ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

jlake · 11 September 2009, 09:47 AM

Just want to obtain opinions about the new SS GMT2C "bling" (b/c of the PCL's and perhaps its shiny ceramic bezel) as compared to the current SS Sub Date with a brushed bracelet. Lets say we have a scale of 1 to 5 ("5" being a watch w/ a lot "bling"; i.e., a gold watch w/ diamonds) and I consider the SS Sub date to be a "1" just as a reference point.

What scale number would you give the SS GMT2C? Please provide feedback.

Thanks...

DRAWTOOL · 11 September 2009, 10:20 AM

4

Nods · 11 September 2009, 10:24 AM

2 for me its blingy but not over the top at all

DRAWTOOL · 11 September 2009, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DRAWTOOL

4

DO OVER! I'm a changing to 3, for ss, 4 for yg.

presario · 11 September 2009, 11:05 AM

3 as well.

jayong · 11 September 2009, 11:12 AM

3. Not just the PCL, but the ceramic bezel is very shiny as well. Like what someone on TRF once said, the PCL complements the shininess of the bezel. It's beautiful, but it certainly isn't subtle.

Idle Swede · 11 September 2009, 11:34 AM

I don't see any "bling" in a SS watch.

TheVTCGuy · 11 September 2009, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Idle Swede

I don't see any "bling" in a SS watch.

Yeah.. got to agree with Leo on this... IMHO, SS cries either a "working" kind of watch, or maybe a nice shiny kind of "basic" watch... but not "Bling."

scottschoe · 11 September 2009, 11:58 AM

1. No bling at all.

Yume-sama · 11 September 2009, 12:17 PM

Is -5 an option?

MortgageGuy · 11 September 2009, 12:37 PM

In TT I would give it a 4 or a 5

newmedia · 11 September 2009, 12:55 PM

TT , after seeing this watch in person and having a sales person wear it while I looked at from different angle, it had WOW as in bling.

TT +5
SS +2

vjb.knife · 11 September 2009, 12:58 PM

1.263e0 exactly.

AIKO · 11 September 2009, 01:56 PM

It would be in the 3.5 range.

chiscoe · 11 September 2009, 03:02 PM

2.5 the PCL's give it the higher bling factor

swatty · 11 September 2009, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vjb.knife

1.263e0 exactly.

icnbne · 11 September 2009, 07:48 PM

2- very handsome watch, but not blingy..

ASW1 · 11 September 2009, 09:56 PM

2 for SS (except when in direct sunlight when it increases to 3)

Andad · 11 September 2009, 10:19 PM

Is this really 'bling' or is it just a GMT TTc Rolex?

I associate 'bling' more with diamonds etc.

ROLEX MAN · 11 September 2009, 10:40 PM

Man that thing is beautiful....

Quote:

Originally Posted by directioneng

Is this really 'bling' or is it just a GMT TTc Rolex?

I associate 'bling' more with diamonds etc.

mborkow · 11 September 2009, 11:50 PM

0
bling requires diamonds or CZ ;-)

Aureliano · 11 September 2009, 11:50 PM

SS GMTIIC = 1. imo

DATEJUSTSS · 11 September 2009, 11:57 PM

I don't see it as "blingy" either. I had a SS/WG TOG that would just sparkle all over the place with any degree of light on it. Now that was a blingy SS watch (in a great way).

Nods · 12 September 2009, 12:16 AM

I am sorry guys but even the SS GMT(c) has some bling, very subtle, but a subtle bit of bling is what makes the SS GMT(c) so alluring.

Asian Sub · 12 September 2009, 12:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jayong

3. Not just the PCL, but the ceramic bezel is very shiny as well. Like what someone on TRF once said, the PCL complements the shininess of the bezel. It's beautiful, but it certainly isn't subtle.

Very much agree with this

els4 · 12 September 2009, 01:00 AM

Bling factor 3. I tried one on at AD and as gorgeous as it is, I personally felt it was a bit too shiny for my tastes. I used to have a GMT Pepsi before my Sub Date, and I think the Pepsi was a lot better looking than the IIc. I guess that's why there are so many choices. It would be boring if we all liked the same thing.

WatchSmith · 12 September 2009, 01:38 AM

Bling? The gmt IIc? It hardly qualifies as bling.

landroverking · 12 September 2009, 06:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scottschoe

1. No bling at all.

x2

The GMT Master · 12 September 2009, 06:49 AM

Bling for me indicates a lack of taste, and I think it's criminal to call the SS GMT IIc anything other than tasteful

onkyo · 12 September 2009, 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by landroverking

x2

x3... really no bling on SS.

I have one at its one of my favorite modern Rolex's.

I associate bling mostly with diamonds.

11 September 2009, 09:47 AM	#1
jlake Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: USA Posts: 45	GMT2c "Bling" Just want to obtain opinions about the new SS GMT2C "bling" (b/c of the PCL's and perhaps its shiny ceramic bezel) as compared to the current SS Sub Date with a brushed bracelet. Lets say we have a scale of 1 to 5 ("5" being a watch w/ a lot "bling"; i.e., a gold watch w/ diamonds) and I consider the SS Sub date to be a "1" just as a reference point. What scale number would you give the SS GMT2C? Please provide feedback. Thanks...

11 September 2009, 11:05 AM	#5
presario "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Real Name: Andrew Location: Los Angeles Posts: 1,428	3 as well. __________________

11 September 2009, 11:58 AM	#9
scottschoe "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: CA Posts: 3,295	1. No bling at all. __________________ __________________

11 September 2009, 12:37 PM	#11
MortgageGuy "TRF" Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Real Name: Adam Location: Orlando, Florida Watch: Me Posts: 9,935	In TT I would give it a 4 or a 5 __________________ The richest people in the world look for and build NETWORKS, Everyone else looks for work... Robert Kiyosaki

11 September 2009, 12:58 PM	#13
vjb.knife Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Real Name: Vince Location: Pittsburgh, PA Watch: Rolex Sub & GMTIIC Posts: 626	GMT2c "Bling" 1.263e0 exactly.

11 September 2009, 10:20 AM	#2
DRAWTOOL "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Real Name: Mikey Uí Néill Location: Olden Texas Watch: 14060M & 16570 Posts: 1,941	4

11 September 2009, 10:24 AM	#3
Nods Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Real Name: Lionel Wylie Location: Australia Watch: Rolex GMT SS Posts: 277	2 for me its blingy but not over the top at all

11 September 2009, 11:12 AM	#6
jayong Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Real Name: Jay Location: Vancouver, BC Watch: SS GMT IIc Posts: 54	3. Not just the PCL, but the ceramic bezel is very shiny as well. Like what someone on TRF once said, the PCL complements the shininess of the bezel. It's beautiful, but it certainly isn't subtle.

11 September 2009, 11:34 AM	#7
Idle Swede Suspended Join Date: Oct 2008 Real Name: Leo Location: Boca Raton Posts: 13,820	I don't see any "bling" in a SS watch.

11 September 2009, 12:17 PM	#10
Yume-sama "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: CAN / SIN Watch: Plat. Masterpiece Posts: 1,959	Is -5 an option?

11 September 2009, 12:55 PM	#12
newmedia "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Austin Posts: 526	TT , after seeing this watch in person and having a sales person wear it while I looked at from different angle, it had WOW as in bling. TT +5 SS +2

11 September 2009, 01:56 PM	#14
AIKO "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: South Carolina Posts: 1,937	It would be in the 3.5 range.

11 September 2009, 03:02 PM	#15
chiscoe "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: virginia Posts: 72	2.5 the PCL's give it the higher bling factor

11 September 2009, 07:48 PM	#17
icnbne "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Real Name: J Location: Brisbane Watch: Rolex Omega Seiko Posts: 1,562	2- very handsome watch, but not blingy..

11 September 2009, 09:56 PM	#18
ASW1 "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: UK Posts: 420	2 for SS (except when in direct sunlight when it increases to 3)

11 September 2009, 10:19 PM	#19
Andad 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Real Name: Eddie Location: Australia Watch: A few. Posts: 37,533	Is this really 'bling' or is it just a GMT TTc Rolex? I associate 'bling' more with diamonds etc. Attached Images __________________ E

11 September 2009, 11:50 PM	#21
mborkow "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: san francisco Watch: gmt2c pam372 Posts: 842	0 bling requires diamonds or CZ ;-)

11 September 2009, 11:50 PM	#22
Aureliano Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Real Name: Enrique Location: Tokyo Posts: 51	SS GMTIIC = 1. imo

11 September 2009, 11:57 PM	#23
DATEJUSTSS Banned Join Date: May 2007 Real Name: Jesse Location: Central FLA Watch: GMT IIC Posts: 447	I don't see it as "blingy" either. I had a SS/WG TOG that would just sparkle all over the place with any degree of light on it. Now that was a blingy SS watch (in a great way).

12 September 2009, 12:16 AM	#24
Nods Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Real Name: Lionel Wylie Location: Australia Watch: Rolex GMT SS Posts: 277	I am sorry guys but even the SS GMT(c) has some bling, very subtle, but a subtle bit of bling is what makes the SS GMT(c) so alluring.

12 September 2009, 01:00 AM	#26
els4 "TRF" Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Real Name: Edgars Location: Southeastern PA Watch: Wimbledon DJ Posts: 201	Bling factor 3. I tried one on at AD and as gorgeous as it is, I personally felt it was a bit too shiny for my tastes. I used to have a GMT Pepsi before my Sub Date, and I think the Pepsi was a lot better looking than the IIc. I guess that's why there are so many choices. It would be boring if we all liked the same thing.

12 September 2009, 01:38 AM	#27
WatchSmith 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: USA Posts: 702	Bling? The gmt IIc? It hardly qualifies as bling.

12 September 2009, 06:49 AM	#29
The GMT Master "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Real Name: Chris Location: England Posts: 8,150	Bling for me indicates a lack of taste, and I think it's criminal to call the SS GMT IIc anything other than tasteful

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