Making the move...

[WWC]

Many people would agree that there are Rolex watches that must be a "first" and then there are other rolex watches that can come second or third ... in succession...

I've heard many threads stating that the Milgauss would be a second or third watch behind of course the purchase of a Sub, GMT II, or any signature Rolex.

I decided to finally make the move in buying the Milgauss! It's definitely a keeper and since I own only 1, I suppose that I've done something many others would not do, buy a millie first!

While reversing the order might not seem important because right now, I'm debating my next rolex! I swear... TRF just makes it sooo addicting Not cool

Right now, I'm deciding what will be my second Rolex and would love to hear your suggestions! I'd like to emphasize that one of the main reasons why I love the milgauss is because of its simplicity, while the watch has no date, therefore does not need a cyclops on the dial. Maybe that's one of the reasons why I love it so much.

The sea dweller 16600 fits right in as the crystal has no cyclops whatsover. But on the otherhand, I just can't get the Sub LV 16610LV out of my mind due to the green bezel as well as the maxi dial!

What should I go for?


Suggestions?

[esm]

nice "problem" to have - congrats on your upcoming Rolex.

for me, Cyclops = Rolex, so my first had to have a cyclops.

16610LV happened to be my first Rolex due to the cyclops and green bening my fave colour.

imo - there are no such thing as "first" and "second" and so on Rolex to your collection. at least not for me anyway. my "ultimate Rolex" is the one i'm eyeing for at the time, and once i got that, i move onto my next "ultimate"..

enjoy the decision making process and look forward to seeing your pix

[Patrick Lim]

I would go for the Sub, C or non-C.
It's a classic in very right and rank up there as one of the must-have Rollie :)

The green bezel on the 16610LV may not be everyone's cup of tea but given a brief six years of production life (though there are possibly tens of thousands of them produced?), it's worth a keeping

[Puffy]

up to you mate - the hunt is half the fun but looking at your current collection i'd go Sub C

[nauticajoe]

Tough choice! You can't go wrong with the SD. They are becoming difficult to find in nib condition. So, I wouldn't wait long. On the other hand, both the 16610 and 16710 are just as beautiful. Don't worry...you'll be on #3 before you know it!!

Good Luck!!

[dddrees]

Originally Posted by esm

nice "problem" to have - congrats on your upcoming Rolex.

for me, Cyclops = Rolex, so my first had to have a cyclops.

16610LV happened to be my first Rolex due to the cyclops and green bening my fave colour.

imo - there are no such thing as "first" and "second" and so on Rolex to your collection. at least not for me anyway. my "ultimate Rolex" is the one i'm eyeing for at the time, and once i got that, i move onto my next "ultimate"..

enjoy the decision making process and look forward to seeing your pix

Thats the way I look at it as well. Cyclops = Rolex for me as well. However that didn'tstopme from getting a Daytona. It just depends on what makes me smile at the time.

[vukotab]

I`m also fan of cyclops, but between SD and 16610 (not LV) I would go for SD, `cos it`s kinda unique Rolex, a little thicker and with more wrist presence IMHO.
And LV is one of my all-time favorites, so my vote goes for it!