|
|
ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX
ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX
16 January 2010, 09:39 AM
|
#31 |
|
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Real Name: Peter
Location: Massachusetts
Watch: 214270 Mk2
Posts: 1,963
|
Sub no question whatsoever!
__________________
2016 Explorer 214270 Mk2 - 1996 Submariner 14060* - 1972 Datejust 1601 1972 Oyster Perpetual 1002 - 1978 Oysterquartz 17000 Omega Seamaster 2265.80 - Omega Seamaster 300 166.0324 *RIP PAL 1942-2015 |
|
|
|
16 January 2010, 09:48 AM
|
#32 |
|
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA
Posts: 884
|
Personally, I'd take the Sub Date before the GMTIIc for my intro to Rolex.
|
|
|
|
|
16 January 2010, 09:53 AM
|
#33 |
|
2024 ROLEX SUBMARINER 41 Pledge Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Real Name: Richard
Location: Macungie, PA
Watch: 5513 Sub, LV Sub
Posts: 14,496
|
Go with the submariner!
|
|
|
|
|
16 January 2010, 10:14 AM
|
#34 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Real Name: Chris
Location: San Francisco
Watch: Rolex GMT 16750
Posts: 26
|
GMT IIC or Sub Date
Hands down the GMT IIC...not dissing the Sub, but I was just at an AD to shop out a new diving watch (I already have a new GMT IIC and a SS YM), and the "bracelet thing" does make a difference.
If you've owned other high-end watches you'll know exactly what I mean when you put on the GMT IIC vs. the Sub. The weight; the "click" of the close; the finish. I think the new models are outstanding! |
|
|
|
 |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
*Banners
Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.
Linear Mode
