ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Gaijin · 3 August 2007, 06:28 AM

As promised, here is a picture of the new 18k GMT II with factory Rolex Diamond dial at my AD...Wow!

$53,000 plus.

Welshwatchman · 3 August 2007, 06:31 AM

Not having the proper bezel markers slightly bollocks up the GMT functionality.

kcmo · 3 August 2007, 06:32 AM

WOW is right! That's a lotta money for a lotta bling!

colemanitis · 3 August 2007, 06:34 AM

Yeah, those diamonds render the bezel completely useless. Is it me, or does the date magnification suck on that watch?

Blue Bull · 3 August 2007, 06:35 AM

Hmmmmm ... nope

and at $53k

Lets be diplomatic and say there are better alternatves ..

SPACE-DWELLER · 3 August 2007, 06:37 AM

HIDEOUS!

And what did I write and have used as signature since the Basel Fair 2007??

:

"Just recently Rolex got on the WRONG train, going in the WRONG direction, heading for Breitling Town, briefly stopping at Omega City". © Bo (2007).

ohlins · 3 August 2007, 01:15 PM

haha how about the pepsi version then........?

USMCsilver · 3 August 2007, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ohlins

haha how about the pepsi version then........?

As much as I hate to admit it, this one looks better than the one above.

walds11 · 3 August 2007, 04:24 PM

Mmm, the pepsi version is not that bad.

peace43 · 3 August 2007, 05:47 PM

Both watches look a bit too flashy for me. I like diamonds but I don't think it's necessary to have them on a watch. (Rings, necklaces, and earrings are fine, though!) I can't imagine spending $53K on a watch but I guess if you have the money, why not?

reechaard · 4 August 2007, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Welshwatchman

Not having the proper bezel markers slightly bollocks up the GMT functionality.

I s'pose you can read the hour from the dial...the AM/PM is another issue... =P

timebroker · 4 August 2007, 09:15 AM

The pepsi does look better almost wearable

eduardogmtii · 4 August 2007, 09:17 AM

for 53 thousand you can have a very nice watch collection why would you spend it on one UGLY watch...

makes no sense to me

advocatia · 4 August 2007, 09:22 AM

agreed.. no numbers on bezel = useless as a tool watch.

epitomizes the direction rolex seems headed.

ianmedium · 4 August 2007, 09:23 AM

Hmm, not my personal cup of tea and it eradicates the functional aspect, having said that anyone who owns such a watch is sure to have several others to make up for that point!

tried on "my" sea dweller today at the AD, should not be long now and it looks like I have the right wrist size as it fitted with no ajustment. no worries either about the date, could see it perfectly!

BLSampson · 4 August 2007, 09:35 AM

These versions have castrated the functionality of a beautiful watch. They make the Yuk Master more appealing.

Rubenonfire · 5 August 2007, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by colemanitis

Yeah, those diamonds render the bezel completely useless. Is it me, or does the date magnification suck on that watch?

Date mag looks OK...

3 August 2007, 06:28 AM	#1
Gaijin 2024 ROLEX DATEJUST41 Pledge Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Japan Watch: ing your back. Posts: 16,179	New GMT II with Rolex Factory Diamond Dial. As promised, here is a picture of the new 18k GMT II with factory Rolex Diamond dial at my AD...Wow! $53,000 plus.

3 August 2007, 06:31 AM	#2
Welshwatchman "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Real Name: Paul Location: Wales, UK Posts: 14,578	Not having the proper bezel markers slightly bollocks up the GMT functionality. __________________ ..33

3 August 2007, 06:34 AM	#4
colemanitis "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Real Name: Jeff Location: Florida Watch: PAM 1090 Posts: 3,723	Yeah, those diamonds render the bezel completely useless. Is it me, or does the date magnification suck on that watch? __________________ Member #471

3 August 2007, 06:37 AM	#6
SPACE-DWELLER "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Real Name: Bo Location: Denmark Watch: Rolex, of course! Posts: 22,436	HIDEOUS! And what did I write and have used as signature since the Basel Fair 2007?? : "Just recently Rolex got on the WRONG train, going in the WRONG direction, heading for Breitling Town, briefly stopping at Omega City". © Bo (2007). __________________ With kind regards, Bo LocTite 221: The Taming Of The Screw...

3 August 2007, 01:15 PM	#7
ohlins "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Singapore Watch: Rolex Posts: 1,213	haha how about the pepsi version then........? __________________ the hype is true. a crown for every achievement. visit my audio and watch blog & how to use the rolex comfort link?

3 August 2007, 06:32 AM	#3
kcmo "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Real Name: Karis Location: USA Posts: 19,377	WOW is right! That's a lotta money for a lotta bling!

3 August 2007, 06:35 AM	#5
Blue Bull Banned Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 2,887	Hmmmmm ... nope and at $53k Lets be diplomatic and say there are better alternatves ..

3 August 2007, 04:24 PM	#9
walds11 "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Real Name: Adam Location: Philly ‘burbs Posts: 5,660	Mmm, the pepsi version is not that bad.

3 August 2007, 05:47 PM	#10
peace43 "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: CA Posts: 18	Both watches look a bit too flashy for me. I like diamonds but I don't think it's necessary to have them on a watch. (Rings, necklaces, and earrings are fine, though!) I can't imagine spending $53K on a watch but I guess if you have the money, why not?

4 August 2007, 09:15 AM	#12
timebroker "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Real Name: Filip Location: Belgium Posts: 1,619	The pepsi does look better almost wearable

4 August 2007, 09:17 AM	#13
eduardogmtii "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2007 Real Name: Eduardo Location: Washington D.C. Watch: rolex gmt ii, Posts: 138	for 53 thousand you can have a very nice watch collection why would you spend it on one UGLY watch... makes no sense to me

4 August 2007, 09:22 AM	#14
advocatia Banned Join Date: May 2005 Real Name: Andy Location: Florida USA Watch: PAM 422 GMTIIC Posts: 868	agreed.. no numbers on bezel = useless as a tool watch. epitomizes the direction rolex seems headed.

4 August 2007, 09:23 AM	#15
ianmedium Deregistered Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Vancouver Watch: Rolex Datejust Posts: 450	Hmm, not my personal cup of tea and it eradicates the functional aspect, having said that anyone who owns such a watch is sure to have several others to make up for that point! tried on "my" sea dweller today at the AD, should not be long now and it looks like I have the right wrist size as it fitted with no ajustment. no worries either about the date, could see it perfectly!

4 August 2007, 09:35 AM	#16
BLSampson "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Real Name: Bryan Location: Kansas City, MO Watch: TT Blue Submariner Posts: 930	These versions have castrated the functionality of a beautiful watch. They make the Yuk Master more appealing. __________________ Yoboman "People sleep safely in their beds at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

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