ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Degas · 15 August 2015, 04:45 AM

https://www.hodinkee.com/blog/the-ro...pearlmaster-39

Name: ImageUploadedByTapatalk1439577874.589224.jpg
Views: 1442
Size: 81.3 KB

Name: ImageUploadedByTapatalk1439577887.556465.jpg
Views: 1437
Size: 63.4 KB

Name: ImageUploadedByTapatalk1439577902.442109.jpg
Views: 1440
Size: 52.6 KB

johneh · 15 August 2015, 04:55 AM

No thanks.

VinnieVegas · 15 August 2015, 04:56 AM

I think I'll pass.

evlkoala · 15 August 2015, 04:56 AM

I'll stick with the 77-87k

MonBK · 15 August 2015, 04:56 AM

I hate to say it but I pass as well.

Degas · 15 August 2015, 04:58 AM

It’s the same, we think, with the Pearlmasters. It’s easy for many serious Rolex enthusiasts to dismiss gem-set Rolexes just as a matter of principle. But in person, these watches grew on us – a lot. They’re phenomenally well made, mechanically irreproachable, and just flat out beautiful. The level of attention to detail that went into their creation – including that devoted to the gem selection, cutting, shaping and setting – will very likely go right over the heads of a lot of the folks who end up buying these, but we hope it doesn’t entirely, because as we said of the Everose Yachtmaster, this is a very Rolex approach to luxury: the pushing of technical perfectionism to the point that it becomes a luxury in itself.

cosmoliu · 15 August 2015, 04:58 AM

I'll pass too, but I'm still impressed!

Syed117 · 15 August 2015, 05:01 AM

87 on the high side?

No way.

86 would be much more reasonable

Gasoil4ever · 15 August 2015, 05:04 AM

Would go for a Smurf, a LBRO GMT and a new Jetski instead...

Lpugliese · 15 August 2015, 12:25 PM

haha agree

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gasoil4ever

Would go for a Smurf, a LBRO GMT and a new Jetski instead...

WS9D · 17 August 2015, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gasoil4ever

Would go for a Smurf, a LBRO GMT and a new Jetski instead...

This...

jw0n · 15 August 2015, 05:05 AM

And just in case you think THAT was too much... here's a little extra extra. Too much for me, only trying on the Daytona on for size (and they only had this in store).

Abdullah71601 · 16 August 2015, 05:42 PM

Add a paved dial and I think you'll have it

Quote:

Originally Posted by jw0n

And just in case you think THAT was too much... here's a little extra extra. Too much for me, only trying on the Daytona on for size (and they only had this in store).

Rags · 15 August 2015, 05:18 AM

Not for me, no thanks..

Knisse · 15 August 2015, 05:38 AM

This is in my opinion stuff that gives Rolex a bad reputation.. But on the other hand if they can make it and sell it (and make a high margin) who cares whether i get offended :-)

RolexAuthority · 15 August 2015, 05:42 AM

87k for an oyster perpetual - as Ron Burgundy would say...

travisb · 15 August 2015, 05:48 AM

I'm keeping my money.

BNA/LION · 15 August 2015, 05:51 AM

Pass

adawil2002 · 15 August 2015, 06:12 AM

100% not my style.

Ferdelious · 15 August 2015, 06:12 AM

If money was not an issue and my wife really wanted it, maybe. Will these end up being collectible like the rainbow Daytona?

dpa94114 · 15 August 2015, 06:49 AM

the bezels are amazing - but almost think they would be better with simpler dials.

but i guess the Dubai crowd doesn't believe in less being more....

Abdullasaif · 15 August 2015, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dpa94114

the bezels are amazing - but almost think they would be better with simpler dials.

but i guess the Dubai crowd doesn't believe in less being more....

It's a females watch here

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ColRam425 · 15 August 2015, 06:54 AM

I just think these should be Day-Dates instead of DateJusts.

cht · 15 August 2015, 07:21 AM

All that work and $$$ to look like a cheap piece of tacky costume jewelery...

kunlun · 15 August 2015, 07:37 AM

You guys are aware these are women's watches, right?

I mean, a man could wear them, but that's not the target audience.

Most Rolexes I see are on the wrists of women.

Abdullasaif · 15 August 2015, 07:43 AM

Nope 😷😷

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

abovedeck · 15 August 2015, 07:46 AM

They look much cleaner than expected. As an owner of a SACO myself, I have to say that the watches are really beautiful in person. They are not the "go with everything" traditional Rolex, but for occasions or with a specific outfit, they are quite a treat.

LumpHammer · 15 August 2015, 07:48 AM

No. Quite pretty but other brands do sparkly gems so much better. Rolex make steel tanks and that's good enough for me.

zama · 15 August 2015, 09:19 AM

Look on the bright side I looked at these the other day at an AD launch for the 2015 watches in Australia these are now $120K when our $ was worth more than the US only 2 years ago........

SpunkyQ8 · 15 August 2015, 09:23 AM

Big no!

15 August 2015, 04:45 AM	#1
Degas "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2013 Location: Middle Posts: 878	77,000$-87,000$ and it's yours https://www.hodinkee.com/blog/the-ro...pearlmaster-39

15 August 2015, 04:55 AM	#2
johneh "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2014 Real Name: John Location: Toronto Watch: 214270 Posts: 721	No thanks. __________________ instagram: jaschtag

15 August 2015, 04:56 AM	#3
VinnieVegas "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2015 Real Name: Vincent B Location: New York, NY Watch: '06 GMT Master II Posts: 1,261	I think I'll pass. __________________ Wearing Today: * Seiko SRP777 (2017)

15 August 2015, 05:04 AM	#9
Gasoil4ever "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Cameroun Watch: GS Snowflake Posts: 1,534	Would go for a Smurf, a LBRO GMT and a new Jetski instead... __________________ 16710 GMT Master II "M" , SD4000, GS Snowflake, Stowa Marine Original.

15 August 2015, 05:05 AM	#12
jw0n "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2013 Real Name: Won Location: Asia Posts: 1,439	And just in case you think THAT was too much... here's a little extra extra. Too much for me, only trying on the Daytona on for size (and they only had this in store). __________________ Instagram: @itsjw0n

15 August 2015, 04:56 AM	#4
evlkoala "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2015 Location: Los Angeles Watch: Sub Posts: 862	I'll stick with the 77-87k

15 August 2015, 04:56 AM	#5
MonBK Banned Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Kingstown Posts: 58,279	I hate to say it but I pass as well.

15 August 2015, 04:58 AM	#6
Degas "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2013 Location: Middle Posts: 878	It’s the same, we think, with the Pearlmasters. It’s easy for many serious Rolex enthusiasts to dismiss gem-set Rolexes just as a matter of principle. But in person, these watches grew on us – a lot. They’re phenomenally well made, mechanically irreproachable, and just flat out beautiful. The level of attention to detail that went into their creation – including that devoted to the gem selection, cutting, shaping and setting – will very likely go right over the heads of a lot of the folks who end up buying these, but we hope it doesn’t entirely, because as we said of the Everose Yachtmaster, this is a very Rolex approach to luxury: the pushing of technical perfectionism to the point that it becomes a luxury in itself.

15 August 2015, 04:58 AM	#7
cosmoliu "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2015 Real Name: Norman Location: CA Watch: Rolex, PP, AP, ALS Posts: 170	I'll pass too, but I'm still impressed!

15 August 2015, 05:01 AM	#8
Syed117 "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Real Name: Syed Location: The Ether Posts: 3,388	87 on the high side? No way. 86 would be much more reasonable

15 August 2015, 05:18 AM	#14
Rags 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Real Name: Chuck Location: SW Florida Watch: 16233,16610,214270 Posts: 11,196	Not for me, no thanks.. __________________ 16233 Y Serial Datejust 16610 Z Serial Submariner 214270 Explorer *114300 Oyster Perpetual* *76200 Tudor Date+Day*

15 August 2015, 05:38 AM	#15
Knisse Banned Join Date: Aug 2015 Location: Denmark Posts: 55	This is in my opinion stuff that gives Rolex a bad reputation.. But on the other hand if they can make it and sell it (and make a high margin) who cares whether i get offended :-)

15 August 2015, 05:42 AM	#16
RolexAuthority Banned Join Date: Aug 2015 Location: London Posts: 1,233	87k for an oyster perpetual - as Ron Burgundy would say...

15 August 2015, 05:48 AM	#17
travisb 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Real Name: Travis Location: FL / NYC Watch: Yes.. Posts: 33,493	I'm keeping my money.

15 August 2015, 05:51 AM	#18
BNA/LION 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: May 2011 Real Name: Larry Location: San Diego, CA Watch: ROLEX Posts: 25,659	Pass __________________ ✦ 28238 President DD 18K/YG ✦ 16610LN SS Sub ✦ 16613 18K/SS Serti ✦ 16550 Exp II Non-Rail Cream Dial ✦ Daytona C 116500 ✦ 126710 BLRO GMT-Master II ✦ NEXT-->? ⛳ Hole In One! 10/3/19 DMCC 5th hole, par 3, 168 yards w/ 4-Iron.

15 August 2015, 06:12 AM	#19
adawil2002 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Dec 2014 Real Name: Andrew Wilson Location: Brunswick, Maine Watch: 16550 Explorer II Posts: 1,773	100% not my style. __________________ 6284 SS, 16014 SS Jubilee silver stick, 16253 TT Blue Thunderbird, 16550 SS Exp II Cream, bought in 1986, 116400GV Z-blue Milgauss, 79260 Tudor, 116660 DSSD-Blue, 116500LV Daytona White, 116710 BLNR, 326934 Blue Skydweller

15 August 2015, 06:12 AM	#20
Ferdelious 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: May 2013 Real Name: Matt Location: Tampa, FL Watch: Hulk/SD4K/SeaQ/P39 Posts: 3,203	If money was not an issue and my wife really wanted it, maybe. Will these end up being collectible like the rainbow Daytona? __________________ Why is it, "A penny for your thoughts," but, "you have to put your two cents in?" Somebody's making a penny.

15 August 2015, 06:49 AM	#21
dpa94114 "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: ex SF, back east Posts: 531	the bezels are amazing - but almost think they would be better with simpler dials. but i guess the Dubai crowd doesn't believe in less being more....

15 August 2015, 06:54 AM	#23
ColRam425 "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2014 Location: DFW, Texas Posts: 473	I just think these should be Day-Dates instead of DateJusts.

15 August 2015, 07:21 AM	#24
cht 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Real Name: Chris Location: San antonio, TX Watch: 116610LV Posts: 2,143	All that work and $$$ to look like a cheap piece of tacky costume jewelery...

15 August 2015, 07:37 AM	#25
kunlun "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2015 Location: USA Posts: 1,970	You guys are aware these are women's watches, right? I mean, a man could wear them, but that's not the target audience. Most Rolexes I see are on the wrists of women.

15 August 2015, 07:43 AM	#26
Abdullasaif "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2014 Location: Dubai Watch: bipolar Posts: 2,854	Nope 😷😷 Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

15 August 2015, 07:46 AM	#27
abovedeck "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2015 Location: all around... Posts: 309	They look much cleaner than expected. As an owner of a SACO myself, I have to say that the watches are really beautiful in person. They are not the "go with everything" traditional Rolex, but for occasions or with a specific outfit, they are quite a treat.

15 August 2015, 07:48 AM	#28
LumpHammer Banned Join Date: May 2015 Real Name: Lee Location: London Watch: Sea Dweller Posts: 264	No. Quite pretty but other brands do sparkly gems so much better. Rolex make steel tanks and that's good enough for me.

15 August 2015, 09:19 AM	#29
zama "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Real Name: Craig Location: Sydney Watch: 4 Broken glass Posts: 5,808	Look on the bright side I looked at these the other day at an AD launch for the 2015 watches in Australia these are now $120K when our $ was worth more than the US only 2 years ago........ __________________ Day Date 118206, Daytona 116509 & 116505, AP 25859ST Gone but not forgotten and genuinely missed..... Root Beer GMT, Sub, TT Daytona, YG DD Bark, Datejust(2 his & hers), AP RO, PP Aquanaut, Lange 1, Heuer Monza, Piaget Altiplano, GP Chrono, Seamaster, Tudor Sub, Tudor Chrono, Tudor Black Bay Bronze

15 August 2015, 09:23 AM	#30
SpunkyQ8 "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2012 Real Name: Aj Location: Kuwait Watch: RM,AP,PP,RLX,PAM Posts: 1,056	Big no!

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