Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 63

Thread: Rolex Explorer II or Omega Seamaster?

  1. #41
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    DC
    Posts
    45
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Quoted
    20 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DocDave View Post
    @SvB_Esq can you elaborate a bit? The winder on which watch? And how is it a pain?
    The Rolex Explorer II has a self-winding mechanical movement, which means that, while you can wind it manually, it also "winds" itself through the movement of your wrist. As long as the watch is worn regularly, it will maintain power without requiring manual winding. However, if you don't wear it every day or every few days at least, it will stop. I don't wear mine every single day, so to keep the watch from dying, I generally keep it on a watch winder, which just spins it around slowly. This means that I have to put it on the winder pretty much all the time when I'm not wearing it, which is more hassle than say, just laying it on my nightstand. If I do just leave it on my nightstand, or if I take it off in the kitchen or wherever, it will eventually stop and need to be reset and manually wound.

    I can't find a picture of the exact winder I have, but this is pretty close:
    Last edited by SvB_Esq; March 21st, 2017 at 11:36 AM.

  2. #42
    Varsity Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    MA
    Posts
    944
    Mentioned
    64 Post(s)
    Quoted
    328 Post(s)
    @SvB_Esq So I guess you're not a huge fan of automatic watches then? I have a handful of them and don't try to keep them all wound and ready to go at any given moment. In my experience watch winders aren't worth it but to each his own I guess.

  3. #43
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    DC
    Posts
    45
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Quoted
    20 Post(s)
    @Rawfull Well I guess I'm sort of stuck in the middle. I have the winder and use it 95% of the time. But I find resetting the watch to be a hassle the other 5%. But that still isn't enough for me to use the winder 100% of the time. If I were more disciplined (or if my house has less floors), it wouldn't be an issue. As I noted above, I like the watch a lot though.

  4. #44
    Super Moderator DocDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    The Great White North
    Posts
    3,841
    Mentioned
    216 Post(s)
    Quoted
    1465 Post(s)
    @SvB_Esq thanks for the explanation. Much appreciated.

  5. #45
    Varsity Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,219
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Quoted
    207 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by SvB_Esq View Post
    @Rawfull Well I guess I'm sort of stuck in the middle. I have the winder and use it 95% of the time. But I find resetting the watch to be a hassle the other 5%. But that still isn't enough for me to use the winder 100% of the time. If I were more disciplined (or if my house has less floors), it wouldn't be an issue. As I noted above, I like the watch a lot though.
    I know this feeling well. I don't own any automatic watches for this reason. I have a Seiko kinetic that keeps its battery charged the same way,and I wear it much less since getting new watches that I prefer. However, having to set it every time I put it on my wrist now drives me to wear it even less, (like, almost never). And it has a day-date complication, which makes it even more annoying. I do sort of have the itch for an automatic or mechanical watch, but if I do get one, I'll probably go with a reasonably priced one, in case I find that I am ultimately still not a fan.

  6. #46
    Super Moderator LesserBlackDog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    5,550
    Mentioned
    430 Post(s)
    Quoted
    2083 Post(s)
    I'm not a fan of most of Omega's current lineup but those '57 LEs from Baselworld



    All 38-39mm....
    Ben

  7. #47
    Super Moderator hornsup84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    2,672
    Mentioned
    200 Post(s)
    Quoted
    970 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by LesserBlackDog View Post
    I'm not a fan of most of Omega's current lineup but those '57 LEs from Baselworld

    All 38-39mm....
    I wonder how long the faux-vintage trend will last, but I respect that Omega didn't oversize these. Quite unlike Rolex with its new red text (yaaass), 43mm (nooooooo), cyclops-ed (noooooo) SeaDweller.

  8. #48
    Super Moderator LesserBlackDog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    5,550
    Mentioned
    430 Post(s)
    Quoted
    2083 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by hornsup84 View Post
    I wonder how long the faux-vintage trend will last, but I respect that Omega didn't oversize these. Quite unlike Rolex with its new red text (yaaass), 43mm (nooooooo), cyclops-ed (noooooo) SeaDweller.
    My main quibble with the '57 Trilogy (as I guess they're being called) is the faux patina lume. I'd prefer crisp white lume. But I suppose you can't have everything in life.

    Really like the new Speedmaster Racing Master Chronometers as well, but at 44mm they are not in my purchasing future.

    I'm pretty underwhelmed with Rolex and Tudor's Baselworld offerings. No big deal for me on the Rolex end since Rolex is pretty well known for the glacial pace of its design updates and new releases (and after all the new Rollies I've bought recently I would probably be more than a bit upset with myself if they had released a new must-have). But I am a little disappointed to see Tudor just throwing out a bunch of (not particularly interesting) Black Bay variations.

    The SeaDweller has never been on my lust list so I don't have strong feelings about the new model, but I was surprised to see that they bumped up the size and added the cyclops. Seems like Rolex has done a reasonably good job resisting the oversized watch trend and is arguably ahead of the curve now that the oversized trend is fading and smaller watches are coming back into style. So the upsize feels like a step backward IMO. The cyclops is just a baffling design choice, since it seems to me that most people who pick the SD over the Sub do so because they want a date but no cyclops.
    Ben

  9. #49
    Super Moderator hornsup84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    2,672
    Mentioned
    200 Post(s)
    Quoted
    970 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by LesserBlackDog View Post
    My main quibble with the '57 Trilogy (as I guess they're being called) is the faux patina lume. I'd prefer crisp white lume. But I suppose you can't have everything in life.

    Really like the new Speedmaster Racing Master Chronometers as well, but at 44mm they are not in my purchasing future.

    I'm pretty underwhelmed with Rolex and Tudor's Baselworld offerings. No big deal for me on the Rolex end since Rolex is pretty well known for the glacial pace of its design updates and new releases (and after all the new Rollies I've bought recently I would probably be more than a bit upset with myself if they had released a new must-have). But I am a little disappointed to see Tudor just throwing out a bunch of (not particularly interesting) Black Bay variations.

    The SeaDweller has never been on my lust list so I don't have strong feelings about the new model, but I was surprised to see that they bumped up the size and added the cyclops. Seems like Rolex has done a reasonably good job resisting the oversized watch trend and is arguably ahead of the curve now that the oversized trend is fading and smaller watches are coming back into style. So the upsize feels like a step backward IMO. The cyclops is just a baffling design choice, since it seems to me that most people who pick the SD over the Sub do so because they want a date but no cyclops.
    Racing Chrono does look neat. I'm also not a huge fake patina fan--if you want patina, get a vintage watch that will actually develop more over time. Buying a brand new watch that looks like patina but isn't actually patina doesn't seem like the right answer IMO. I do like the looks of the '57 lineup (as well as the previous 300 line, particularly the blue).

    As an SD4k owner, I don't get the move by Rolex. If you want to upsize the SD, fine (but why tho), but why not split the Sub (40mm) and DSSD (44mm) at 42mm? The red text is cool, but addition of the upsized cyclops--while getting rid of the regular sized, no cyclops SD as opposed to just adding this new version--seems like a mistake unless you're going to add another reasonable-sized no-cyclops bezeled sports watch to your lineup. My main two reasons for getting an SD instead of a Sub was the better proportioned case (i.e., non-fat lugs) and no cyclops, which balanced out the thicker case. The 43mm takes the SD out of the territory where you can really wear it with anything but casual attire (if you subscribe, as I do, to permitting Subs/SDs with office attire). Long story short, I'm glad I have my SD4k and can't imagine 'upgrading' to the new one.

  10. #50
    Super Moderator LesserBlackDog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    5,550
    Mentioned
    430 Post(s)
    Quoted
    2083 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by hornsup84 View Post
    Racing Chrono does look neat. I'm also not a huge fake patina fan--if you want patina, get a vintage watch that will actually develop more over time. Buying a brand new watch that looks like patina but isn't actually patina doesn't seem like the right answer IMO. I do like the looks of the '57 lineup (as well as the previous 300 line, particularly the blue).

    As an SD4k owner, I don't get the move by Rolex. If you want to upsize the SD, fine (but why tho), but why not split the Sub (40mm) and DSSD (44mm) at 42mm? The red text is cool, but addition of the upsized cyclops--while getting rid of the regular sized, no cyclops SD as opposed to just adding this new version--seems like a mistake unless you're going to add another reasonable-sized no-cyclops bezeled sports watch to your lineup. My main two reasons for getting an SD instead of a Sub was the better proportioned case (i.e., non-fat lugs) and no cyclops, which balanced out the thicker case. The 43mm takes the SD out of the territory where you can really wear it with anything but casual attire (if you subscribe, as I do, to permitting Subs/SDs with office attire). Long story short, I'm glad I have my SD4k and can't imagine 'upgrading' to the new one.
    Someone over on WUS just commented that they think the new SD is not so much an "update" to the SD as it is Rolex's answer to those who have been wanting Rolex to update the Sub to respond to the oversized watch trend. You get the traditional Rolex diver style, the signature Rolex-y cyclops, the oversized 43mm case, the comical amount of WR that no one who buys a modern Rolex will ever actually use, all without touching the existing Submariner lineup.

    Kind of depressing if true, and seems to be a break with Rolex's steadfast (and IMO, rather admirable, if occasionally irritating) refusal to be "reactionary" to market trends in terms of design choices.

    O well... like I said, the SD was never really on my radar of watches to buy so it doesn't affect me either way.
    Ben

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •