The Rolex Forums   The Rolex Watch

ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX


Go Back   Rolex Forums - Rolex Forum > Rolex & Tudor Watch Topics > Rolex General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12 September 2009, 07:14 AM   #31
Perdu
"TRF" Member
 
Perdu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Real Name: Gary
Location: GMT-6
Watch: GMT
Posts: 3,350
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.
__________________
Omega Seamaster 300M GMT Noire
Omega Seamaster Aqua Terra 8500

Benson 1937 Sterling Silver Hunter
Perdu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19 September 2009, 12:12 PM   #32
dfh27490
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Real Name: David
Location: Oklahoma, USA
Watch: YG President
Posts: 22
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
dfh27490 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19 September 2009, 12:15 PM   #33
looking to buy
"TRF" Member
 
looking to buy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Real Name: Bob
Location: Paradise CA
Posts: 920
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idle Swede View Post
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.
__________________
16610 Submariner - 116710 GMT II C - 16570 Explorer II - 126710BLRO GMT II (Pepsi) - 116300 Datejust II
looking to buy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21 September 2009, 04:12 AM   #34
Edward-K
2024 Pledge Member
 
Edward-K's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Ohio/USA
Posts: 96
4
Edward-K is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21 September 2009, 04:36 AM   #35
ingoodtime
"TRF" Member
 
ingoodtime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 2,834
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.
ingoodtime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21 September 2009, 04:40 AM   #36
Chozn1
"TRF" Member
 
Chozn1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: South GA
Watch: Sub and President
Posts: 1,501
2

If you want to get a little higher without the diamonds step up to a Platty YM
__________________
Current Models...
(K)Bluesy
(M) TT DJ
In search of DayDate
Prior models... Just about everything.
Chozn1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21 September 2009, 09:13 AM   #37
alcook
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Yorkshire
Watch: SS GMT IIC-116710
Posts: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perdu View Post
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.


alcook is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21 September 2009, 10:01 AM   #38
dalip
"TRF" Member
 
dalip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Real Name: Dalip
Location: Mumbai and Perth
Watch: Rolex PAM Omega
Posts: 18,656
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.
dalip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21 September 2009, 10:16 AM   #39
Proand
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 24
I give it a 3 due to the PCL's.
Proand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21 September 2009, 11:50 AM   #40
sakuraba
"TRF" Member
 
sakuraba's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Real Name: Jib
Location: SJ, California
Watch: sun dial
Posts: 8,189
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idle Swede View Post
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.
sakuraba is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21 September 2009, 11:52 AM   #41
therolexguy
2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member
 
therolexguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Real Name: Todd
Location: US
Posts: 3,528
1.25
therolexguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4 October 2009, 12:18 PM   #42
Lrlx
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: ny
Posts: 292
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
Lrlx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4 October 2009, 12:21 PM   #43
Speed
"TRF" Member
 
Speed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 19,706
Well, I like the TT GMT IIc on JJ....but for moi, I would get the Stainless. :-)
Speed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4 October 2009, 12:24 PM   #44
USCpaneristi
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Real Name: Andrew
Location: California
Watch: Black SS Daytona
Posts: 227
On it's own, I'd say minimally "blingy"

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..............
USCpaneristi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4 October 2009, 12:27 PM   #45
deserted
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: fort wayne IN
Watch: Patek 1909003
Posts: 2,176
That's not considered "Bling" The GMT iced is.......I do like the TT GMT better..
deserted is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4 October 2009, 12:28 PM   #46
Speed
"TRF" Member
 
Speed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 19,706
Quote:
Originally Posted by USCpaneristi View Post
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?
Speed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4 October 2009, 12:33 PM   #47
denisavu
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NJ
Posts: 31
I say subtle bling so it gets a 1.5 from me!
denisavu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4 October 2009, 12:36 PM   #48
JJ Irani
Fondly Remembered
 
JJ Irani's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Real Name: JJ
Location: Auckland, NZ
Watch: ALL SOLD!!
Posts: 74,319
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
__________________
Words fail me in expressing my utmost thanks to ALL of you for this wonderful support during my hour of need!!

I firmly believe that my time on planet earth is NOT yet up!! I shall fight this to the very end.......and WIN!!
JJ Irani is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4 October 2009, 01:07 PM   #49
JBat
"TRF" Member
 
JBat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Real Name: John
Location: Washington
Watch: 16710, 16610, DJ
Posts: 7,329
Quote:
Originally Posted by children View Post
2- very handsome watch, but not blingy..
x2
JBat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4 October 2009, 01:26 PM   #50
mb hawaii
"TRF" Member
 
mb hawaii's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Sunny Hawaii
Watch: 116528 /126715CHNR
Posts: 451
I'd say a 1.5 to 2.0 compared to a SS Sub. Not really bling at all.
mb hawaii is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4 October 2009, 02:21 PM   #51
AK Blackhawk
"TRF" Member
 
AK Blackhawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Real Name: Pete
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 118
SS, I'd say 2 and the TT a 4.
__________________
AK Blackhawk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4 October 2009, 02:34 PM   #52
Boopie
"TRF" Member
 
Boopie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Beverly Hills, CA
Watch: Yachtmaster
Posts: 3,952
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.
Boopie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5 October 2009, 12:07 PM   #53
jvo300
"TRF" Member
 
jvo300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: TX
Posts: 1,897
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!
jvo300 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5 October 2009, 08:33 PM   #54
Psmith
"TRF" Member
 
Psmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Real Name: Clive
Location: Exoplanet
Watch: spring-driven
Posts: 38,856
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
__________________
Psmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5 October 2009, 09:28 PM   #55
Sub
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Houston
Watch: Submariner, GMTIIc
Posts: 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlake View Post
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...)
Sub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5 October 2009, 10:33 PM   #56
rolexgiants
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: new york, usa
Posts: 2,903
Quote:
Originally Posted by masugu View Post
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....
rolexgiants is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 6 October 2009, 12:11 AM   #57
IT-guy
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: DC
Watch: SD 126600
Posts: 195
2.
IT-guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Wrist Aficionado

My Watch LLC

WatchesOff5th

DavidSW Watches

Takuya Watches

OCWatches


*Banners Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.





Copyright ©2004-2024, The Rolex Forums. All Rights Reserved.

ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Rolex is a registered trademark of ROLEX USA. The Rolex Forums is not affiliated with ROLEX USA in any way.