Smooth glass on the GMT II?

[Rockrolex]

Originally Posted by mike

Without the cyclops your GMT would look something like this. I like it.

Not my photo,

I hate to say it, but whoever did that destroyed a beautiful watch.

My feeling is, if you don't like the cyclops, buy a SD or a PAM. But please don't desecrate a gorgeous GMT.

[mansion]

Originally Posted by Rockrolex

My feeling is, if you don't like the cyclops, buy a SD or a PAM. But please don't desecrate a gorgeous GMT.

I was only asking!

[JJ Irani]

Originally Posted by Rockrolex

I hate to say it, but whoever did that destroyed a beautiful watch.

My feeling is, if you don't like the cyclops, buy a SD or a PAM. But please don't desecrate a gorgeous GMT.

Have to agree with Ed on this one. Both, the GMT-II as well as that gorgeous Pt. DD above look absolutely bloody ridiculous without the cyclops!!

[tonelar]

Originally Posted by Rockrolex

I hate to say it, but whoever did that destroyed a beautiful watch.
My feeling is, if you don't like the cyclops, buy a SD or a PAM. But please don't desecrate a gorgeous GMT.

Originally Posted by JJ Irani

Have to agree with Ed on this one. Both, the GMT-II as well as that gorgeous Pt. DD above look absolutely bloody ridiculous without the cyclops!!

This GMT, as well as the DD and DJ both look really clean to me. I think that they're gorgeous watches to start with, and now have moved on to a more unique look. I have 2 GMTs and have decided to remove the magnifier from my black bezel model.

Just as there are those of us that love / hate certain models, there are those that will have strong opinions regarding wether or not you're wearing the original bracelet or wether your watch's crystal has the magnifier glued onto it. As these are their opinions, I pay attention to (as well as value) them.

If you don't like it, knock the magnifier off... in the end it can always be replaced by purchasing a new crystal. Aren't there already about a million watches "just like yours" in the world?

[mike]

Originally Posted by tonelar

This GMT, as well as the DD and DJ both look really clean to me. I think that they're gorgeous watches to start with, and now have moved on to a more unique look. I have 2 GMTs and have decided to remove the magnifier from my black bezel model.

Just as there are those of us that love / hate certain models, there are those that will have strong opinions regarding wether or not you're wearing the original bracelet or wether your watch's crystal has the magnifier glued onto it. As these are their opinions, I pay attention to (as well as value) them.

If you don't like it, knock the magnifier off... in the end it can always be replaced by purchasing a new crystal. Aren't there already about a million watches "just like yours" in the world?

I agree Tony. That particular example is a 16750. The clean crystal really enhance the matt dial and open numbers on the date wheel. Shame Rolex doesn't offer the option anymore to have a non-cyclops crystal fitted to your watch.

[JJ Irani]

Sorry guys,

But the CYCLOPS is like a registered trade mark of any Rolex. Knock it off and you've lost "recognition".

It's like breaking off the 3-pointed star logo on the hood of a Mercedes-Benz!!

[Dan Pierce]

But the CYCLOPS is like a registered trade mark of any Rolex.

I'm with you JJ. It's an iconic detail that makes reading the date much easier. I certainly like the fact you can purchase a SD without one too. Rolex makes enough models to keep everybody happy.
dP

[tonelar]

Originally Posted by JJ Irani

Sorry guys,

But the CYCLOPS is like a registered trade mark of any Rolex. Knock it off and you've lost "recognition".

It's like breaking off the 3-pointed star logo on the hood of a Mercedes-Benz!!

Or removing the Ferrari badges on your shiny red italian roadster? Leaving just the prancing horse logo?

Any Rolex would be far from ruined... to me it's such an improvment.

And, while we're on the subject of the mighty Mercedes Benz, who here would say this car was ruined for the loss of a 3 pointed piece of chrome?



Or wouldn't have any idea of who built this one, since the star was knocked off the top of the hood?

[jimcameron]

Originally Posted by Gedanken

I know a guy who survived a 10,000 foot drop after his main and reserve failed,

Did he go right back up and jump again????

I mean, after he changed his shorts......

........and left the hospital, and rehab, and church, and the pub, and his girlfriend.

[tonelar]

Originally Posted by Gedanken

Would you believe he went through all the branches of a tree and then through the roof of a shanty house? Legend has it he landed on the dining table and broke that too, and with a broken arm and rib he got up, apologised to the family for interrupting their dinner and went out to wait for the ambulance.

A couple of years later he had a second incident where the main failed but the reserve opened. The powers-that-be at the Parachute Training Wing decided that one man can only have so much luck and restricted him to static line jumps. As it turns out, his luck did eventually run out - he passed away with cancer about a year ago.

I guess all our luck runs out eventually.

[mike]

Originally Posted by JJ Irani

Sorry guys,

But the CYCLOPS is like a registered trade mark of any Rolex. Knock it off and you've lost "recognition".

It's like breaking off the 3-pointed star logo on the hood of a Mercedes-Benz!!

I have no idea about Mercedes (other than I like them), but in fact Rolex made a non-cyclops option on the reference 6542 and 1675 known as the Tropic#38 non-cyclops crystal.

[tonelar]

Originally Posted by mike

Shame Rolex doesn't offer the option anymore to have a non-cyclops crystal fitted to your watch.

I have no idea about Mercedes (other than I like them), but in fact Rolex made a non-cyclops option on the reference 6542 and 1675 known as the Tropic#38 non-cyclops crystal.

See what I mean? Since they once offered it as an option, speaks volumes as to wether or not to do it...

[JJ Irani]

Originally Posted by tonelar

Or removing the Ferrari badges on your shiny red italian roadster? Leaving just the prancing horse logo?

Any Rolex would be far from ruined... to me it's such an improvment.

And, while we're on the subject of the mighty Mercedes Benz, who here would say this car was ruined for the loss of a 3 pointed piece of chrome?



Or wouldn't have any idea of who built this one, since the star was knocked off the top of the hood?

Sorry, Tony, but that gaping hole in the first picture has just about ruined the entire look of a modern day classic.

And in the second picture, a classic has been ruined without the logo!!

[tonelar]

Originally Posted by JJ Irani

Sorry, Tony, but that gaping hole in the first picture has just about ruined the entire look of a modern day classic.

And in the second picture, a classic has been ruined without the logo!!

How is a Mercedes different from a Ferrari (I could've sworn you mentioned you'd be fine with a ferrari without any extra logos on it)?

JJ, look a little closer at the second picture... there's a propeller logo on the fwd/top of the grill.

I'd drive either of those cars without a moment's hesitation. Prolly wouldn't even consider them as damaged goods either. Guess my standards are just lower than yours. My watches are pretty much ruined in your eyes...

Cheers!

[JJ Irani]

Originally Posted by tonelar

look a little closer at the second picture... there's a propeller logo on the fwd/top of the grill.

I'd drive either of those cars without a moment's hesitation. Prolly woudn;t even consider them as damaged goods either. Guess my standards are just lower than yours, JJ...

Yes, I can see the small blue logo on top of the grill.....but the main chrome logo is what really matters on a vintage classic such as this one.

Although this one doesn't look as bad as the one on top, I'd still like to see it with the chromium 3-pointed star!!

[tonelar]

Originally Posted by JJ Irani

Yes, I can see the small blue logo on top of the grill.....but the main chrome logo is what really matters on a vintage classic such as this one.

Although this one doesn't look as bad as the one on top, I'd still like to see it with the chromium 3-pointed star!!

What really matters is that there's a car there in the first place... a car collector wouldn't revise their estimate on it's value (by more than $100) based on the absence of a chrome hood ornament. If given the choice between that car and one with the ornament, they'd still be more interested in the lower mileage, more original options model.

Here's that Mercedes, by the way, but for me it's always been a pet peeve that the propeller logo occurs twice within inches of each other... always thought that if I ever owned one, I'd loose one or the other...

[JJ Irani]

WOW! Now see how stunning the logo looks on the car!!

[Incurable]

I think this is a very good example of the 'purist' attitude vs well... not. I certainly hold Rolex in high regard but are they unimpeachable in their choices and products? I guess another (hypothetical) perspective of this could be... Would those against this mod feel the same if Rolex themselves offered the non-Cyclops crystal as a service item available for install at RSC's? In that light, this option (properly handled through a RSC) could indeed be highly desireable and command higher resale prices. Just playing the 'devils advocate' on this... but just in case, I don the suit

[tonelar]

nice suit...

yeah, I just wear what I want to, drive what I want to and encourage others to do the same.

JJ has a curator's eye to detail and is not going to be swayed from his beliefs either.

I hope no one is getting the impression that this isn't a friendly discussion / debate.

As far as Rolex goes, they're a company and they do some dumb things like offering the crystals with the cyclops already glued onto them (-my opinion) and marketing a leopard daytona (-JJ's opinion I believe). I don't think either he nor I condone a blind acceptance to whatever they choose to sell us.

[JJ Irani]

Originally Posted by tonelar

nice suit...

yeah, I just wear what I want to, drive what I want to and encourage others to do the same.

JJ has a curator's eye to detail and is not going to be swayed from his beliefs either.

I hope no one is getting the impression that this isn't a friendly discussion / debate.

As far as Rolex goes, they're a company and they do some dumb things like offering the crystals with the cyclops already glued onto them (-my opinion) and marketing a leopard daytona (-JJ's opinion I believe). I don't think either he nor I condone a blind acceptance to whatever they choose to sell us.

Yes, Tony....of course this is a friendly debate. What else can it be amongst good friends?

[Tombstone]

GMT II is a fine watch, congratulations.