Black DSSD in the wild - ewww...

[gofore59]

Just saw a blacked out DSSD with red letters in the wild - it looks like one of those plastic toy watches.

This one was somewhat shiny and combined with the ceramic bezel it looks very cheap - like a $200 watch.

The reason Rolex watches look better than fakes / Invicta / Seiko, etc. is the quality of the steel. You can just tell it is a quality product from accross the room.

I think there are different black finishes - PVD, DLC, etc. - it may look better in a flat tone that holds the stanliess grain, but the shiny black does not work...

[ParisDakarBmw]

"look better than fakes / Invicta / Seiko, etc."

This ones going to be interesting to read.....

[faingator]

I wouldn't consider Invicta and Seiko watches fake. Perhaps in some instances they pay homage to Rolex. Of course the above statement is mho.

[Clogger]

Originally Posted by faingator

I wouldn't consider Invicta and Seiko watches fake. Perhaps in some instances they pay homage to Rolex. Of course the above statement is mho.

I don't think thats what the OP was implying. I think it meant you can tell the difference between fakes and the other brands

Just trying to clear that up before he gets flamed for bashing invicta and Seiko.

[Green Arrow]

looks better than on watches such as fakes, Invictas, and Seikos.

I can't speak to Invicta, but I'm currently wearing a SBBN015 Seiko Marine Master 300 Prospex "Tuna" that I kept when I traded in my Rolex Sub LV for my new gold Omega Aqua Terra.

I understand that if someone has an allergy to nickel that the stainless steel that Rolex uses is better, or if you intend to live in a high corrossion environment permanently, (assuming your lungs survived) that the roles stainless would do better.

But as to looks, the looks of the stainless on my Seiko, and the quality of the bracelet, and shroud (Tuna) is BETTER on my Seiko than on my former Sub LV.

I will still buy a TT Submariner C because I still love Rolex, but not because you can see its superiority, if in fact it is superior, from across the room.

I think it would have been enough to say that the pvd treatment made the watch lose some of the specialness in the OPs opinion that the original design carries in its native SS. These comparisons with their built in derision for other brands are what I like least about the Rolex community.

Luckily brand snobbishness is rarer than ever these days as knowledge of prevously unavailable watches such as Grand Seikos, and other watches become more available and more is known about how good they are.

[Clogger]

Originally Posted by Green Arrow

looks better than on watches such as fakes, Invictas, and Seikos.

I can't speak to Invicta, but I'm currently wearing a SBBN015 Seiko Marine Master 300 Prospex "Tuna" that I kept when I traded in my Rolex Sub LV for my new gold Omega Aqua Terra.

I understand that if someone has an allergy to nickel that the stainless steel that Rolex uses is better, or if you intend to live in a high corrossion environment permanently, (assuming your lungs survived) that the roles stainless would do better.

But as to looks, the looks of the stainless on my Seiko, and the quality of the bracelet, and shroud (Tuna) is BETTER on my Seiko than on my former Sub LV.







I will still buy a TT Submariner C because I still love Rolex, but not because you can see its superiority, if in fact it is superior, from across the room.

I think it would have been enough to say that the pvd treatment made the watch lose some of the specialness in the OPs opinion that the original design carries in its native SS. These comparisons with their built in derision for other brands are what I like least about the Rolex community.

Luckily brand snobbishness is rarer than ever these days as knowledge of prevously unavailable watches such as Grand Seikos, and other watches become more available and more is known about how good they are.

The OP is not bashing Seiko, why don't people on here actually read the original post properely?? This is starting to become a little tiresome.

This is nothing to do with brand snobbery.

[Green Arrow]

Originally Posted by Clogger

The OP is not bashing Seiko, why don't people on here actually read the original post properely??

This is nothing to do with brand snobbery

However as this is the way the topic will now turn I will go with the flow.

I actually own a few seiko's including a 300m Tuna and while it's a great watch it isn't even in the same leaque as the finish on a Rolex Sub etc.. I cant even see how you would come to that conclusion.

So why would you want a TT Sub that you don't even think is superior to a much cheaper watch, what you say actaully makes little sense?
It must be then just beacuse it's a Rolex then?? So who is the snob now?

My reason for wanting the TT Sub is because it has a version of the Glidelock clasp, not unlike the MM 300 or SBBN015, but even better quality, has the new blue lume similar to the Deepsea Seadweller but without the ORIGINAL GAS VALVE rehaut, has the ceramic bezel like the GMT Master II C which I found to be close to indestructible, and has the 3135 movement with the parachrome bleu temperature resistant mainspring for excellent timing below water and above, with a triple lock protection for ocean sports on a watch I can wear to work on a daily basis, and with the history of Rolex dependability that I've enjoyed since my first Rolex in 1982. So in that sense, perhaps I am a Rolex snob, but not as to the quality of the stainless steel over my Seiko which on the Sub LV was not nearly as nice looking in my opinion, nor was the lume on the maxi-dial nearly as viewable on an all night basis as the dial on the Seiko with the clearly superior Lumibrite, much more liberally applied.

I've now owned 7 Rolex watches over the years, and will likely own more thanks to the days that Red Adair was featured in ads wearing his Rolex and wearing my first Rolex for 22 years straight as a daily wearer.

Rolex is proven to me. But then, so is Seiko. And Omega. And Girard Perreguax. And Jaeger LeCoultre, and Traser, Luminox, Ball, Garmin, and Suunto. Each one in its own way superior to all of the others in my personal opinion.

I also see no way the original poster wasn't lumping fakes, Invictas and Seikos in the same category, namely "cheap looking" and I think that opinion is inherently wrong.

Of course, I could be wrong as well.

[ParisDakarBmw]

I understood what the OP was saying, but you run the possability of insulting people when worded as it was.

No harm, just noticed that line, and remember other threads like this.

[Atomant]

I believe the OP mean no harm. What he's trying to say is that Rolex steel and quality is 1 step above watches like seiko, invictas and some fakes out there which I agree and can tell the difference from across the room. That's how appealing a Rolex can be.

[Shade]

So show us what this blackened dssd looks like?

[MagedMS]

Originally Posted by gofore59

Just saw a blacked out DSSD with red letters in the wild - it looks like one of those plastic toy watches.

This one was somewhat shiny and combined with the ceramic bezel it looks very cheap - like a $200 watch.

The reason Rolex watches look better than fakes / Invicta / Seiko, etc. is the quality of the steel. You can just tell it is a quality product from accross the room.

I think there are different black finishes - PVD, DLC, etc. - it may look better in a flat tone that holds the stanliess grain, but the shiny black does not work...

Pictures please............