GMT2c "Bling"

[Perdu]

2.5. It has bling - wake up and smell the roses. Not that that's a bad thing but people are using the word bling like bling is a negative thing. I like the GMTIIc but no way is it subtle. If you don't agree that SS can have bling take a walk down the mall and see the offerings.

[dfh27490]

In person SS didn't have any bling at all a 1.
Pics of TT are only bling because you're adding YG to a "tool" a 4.
Can't decide on which one to get to keep the DD company, TT talkin to me

[looking to buy]

Originally Posted by Idle Swede

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

Agree. No Bling at all in an SS watch. I have both and I do not see either as having Bling.

[Edward-K]

4

[ingoodtime]

As far as I am concerned , the SS GMT IIc has no more bling than any other SS Sub or GMT. The PCL adds a possibly dressier look to a sporty watch and the ceramic bezel looks nice and shiny. Since I already have a TT sub and can not afford the GMT 18 KT (my dream watch) at this point, I will probably be buying the SS GMT soon. It will be my everday everything watch. And, I'll be very happy to have it.

[Chozn1]

2

If you want to get a little higher without the diamonds step up to a Platty YM

[alcook]

Originally Posted by Perdu

2.5. It has bling - wake up and smell the roses. Not that that's a bad thing but people are using the word bling like bling is a negative thing. I like the GMTIIc but no way is it subtle. If you don't agree that SS can have bling take a walk down the mall and see the offerings.

Subtlety (or the lack off) is different to bling.

I agree with Wikipedia...

Bling-bling (or simply bling) is a slang term popularized in hip hop culture, referring to flashy or elaborate jewellery and ornamented accessories that are carried, worn, or installed, such as cell phones or tooth caps. The concept is often associated with either the working and lower middle classes or the newly wealthy, implying that the concept of riches and shiny items is something new to them. Used in this sense, it can be derogatory, suggesting lack of good taste.

To some, the GMT will fit this bill well as it can be perceived as 'flashy', 'elaborate' and an 'ornament'. I'm not being derogatory here, but I'd argue this is looking at at it from the point of view of those who can't afford one, who are looking to cheapen it or the person for whatever reason and it will affect the whole Rolex brand.

To the majority of those who can afford it and who wear it with pride, subtlety and finesse, they make it 'anti' bling...

A 1.5 for me as this is bling.... and somewhat off the scale.

[dalip]

Firstly bling is a subjective term. I tried on the TT GMT2c when I bought my SS recently. It was too much for me personally. I would rate that a 4. The SS stands out on the wrist more than the sub because of the ceramic larger bezel, larger hands and markers plus the pcl. But as it is ss it does not look bling at all. It stands out while remaining too subtle for bling. IMO it is YG on any sorts watch that adds bling factor. I do not wear YG at all. My wedding ring is WG and if I have ever worn a necklace it has been thin white gold. It's what suits me. But I am starting to see the appeal of both the TT and YG sports watches after being on this forum and maybe one day they will be my taste as it is forever evolving. Got a feeling I'll save and go 18ct YG with green face cos my word that thing is something.

So a 1 from me as with all ss sports models.

[Proand]

I give it a 3 due to the PCL's.

[sakuraba]

Originally Posted by Idle Swede

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

+1

I'm with Leo on this one. Have to admit, the PCLs are shiny, but definitely not in the bling category.

[therolexguy]

1.25

[Lrlx]

GMT2 with two toned band is very blingy especially in a work environment. You will catch peoples eye. There will be many flashes of light and sparkles emitting off your wrist. I vote 4. One step below diamonds or full on gold

[Speed]

Well, I like the TT GMT IIc on JJ....but for moi, I would get the Stainless. :-)

[USCpaneristi]

But, compared to its predecessor, I'd say it's more like a 3 or 4. Then again, people say its predecessor was blingier than it's predecessor because of the white gold around the markers, so..............

[deserted]

That's not considered "Bling" The GMT iced is.......I do like the TT GMT better..

[Speed]

Originally Posted by USCpaneristi

But, compared to its predecessor, I'd say it's more like a 3 or 4. Then again, people say its predecessor was blingier than it's predecessor because of the white gold around the markers, so..............

Totally off Thread topic....but are you loving the USC / CAL game as much as I am right now?

[denisavu]

I say subtle bling so it gets a 1.5 from me!

[JJ Irani]

If you consider the Sub as 1 on the "bling" meter, then the SS GMT-IIC gets a 2 and the TT GMT-IIC gets a 5.

JJ

[JBat]

Originally Posted by children

2- very handsome watch, but not blingy..

x2

[mb hawaii]

I'd say a 1.5 to 2.0 compared to a SS Sub. Not really bling at all.

[AK Blackhawk]

SS, I'd say 2 and the TT a 4.

[Boopie]

The ceramic bezel has some gloss to it, but neither that nor the PCL makes me thing of the GMT IIC as a "bling" watch.

[jvo300]

I'd give it a 2.5. Before getting mine I was really concerned about the bling factor and that I would not dig it. After getting it all I can say is ... THANK GOD! This watch is so incredible! It's not precious metal/diamond flashy, but its not a brushed toolwatch either. It fits every occasion IMO!

[Psmith]

Bling pertains to jewellery i.e. large, flashy gems, so not really applicable to a stainless steel watch...

Definition
bling adjective
describes jewellery which attracts attention because it is big and expensive
bling noun
informal jewellery of this type

[Cambridge dictionary]


Cheers

[Sub]

Originally Posted by jlake

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...

i have both so i guess i know what you're referring to. the GMTIIc is shinier than the Sub and draws attention when the 'sleeve is up'. i used to think it was 'bling' in the past but as i get to know her, i realise that the 'flashiness' is subtle and tasteful, and certainly not gawdy. it's a classy beauty!

if 5 = gold with diamonds ...i'd rate GMTIIc a 1.5.

whatever the ratings folks tell you, you can't go wrong getting either one or both of them

i've always worn my Sub as my 'soul mate' and i wear the GMTIIc when i want to go out with an 'Angelina Joile'
(wishful thinking...)

[rolexgiants]

Originally Posted by masugu

Totally off Thread topic....but are you loving the USC / CAL game as much as I am right now?

not as much as i LOVED the usc-washington game this year.... did i enjoy watching coach pete practically in tears walking off the field....

[IT-guy]

2.