ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX
18 August 2010, 02:45 AM | #31 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Real Name: Bryan
Location: Oregon
Posts: 7,399
|
I don't think it needs to be changed at all....
__________________
Rolex / Panerai / Omega |
18 August 2010, 02:57 AM | #32 | |
Member
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Philly
Posts: 156
|
Quote:
By that I mean I see more posters searching for and desiring smaller watches these days. |
|
18 August 2010, 03:18 AM | #33 |
2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Real Name: Richard
Location: Macungie, PA
Watch: 5513 Sub, LV Sub
Posts: 14,497
|
__________________
"Few things in life give man as great a pleasure as wearing a Rolex!" TRF's "AFTER DARK" Bar & NightClub Patron |
18 August 2010, 03:51 AM | #34 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Piedmont, CA
Watch: various vintage
Posts: 2,272
|
Increase in case size/diameter? Meh is my opinion. I think the sleek design is more in tune with the "spirit" of what Rolex had in mind when they intro'ed the Daytona to the world.
Updating the design? Absolutely needed IMO. The 116520 is simply way too derivative of the 16520. The only way you can tell the difference with a casual glance is the color of the subdials.
__________________
1680 MK II 2.2M (my daily); 1655 MK IV 8.1M (my 1st vintage); 16660 x 4 - 8.0M spider & matte 7.4M, 8.0M, 8.0M; 16610LV F MK I/MK I; 116528 Z; 14060 M COSC; Tudor 75090 Gone.....never forgotten: 14000 F, 14060 V COSC, PAM 048, 16623 F, 1680 MK V 3.1M, 16800 matte 8.3M & 1655 MK IV 7.4M |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
*Banners
Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.