Better in photos vs better in real life

[Madison1]

Just a bit of fun to see if you prefer a particular watch in person or in photos.

For me personally I always felt the Hulk looked amazing in photos but in the flesh the bezel was a little underwhelming with it's pastel colour (just my opinion - step away from the pitch forks).

Conversely I own a Rootbeer and it's one of the most striking and aesthetically pleasing watches I own. I have tried multiple times to take a picture of it's beauty but it always looks a bit washed out.

Just wondered if anyone else had these experiences?

[Madman37]

White ceramic Daytona in real life. I saw it in Watchfinder was shocked when I saw it and tried it on. Not what I thought when looking at photos.

[Alboy]

Agree with the two-tone Root Beer - it really does strike a completely different profile in the metal as opposed to in still images.

[VonSomething]

I agree with the Two-tone Root Beer. It is SO much better in real life.

[tudk]

James Cameron

[jakjuventus]

I would says for me it s Daytona 116520 black dial.

It look great in photos but even better in real.

[JP.]

Kinda hate to say this as a longtime 16710 GMT owner... this is the most photogenic Rolex there is but on the wrist I have always preferred the 16610 black Submariner. It just looks better.

There, I said it. I still love my GMT though.

[Harry-57]

The 16 series Sub has a huge let down in the metal. It looked much nicer in photos. Of the watches now being built, I haven't yet met one that looked worse than in photos. Quite the opposite, although the Daytona is smaller than I perceived it to be from all the magazine ads and billboards pictures I see of it.

[RKTINC1]

I recently saw a 42mm Yacht Master in white gold on Oysterflex. It was amazing in person and not large at all. In fact I had forgotten it was even made.

Great looking watch, frankly, the only issue I have with any Yacht Master name. Just never thought it was a good look to wear anything named "Yacht"

[fskywalker]

Originally Posted by JP.

Kinda hate to say this as a longtime 16710 GMT owner... this is the most photogenic Rolex there is but on the wrist I have always preferred the 16610 black Submariner. It just looks better.

There, I said it. I still love my GMT though.

Don’t blame you!




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[FTX I]

Originally Posted by JP.

Kinda hate to say this as a longtime 16710 GMT owner... this is the most photogenic Rolex there is but on the wrist I have always preferred the 16610 black Submariner. It just looks better.

Completely agree my friend. The black Sub is a perfect watch.

[Pw92676]

BLRO. Looks amazing on other peoples wrists with the pics they post here. Didn’t look nearly as good on me when I tried it on.

[Daveh3196]

For me it was the Explorer 2 pre 2021 makeover. I loved the polar in photos and felt it would be my next purchase. When I tried it on at the AD I didn’t love it as much as I had hoped. The black dial however didn’t really feel special in photos but once handling it in person, and seeing the floating hands I made the purchase.

[Master_Grogu]

Originally Posted by Pw92676

BLRO. Looks amazing on other peoples wrists with the pics they post here. Didn’t look nearly as good on me when I tried it on.

Fully agree with you in this one. I remember when I tried it for the first time. I thought “wow that’s a big letdown!”.

[macrowatch]

BLNR gen one for me.

[garyk]

Bluesy Submariner in photos and in person. Can’t take my eyes of it and it looks great in photos..imo...




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[JP.]

Originally Posted by fskywalker

Don’t blame you!

Yes. After owning 15 Rolex watches I can safely say that black 16610 is simply perfection. There's no ifs and buts about this. It's the coolest of the cool.

[mg18]

For me, every watch looks better in person except the BLNR. The BLNR photographs well but the blue is way too vibrant in person for me.

Another notable example for me is the BB58 blue. It looks kind of bland in pictures, but very nice in person.

[Epanerai12]

Explorer 1 (blasphemy!)...but they make it look real nice in photos with the angles and everything. in real life...meh

[jakjuventus]

Originally Posted by mg18

For me, every watch looks better in person except the BLNR. The BLNR photographs well but the blue is way too vibrant in person for me.

Another notable example for me is the BB58 blue. It looks kind of bland in pictures, but very nice in person.

Totally agreed on both.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Vipes]

I agree about the Hulk. The green bezel does look a bit washed out in certain lighting.

I have an AP 15300 with blue dial. I can never get a good pic of it; blue looks very flat and dull but in person it is very nice.

[Zuger]

For me watches with sunburst dials, breguet’s enamel work, any guilloche, fifty fathom’s sapphire crystal bezel all look better in person.

On the other hand, plenty of hot watches look quite underwhelming when I tried them on in person. I would only pay MSRP and never the premium.

[rcambrid]

Tudor BB58 Black; think it looks ok, at best, in photos but is stunning on the wrist. The rivets on the bracelet fade away and the rose gold on the dial/bezel pops just right. Chamfered edges are perfect and the angled brushed finishing looks great. All details that don't translate well in photos alone.

[stateman]

Originally Posted by Madman37

White ceramic Daytona in real life. I saw it in Watchfinder was shocked when I saw it and tried it on. Not what I thought when looking at photos.

Exactly my impression as well. Don't get me wrong - great watch - but it did not leave much of an impression on the wrist. The black dial made a better impression on me and bought that instead

[B2 Stealth]

Any Daytona! Can't believe how difficult they are to read. How small the chrono dials are. Pictures are much better compared to in-person.

[Madison1]

Originally Posted by B2 Stealth

Any Daytona! Can't believe how difficult they are to read. How small the chrono dials are. Pictures are much better compared to in-person.

Daytona is a strange beast. Always looks amazing in photos but I whenever I have tried one on it always wears small. I swear it's an illusion. DSSD looks big in pics and wears big, although when I owned the JC I had the build to pull it off - (big guy in a Kevin James way not The Rock way :) ) but the Daytona seems like it fits perfect on everyone in photos and in real life just seems small. Maybe it's because my eyes focus on the sub dials vs the space of a sub dial if that makes sense?

[Wcdhtwn]

BLNR, love it in pictures, didn't like it on my wrist.

Explorer, bores the hell out of me in pictures but love it in person.

[JSol1]

Originally Posted by JP.

Yes. After owning 15 Rolex watches I can safely say that black 16610 is simply perfection. There's no ifs and buts about this. It's the coolest of the cool.

Have to agree as well...just perfection. Feels like a favorite pair of jeans compared to my other Rolexes.
But for the sake of this thread, I’ll go with the Everose YM, simply stunning in person and had to have one when I saw it!

[afmars]

216570 - incredible in person, not so incredible in most photos.

[VonSomething]

Originally Posted by Madison1

Daytona is a strange beast. Always looks amazing in photos but I whenever I have tried one on it always wears small. I swear it's an illusion. DSSD looks big in pics and wears big, although when I owned the JC I had the build to pull it off - (big guy in a Kevin James way not The Rock way :) ) but the Daytona seems like it fits perfect on everyone in photos and in real life just seems small. Maybe it's because my eyes focus on the sub dials vs the space of a sub dial if that makes sense?

Not an illusion, Daytona is 38,5mm without crown/pushers. It is not a true 40mm watch like the Milgauss in comparison.