Does "bling" and tool HAVE to be mutually exclusive

[Surg]

I wish rolex would make a tool watch that can read volts & Amps for us Electricians.

The closest thing for me is the Milguass. I love the lightning bolt second hand!

[Klokke]

Same goes for Subs and GMTs

[Nigel Tufnel]

Originally Posted by Mrdi

Nigel,
That statement is profound, and for those of us with a little less insight, could you please explain the difference between a simile and a metaphor?

It's late and I'm not sure just how seriously to take your comments, although your sarcasm is quite clear. In any event, I think you meant "those of us with a LOT less insight", judging by your tasteless "strawberry and snot" offering earlier, right? One could easily be allergic to strawberries, thus being prone to sneezing while eating them. You describe cause and effect, not a comparison using either a simile or a metaphor, albeit unwittingly. Your next three offerings are simply your pronouncements:

"You don't hang dice from the rear view in a Ferrari.
You don't put short shorts on your great grandma.
You don't put a NATO on your Cellini.
You don't ........"

A simile compares two things that are not alike, often using the words "like" or "as", such as, "His new diamond encrusted Daytona was as tacky as his pit bull's zircon-encrusted collar. All similes are metaphors, yet all metaphors are not similes. Perhaps you studied syllogisms in your collegiate logic course to understand the comparison. A metaphor is broader in scope and is a rhetorical device that transfers the sense of one object to another, such as my Ferrari example did. If you have either owned or driven a Ferrari, you know it is a delicate and intricate machine, hand built, lavishly cared for and pampered by its owner, and only driven sparingly. I believe the Patek Philip metaphorical comparison is valid. A Rolex, on the other hand, is more reminiscent of a Range Rover. It is tough, rugged, but mass-produced, not rare, and in horological candor, not all that complicated. A better metaphor for a Rolex could be "the bracelet on his new zebra Daytona was a heavy duty chain-link fence, just the like one that held his wallet to his belt" (actually, this example uses both a metaphor and a simile).

"This could be a new thread to rival the three worder."

Now, as far as this last sentence goes, I have no idea what you are talking about, but we could explore it, if you wish. Now, if your reply was genuine and not sarcastic, I will apologize in advance.

[Z-Sub]

Many Rolex watches were originally designed to be a well made,reliable and quality tool watches. But over the years, the $$ factor drives the company to move toward luxury jewelry and added too much blings to the watches IMHO.

[Andad]

Originally Posted by BigHat

Yes, I think they are mutually exclusive as I personally define the terms. Tool means work, bling means show-off to me.

That said, the GMT-IIC sans the jewels, is NOT bling just because of the polished center links and the tougher (ceramic) bezel. It's a "toolish" watch to me.

Edit: Let me add one point prompted by Frostie's remark below: Just because it's not bling, doesn't mean it's tool and vice versa. Bling is ostentious and tool is mundane, plenty of space in the middle.

Of course, standby for another 100 personal opinions.

Hey BHNC, take-backs are not allowed.

[Andad]

Well Nigel T certainly knows his smiles but can't tell the difference between a watch and a car?

I wear all my watches for their 'tool' applications:-





But not necessarily in that order.

[GDITheman]

Originally Posted by mcubed

So do polished center links preclude using the watch as you described?

The watch could have pearls on it, not mine of course, and if it's used for it's intended purpose, it's a tools watch. Tools have intended purposes. You don't use a wrench when you need a screw driver. I wouldn't wear a Daytona when I'm working out on the rigs. Make sense?

Use the definition of tool to make your determination. It doesn't matter what it looks like as long as it works for the objective.

[GDITheman]

Originally Posted by mpkRolex

To me Rolex is like a precious thing that I pamper all day on my wrist. I like to wear it almost all the time. If it gets dings, scratches or nicks it hurts me. That is the reason I like SS Rolex where scratches do not show as much as they do on TT or WG.

I understand your point of view, but they makes Rolexes every day. If something happened to mine, I'd getter another one that handles my mission. I bought it to use it. It works. Find something else that can handle the same abuse and I'll consider it. I don't cry when I scratch a Snap On wrench. I bought them to use them, but they do look nice.

If you use your Rolex as a tool, then that's fine. But, you have to look at the Sub, SD and other watches. They were designed and produced for a specific mission. Hard working people around the world use them everyday for their intended purpose. If Rolex had not designed these tool watches, then I'd be in trouble and going through TAGS and Omegas by the baker's dozen.

[Jimbits76]

As far back as I can remember....Rolex has made timepieces from gold and put diamonds on the dials etc. So they didn't need bling??????

I personally consider my Rolex watches to be nice pieces of jewellry, not tools. They tell the time sure but they are marketed and priced as luxury goods.

Does all jewellry have to be bling? I a simple 18ct white gold court wedding band bling?????

Depends on your definition of the term bling I would guess. To me, Bling is defined as the point of adornements at which subtle becomes crass.

I wouldn't say Rolls Royce, Aston, Bentley or Ferrari are bling, they are subtle masterpieces of design and workmanship (yep...even a ferrari in ferrari red!). I think Rolex are the same...including old shiny links GMTIIc or the MG.

Before you bitch at me...I hear all the ferrari is patek crap and Rolex are more like a honda etc and I don't care. That argument will go on forever. Rolex and their owners compare themselves to Porsche and Ferrari et all because the item they buy is marketed at the higher end of the purchasing spectrum like errrmmmmm Porsche or Ferrari!

None of this probabley answers the question but I will say I love my rolex watches and beleive in buying them to wear but I'm not crazy...there is no way I'd be wearing mine if I was digging ditches or working on engines or whatever the hell some of you do.

Common sense? Does pride before fall? No point in bashing something up for the sake of it?

I have a casio digital for that kind of stuff!!!!!!!!

J

[petespendthrift]

"Tool" is not quite the right word - tools tend to be for physical use. "Instrument" is more appropriate as it better describes something precise that is designed for a purpose - usually to measure or display information.

Clearly there was a period during which good mechanical watches were not cheap but the only thing available if you needed to tell the time. In the absence of other high tech equipment, divers and pilots etc. needed watches that were up to the job and Rolex made them. They do still handle the job very well but quartz and cheap manufacture were invented and now cheap watches can also do the job for a fraction of the cost and in most cases at least as well.

Nowadays we don't spend the extra money because we have to. We do it because we want to own something for nostalgic purposes and because we admire the craftsmanship amongst many other factors. In some ways you could liken it to military ceremonial dress uniforms still including ornate but fully functional swords.

These watches are not tools and never were. They always were and still are fine precision instruments that are tough and practical. As a previous poster has already said craftsmen have always decorated their best weapons, armour, instruments etc. Things like sextants and compasses have always been precious instruments designed for a practical purpose and have often been designed so that the ornate decoration actually enhances the practical function.

White gold surrounds on Rolex dial indices and the hands actually aid legibility in certain lights and do not tarnish. But polishing the center links on the bracelet is one of the few changes that I don't think provides any useful function but some people like it and Rolex obviously think it helps sales. I personally prefer the all brushed bracelets as I think it was a far better match of practicality and smartness.

As regards the original question - bling is flashy "look at me!" and does not need to be gold and diamonds it can also be anything else that makes an ostentatious statement (often at the expense of practicality). Sorry Deep Sea owners but I think they are very bling and far too large and pointless for real diving.

[GDITheman]

Originally Posted by Jimbits76

None of this probabley answers the question but I will say I love my rolex watches and beleive in buying them to wear but I'm not crazy...there is no way I'd be wearing mine if I was digging ditches or working on engines or whatever the hell some of you do.

Common sense? Does pride before fall? No point in bashing something up for the sake of it?

I have a casio digital for that kind of stuff!!!!!!!!

J

Your Casio wouldn't last 2 days in my environment. The Rolex Sub has lastest 15 years. My guys buy them because they do the job well in very demanding conditions. Since my Sub handles the riggors of offshore construction, I wear it while I'm wrenching on my race engines. I don't need multiple watches. I travel often and work always. I need one watch that meets my demands.

Now, if you like the way a Rolex looks and the added bling features appeal to you, great. There are some sweet looking Rolexes that catch my eye. Gold will just not last long enough for me to consider. The diamonds are eye catching, but I need to make sure all of the face and bezel features are distinguishable in all conditions.

I was just looking at Subs w/ serti faces last night. They caught my eye. I'd like to have one, but I need to see what time it is in the dark and sometimes even underwater. So, for me, it'll be another sub or SD. I need to go with what works for me.

Do I like polished surfaces on a Rolex? Yes, again it catches the eye. I do know that they will not stay polished for long. It would be a wasted feature for me, but I do think it looks nice.

I have an extreme perspective, but this is what drew me to Rolex. I don't care what celebrity wears one or or how much they cost or about the name recognition. I care that they are the most reliable and durable watches I've ever seen and mine has never let me down, ever.

The only reason I'm considering a new one, is because I have a new son this year. I'd like to write a story about everything mine has been through and get this old one reconditioned. This way I can give it to oldest son when he gets older. By the time the youngest is of age, the new watch will have plenty of stories to go along with it.

[Atlanta]

Originally Posted by GDITheman

Your Casio wouldn't last 2 days in my environment. The Rolex Sub has lastest 15 years. My guys buy them because they do the job well in very demanding conditions. Since my Sub handles the riggors of offshore construction, I wear it while I'm wrenching on my race engines. I don't need multiple watches. I travel often and work always. I need one watch that meets my demands.

Now, if you like the way a Rolex looks and the added bling features appeal to you, great. There are some sweet looking Rolexes that catch my eye. Gold will just not last long enough for me to consider. The diamonds are eye catching, but I need to make sure all of the face and bezel features are distinguishable in all conditions.

I was just looking at Subs w/ serti faces last night. They caught my eye. I'd like to have one, but I need to see what time it is in the dark and sometimes even underwater. So, for me, it'll be another sub or SD. I need to go with what works for me.

Do I like polished surfaces on a Rolex? Yes, again it catches the eye. I do know that they will not stay polished for long. It would be a wasted feature for me, but I do think it looks nice.

I have an extreme perspective, but this is what drew me to Rolex. I don't care what celebrity wears one or or how much they cost or about the name recognition. I care that they are the most reliable and durable watches I've ever seen and mine has never let me down, ever.

The only reason I'm considering a new one, is because I have a new son this year. I'd like to write a story about everything mine has been through and get this old one reconditioned. This way I can give it to oldest son when he gets older. By the time the youngest is of age, the new watch will have plenty of stories to go along with it.

Great post. I agree.

[Nigel Tufnel]

Originally Posted by GDITheman

Your Casio wouldn't last 2 days in my environment. The Rolex Sub has lastest 15 years. My guys buy them because they do the job well in very demanding conditions. Since my Sub handles the riggors of offshore construction, I wear it while I'm wrenching on my race engines. I don't need multiple watches. I travel often and work always. I need one watch that meets my demands.

Now, if you like the way a Rolex looks and the added bling features appeal to you, great. There are some sweet looking Rolexes that catch my eye. Gold will just not last long enough for me to consider. The diamonds are eye catching, but I need to make sure all of the face and bezel features are distinguishable in all conditions.

I was just looking at Subs w/ serti faces last night. They caught my eye. I'd like to have one, but I need to see what time it is in the dark and sometimes even underwater. So, for me, it'll be another sub or SD. I need to go with what works for me.

Do I like polished surfaces on a Rolex? Yes, again it catches the eye. I do know that they will not stay polished for long. It would be a wasted feature for me, but I do think it looks nice.

I have an extreme perspective, but this is what drew me to Rolex. I don't care what celebrity wears one or or how much they cost or about the name recognition. I care that they are the most reliable and durable watches I've ever seen and mine has never let me down, ever.

The only reason I'm considering a new one, is because I have a new son this year. I'd like to write a story about everything mine has been through and get this old one reconditioned. This way I can give it to oldest son when he gets older. By the time the youngest is of age, the new watch will have plenty of stories to go along with it.

I think your post captured the essence of what Rolex used to be relative to its professional watches, and I agree with you (except liking serti dials and shiny links). I think of the original Explorer, the Submariner, pre-Newman Daytona, Pepsi GMT, McQueen Explorer, and what did they all have in common? Steel construction, function over looks, durability and not a diamond or polished surface to be found. While I don't care for the proportions of the DSSD, it represents the only new watch they have introduced that harkens back to their roots. At the rate Rolex is going right now, every single professional watch will be polished, engraved, enlarged disproportionally, all seemingly to the point of non-recognition to a purist.

[bardm]

Originally Posted by cody p

i think it boils down to whatever floats your boat. for me, a rolex is a tool to tell time, and that's about it.

Well, if that really is so: Why dont' you buy a quartz?

[GDITheman]

Originally Posted by Nigel Tufnel

While I don't care for the proportions of the DSSD, it represents the only new watch they have introduced that harkens back to their roots.

To me the DSSD is the first real innovative change I've seen in 15 years of owning a Rolex. I tried one on Monday at my AD and I was impressed. It has so many FUNCTIONAL advances over the old SD, I find myself having a difficult time considering an old SD to replace my sub. All of the new features will make the watch that much more durable and functional.

I know some people do not like the ceramic bezel, but if you saw my old beat bezel, you would want something more scratch reistant.

It's good to see Rolex stepped up and evolved. I like the classic look of the Sub, but I do not want to buy a new Sub for more than 3 times what I paid for my old one. It makes no sense to me to pay so much for the same thing. Now the DSSD is a lot of money, but I'm getting a lot more watch. It is something to consider.

[petespendthrift]

Originally Posted by GDITheman

To me the DSSD...It has so many FUNCTIONAL advances over the old SD... Now the DSSD is a lot of money, but I'm getting a lot more watch...

I don't really want to put down any one's pride and joy and this thread was not really about debating the DSSDs virtues but I fail to see any additional "function" in this watch. I think of it as an impracticably big SD with an unusable level of water resistance designed to fill a gap in Rolex's model line for people who follow the fashion for chunky watches (and an excuse to raise the price to an absurd amount). Granted it has some slightly different features (ceramic, better bracelet etc.) but no new functions. The only way you are getting a lot more watch for you money is by weight and volume (and if you worked out cost per oz. or square inch you might actually be getting less )

There are some people here who are clearly either very very rich or in some kind of state of denial over why they buy these things.

[Nigel Tufnel]

Originally Posted by bardm

Well, if that really is so: Why dont' you buy a quartz?

Because he said his job requires a reliable watch that is built like a tank and take an excessive amount of abuse.

[GDITheman]

Originally Posted by petespendthrift

I don't really want to put down any one's pride and joy and this thread was not really about debating the DSSDs virtues but I fail to see any additional "function" in this watch. I think of it as an impracticably big SD with an unusable level of water resistance designed to fill a gap in Rolex's model line for people who follow the fashion for chunky watches (and an excuse to raise the price to an absurd amount). Granted it has some slightly different features (ceramic, better bracelet etc.) but no new functions. The only way you are getting a lot more watch for you money is by weight and volume (and if you worked out cost per oz. or square inch you might actually be getting less )

There are some people here who are clearly either very very rich or in some kind of state of denial over why they buy these things.

The bracelet is fantastic and should be on every Sub. It does function very well for it's intended purpose. The new case design allows the watch to function in some very extreme conditions. At no time, even with my extreme career, will I push the limits of the case. But, the improved durability will allow the watch to continuously and reliably function in my extreme environments for a prolonged period of time. Much longer than a Timex or even the Sub I wear.

Again, the ceramic bezel will allow the watch to function as a tool or an instrument far longer than a standard bezel.

I paid $1500 new for my sub in 1993. That's about $100 / year. Not too bad for a watch. If I look at how long I would be able to wear a DSSD, It's still not a bad financial decision. 15 years is just over $600/ year. I can live with that. 30 years and it's down to just over $300 / year. I look at the long term value of it.
If I look at the number of years it would be worn by my family... it'll lbe down to 3 cents per day.

[petespendthrift]

GDITherman you sound like a man trying to convince himself. "Extremely" large and waterproof does not actually make the watch tougher, it just looks it. The FEATURES you have described are not extra functions and lets be honest here the sub was perfectly up to the job and scratching the bezel easy and cheap to remedy.

[GDITheman]

Originally Posted by petespendthrift

GDITherman you sound like a man trying to convince himself. "Extremely" large and waterproof does not actually make the watch tougher, it just looks it. The FEATURES you have described are not extra functions and lets be honest here the sub was perfectly up to the job and scratching the bezel easy and cheap to remedy.

Actually I'm a man that uses his Sub like it was designed to be used. Put your watch through the same paces I've put mine through. That will convince anyone that Rolex makes an extremely high quality dive watch. The features I have descibed will guarantee that the DSSD will last for generations. I hope my kids beat the hell out of the Rolexes I hand down to them also. If not, I will be disappointed.

I have thought about trying to get a new DSSD or GMT IIc bracelet to replace my severly worn one and buying a new bezel insert. Then the old Sub would easily be up for another 15 years.

If they could make a 30mm case with the same durability, then I'm all in. The size isn't what I'm looking for. The only downside to the DSSD is the size. And even then, the thickness is not too overwhelming, it's just more than I'm used to. I actually wish Rolex made titanium cases to save weight and cut the size down.

When looking at new Rolexes, why would I want to spend over 3 times what I paid for my sub? If I am going to buy a new Rolex, I might as well get all the new features and benefits of the new design. At least then I'm really getting a new watch and not just a new watch that is the same as my old watch.

If you guys do not USE your tools/instruments for their intended purpose, then fine, but understand there are really people out there who do. People who are not posers and that demand that their tools/ instruments work.

[mpkRolex]

Did you replace the original bracelet with this one?

[Jimbits76]

Originally Posted by GDITheman

Your Casio wouldn't last 2 days in my environment. The Rolex Sub has lastest 15 years. My guys buy them because they do the job well in very demanding conditions. Since my Sub handles the riggors of offshore construction, I wear it while I'm wrenching on my race engines. I don't need multiple watches. I travel often and work always. I need one watch that meets my demands.

You're telling me that a SS Seiko or even an Omega couldn't do this for a fraction of the price?

J

[RsqVet]

I do not mind the ceramic bezel as it add to durability.

I view the polished links on sports models as akin to putting leather seats in a dump truck; it will work, it will look nicer than the alternative HOWEVER it serves no useful need or point and will quickly look worse than the alternative as it's a poor choice for the intended use.

As to tool watches, Rolex has a rich history of utilitarin tool type watches that serve very real needs. I still see many of these watches on the wrists of folks who rely on them in their daily lives with little regard for how they may get bumped or bruised. While there may be alternatives for some of these uses, for many there are not.

I do think it is sad how dramatically Rolex has increased prices in the sports line, and frankly I see no reason other than they can get it and maybe are trying to make the models more "upscale"

However at the end of the day even if the GMT II C was all polished, fourtinalty rolex still builds in the real quality and features that will ensure the watch can live up to it's reputtion and hard demands of intensive users. In this way I view even the shiny rolex sports watches kind of like blinged up H1 hummer --- it may be fancy but beneath all that shine is still a rugger design that perfroms.

I can't say that about many watch brands that "look rugged" but are more or less wana-be cases with ETA's inside of them.





.

[GDITheman]

Originally Posted by Jimbits76

You're telling me that a SS Seiko or even an Omega couldn't do this for a fraction of the price?

J

Show me one that has worked commercial diving and offshore construction for 15 years. I'll consider it. The reason I bought my sub is because the experienced professionals had been using them for decades prior. These guys were much harder on their gear than I am.

[GDITheman]

Originally Posted by mpkRolex

Did you replace the original bracelet with this one?

I'd like to, but I haven't started the quest. Any idea how difficult it would be to get a new bracelet from a DSSD or GMT IIc?

[Jimbits76]

Originally Posted by GDITheman

Show me one that has worked commercial diving and offshore construction for 15 years. I'll consider it. The reason I bought my sub is because the experienced professionals had been using them for decades prior. These guys were much harder on their gear than I am.

Fair play...I think an Omega SMP could do it but I have no evidence so I'm standing by your comments dood!

J

[DSJ]

This is a great thread, with spirited discussions/debate. GDITheMan has jumped in with both feet, and I greatly applaud his unabashed opinions, as well as his willingness to use his Submariner at its full capability/limit. While I agree with him that something like a G-Shock may not last as long, mine's been through hell and back in the 9 years I've had it. I paid $60 for it, so it's cost me $6.666/year and only now needs a new battery.

I personally feel that an Omega SMP/PO or Breitling SuperOcean would be just as durable as a Submariner/Sea Dweller. But, for MOST people, Rolex and the other brands I mentioned are luxury goods, with a history of being used as tool watches. Let's face it, there are other watches that will do the job as well for a lot less. And while a Submariner MAY be more rugged than a G-Shock in some ways, in many others the G-Shock is much more durable, and comparatively disposable if it did fail.

I say all this but fully support and applaud that folks use their Rolex watches in the manner that GDITheMan, my brother and few others here on TRF do.

Thanks all for the fun read!

[BigHat]

Originally Posted by GDITheman

Your Casio wouldn't last 2 days in my environment. .

Ahem, I love mechanical watches, love Rolex mechanical watches, but I can easily find a $100 quartz watch that will perform the time keeping function as well as a Sub and SD. Additionally, it will be more durable, and if it should take a fatal shot that will end its life (as well as any mechanical watch) I'll pause for a second, say 'oh heck", throws it in the trash and buy another one. If that happened 59 times, I'd still be ahead of the game over one SS Sub.

So let's just say I TOTALLY disagree with your assertion. If you can afford to beat the crap out of a Rolex or at least "roll the dice" on it getting destroyed, well good for you, must people can't or won't.

[Jimbits76]

I punish mine, Hollywood.

When I carefully take it out of the safe!!!!

I often rub it with a lambswool blanket and get a bunch of little kittems to breathe on it to dry after washing it in organic hypoallergenic specialist Rolex bath.

That watch is treated hard and is one mean b1tch!!!!!!!!

J

[petespendthrift]

Originally Posted by GDITheman

These guys were much harder on their gear than I am.

That's even more extreme than extreme! Presumably after all that snorkelling you guys must be desperate to get back to the hotel for a Pinacolada. Besides your wives back on the beach can't reserve those sun beds for ever!

...I'm just pulling your plonker! You're a ruffty tuffty commercial diver and you need a real mans watch.