ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Tombstone · 18 March 2007, 07:17 AM

I would obtain the SD first, then save up and buy a sub. I agree most every dealer has a sub it's harder to find the DS.

mansion · 18 March 2007, 11:25 AM

I looked at three types when I bought my first Rolex, one month ago: GMT II, Sub, SD.

The SD is heaviest and thickest; too thick for me. GMT II is the lightest and the thinnest.

I found that the Sub was in between, and had not much more to offer than the GMT II.

So I got the GMT II.

I liked the no-cyclops on the SD though.

It's all up to you!

Arturo · 18 March 2007, 11:41 AM

Get the SD if you want a self defense weapon. If someone messes with you unexpectedly, you can backhand him with the SD and knock him silly. Probably the best defense tool watch around. I am not promoting Rolie violence, but you gotta admit, you would not want one of those babies slammed into your mouth with any force would you?

sub2004 · 18 March 2007, 12:25 PM

Hi Mate

I think its a matter of practicality and future.

If you are sure this will be your only rolex, i would get a sub.

If you have the "sickness" and know in your heart that within 2 years, you will end up owning both (many people do), then get the one you can get the most discount on. For example the AD might have an older price on one of them ormight be willing to budge more on one of them, get that one.

Psychologically sometimes you need to get a rollie with a cyclops first, otherwise you will get that weird cyclops envy thing going and wishing you had a rollie with a cyclops.

I will give you one example, to the lay person the sub and sd look exactly the same.

18 March 2007, 07:17 AM	#31
Tombstone "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Real Name: Richard Location: LV, NV Watch: LV Sub and others Posts: 2,689	I would obtain the SD first, then save up and buy a sub. I agree most every dealer has a sub it's harder to find the DS.

18 March 2007, 11:25 AM	#32
mansion Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: switzerland Posts: 196	I looked at three types when I bought my first Rolex, one month ago: GMT II, Sub, SD. The SD is heaviest and thickest; too thick for me. GMT II is the lightest and the thinnest. I found that the Sub was in between, and had not much more to offer than the GMT II. So I got the GMT II. I liked the no-cyclops on the SD though. It's all up to you!

18 March 2007, 11:41 AM	#33
Arturo "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2005 Real Name: Arturo Location: Pacific Northwest Watch: Black GMT ll Posts: 1,271	Get the SD if you want a self defense weapon. If someone messes with you unexpectedly, you can backhand him with the SD and knock him silly. Probably the best defense tool watch around. I am not promoting Rolie violence, but you gotta admit, you would not want one of those babies slammed into your mouth with any force would you?

18 March 2007, 12:25 PM	#34
sub2004 "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: South Pacific Watch: SS Daytona Posts: 643	Hi Mate I think its a matter of practicality and future. If you are sure this will be your only rolex, i would get a sub. If you have the "sickness" and know in your heart that within 2 years, you will end up owning both (many people do), then get the one you can get the most discount on. For example the AD might have an older price on one of them ormight be willing to budge more on one of them, get that one. Psychologically sometimes you need to get a rollie with a cyclops first, otherwise you will get that weird cyclops envy thing going and wishing you had a rollie with a cyclops. I will give you one example, to the lay person the sub and sd look exactly the same.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)