Massive in every way. Which do you prefer to wear on a daily basis?
I have 6 watches so try to rotate them fairly if I can - though I probably do wear the Sub and DSSD slightly more then the others!! If I'm in a rush in the morning its normally one of these two I grab!
The DSSD is prob my fave, its such an over engineered piece that I love to look at! It was quite a magic moment when I opened the box! The weight and heft doesn't bother me at all if I'm honest, I'm a fairly big guy so never related to the "too heavy" tag that it gets on many a watch forum.
Quite weird though is that when I see it on other peoples wrists (only happened twice) it looked like a monster but I don't think this way when I wear it, kind of strange - a bit like I have a different watch!
My dress watch with a history. It is the wristwatch of my grandfather. It's made in the late 60's by an Amsterdam company. I had it midly cleaned. Wanted to preserve the patina.
this never happened to the other fellow
Asp9mmOver the Hills and Far Away.Posts: 7,541MI6 Agent
A S/S Daytona with a ceramic bezel has been on the cards for a while, but whether Rolex will finally bow to pressure...?
I wouldn't mind a 'Coke' version of the GMTIIC....without bracelet PCLs.
I think I saw somewhere, the possibility of a brown dial and bezel two tone SubC...will avoid that though!
Other than that, more variations of Datejust IIs and Skydweller, perhaps?
Asp9mmOver the Hills and Far Away.Posts: 7,541MI6 Agent
You don't need lume on those numerals. I've found that they reflect even the smallest amount of light in darkness when outdoors much more than my Sub which absorbs it. I thought this was Rolex marketing BS until I experimented with it. So Higgins hasn't even got that excuse to use now for not liking it. You get the best of both worlds with lume on the batons, and reflectivity on the numerals.
Besides, supaluminova doesn't work too well in darkness with no exposure to light beforehand, and degrades quickly and gives no luminosity after a short while anyway. So his argument is even more pointless. Works well on a divers watch though as it is exposed to light well before a dive, and you aren't down for too long so degrading isn't an issue over such a short amount of time.
Thought I would throw mine in (a link to the official page anyway as I don't have any images, mine is exactly the same as the one on the page).
Superocean 42 with yellow insert, nice piece of kit, had it two years now, I stepped up to this from an Omega Seamaster 300 quartz which was my first nice watch
You don't need lume on those numerals. I've found that they reflect even the smallest amount of light in darkness when outdoors much more than my Sub which absorbs it. I thought this was Rolex marketing BS until I experimented with it. So Higgins hasn't even got that excuse to use now for not liking it. You get the best of both worlds with lume on the batons, and reflectivity on the numerals.
Besides, supaluminova doesn't work too well in darkness with no exposure to light beforehand, and degrades quickly and gives no luminosity after a short while anyway. So his argument is even more pointless. Works well on a divers watch though as it is exposed to light well before a dive, and you aren't down for too long so degrading isn't an issue over such a short amount of time.
If anybody needs evidence that your brain has gone totally nuts, he just has to read this crap again from you.
So no lume is better than a bit of lume :v
Seriously - only a complete nuthead like yourself could make such a claim.
The SL degrades quickly but it's certainly enough to be visible over the entire night with eyes adapted to the darkness.
That there is no luminosity at all is bullcrap! And you know it! If that really happens - send the watch to Rolex and get a new dial under warranty. But don't tell them that you are a total moron because they may refuse to work on your watch at all!
Trying to pull the one that reflected nightlight would be any better than any kind of lume is plain silly - what's next?
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Asp9mmOver the Hills and Far Away.Posts: 7,541MI6 Agent
edited March 2015
It's true, outside on a dark night, the numerals reflect light really well. And no, when you wake up at night in the pitch black, it is difficult to see what time it is when the SL has fully degraded. It's a simple fact. Of course you can't reflect light off the numerals or hands either, but I never said you could. Maybe if you started wearing your watch for telling the time instead of keeping them in their boxes, you'd know about it. And SL doesn't reflect light you dumpling. God you're thick. Remember I actually use mine in remote rainforests and desert environments and not on yachts and in hotel rooms like you. When you rely on your watch for timing and navigation, things like this take on more importance. There's been loads of times with my old Sub, Sea-Dweller, and even my PO, when it was easier to tell the time at night by angling the hands off a light source. And I'm not the only one that did that. The best performers were Traser watches, or those with T3 vials in the dial and hands. Now they glow bright at night, ALL night.
Oh, and you know what, the bezel on the new SubC spins too easily compared to the old one, and then not at all if you get sand in it. Great for a divers watch 8-) And no, it's not just mine, it's a well noted niggle with them.
SL is something else than Tritium where I agree that it (Tritium) degrades over the years to an amount that it does not "shine"
I stay with it - and i am wearing SL watches regularly (Submariner 116610 and Explorer II 42 mm) and the lume is never completely dark!
It's always sufficient to read the time !
And I never said that SL reflects light, where did I say that?
So in summary - you can't compare the Tritium Lume from your old Subs with modern SL because SL should not fade over the years and it gives you ALWAYS enough lume to read the time.
Always means that it'll still work if someone like you spends the majority of his day in a shitty dark cave
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Asp9mmOver the Hills and Far Away.Posts: 7,541MI6 Agent
Yesterday was not 1st February 2011
And your Sub 114060 would have had enough lume if your eyes adapted - otherwise there is something wrong with it or you've stayed in there for over a week - which would not surprise me at all
Maybe a badger was sh*tting on your Sub and you forgot to wipe it clean :v
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Asp9mmOver the Hills and Far Away.Posts: 7,541MI6 Agent
That's because I didn't take pictures yesterday. It was miserable and raining. I went down to see if the bats were waking up as they are good indicators as the adders will follow them a week or so later. I have to stay ahead of the game when it comes to surveying.
That's because I didn't take pictures yesterday. It was miserable and raining. I went down to see if the bats were waking up as they are good indicators as the adders will follow them a week or so later. I have to stay ahead of the game when it comes to surveying.
You know you can get a decent basic calculator for a couple of pounds these days, saves the bother of digging through caves for adders.
Asp9mmOver the Hills and Far Away.Posts: 7,541MI6 Agent
I've discussed disposal of his body with Sir Miles many times. We found the best idea was to stick it in a bonfire on Nov 5th. Finding a way of disposing of his trainers is another story though. We'll auction his watches on here.
.................................
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,923Chief of Staff
This is true...can't burn his trainers as they are a pollutant in natural form, never mind on fire...
Very unkind of various members wanting to burn Robin Masters' stylish foot wear...yep Donk never did believe the Orson Wells/Robin Masters sub text...Higgybaby had to be behind such literary greatness -{
Comments
Chunky next to my Sub
I have 6 watches so try to rotate them fairly if I can - though I probably do wear the Sub and DSSD slightly more then the others!! If I'm in a rush in the morning its normally one of these two I grab!
The DSSD is prob my fave, its such an over engineered piece that I love to look at! It was quite a magic moment when I opened the box! The weight and heft doesn't bother me at all if I'm honest, I'm a fairly big guy so never related to the "too heavy" tag that it gets on many a watch forum.
Quite weird though is that when I see it on other peoples wrists (only happened twice) it looked like a monster but I don't think this way when I wear it, kind of strange - a bit like I have a different watch!
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Wonder what Basel has for offer this year Rolex wise? Any predictions?
I wouldn't mind a 'Coke' version of the GMTIIC....without bracelet PCLs.
I think I saw somewhere, the possibility of a brown dial and bezel two tone SubC...will avoid that though!
Other than that, more variations of Datejust IIs and Skydweller, perhaps?
That NOT be his winkie, that be his ROD & what a fine WEL ROD it is -{
Besides, supaluminova doesn't work too well in darkness with no exposure to light beforehand, and degrades quickly and gives no luminosity after a short while anyway. So his argument is even more pointless. Works well on a divers watch though as it is exposed to light well before a dive, and you aren't down for too long so degrading isn't an issue over such a short amount of time.
Superocean 42 with yellow insert, nice piece of kit, had it two years now, I stepped up to this from an Omega Seamaster 300 quartz which was my first nice watch
http://www.breitling.com/en/models/superocean/superocean-42/
Fancy a change though so thinking of letting it go if anyone in the UK is interested
If anybody needs evidence that your brain has gone totally nuts, he just has to read this crap again from you.
So no lume is better than a bit of lume :v
Seriously - only a complete nuthead like yourself could make such a claim.
The SL degrades quickly but it's certainly enough to be visible over the entire night with eyes adapted to the darkness.
That there is no luminosity at all is bullcrap! And you know it! If that really happens - send the watch to Rolex and get a new dial under warranty. But don't tell them that you are a total moron because they may refuse to work on your watch at all!
Trying to pull the one that reflected nightlight would be any better than any kind of lume is plain silly - what's next?
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Oh, and you know what, the bezel on the new SubC spins too easily compared to the old one, and then not at all if you get sand in it. Great for a divers watch 8-) And no, it's not just mine, it's a well noted niggle with them.
I stay with it - and i am wearing SL watches regularly (Submariner 116610 and Explorer II 42 mm) and the lume is never completely dark!
It's always sufficient to read the time !
And I never said that SL reflects light, where did I say that?
So in summary - you can't compare the Tritium Lume from your old Subs with modern SL because SL should not fade over the years and it gives you ALWAYS enough lume to read the time.
Always means that it'll still work if someone like you spends the majority of his day in a shitty dark cave
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
No it doesn't. I was in a shitty dark cave yesterday and my Sub was dark too.
Yesterday was not 1st February 2011
And your Sub 114060 would have had enough lume if your eyes adapted - otherwise there is something wrong with it or you've stayed in there for over a week
Maybe a badger was sh*tting on your Sub and you forgot to wipe it clean :v
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Its where he will dispose of Higgins
You know you can get a decent basic calculator for a couple of pounds these days, saves the bother of digging through caves for adders.
I've discussed disposal of his body with Sir Miles many times. We found the best idea was to stick it in a bonfire on Nov 5th. Finding a way of disposing of his trainers is another story though. We'll auction his watches on here.
Can't we bring Nov 5th forward this year ?
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!