Wow you really got to love the level of posters on other forums out there

[RogerF]

It truly shows that money doesnt buy class or intelligence.

I really love the fact that ppl get pounced on for liking certain things such as TT models or that if you like something you are branded in some way.

If you ask about something you dont know you get yelled at for being stupid. Even better is the search function on TZ doesnt work and ppl still get ticked off at newbies for asking a question that has been asked over and over again.

Then you got all these forums with their prehistoric set ups, I think this is the only watch forum that has a proper setup.

Its great to have this place where ppl use their heads and dont assume stupidness.

/rant

[Uncle-AJ]

I think we started in the right frame of mind and continued the same.

[padi56]

Yes must say TRF is now the best

[AJC]

Hey Guys,

I like the forum as it is very quick to load on my computer.(Still on dial up).I also like the feature of being able to post thumbnail pics straight up or full size pics via an image host.

The forum has a very clean feel and one of the most outstanding features is the ability to know what thread you have posted on through the icons.

Great work guys,I love it.

Cheers Aaron

BTW. Padi I always reply to the jokes as I really love them and also I know which ones I've read.

[Manatee]

Roger, you should stay away from those other forums. I think you'd be happier here.

[padi56]

Originally Posted by padi56

BTW. Padi I always reply to the jokes as I really love them and also I know which ones I've read..

Well thanks you Aaron, still on a dial up boy that must be slow.Just done a upgrade from 2meg to 4meg they are doing a test in my area

[Rockrolex]

Adrian is absolutely right. We started in the right frame of mind by learning from mistakes that had been made at other places. We've taken the best of what we learned from them, discarded what we didn't like and have come up with a truely great place to hang out at. Now it will just take a lot of hard work to keep us where we are and move ahead and most important, to keep us from backsliding. But it's worth it in the long run.

[Earl]

:o) YUP, I agree Peter

[Dave Knoll]

Unfortunately, that's the nature of Rolex forums in general. Look at other watch forums and you'll see a palpable difference in mindset.

For instance:

On a Lange forum you'll see: "What's the beat rate of my Lange 1?"

On a Rolex forum you'll see: "Did I get the right polishing cloth with my Seadweller?"

On a Patek forum you'll see: "Is the ref. 3970 a secular calendar or is it a straightforward perpetual?"

On a Rolex forum you'll see: "Where's my 'anchor'? I didn't get one with my Sub...did the dealer cheat me out of an 'anchor'"?

On a Glasshutte Original forum you'll see: "Do all German watchmaking houses employ the 3/4 plate convention for their manually wound watches?"

On a Rolex forum you'll see: "The numbers on my hologram wore off in three days....is this a defect and does my watch need to be sent back to Rolex for a new hologram?"

On an AP forum you'll see: "I've noticed that the AP 2120 employs Gyromax style collets on the balance rim; Isn't this set-up proprietary to Patek Philippe?"

On a Rolex forum you'll see: "Help!! I've had my TT Sub for only two weeks and already I've got a hairline scratch on a center link right next to the clasp at the bottom of the bracelet....should I send it to a Rolex Service Center for polishing?"

On a Blancpain forum you'll see: "Does anyone know if the screws on my Villerette are heat- or chemically blued?"

On a Rolex forum you'll see: "I know that my GMT is a durable watch, but can I wear mine while watching a football game on TV?"

To the serious watch aficionado the things that bother the new Rolex owner are....well, they're laughable (C'mon, admit it: Some of the questions asked make you giggle at times, right?). It's not that the questions asked are in-and-of themselves 'bad', it's just that new Rolex owners seem to be a different breed of enthusiast, that's all.

Don't know why this is.

[Rockrolex]

Originally Posted by Dave Knoll

To the serious watch aficionado the things that bother the new Rolex owner are....well, they're laughable (C'mon, admit it: Some of the questions asked make you giggle at times, right?). It's not that the questions asked are in-and-of themselves 'bad', it's just that new Rolex owners seem to be a different breed of enthusiast, that's all.

Don't know why this is.

Hey, remember, Dave, at one time or another we were all new Rolex owners and budding enthusiasts.

[Dave Knoll]

Oh, I certainly understand and accept that point....BUT...

...it seems that these types of questions are specific to new Rolex owners (or prospective owners); You won't generally see these types of questions coming from new owners of other luxury brands.

Haven't you noticed, Ed, that the 'worries' of Rolex owners are quite unlike the concerns of owners of most other brands?

I know we've joked about this before, but in some of the more extreme cases it seems that a few owners are more concerned with the bezel protector than what's actually ticking inside their watch.

You and I have had this go-round before, but I'll state my case again: I'm a long-time Rolex fan, buying my first one in 1966, and currently with six of the brand's sport models twistin' away on winders as we speak.

I truly LIKE the brand and always have....but there's a new breed of Rolex owner out there that cares more about getting the "Right Box" than he/she is about the history of the brand, their engineering philosophy, or the mechanical qualities that go into making modern Rolex watches the most durable mechanical timepieces on the planet.

Ahh but Dave, I'll go out on a limb here and say most of the people who are GO, Patek, GP, Lange, etc., owners started off on Rolex forums asking those same "dumb" questions.

They worked their horological kinks out before realizing that Rolex isn't the 'it' watch they once thought it was, and have been able to learn and afford to move on to more exclusive and expensive brands, and learned and educated themselves along the way. Therefore they ask more educated questions on GO and the like fora.

However, I'll bet there are plenty of people wearing Patek (and the like) who haven't the slightest idea what kind of movement is in their expensive watch, but bought it because it was the most expensive one in the jewellry store.

[Manatee]

One of my (several) theories about the people who ask those assinine questions about such assinine concerns is that unlike the rest of us, they can't really afford the watches they are buying. They're just in it for the prestige factor, and to try to give the appearance that they have more money, success, and power than they really have. Thus this thing on the wrist represents an inordinate percentage of their life savings (if any) and it's an inordinately big deal to them.

An easy clue to the membership in this shameful pool is the inability to own two expensive watches at the same time. They're constantly dumping one in favor of another. I suspect these folks are "paycheck-to-paycheckers," who routinely lie about their circumstances.

Rolex represents the biggest "bang for the buck" in terms of getting recognition of the watch one is not-so-subtlely waving in peoples' faces, thus it's the brand that these insecure self-doubting he-men buy. They're almost a club unto themselves, completely separate from true watch enthusiasts.

God love 'em. I guess.

[Earl]

My 5513 hasn't lost a beat in some time, and yes I wear it when I wash my hair, I even wear it as I ride my motorcycle... got to love a durable watch (withstands water and vibration) :o) of course a wind up Timex would more then likely still be ticking too ROFLMAO but, thats another story

[JJ Irani]

Very well put, Peter. You hit the nail straight on the head.

With many watch enthusiasts (not collectors), Rolex has become more than just a good solid watch - it's now a "must be recognised by all and sundry" brand image that projects class and wealth.

Even if that fella could afford a Patek, he would still rather have a Rolex because the chances are not many out there would recognise a Patek or have even heard of the brand. Yes, but a Rolex....now who hasn't heard of it and it's automatically associated with being a "rich man's" watch.

JJ

[Manatee]

Originally Posted by Rockrolex

Hey, remember, Dave, at one time or another we were all new Rolex owners and budding enthusiasts.

Ed, of course there was a time when each of us bought our first Rolex (of those of us who have them), but we didn't necessarily get caught up in the anal-retentive nit-picking over details of the packing materials, or fear of the watch accumulating signs of wear.

I bought my first one in '86, and it was just a nice wristwatch. I've added several since then and they too are just wristwatches.

[Manatee]

Thanks, JJ.

When I got my first Rolex it seemed more like a gentleman's watch.

Maybe it's because I expose myself to all the nonsense on the internet forums now, but Rolex has come to seem like the gauche man's watch. (Hmmm... there's a pun in there, isn't there? )

[JJ Irani]

Hmmm....very true, Peter. Some of the questions that get asked, especially about the hologram, that useless anchor and a few other trivials could be attributed to only lack of common sense, nothing else.

[Rockrolex]

Originally Posted by Manatee

Ed, of course there was a time when each of us bought our first Rolex (of those of us who have them), but we didn't necessarily get caught up in the anal-retentive nit-picking over details of the packing materials, or fear of the watch accumulating signs of wear.

I bought my first one in '86, and it was just a nice wristwatch. I've added several since then and they too are just wristwatches.

I don't really disagree with you or Dave, Peter, although I do tend to think your assessment is a bit too harsh a generalization.

I'm not so sure about the "paycheck-to-paycheck" syndrome. My take on it is that there are some genuinely stupid people out there who don't know a thing about high end watches but have bought their first Rolex for its brand and status recognition.

I do agree that those people who appreciate Rolex (or any other good watch) for what it is - namely a well made timepiece that in some cases, e.g., Rolex, is a real tool watch that can handle almost anything you can throw at it (except when James drops his in the shower or when Brenda brushes her diamond against Adrian's crystal ), are not the ones who are asking the really dumb questions. Although once in a while, even the best of us will ask a moderately dumb question (human nature, it can't be helped).

Not to put down your last comment, but I really think they are more than "just wristwatches." C'mon, I don't think any of us would be on this (or any other watch forum) if we thought that way. Yes, they are wristwatches -as opposed to toasters, ovens, etc. But we're here because we have an appreciation for these mechanical devices that transcends the fact that they enable us to gauge the time of day/date/year, whatever. After all, why would many of us have more than one watch, if we felt that way.

Just a thought. I'm not intending to provoke a debate or long winded discussion on this topic.

[JJ Irani]

Ed, you actually have more than ONE watch?? WHY??

[Manatee]

What I meant by "just wristwatches" is that if you live in a (personal) world where you surround yourself with nice things, a watch like a Rolex isn't out of the ordinary -- it fits the lifestyle. So if you drive a Lexus, and maintain similar standards of quality and luxury in other things you choose to own, then Rolex fits right in. It's the watch you wear.

BTW, while we're talking elitist and pompous, it reminds me... My sister-in-law called last night, and said she had a box of blank DVD-R discs that were the wrong format for her machine, and asked if I wanted them. They were the wrong format for me too. I suggested that she distribute them to the homeless.

[Rockrolex]

Originally Posted by JJ Irani

Ed, you actually have more than ONE watch?? WHY??

Because I like to have the one I wear and the one I don't wear. It's a Jewish thing, JJ, but if I explained it, it wouldn't be as funny.

[Rockrolex]

Originally Posted by Manatee

BTW, while we're talking elitist and pompous, it reminds me... My sister-in-law called last night, and said she had a box of blank DVD-R discs that were the wrong format for her machine, and asked if I wanted them. They were the wrong format for me too. I suggested that she distribute them to the homeless.

Why don't you suggest she give them to the blind. They won't know the difference.

[JJ Irani]

Originally Posted by Rockrolex

Why don't you suggest she give them to the blind. They won't know the difference.

LMAO!! That was just a wee bit cruel, but quite funny nonetheless!!

[Manatee]

Originally Posted by Rockrolex

Why don't you suggest she give them to the blind. They won't know the difference.

LOL! The students at Gallaudet really enjoyed the defective CDs I gave them last Christmas, so why not?

[Goodwatch]

[QUOTE=Dave Knoll]Unfortunately, that's the nature of Rolex forums in general. Look at other watch forums and you'll see a palpable difference in mindset.

For instance:

On a Lange forum you'll see: "What's the beat rate of my Lange 1?"

At first glance your answer might lead to the conclusion that Rolex owners are less sophisticated then the one’s that own a watch from one of the other fine brands you mentioned. I explicitly wrote ‘brands’ because that is what they all are. Brands, packaging. Would the Audemars Piguet owner lay down as much cash for a watch that had ‘Rickety Tickety’ on the dial and T Hong Kong T on it? Nope, don’t think so. Even if the salesman claims it is better (what is better?) then an AP. To me, a watch is much more then just telling the time. If that would be the major criterion, I would buy a DCF watch. Accurate to within one second every 300,000 years. But a soulless and emotionless object. And I don’t want that. Before the Sub, I owned a Cartier Santos (1980) in SS. The first model and with a fine modified ETA ebauche. I bought it because after reading about it in a watch magazine I ‘bought’ into the story about Cartier and his aviator friend Santos-Dumont. I sold the watch to my brother and he loves it. It has life-time guarantee and has been overhauled and refinished a couple of times, all for free. (Cartier later dropped the life-time guarantee on it’s watches but my brother still has the special pass).

I always liked the Sub, it mesmerized me as a young boy and I still find it to be one of the most beautiful, if not THE most beautiful, sports watches ever made. Despite it is just a Rolex.

And now for a question: should the little tread on the anchor be red or green?

Take care,

Frans.

[Manatee]

I have a Santos too -- an '81 two-tone. I really like it. Not enough to get it sized to my wrist and wear it, but still, I like it.

[Rodentman]

«one of the most outstanding features is the ability to know what thread you have posted on through the icons.»

Can you explain this to the poor Rodentman?

[dman]

Great post guys!!

I think that there are great points on both sides of the fence. And civil at that, what are these watch forums coming too? JK!! For the record MHO's are:

Yes there are more "dumb" questions on a Rolex board then anywhere else. But there are also more people waiting to take a persons head off for asking them.

Yes on a GO, PP, etc... there are questions that actually pertain to horology, but they also have bought more than just a brand, for the most part.

Dave, Peter, Ed and JJ you guys all had some great points, the thing I enjoyed is that disagreement did not mean pot shots.

[padi56]

Think one of the funniest I have heard was posted by Dave at the other
place,about the guy working in a night club.He worked in a heavy cigarette smoking environment wondered if it would harm is Rolex.Not a bit worried what
it was doing to his health.