ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Welshwatchman · 9 April 2007, 04:11 AM

(Sorry for the other post - forgot to poll)

Rolex stuns the watchworld and the vintage Rolex market with reissues of the above watches, where necessary with very minor movement adjustments and features, otherwise original.

Reasonable availability (slightly better than SS Daytona) and cost prices higher than the "modern" equivalent :

How would you feel? Which one would you buy?

JJ Irani · 9 April 2007, 05:12 AM

Never was into vintage stuff, so I had to vote for wouldn't buy any of them.

JJ

Prince · 9 April 2007, 05:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JJ Irani

...I had to vote for wouldn't buy any of them.

JJ

Agreed! Not for me either!

Rockrolex · 9 April 2007, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JJ Irani

Never was into vintage stuff, so I had to vote for wouldn't buy any of them.

JJ

X2. Not really into vintage for vintage sake. I have a couple that might be called vintage because they're over 20 years old, but they're still manufactured so that probably doesn't count as vintage.

JJ Irani · 9 April 2007, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rockrolex

X2. Not really into vintage for vintage sake. I have a couple that might be called vintage because they're over 20 years old, but they're still manufactured so that probably doesn't count as vintage.

That's funny, Ed. You and I are both vintage stuff, but still don't like vintage watches!!

Alex Stylianou · 9 April 2007, 05:16 AM

Take Your Meds

oldman2005 · 9 April 2007, 05:31 AM

Rolex changes little over the year, a modern Sub/GMT/... look pretty much the same as an vintage one to untrained eyes, personally I don't there's a need.

Prince · 9 April 2007, 05:32 AM

LMAO - who voted for "You should have remembered to take your medication"???

Welshwatchman · 9 April 2007, 05:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prince

LMAO - who voted for "You should have remembered to take your medication"???

That would be my Shrink.

Prince · 9 April 2007, 05:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Welshwatchman

That would be my Shrink.

LOL

JJ Irani · 9 April 2007, 05:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Welshwatchman

That would be my Shrink.

Alcan · 9 April 2007, 06:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prince

LMAO - who voted for "You should have remembered to take your medication"???

You rang?

:o)

Prince · 9 April 2007, 06:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alcan

You rang?

:o)

You're Paul's shrink, Al???

mrbieler · 9 April 2007, 06:04 AM

At those prices, I'd pass. Cheap to buy a used one and have it visit the RSC.

$6000US for a 1675 and $9000US for a 1680? No thanks.

nko51 · 9 April 2007, 06:51 AM

Forgot your med's again, oh well!

BanjoP · 9 April 2007, 07:09 AM

None of them!

orotek · 9 April 2007, 01:28 PM

Hi Respectable Member

It surprised me that Rolex is making an attempt to re-issue some of their discontinued models.

While some of us may not subscribe to the idea, there are others who may buy these re-issues. Price-wise, though expensive but safer than buying used ones, in view of the number of fakes mush-rooming around, the moment a certain discontinued model becomes desirable or collectible.

With the introduction of re-issues, it is hoped that RSC will entertain the servicing and repair of vintage timepieces, irrespective of age, just like Patek Philippe and IWC, amongst others.

Once I had a disappointing experience with the local RSC, when the technician just refused to open the back-cover of my 30 year old Rolex watch to check the source of a rattling sound on the movement. When pressed for a reason, the answer was they did not have spare parts any longer and there was no point looking into the fault. I could have argued till the cows come home but saw no purpose for it.

I then went to show it to a watchmaker friend. Immediately he opened the back cover and discovered that a screw was dislodged. The problem was put right on the spot. To those who think that since there was no more spare parts held by Rolex, they may just sell off the watch. The same cannot be said of Patek Philippe. Whatever the age of your watch, they will still make spare parts for the watch and charge you at cost. This is talking from first-hand experience and not hear-say. It is a real satisfaction, knowing the watch you currently own can be passed-on to the future generations.

However, with regard to our local RSC, they accepted my ref 5100, even though the watch is more than 30 years old. They sent it back to the factory for service and repair and when the watch came back, it was just fabulous. Taking into account, it was attended to by the factory, the charges were very reasonable. Very likely, Rolex factory may have or could make spare parts for old or vintage watches but in view of the high demand for their current watches, they do not have the manpower to oversee this area. Whatever, if your Rolex is well maintained and regularly serviced, very likely the only part required is only the winding crown since Rolex is very sensitive towards its water-tight Oyster.

Thanks and regards.

Spark · 10 April 2007, 04:09 AM

I voted Newman Daytona.
If they re-issued that dial on Stainless, you'd only see a dust cloud toward my nearest AD

mike · 10 April 2007, 10:29 AM

Interesting concept. I would probably not be a buyer of a re-issue though. I guess my concern would be a watering down of the orginal. These were/are the pieces that put Rolex "on the map". These were the real "tool watches" on which much of the Rolex heritage was founded and as such have a special place in the history of the brand before Rolex went luxury.
Many of these pieces are still in service and properly maintained preform up to their orginal specs (luminosity of course aside).
As a company of "evolution" the future of Rolex sport models seems to be one of maxi and ceramic. These, I think, are exciting times as a new era is about to be unleashed.

Welshwatchman · 11 April 2007, 04:30 AM

Glad to see that most of you tossers went for the last option.

Tombstone · 11 April 2007, 02:42 PM

I like the newer Rolex lines myself.

View Poll Results: Rolex Re - Release of selected vintage models
Rolex Seadweller 1665 DR (£4,500)	3	9.09%
Rolex Daytona 6239 "Newman" SS (£5,500)	4	12.12%
Rolex Milgauss 6541 (£4,500)	1	3.03%
Rolex Submariner 5510 (Bond) £4,500)	2	6.06%
Rolex GMT Master 1675 (£3,000)	1	3.03%
Rolex Submariner 1680 Red (£4,500)	4	12.12%
Rolex Daytona 6265 Standard Dial (£4,500)	0	0%
I would buy them all	2	6.06%
I would not buy any of them	6	18.18%
You should have remembered to take your medication	10	30.30%
Voters: 33. You may not vote on this poll

9 April 2007, 04:11 AM	#1
Welshwatchman "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Real Name: Paul Location: Wales, UK Posts: 14,578	Watch if Rolex did this .... VERSION 2 (Sorry for the other post - forgot to poll) Rolex stuns the watchworld and the vintage Rolex market with reissues of the above watches, where necessary with very minor movement adjustments and features, otherwise original. Reasonable availability (slightly better than SS Daytona) and cost prices higher than the "modern" equivalent : How would you feel? Which one would you buy? __________________ ..33

9 April 2007, 05:12 AM	#2
JJ Irani Fondly Remembered Join Date: May 2005 Real Name: JJ Location: Auckland, NZ Watch: ALL SOLD!! Posts: 74,319	Never was into vintage stuff, so I had to vote for wouldn't buy any of them. JJ __________________ Words fail me in expressing my utmost thanks to ALL of you for this wonderful support during my hour of need!! I firmly believe that my time on planet earth is NOT yet up!! I shall fight this to the very end.......and WIN!!

9 April 2007, 05:32 AM	#8
Prince "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Real Name: Allan Location: St. Augustine, FL Watch: Daytona/Sub/GMT/DJ Posts: 20,323	LMAO - who voted for "You should have remembered to take your medication"??? __________________ Member: Rolex Keeper's Society "You see, you can't please everyone, so you got to please yourself." - Rick Nelson

9 April 2007, 06:04 AM	#14
mrbieler "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Real Name: Jeff Location: Lost Angeles Watch: all about acrylic Posts: 683	At those prices, I'd pass. Cheap to buy a used one and have it visit the RSC. $6000US for a 1675 and $9000US for a 1680? No thanks. __________________ - Jeff Cursimus Cum Forfex

9 April 2007, 05:16 AM	#6
Alex Stylianou "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: UK Posts: 1,785	Take Your Meds

9 April 2007, 05:31 AM	#7
oldman2005 "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: norcal Posts: 3,031	Rolex changes little over the year, a modern Sub/GMT/... look pretty much the same as an vintage one to untrained eyes, personally I don't there's a need.

9 April 2007, 06:51 AM	#15
nko51 "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Real Name: Alex Location: USA Watch: TT Blue Sub Posts: 2,542	Forgot your med's again, oh well! __________________

9 April 2007, 07:09 AM	#16
BanjoP Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: USA Posts: 80	None of them!

9 April 2007, 01:28 PM	#17
orotek Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 37	Surprise, surprise Hi Respectable Member It surprised me that Rolex is making an attempt to re-issue some of their discontinued models. While some of us may not subscribe to the idea, there are others who may buy these re-issues. Price-wise, though expensive but safer than buying used ones, in view of the number of fakes mush-rooming around, the moment a certain discontinued model becomes desirable or collectible. With the introduction of re-issues, it is hoped that RSC will entertain the servicing and repair of vintage timepieces, irrespective of age, just like Patek Philippe and IWC, amongst others. Once I had a disappointing experience with the local RSC, when the technician just refused to open the back-cover of my 30 year old Rolex watch to check the source of a rattling sound on the movement. When pressed for a reason, the answer was they did not have spare parts any longer and there was no point looking into the fault. I could have argued till the cows come home but saw no purpose for it. I then went to show it to a watchmaker friend. Immediately he opened the back cover and discovered that a screw was dislodged. The problem was put right on the spot. To those who think that since there was no more spare parts held by Rolex, they may just sell off the watch. The same cannot be said of Patek Philippe. Whatever the age of your watch, they will still make spare parts for the watch and charge you at cost. This is talking from first-hand experience and not hear-say. It is a real satisfaction, knowing the watch you currently own can be passed-on to the future generations. However, with regard to our local RSC, they accepted my ref 5100, even though the watch is more than 30 years old. They sent it back to the factory for service and repair and when the watch came back, it was just fabulous. Taking into account, it was attended to by the factory, the charges were very reasonable. Very likely, Rolex factory may have or could make spare parts for old or vintage watches but in view of the high demand for their current watches, they do not have the manpower to oversee this area. Whatever, if your Rolex is well maintained and regularly serviced, very likely the only part required is only the winding crown since Rolex is very sensitive towards its water-tight Oyster. Thanks and regards.

10 April 2007, 04:09 AM	#18
Spark "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Real Name: Mark Location: U.K. Watch: Too Many Posts: 2,097	I voted Newman Daytona. If they re-issued that dial on Stainless, you'd only see a dust cloud toward my nearest AD

10 April 2007, 10:29 AM	#19
mike "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 22,683	Interesting concept. I would probably not be a buyer of a re-issue though. I guess my concern would be a watering down of the orginal. These were/are the pieces that put Rolex "on the map". These were the real "tool watches" on which much of the Rolex heritage was founded and as such have a special place in the history of the brand before Rolex went luxury. Many of these pieces are still in service and properly maintained preform up to their orginal specs (luminosity of course aside). As a company of "evolution" the future of Rolex sport models seems to be one of maxi and ceramic. These, I think, are exciting times as a new era is about to be unleashed.

11 April 2007, 04:30 AM	#20
Welshwatchman "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Real Name: Paul Location: Wales, UK Posts: 14,578	Glad to see that most of you tossers went for the last option. __________________ ..33

11 April 2007, 02:42 PM	#21
Tombstone "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Real Name: Richard Location: LV, NV Watch: LV Sub and others Posts: 2,689	I like the newer Rolex lines myself.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)