I'm still over the fact that they made a Dynamic with a square face.
Pardon me, but is this a 60's piece?
Most likely. I think Omega continued the Dynamic line into the 1970s but most of the models I see (esp. the ones that I like) were made in the '60s or earlier. The square face is a remarkable departure since the vast majority in the Dynamic line had either oval or circular faces.
can someone explainn to me what about a rolex watch is supposed to look so good?
I mean, if its all gold its one thing, but silver ones never stick out to me. I guess its probably because every other watch maker bit their design and made cheap watches, but i dunno.
can someone explainn to me what about a rolex watch is supposed to look so good?
I mean, if its all gold its one thing, but silver ones never stick out to me. I guess its probably because every other watch maker bit their design and made cheap watches, but i dunno. Do you guys just like lots of little dials and stuff? or is it the fact that its a "precision instrument"?
Like you need to know EXACTLY what time it is?
the special thing for me about my rolex are a couple of reasons. first of all it was a gift. also it's a limited edition, the combination of the color of the dial-plate and the roman numbers can not be found anymore. it's a fascinating piece of mechanics and precision. the watch "adjusts" to it's owner over the years, to your movements etc, and since it's automatic the precision gets better with time. in the beginning it might go off even as much as +/-20 secs a day, that fades over time.
concerning the all gold thing, to me that looks stupid, especially with rolex, if it's a thin watch like a glash??tte or a vacheron it's a different story, but watches like the sea dweller, or like mine look awful in yellow gold. the bezel on my watch is 24k white gold, it actually looks like silver. i don't wear a watch so it sticks out, and it's not really a fashion item for me.
precision is a big factor for me, also not needing a battery, and in general i like plain watches. the poljot on the right i bought because it was something different (with the russian stuff all over, and the history of those watches), it was cheap aswell.
p.s.: that cell pic, really does not make the rolex look nice, i've been wearing it constantily for 8 years now, i don't even take it off when i go to bed. it's not clean, so it looks a lil shabby. in real person it looks much better. also consider that a watch has to match the person wearing it. a big dude with a tiny watch or a superthin dude with a huge breitling, that shit looks way off
Comments
Sorry, but the Navitimer range sons all the Bentley range.
Pardon me, but is this a 60's piece?
Holy Shit. I had this and would never have thought of it if you had posted that pic. That took me back.
Most likely. I think Omega continued the Dynamic line into the 1970s but most of the models I see (esp. the ones that I like) were made in the '60s or earlier. The square face is a remarkable departure since the vast majority in the Dynamic line had either oval or circular faces.
COT DAMNNN!!!!
see.. it just looks kinda basic to me.
I just got one of those nixon rotolog ones. It looks cool.
the one on the left is tight.
can someone explainn to me what about a rolex watch is supposed to look so good?
I mean, if its all gold its one thing, but silver ones never stick out to me. I guess its probably because every other watch maker bit their design and made cheap watches, but i dunno.
Like you need to know EXACTLY what time it is?
first of all it was a gift. also it's a limited edition, the combination of the color of the dial-plate and the roman numbers can not be found anymore.
it's a fascinating piece of mechanics and precision. the watch "adjusts" to it's owner over the years, to your movements etc, and since it's automatic the precision gets better with time. in the beginning it might go off even as much as +/-20 secs a day, that fades over time.
concerning the all gold thing, to me that looks stupid, especially with rolex, if it's a thin watch like a glash??tte or a vacheron it's a different story, but watches like the sea dweller, or like mine look awful in yellow gold.
the bezel on my watch is 24k white gold, it actually looks like silver.
i don't wear a watch so it sticks out, and it's not really a fashion item for me.
precision is a big factor for me, also not needing a battery, and in general i like plain watches.
the poljot on the right i bought because it was something different (with the russian stuff all over, and the history of those watches), it was cheap aswell.
p.s.: that cell pic, really does not make the rolex look nice, i've been wearing it constantily for 8 years now, i don't even take it off when i go to bed.
it's not clean, so it looks a lil shabby. in real person it looks much better.
also consider that a watch has to match the person wearing it. a big dude with a tiny watch or a superthin dude with a huge breitling, that shit looks way off
peace
this one caught my attention recently:
Pelotero.
i've worn this for years and years and years though
Manny touched on something incredible right here:
Can't imagine dropping several thousand on a watch, though. Maybe if I was a true balleur?
Kindly,
parallax
Edit: why do some images render, and others don't?
http://www.soulstrut.com/index.php/forums/viewthread/65594/P0/
This was the last one copped.
I've been feeling these lately.
http://tauchmeisterwatches.com
That's a square case, not a square face.
Not sure what is so bugged about it? It was a fairly common aesthetic in the late sixties and through the seventies.
The Navitimer is classic, but that Bentley business is straight corn.
An amazing piece of watchmaking and engineering. Not that i'll ever be diving to 12,000 ft though...
It's alright, but doesn't really compare to a classic Carrera chrono
Recently found the matching bracelet for this ~1973 Constellation.