The Breitling Watch Source Forums

Mine is an "A" series (1999) with lug holes and is in great condition - is it BNIB - no - but it is remarkable for a 12 year old watch. I see many other "A" series-ish with nicks in the crystal, worn finish on the bezel or a gouge here and there. While I don't know enough to be a purist, it is far better than the "norm" I would say.



Myth/Reality #1: The Lume sucks on Rolex. My perspective from my previous foray into Rolex would be a Reality - Charge, Bright & Die all within an hour or so. However, this particular "new" one is outstanding - easy charge from normal wear (nothing artificial), bright and most important - very consistent through the night. When I get up at 3 or 4 in the morning for a drink of water or whatever, I can tell what time it is easily and without strain. Is it Seiko/Omega level - no, but again, much better than I expected and can actually use it in the dark after an hour. I don't know fellas, guess I got lucky with this one. Overall I split this one down the middle, but for my watch: Myth



Myth/Reality #2: The Bracelets suck on Rolex. this is a lightning rod on both sides of the aisle. Hollow center links, check. Lighweight, check. Shakes, check. Rattles, check. How in the hell can Rolex or any company stoop so low as to put this embarrassing piece of kit on this kind of watch?!? Answer: It's purpose built to be worn all day while doing something, even desk diving and as such not overweight and will last for as long as you own the watch. Retort: that's bull - I want a solid bracelet so I know my watch is there and I can "announce my presence with authority." It's the Capulets and the Montigues all over again. I fall into the camp of I want to notice my watch when I want to know what time it is. I wear it 24hrs/day so far and testify to it's comfort and freely admit I like the little shimy it does. for me: Myth



Myth/Reality #3: Rolex is Alpha Dog because of Status, Ethos, Mysticism. yeah, I get the Marketing has been superb at worst and extraordinary at best and created the "Best watch on the planet" perception. I think we all know better than that, but what is undeniable are Rolex innovations and contributions to WIS. Marketing aside, there is a legit history. The ExpII is the least Rolex of Rolex - not as ubiquitous as the Sub or as formal as a Daytona, but still a watch with in house mov't, solid brand history and still looks good with jeans. I like it because it flies under the Rolex Mysticism. Again, I'm splitting my vote. Average Joe: Reality, WIS: Myth



Thanks

Great post. I'm with you. That's an awesome watch.

myth # 4 - if i were my rolex i will get more action from the ladies. there is absolutely no truth to this.

bracelets are still junk, but have a new appreciation for rolex after selling so many of them over the last year, i sold 5 today alone. but i just wish they made a bracelet that was half as good as the breitlings.

Myth 1: Depends on the vintage. My old GMT with a "Swiss T" dial had virtually no lume, which bugged the heck out of me. The Yachtmaster I test-wore and may still buy had tons of lume, not as crisp or bright as my Breitlings but surprisingly much longer lasting.

Myth 2: Frankly, it's probably one of the reasons I bid adieu to my GMT and what keeps me from saving a few bucks and replacing it with a 40mm Explorer II now. It's one thing to put it on after my Breitling or my Breguet bracelets, but again, after the Yacht which has solid links, it just felt cheap. I don't associate cheap with Rolex, and there is a better way while still owning one.

Myth 3: I agree, but man, has there ever been a better marketing job done? I respect them in a way for that alone. You're right though, in that all that marketing would do no good if the watches weren't both good and durable. Plus, despite their prestige, I can get one privately overhauled in town, saving weeks and hundreds of dollars, as opposed to my JLC or the IWC I am still considering.

All told, the only thing I would change about your watch would be the bracelet links. Otherwise, a classic in its own right and if the public reaction on the 42mm is that it's too big or the orange GMT hand is too much, yours just went up in value. Enjoy.

_________________
Scott

AP Royal Oak 15400, silver
Zenith Chronomaster El Primero Classic Cars
Vintage gold Corum
Rolex DJ 36 TT, oyster dial, oyster/smooth
Baume & Mercier Riviera 200m, silver dial/aquamarine bezel
Breitling Superocean 57, rose/stainless

FEAR you dont even like the new sub c bracelets?? they are not as heavy duty as breitling but the new oyster bracelet with glide lock clasp for the sub c is a step up from breitling bracelets IMO

Thanks guys - the bracelet took time to get used to, but then grew to appreciate the differences. My Navitimer 7 row bracelet is still on the top of my list!
If we all agreed on everything or liked the same things the world would be boring.
Cheers!

Myth 1: My GMTIIc has a prett awesome lume. No myth here.

Myth 2: Old models have really bad bracelets. Comically bad. Lightweight or whatnot, its still junky. More of a "well at least its not heavy too!" than a "hey look how light it is!"

Myth 3: I never knew it until I owned one, but they really are tremendous watches. Really, really, excellent. Great movement, finish, quality, accuracy, and innovation. And the marketing is secong to none. Most people dont know a damn thing about watches, but they all know exactly what a Rolex is.

_________________
-RJ

its better, i like the glide lock on my dssd, but just that part of it, its still WAY to thin at the taper and flimsy for the most part.

Great post! I'm reading up as much as I can on the Explorer II. I think it will be my next pick up.

_________________
Rob
Breitling SO Steelfish, silver
Breitling SO Abyss, silver
Rolex Submariner, no date

Interesting post, and the only bit I have a totally different opinion on is (funnily enough!) the bracelet one -



The hideous, comedy bracelet was the reason I sold my Submariner LV after wanting one for years. I know they don't seem to fail, but the fact remains they are an anachronism from the 60's (or 70's or whenever). Either way it's a ancient design and just not in keeping with the change of technology or the advances made by other watch manufacturers. I always put Rolex's reluctance to change it down to two things - firstly, the conservative nature of the company and their customers (hell, the Rolex fanatics go bananas over a change of the order of the words on the dial, so a change of bracelet might've caused a few embolisms!). And secondly, I also put it down to Rolex's arrogance : a real "like it or lump it" attitude, which I think they are often guilty of. Fortunately I think the groundswell of people asking them to move with the times has finally paid off, as the new bracelets are amongst the best out there.

Just my opinion of course!

_________________
Driver8

Site Moderator