If I could only own one watch, it would probably be the 40mm Explorer II like LBD's.
-
-
Everyone raises valid points with much to think about.
[MENTION=13155]ryn[/MENTION] I thought your comment about first pondering why you're making the purchase in the first place is a good one. Kind of like know your game plan first before going in a throwing a lot of cash around. Well said, and admittedly something I haven't done. I more or less started thinking that I might be interested in purchasing a new watch and identified two that I liked. From there it was a quick posting here to chat about it and Bob's your uncle.
[MENTION=2341]LesserBlackDog[/MENTION] Your Explorer II is a beautiful watch and you identified many of the reasons why it's on my radar. The white face, the clean lines, the not 'in your face' Rolexness of it. All adds up to a nice watch. So much so that I have the Invicta homage to the Explorer II. Mind you it doesn't get a lot of wrist time these days as I've been favouring the Speedy.
[MENTION=14773]Token[/MENTION] Thanks for the history/information about the price differences.Comment
-
So a GMT-II? I mean bezels are slightly different but if you went with the old metal bezel GMT you could buy a Sub bezel and add it to the GMT. A bastard but sounds like it would fit you bill.Originally posted by devastitis View PostComment
-
There are rumors floating around that Rolex may update the Explorer II to feature a black ceramic bezel, similar to the new steel Daytonas, at Basel World. That would kind of wreck the Explorer II aesthetic in my opinion (the steel bezel is one of the design elements that distinguishes the Explorer II from Rolex's other sports watches) but it would make the watch closer to what [MENTION=11797]devastitis[/MENTION] seems to be looking for.
I expect the Explorer II bezel would remain fixed (non-rotating) even if this update were made, as it is on the Daytona.BenComment
-
The first watch I ever really wanted was an Omega, before I had a lick of a chance in getting one. Now, I own one of each, a modern Rolex and a 'vintage'/used Omega, among others. From watch shopping over the last few years, I found that I like some Omegas, but Rolex is a superior built watch IMO. Whether it's worth the price is a different question. Personal tastes really have to play in, as well as questioning whether you'll appreciate the differences (e.g., whether you spend the extra to get the Rolex, was it worth it, or whether you'll know you settled due to the price difference, if that's how your decision is made to get the Omega).
For me, Omegas generally don't have the same feel as Rolexes... to me, they seem less serious than a Rolex for the most part. Maybe this is due to marketing, maybe due to the color schemes, maybe something else. In particular, I am not a huge fan of the font used for the numbers on most of the Omega sports watches; however, their new lines of 300 and POs are a significant upgrade to older versions in my eye, in that respect at least. I'm not sure whether I'll ever feel the need to purchase an Omega Seamaster, since I own a Speedy and a Rolex dive watch so it would overlap those in various ways. YMMV of course.Comment
-
It's kind of apples to oranges if you aren't talking about a Seamaster GMT.
With that being said, you should buy my Planet Ocean
Comment
-
Interesting that you think so, at least about the PO. I find the current gen POs to be utterly charmless. Way too chunky, way too shiny, and devoid of the vintage-inspired design elements that gave the original PO its character. IMO the PO has been on a downward design spiral since the introduction of the 8500 movement. I wanted really badly to like the new 39.5mm version but it just does nothing for me.Originally posted by hornsup84 View PostBenComment
-
I guess my thought is that if I want the vintage-inspired, I'd prefer to go for the vintage versions itself (vintage Omega are interesting to me). The new ones at least attempted to breathe some life in a line that I personally didn't find attractive. Much in the way that Tudor does (vs. Rolex), Omega has more of an ability--or rather isn't as stuck in their traditional/heritage as Rolex seems to be--that it can make those types of moves. Query whether it's an attempt to keep up against other competition in their pricing range that does similar things.Originally posted by LesserBlackDog View PostComment
-
Re: the 39.5mm version - I never ever liked the big POs (small wrists here), but the new 39.5mm comes off as more elegant IMO vs. chunky/sportyOriginally posted by LesserBlackDog View Post
Comment
-
That actually looks really nice. I'll have to check them out when I swing by Tysons.Originally posted by ajs116 View PostRe: the 39.5mm version - I never ever liked the big POs (small wrists here), but the new 39.5mm comes off as more elegant IMO vs. chunky/sporty
Comment
-
I recently had the same dilemma and decided to go for the new Seamaster Diver 300m Co-Axial (Blue). I absolutely love it and my watch itch is scratched for now. Next year I will look at a Submariner or the like from Rolex. I think your question really depends on your collection and lifestyle. I have wanted this watch since I saw Goldeneye when i was teenager so it really was only a question of when not if.Comment
-
I first stumbled onto the Seamaster by chance. I was looking at CW Tridents because I really liked the waved dial. However, there were other aspects of that watch that I didn't love. So I kept searching. That led me to slightly older SMP300s, which still had the wavey dials. The watch ticked all the boxes for what I was looking for and didn't have any of the shortcomings that the CW had, so I went with it. I am disappointed that Omega did away with the textured dial on the current models though. They have a bit less character now, in my opinion. I've owned mine for just about a year now and I don't think a day goes by that I don't check the time and think that it's a great looking timepiece.
Although, I will add that that PO posted above looks pretty awesome.
Comment
-
I'm not big into watches, so read my take with that in mind. I have an Explorer II, and it is the perfect watch for me, in part because I'm not a huge watch guy. It is fancy enough to wear to the most formal occasion and it is also classic enough to wear with a t-shirt and jeans (as I am doing right now), so it is the only watch I currently own. I paid the Rolex premium because I intend to pass it down through generations, and also because Rolex is one of the few brands with that level of cache.
This is the one i have:
Comment
-
Damn you guys and your nice looking Rolex watches! Now I'll have to pop by the high end watch repair store here on my way back from lunch and see if he has anything worthwhile up for sale...Comment
Comment