ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

nauticajoe · 30 November 2012, 08:59 AM

Not for me.

Why mess up a good thing???

Furbo · 30 November 2012, 07:42 PM

It's really hard to ruin a Rolex, so if someone would give it to me, I'd wear it. :P

Rags · 30 November 2012, 08:17 PM

To each his own I guess..

tcd_psp · 30 November 2012, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by toph

Ruining our beloved Rolex. Here is the latest... And no it is not a joke. These are getting worse and worse

http://oceanictime.blogspot.com.au/

Where can I get one?!

BCNJ · 1 December 2012, 12:50 AM

To be clear, i commented "awful" i meant my opinion of the watch. I could care less about the lifestyle the artist lives. his business, not mine

QueueCumber · 1 December 2012, 01:01 AM

While I made my comment concerning the Simpsons in jest, it is entirely possible that the artist's use of color in that composition was intentionally invoking colors used for popular cartoon icons of today. That's the nature of pop art.

On a side note, I would imagine that watch interpretations/designs made by famous pop artists could easily exceed the normal valuation of the watch if that artist held his/her status over time. If Warhol or Haring had made LE Rolexes imagine what value they would hold today. Some people here might not care for them, but the watches would far exceed normal resale values for their respective models.

QueueCumber · 1 December 2012, 01:09 AM

I don't care much for Jackson Pollack's work aesthetically, and I've even had a well established NYC art dealer throw a glass of champaigne in my face for saying so, but I can appreciate why his work is historic and valuable, especially to the NYC art scene...

30 November 2012, 08:17 PM	#63
Rags 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Real Name: Chuck Location: SW Florida Watch: 16233,16610,214270 Posts: 11,196	To each his own I guess.. __________________ 16233 Y Serial Datejust 16610 Z Serial Submariner 214270 Explorer *114300 Oyster Perpetual* *76200 Tudor Date+Day*

30 November 2012, 08:59 AM	#61
nauticajoe "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Real Name: Joe Location: PA Posts: 14,774	Not for me. Why mess up a good thing???

30 November 2012, 07:42 PM	#62
Furbo "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2012 Location: Slovenia, EU Watch: BLNR Posts: 1,507	It's really hard to ruin a Rolex, so if someone would give it to me, I'd wear it. :P

1 December 2012, 12:50 AM	#65
BCNJ "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2011 Real Name: Brendan Location: NJ Watch: Pepsi/LVC/DJII Posts: 446	To be clear, i commented "awful" i meant my opinion of the watch. I could care less about the lifestyle the artist lives. his business, not mine

1 December 2012, 01:01 AM	#66
QueueCumber "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Real Name: Q Location: The Q Continuum Watch: ST:TNG Posts: 8,466	While I made my comment concerning the Simpsons in jest, it is entirely possible that the artist's use of color in that composition was intentionally invoking colors used for popular cartoon icons of today. That's the nature of pop art. On a side note, I would imagine that watch interpretations/designs made by famous pop artists could easily exceed the normal valuation of the watch if that artist held his/her status over time. If Warhol or Haring had made LE Rolexes imagine what value they would hold today. Some people here might not care for them, but the watches would far exceed normal resale values for their respective models.

1 December 2012, 01:09 AM	#67
QueueCumber "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Real Name: Q Location: The Q Continuum Watch: ST:TNG Posts: 8,466	I don't care much for Jackson Pollack's work aesthetically, and I've even had a well established NYC art dealer throw a glass of champaigne in my face for saying so, but I can appreciate why his work is historic and valuable, especially to the NYC art scene...

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