ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

KY.. · 27 September 2022, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kieselguhr

Sorry to hear about your brother. Talking to you is like talking to a wall. There’s your hyperbole. Let’s not continue.

Touche!
Better example but still a bit of exaggeration

mattfa999 · 27 September 2022, 07:55 AM

Having worn a 15200 purchased in 1995 and a 16700 purchased in 1999 and just having purchased a Tudor Ranger last week I can unequivocally state the Ranger is without a doubt mechanically a superior watch than either of my old ones. The bracelet on the Ranger is fantastic and the clasp is unbelievable. After one day on wrist I packed up the 16700 Pepsi in its original box and stashed it deep in my sock drawer. The Ranger is so much watch for $3050. The bracelet and clasp are on par with my 116520 if I do dare say so. These new Tudors are priced to really grab market share for sure.

27 September 2022, 07:55 AM	#92
mattfa999 "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2016 Location: New Jersey Posts: 70	Having worn a 15200 purchased in 1995 and a 16700 purchased in 1999 and just having purchased a Tudor Ranger last week I can unequivocally state the Ranger is without a doubt mechanically a superior watch than either of my old ones. The bracelet on the Ranger is fantastic and the clasp is unbelievable. After one day on wrist I packed up the 16700 Pepsi in its original box and stashed it deep in my sock drawer. The Ranger is so much watch for $3050. The bracelet and clasp are on par with my 116520 if I do dare say so. These new Tudors are priced to really grab market share for sure.

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