ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX
19 March 2012, 11:44 AM | #61 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Real Name: Serg
Location: US of A
Watch: AP
Posts: 7,437
|
I think you guys are over analyzing this. It is just fashion. Rolex has been conservative if anything. The only really big watch is the dssd and for very precise reasons.
__________________
How can you have any pudding if you don't eat yer meat???? |
19 March 2012, 11:54 AM | #62 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Real Name: Pep
Location: Miami
Watch: GMTIIc, Pam320
Posts: 2,773
|
I am not sure that girth has anything to do with the larger size. I am 185lbs and stand at 5'10" with 9% body fat. No, I am not in the optimum shape that some other guys are, but I am not a "fat" guy.
I love the 42-44mm watches because they just look nicer (my opinion). I've been wanting a Daytona for quite some time. I have contacted two trusted sellers here and always passed because I was scared to buy one without trying it on. I got myself on my local ADs list and Friday got the call. Went in yesterday to try it on and was disappointed. It feels more like a 38mm watch. I passed on it and really wish that Rolex makes it in 42mm. They can just offer two sizes. Now, I am looking into the Big Pilot again or a DSSD along other 44mm watches. Price on the larger watches keeps me from growing the collection. I gave my GMTIIc to my dad after buying an Expy 42. My dad already had an older model Explorer that seemed like a kids watch as compared to the new version (start the lynching now ). He quickly started wearing the heavier GMTIIc much more and felt that his older Explorer was not "for him" anymore so he gave it to my brother. Taste is subjective, but for me, 42mm has become my new minimum for a watch. Maybe a ROO rubber clad or Safari in my future????? Decisions decisions....
__________________
"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." -Benjamin Franklin Prick #8 |
19 March 2012, 11:56 AM | #63 |
2024 ROLEX DATEJUST41 Pledge Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Japan
Watch: ing your back.
Posts: 16,179
|
Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe lasik corrects issues related to needing reading glasses. Reading something up close like your watch or the newspaper. I had to get rid of my Rose Gold Day Date with Romans because I could not read time well and not the day and date at all. All maxi dials for me from now on. Maybe the DD II. Going to try a few on in Tokyo at the end of the month. |
20 March 2012, 02:09 AM | #64 | |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: United States
Watch: The Reference
Posts: 1,743
|
Quote:
Well, to be honest with you, I doubt it's either worsening eye sight or increasing wrist size that is dictating Rolex's design changes - much more likely it's just the changing fashion of the times! |
|
20 March 2012, 03:16 AM | #65 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: England
Watch: 16710, 16628
Posts: 7,757
|
I think wrist circumference is more to do with people's skeletal proportions and not how much fat they have on their wrists. It is possible to be very overweight without having unusually sized wrists... Where's my reaching pole? I need my evening moo moo.
__________________
GMT II 16710 TRADITIONAL ( D- Serial #) ROLEXFANBOY P-Club Member #4 |
20 March 2012, 03:26 AM | #66 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Real Name: Jose
Location: Here
Watch: SEA-DWELLER
Posts: 2,232
|
Quote:
Rolex always had good sizes that were in the middle; not too big not too small. I think the DJ II and DDII will become slow sellers and eventually be phased out. The YMII, DSSD, and SKD are unique enough that might not be affected by the size trends as they are more niche products. Just some guessing! |
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
*Banners
Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.