|
|
ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX
ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX
|
|
27 December 2012, 04:01 PM
|
#1 |
|
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Melbourne
Watch: 16610, Tudor 1960
Posts: 1,554
|
This is a very entertaining thread. A great debate nevertheless.
|
|
|
|
4 January 2013, 07:19 PM
|
#2 |
|
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Real Name: Chad
Location: the neighbourhood
Watch: 1680 Red
Posts: 2,262
|
Rolex doesn't need to produce larger watches or gimmicks to maintain sales
__________________
SS Sub Date (F) DSSD (V) Red Sub (Mk4)  TRF Hall of Fame |
|
|
|
|
5 January 2013, 05:34 AM
|
#3 |
|
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Here and there
Watch: Panerai, Rolex
Posts: 289
|
From a size perspective, I'm very happy with the current lineup. I would, however, like to see Rolex step up from a horology perspective.
|
|
|
|
|
5 January 2013, 08:16 AM
|
#4 |
|
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Real Name: Patrick
Location: Omaha
Watch: 16610 Submariner
Posts: 948
|
personally, i think the sub reached its apotheosis with the 16610. the new sub c, while it has its merits (bracelet, lume), is too bulky looking to my eyes. so the thought of a 42mm or, horror of horrors, 44mm sub is ridiculous as far as i'm concerned.
__________________
 2009 16610 Submariner Date 1971 1601 Datejust 1966 Omega Seamaster 1965 Vulcain Voyager Chronograph |
|
|
|
 |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
*Banners
Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.
Hybrid Mode
