a conversation piece for the knowledgable, I think you should buy new, you're getting a better watch. A new Sub is better than a 20 year old one in every way.

Oh, I'm not buying an old one. I'm probably nokt buying a new one. This is just all a thought exercise.

Anyway, I'm speaking to my personality. If I started down the vintage rabbit hole, I'd be on a tear for months.
 
Whilst vintage watches can be charming, and a conversation piece for the knowledgable, I think you should buy new, you're getting a better watch. A new Sub is better than a 20 year old one in every way.
Except it is much more bloated!

Even if the case diameter is ostensibly the same (40mm), everything about the most recent iteration is bigger than before: from the thickness of the lugs to the markers on the dial. . . If you have an affinity to the classic proportions of the Submariner, and you also happen to like minimalistic aesthetic of the no-date, two-liner version, yet still want a relatively modern watch, an early example of 14060m may well be the way to go. They are also significantly cheaper than both vintage and new.

At any rate, there is no reason to buy vintage Rolex unless you fap about the rattly loose bracelets and the visual distortions caused by a tophat or domed plastic crystal. And what a singular pleasure that is!
 
You can vote for an Explorer II, but not the original Explorer I, what mischief is this?

Vintage Explorer I, 36mm. Ian Flemings choice.

GMT with Pepsi bezel.
 
Pepsi, coke or batman (in that order) GMT all the way. Otherwise, no date black sub.

However, most high rollers have replaced the Lex with a $500 fitness watch to show off both their non-existant athleticism and non-existent tech savviness.
 
Last edited:
Except it is much more bloated!

Even if the case diameter is ostensibly the same (40mm), everything about the most recent iteration is bigger than before: from the thickness of the lugs to the markers on the dial. . . If you have an affinity to the classic proportions of the Submariner, and you also happen to like minimalistic aesthetic of the no-date, two-liner version, yet still want a relatively modern watch, an early example of 14060m may well be the way to go. They are also significantly cheaper than both vintage and new.

At any rate, there is no reason to buy vintage Rolex unless you fap about the rattly loose bracelets and the visual distortions caused by a tophat or domed plastic crystal. And what a singular pleasure that is!

Well, the Sub was an example, I could have used any modern Rolex. However, sticking with the Sub, its uses a ceramic bezel as does the GMT, which is much better than the original, the movements are better, the bracelets are better. Modern manufacturing and quality control is better. Technically, its a better watch in every way.

Now aesthetically...

The phenomenon of vintage Rolex's is interesting, for one, it goes against the Rolex ethos of evolution, the continual improvement of their watch line from a technical perspective...
 
You can vote for an Explorer II, but not the original Explorer I, what mischief is this?

Vintage Explorer I, 36mm. Ian Flemings choice.

GMT with Pepsi bezel.

Can't get my head around the Explorer II, if you want a GMT function, buy the GMT. The GMT like the Sub however, are hard to get hold of in the UK. The Daytona...forget it they'll just laugh...
 
The phenomenon of vintage Rolex's is interesting, for one, it goes against the Rolex ethos of evolution, the continual improvement of their watch line from a technical perspective...

Not quite, one version of the Explorer in particular has a subpar movement (now rectified), but finely tuned by computer aided technology to give prime chronometer performance:

http://www.timezone.com/2002/09/16/the-rolex-explorer-ref-14270-part-1/

http://www.timezone.com/2002/09/16/the-rolex-explorer-ref-14270-part-2/

Can't get my head around the Explorer II, if you want a GMT function, buy the GMT. The GMT like the Sub however, are hard to get hold of in the UK. The Daytona...forget it they'll just laugh...

The Daytona is mystery to me, it doesn't strike me as anything better than similar chronographs that Tudor were doing in the 2000's. It's been around a long time mind you and Miles Davis use to sport one in the late 60s/early 70s. Two ex-colleagues had them, but I noticed after a couple of years the cases were really scratched and they both got rid. The Daytona just isn't as iconic as other Rolex's.
 
Can't get my head around the Explorer II, if you want a GMT function, buy the GMT. The GMT like the Sub however, are hard to get hold of in the UK. The Daytona...forget it they'll just laugh...

That's easy man. All watches should be GMT watches. The Explorer II just gives a little different aesthetic than the GMT Master.

But seriously though. I see no point in the Daytona.
 
Not quite, one version of the Explorer in particular has a subpar movement (now rectified), but finely tuned by computer aided technology to give prime chronometer performance:

http://www.timezone.com/2002/09/16/the-rolex-explorer-ref-14270-part-1/

http://www.timezone.com/2002/09/16/the-rolex-explorer-ref-14270-part-2/

Well, from a strictly engineering point of view, if the watch keeps good time, and is reliable all those omitted machining operations mentioned don't add anything to the watch from a timekeeping perspective you could justify leaving those operations out. Plus nobody, except a watchmaker will ever remove the caseback and view the movement. (Its worth noting how the watchmaker notices the high quality finish of the external parts of the watch, those most visible.)

However, given the cost of Rolex you could argue, and perhaps correctly, that the customer should expect a level of movement finishing commensurate with the price, holes correctly de-burred, no swarf left in the movement (which I find odd from a handling pint of view) &c.

Also, we shouldn't forget that Rolex are mass produced watches, they are not haute horology. You are, it has to be said, paying a hefty premium for the name.


The Daytona is mystery to me, it doesn't strike me as anything better than similar chronographs that Tudor were doing in the 2000's. It's been around a long time mind you and Miles Davis use to sport one in the late 60s/early 70s. Two ex-colleagues had them, but I noticed after a couple of years the cases were really scratched and they both got rid. The Daytona just isn't as iconic as other Rolex's.

Its the Paul Newman connection. You cannot get hold of SS Daytona's in the UK... I don't think Rolex are throttling supply, I just think they can't keep up with demand.
 
That's easy man. All watches should be GMT watches. The Explorer II just gives a little different aesthetic than the GMT Master.

But seriously though. I see no point in the Daytona.

Its too small, the face is cluttered. As I've said, I can take or leave chronographs with a couple of exceptions JLC and a few El Primeros...that's it.

I'm not a massive fan of complications in general, even though I appreciate what goes into them from an engineering perspective, they invalidate some of my personal engineering/aesthetic principles (which are not absolutes I may add).

VC ref: 57260
800x-1.jpg
 
Its too small, the face is cluttered. As I've said, I can take or leave chronographs with a couple of exceptions JLC and a few El Primeros...that's it.

I'm not a massive fan of complications in general, even though I appreciate what goes into them from an engineering perspective, they invalidate some of my personal engineering/aesthetic principles (which are not absolutes I may add).

VC ref: 57260
800x-1.jpg

Those VC pocket watches are engineering marvels, but what would you do with them besides put them in a case on the shelf???
 
Also, we shouldn't forget that Rolex are mass produced watches, they are not haute horology. You are, it has to be said, paying a hefty premium for the name.

I think it's the cases with Rolex, the Oyster etc, which are design classics par excellence.

Its the Paul Newman connection. You cannot get hold of SS Daytona's in the UK... I don't think Rolex are throttling supply, I just think they can't keep up with demand.

It's the Rolex business model at work here: a watch seller with a Rolex concession can't say I will just take a half a dozen each of Submariners, GMT's and Daytona's. My understanding is that they have to take what is allotted to them (i.e. the complete range) by Rolex and after a year or so, if they haven't sold them, they have to buy them from Rolex anyway. The individual watch seller may have a waiting list for Daytona's, but from Rolex's perspective they are keeping up with demand.
 
Those VC pocket watches are engineering marvels, but what would you do with them besides put them in a case on the shelf???

Well, you'd need bloody big pockets (in more ways than one) and the thing [weighs] close to a metric tonne. So, that's all you are going to be able to do with it...

I'd like to see though, the customer in anonymous however...
 
Last edited:
I think it's the cases with Rolex, the Oyster etc, which are design classics par excellence.



It's the Rolex business model at work here: a watch seller with a Rolex concession can't say I will just take a half a dozen each of Submariners, GMT's and Daytona's. My understanding is that they have to take what is allotted to them (i.e. the complete range) by Rolex and after a year or so, if they haven't sold them, they have to buy them from Rolex anyway. The individual watch seller may have a waiting list for Daytona's, but from Rolex's perspective they are keeping up with demand.

Yes, they have [monthly] consignments, and sometimes, you drop lucky and they've just received, that day, the watch you are after. That happened to me with the green sub, even though at the time I was after a Milgauss.
 
Last edited:
http://www.timezone.com/2002/09/16/the-rolex-explorer-ref-14270-part-1/

http://www.timezone.com/2002/09/16/the-rolex-explorer-ref-14270-part-2/

Well, from a strictly engineering point of view, if the watch keeps good time, and is reliable all those omitted machining operations mentioned don't add anything to the watch from a timekeeping perspective you could justify leaving those operations out. Plus nobody, except a watchmaker will ever remove the caseback and view the movement. (Its worth noting how the watchmaker notices the high quality finish of the external parts of the watch, those most visible.)

However, given the cost of Rolex you could argue, and perhaps correctly, that the customer should expect a level of movement finishing commensurate with the price, holes correctly de-burred, no swarf left in the movement (which I find odd from a handling pint of view) &c.

Also, we shouldn't forget that Rolex are mass produced watches, they are not haute horology. You are, it has to be said, paying a hefty premium for the name.




Its the Paul Newman connection. You cannot get hold of SS Daytona's in the UK... I don't think Rolex are throttling supply, I just think they can't keep up with demand.

Are service costs more expensive for a vintage lex?
 
I think it's the cases with Rolex, the Oyster etc, which are design classics par excellence.

Other than the mass idiocy of casual watch wearers, this is my number one gripe with Rolex over the years and why I've never really been into spending the coin on one. I really don't like their cases at all. Omega makes a far superior case shape.
 
Other than the mass idiocy of casual watch wearers, this is my number one gripe with Rolex over the years and why I've never really been into spending the coin on one. I really don't like their cases at all. Omega makes a far superior case shape.

It doesn't bother me one iota what the 'mass opinion' is, if I like something, and can afford it, I buy it.

If aesthetically, its not your thing...that's another matter.
 
That's because you aren't a born contrarian like me.

I [strongly] suspect, given the tenor of your posts on this matter that you are concerned with the Rolex image perceived or otherwise.

If you have an interest in watches you will have to deal with the Rolex issue. It is, as one watch commentator rather niftily put it: as like visiting Paris and trying to avoid the Eiffel Tower. This big thing is just THERE, and has to be dealt with...

GMT Master Deux - Noir et Bleu. Its your Eiffel Tower.

'...that's a nice watch you've got there Mr Dawg - Yeah, its not my grail watch, it my Eiffel Tower watch, it has great wrist presence, and its the one watch, in my one watch collection that gets the most wrist action (besides my vintage collection of Playboy magazines). I think I'll tire of it quite quickly though,and flip it for a Special Edition Omega Snoopy/Woodstock/Fifi/Red Baron - Man on the dark side of the Moon...that's my grail...'

...or something like that, or perhaps not...
 

'...that's a nice watch you've got there Mr Dawg - Yeah, its not my grail watch, it my Eiffel Tower watch, it has great wrist presence, and its the one watch, in my one watch collection that gets the most wrist action (besides my vintage collection of Playboy magazines). I think I'll tire of it quite quickly though,and flip it for a Special Edition Omega Snoopy/Woodstock/Fifi/Red Baron - Man on the dark side of the Moon...that's my grail...'

...or something like that, or perhaps not...

Masterful work there. I am going to use this verbatim at some point.
 
Are service costs more expensive for a vintage lex?
Not necessarily.

Rolex service centers basically refuse service on certain vintage models (I think sending it to Geneva is always an option. . .). Otherwise, they are more interested in bringing everything up-to-date and to the highest degree of functionality (which is probably something you would like to avoid at all costs, since most vintage Rolexes are reduced to scrap once the original dial and hands are changed. Sometimes even the original bezel ring can run thousands of dollars on its own). Without even considering the loss of value, this jacks up the service costs immensely due to inflated replacement parts (think $1-1.5k and up). To top it off, they do all these replacement on an exchange basis. Which means that they also want to keep original parts, or they either refuse or charge you even more.

Yet now that you are in LA (or soon to be), you can get your vintage watches serviced by ABC Watchwerks at half the price of the official Rolex service (circa $500). The quality of service is ostensibly better, and they take utmost care in preserving the watch's vintage condition.
 
Last edited:
Not necessarily.

Rolex service centers basically refuse service on certain vintage models (I think sending it to Geneva is always an option. . .). Otherwise, they are more interested in bringing everything up-to-date and to the highest degree of functionality (which is probably something you would like to avoid at all costs, since most vintage Rolexes are reduced to scrap once the original dial and hands are changed). Without even considering the loss of value, this jacks up the service costs immensely (think $1-1.5k and up).

Yet now that you are in LA (or soon to be), you can get your vintage watches serviced by ABC Watchwerks at half the price of the official Rolex service (circa $500). The quality of service is ostensibly better, and they take utmost care in preserving the watch's vintage condition.

Theseus's paradox.
 
well, the SD is very popular among the twats on sf, ymmv. actually, its not as popular as the batman, which is fugly, but not as fugly as the mil and/or the ex II while we talk.

Why you no consider Sea Dweller if you want it the bezel? Igents & Basic White Motherfuckers™ never consider it because they want it the sub sub sub.

Worry too much about the added weight & thickness (2mm) and how they think it wears giant for the wrist

Imbeciles
 
Last edited:
Not necessarily.

Rolex service centers basically refuse service on certain vintage models (I think sending it to Geneva is always an option. . .). Otherwise, they are more interested in bringing everything up-to-date and to the highest degree of functionality (which is probably something you would like to avoid at all costs, since most vintage Rolexes are reduced to scrap once the original dial and hands are changed). Without even considering the loss of value, this jacks up the service costs immensely (think $1-1.5k and up).

Yet now that you are in LA (or soon to be), you can get your vintage watches serviced by ABC Watchwerks at half the price of the official Rolex service (circa $500). The quality of service is ostensibly better, and they take utmost care in preserving the watch's vintage condition.

My understanding is that Rolex will always service a vintage watch?

You should always stipulate whether you want just a service or a refurbishment. In the latter case, they will basically give you a new watch with all worn parts and those with patinas replaced with new. This will reduce the value of a vintage watch to the market, albeit you will likely have a watch that keeps better time and looks newer.
 
My understanding is that Rolex will always service a vintage watch?

You should always stipulate whether you want just a service or a refurbishment. In the latter case, they will basically give you a new watch with all worn parts and those with patinas replaced with new. This will reduce the value of a vintage watch to the market, albeit you will likely have a watch that keeps better time and looks newer.

I also think they charge more for servicing vintage watches. I would look at a an accredited independent to service a vintage Rolex, easier to deal with for specifics, you may be able to chat to the watchmaker who is actually doing the job.

Rolex have increased their service schedule to 10 years.
 
I also think they charge more for servicing vintage watches. I would look at a an accredited independent to service a vintage Rolex, easier to deal with for specifics, you may be able to chat to the watchmaker who is actually doing the job.

Rolex have increased their service schedule to 10 years.

Vintage watches in general need servicing more often. Also having your watch serviced at the official dealer will ensure a better selling price, so always keep the receipt. A recent Rolex service will add value, a lot more than some local artisan horologist who when it comes to the international market counts for nought.

The cache for Rolex and several other luxury watch makers is that they will always service a vintage watch. That's a big selling point when you're buying a watch to hand over to the next generation. You can always get it serviced, officially.

I read somewhere recently where someone sent a vintage Grand Seiko from 1964 back to Seiko for a service and they were told that one of the springs was no longer available. They eventually did service and replace it, but only after being shamed. Of course, the new Grand Seiko quartz only need servicing every 50 years or so. But they might need repairing in that time.
 
Vintage watches in general need servicing more often.

Material science has come a long way. You can get away with longer service intervals in basically any modern mechanical device compared to days past. Watches are no exception. Lubricants in particular have really evolved in the past decade.
 
well, the SD is very popular among the twats on sf, ymmv. actually, its not as popular as the batman, which is fugly, but not as fugly as the mil and/or the ex II while we talk.

Was unaware of the SD popularity on SF. Don't read the watch threads.

Explorer II make for a nice lady watch although I knew a bunch of South African surgeons who sported them
 
Explorer II make for a nice lady watch although I knew a bunch of South African surgeons who sported them

They really like their luxury watches down there. I notice when my colleagues come up on a business trip, they don`t just arrive with one decent watch for the trip, but two which they interchange for different situations. And not just decent watches, I mean high cost luxury ones.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom