boogiebot wrote:
nr123 wrote:
I only held one Rolex, but never liked the cheap feel to it's weight - are they still like that?
im no rolex expert but the subc, GMT IIc, Exp 2 42mm, YM 2 and Daytona are FAR FROM CHEAP! i use to hate rolex mostly because i thought it was a watch for people that just wanted the name. but then i came to realize that it really is a benchmark of excellence. I own a Subc and trust me it is the best watch of the 4 that i have. my other pieces include a corum adrmirals cup 44 chrono, A chronomat evo and a B4B Bentely GT ice. None of them come close to the Rolex
nr123 probably held and older model with hollow center links. I agree with him. They used to feel cheap and rattled too much for such an expensive watch. I finally was able to justify a Rolex Sub C because all the things I disliked about them were rectified such as the hollow center links, the chinsy clasp, the small wrist presence, and the weight.
The one area were Rolex still lags, and Sergio makes fun of me for harping on this, is the lack of AR on their crystals. I've been e-mailing around to see if it can be done well after market.
As far as being the "best" watch I own, as boogiebot said, I, personally, wouldn't go that far. My Motors T,Mark VI, PO, etc are in the same league. The funny thing is though, if I compare the PO to the SubC, the PO seems to have many nicer features. The PO in far more legible due the the contrast of the matte dial vs polished indices and AR coating, it is much nicer looking from the profile than the boring slab of the Sub profile, etc etc . Once it's on my wrist, though, I think the SubC looks better. I guess it all comes together aesthetically on a macro level.
Login
Register
FAQ
