The oyster band is one that dates back many years. It is the simplest bracelet that Rolex makes and traditionally was usually found on the entry level models and the sports or utility watches. It can now be found on almost any of the watches they make, including the high end versions.

It looks like this one:




http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1198292657.jpg

I just clicked the link as supplied by Mr Hanson, but it is from Timezone. The author admits that, despite the crude innards, the Explorer worked very well.

The OB1 made me laugh. Some clients have nicknamed me "ObiBob". Yeah - the geek is strong with them. :)

LOL. There was life before "TAG"...

http://www.watchestobuy.com/images/H...raCshapeds.jpg

~Heuer Snob

P.S. - If anyone has one of these laying around and wants to get rid of it, I'll gladly trade you my first-born:

http://didnt.doit.wisc.edu/iicc/race...520decimal.jpg

http://didnt.doit.wisc.edu/iicc/race...uble_timer.jpg

After giving it some thought - while Mr Odet's review may give me pause when it comes to purchasing a brand new Explorer at retail, I'm not as concerned as regards the watches I'm considering. Also, I tend to take one piece of "interpinion" with a grain of salt. I find threads like this to be most helpful in providing tools and insights to research the topic more thoroughly and make an informed decision. That said, I still like the Airking - even if it is a 90 year old's 924. :)

Here's another one I'm considering. Opinions invited and welcome.

http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/6776/b01bnj3.jpg

The AirKing is understated, subtle class. You can wear it with a suit or with a t-shirt. You can dress it up or down by changing bezels or bands. My favorite Rolex that I refinished in black, added a croc band and a stainless buckle...from 1962:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v6...ch/airking.jpg

Sorry, you are incorrect. You may disagree on religous grounds, or because it doesnt gel with your beliefs about Rolex but you cannot disagree with what Odets found and documented in his dissection of the Explorer 1 without refuting what Odets found. Go and read this dcoument on TZ and look at the photographs for yourself.

Its pretty funny that Dr. Odets rather scholarly review (he is something of a subject matter expert, btw) is provoking discussion on Porsche board four or five years on.

BTW, the Rolex Daytona originally used Zenith's highly regarded 36,600bph chrono movement because Rolex had no such chono ebauche. Those watches are highly sought after.

Bob,

Said it before, and will say it again. What is important is what is important to YOU. There are people on this forum, (and around the world) who feel that the clock in their cell phone is more than enough, then there are probably one or two guys on the forum wearing a Patek on their arms that costs almost enough to buy a house.

No one else's opinion matters in this, its the feeling that you get when you look at a watch, put it on your arm or glance at it in everyday life. You could get this feeling with a Timex or Rolex, its just whats right for you. When you get the chance, go to a good watch store and try several on. See how they look, feel and how you like them. Then you can go online and find your best deal. In the end your best deal might even be back in the local store, but its worth looking at all options with a purchase like this.

Years ago I had various brands of watches and they all for the most part did their job, telling me the time. For me the Rolex is a work of art first and second a bit of a sign that I have made it to a certain level in life. Always told myself that when I "made it" I would treat myself to a Rolex as a reward. Now I have more Rolex's than most sane people should have and from time to time pick up another brand if it suits my fancy.

For me its always been a Rolex and my first GMT Master is locked in the hotel safe in my room 10 feet from me as I type this post. Purchased in the PX way back in the 1970's, its been a faithful friend for almost 35 years, and shows no signs of giving up the ghost. I have a couple of other watches with me on this trip but always return to the old favourite. It just "feels right" when on my arm and in the end thats what why its the one that I wear the most.

~~~~~~~~~~~

Military PX's still sell Rolex's and parts. The replacement band on my steel and gold GMT Master came from the Berlin Germany PX in 1989. Cost me almost as much as the watch did ($220 vs $275) but was well worth it.

arbitrator of taste
 

The answer to your question is NO..That is spelled capital N Capital O...NO do not buy a Rolex. Any Yahoo with money to burn in his pocket can go out and buy a Rollie. It is a status symbol for the uninformed bourgeoisie. Better to buy something along the lines of a Panory. Something of quality that isn't mass produced for the masses.

Regarding the review of the Explorer by Walt Odets, you have to wonder why he bothered. If you read his other articles, you'll soon come to the conclusion that he doesn't like Rolex. In fact, you'll get the impression that they have wronged him in some way and he has devoted his spare time to getting even.

As I understnd it, he is a clinical psychologist. Watches are a hobby for him and I believe he has taught classes about watchmaking to other likeminded people. Is he a skilled watchmaker? I can't answer that. I do think he knows more about watches than I do but I do question the depth of his knowledge, or that of his understanding of current trends in watchmaking.

He describes certain features of the movement, then speculates on the reason Rolex chose to use them. I find this odd, as other reviewerss whose work I have read in watch magazines have had any difficulty sorting out the details of the small changes Rolex makes to its movements from time to time.

He describes many flaws in the workmanship and I have yet to read a single review anywhere else that had even one such flaw. That is the part that troubles me the most. I can't reconcile what he found with what everyone else has found.

He has many subjective comments that I find laughable. In describing the underside of the case as unfinished and uncomfortable to wear, he loses what little credibility he has. Certain areas of an older Rolex case were typically made with a brushed finish and other areas were highly polished. This was deliberate, not a result of cutting corners. As for the sharp edges being uncomfortable when the watch is worn, all I can say is none of my watches even touch my arm in those locations. In fact, it's not even close. What kind of circus freak arms does this man possess? Did he even wear the watch?

As for the band, the claim he makes that the watch was originally designed for a strap and Rolex has done a poor job of integrating a bracelet is hogwash. Rolex designed the shape of the bracelet endpieces to look just as they do. Why? Ask them. I don't know. They have changed certain aspects of the design over the years and the latest bracelets look a little different. If they had wanted to style them the way Mr. Odets thinks is correct, they would have. It's not like they can't work to small tolerances.

I am reminded of a review several years ago in a large watch magazine that compared the bracelet on the Submariner to that of a contemporary Omega Seamaster. Although the reviewer judges the Rolex to be the better watch, the Seamaster won the comparison of the bands. Aesthetics, function, quality, it was better in every respect. I had to laugh, having owned and worn both watches for a number of years as my everyday watches. The Omega band clasp would pop open if you flexed your wrist a certain way. The Rolex would only open if the band broke (which of course, it hasn't.) The Omega band periodically would lose one or more of the pins that hold it together and come apart, taking the watch to the floor with it. The first time I had a jeweler fix this, it took 6 months for Omega to supply him with the tiny little pieces that are designed to keep the pins in place. Now, we keep extras around because it's just a matter of time before it happens again and waiting 6 months to fix a watch isn't justifiable. Comfort? the reviewer thought the Rolex band too stiff and also was worried about these sharp edges on the bottom of the case. Neither has been a problem for me, so maybe I have arms like a circus freak.

At the end of the day, I am reminded of the 60 Minutes/Audi debacle. Once the facts came out, I never watched 60 Minutes again. In fact, what they did still makes me mad, as it was the worst manipulation of reality I have ever seen from an "impartial" investigator. Those guys should have been shot at dawn, as an example to others. What about Walt? I know he won't be servicing any of my watches anytime soon...

JR

I decided to check out Tabs recommendation and so, having never heard of Panory, I used my old friend Google to track them down. Sadly, they could only come up with this:



http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1198325779.jpg


What is it exactly? I'm not sure. There was some reference to Panory Fest 07 and another to panory cupcakes but no real details were forthcoming. It appears to be a very exlusive watch, as no pictures of it exist.

I then thought to myself, perhaps he meant Panerai. That, I could find.

JR

LOL. I believe Boy Jenius is referring to the "Officine Panerai". Talk about "a status symbol for the uninformed bourgeoisie" and "isn't mass produced for the masses" :rolleyes: But, perhaps Tabs is just being sarcastic...

http://www.gearpatrol.com/images/pan...attrapante.jpg

Panerai - The 24" Dubs of the watch world...

The Official Timekeeper of Vegas, Baby...
 

That we can agree on. I believe the Pans are intended primarily for the spoon collecting market niche.:cool:






Tim

http://www.panerai.com

I recently ran into a fellow in Hong Kong wearing one. Its a nice looking watch. But given the cost, there are a lot of options in that price range.

I am not sure about this, but perhaps Tabs is correct about most people do buy the watch for status symbol. However, I would like to say that I would be the exemption:

1. Most people say that they own Porsches because of status symbol. I for one never tell people that I own 911s. I have them because I like them. I even got caught in the office driving the P-car and the coworkers said "How come you never talk about the P-Car?" I just politely say, "Oh, it is just an old car."
2. When people say, "Oh, a Rolex, huh?", I just say "Just a fake one."

Do not buy a Panerai, they are crap unless you get one of the original WW2 ones that were made by Rolex. Current ones are all bling bling.

To really learn about fine watches takes effort; Relying on the general market is relying on the uneducated masses whom are the primary targets for Madison Avenue type of hype. Mostly flash, little substance.

Among horologists quality is dependant on the details (finish, innovation, hand work, unique features or combination of features) , not on advertising hype.

Rolex has achieved some remarkable technical accolades, but in the last 25 years Rolex has concentrated on raising their brand position more than anything else. Rolex has achieved two notable things.
1) They have perfected the ability to mass produce a reasonable high end product, mostly by using the largest amount of automation in the construction (read as machine made, not hand crafted). The reality of this is that there is little in the way of hand craftsmanship in a Rolex. Their production rates are in the hundreds of thousands per year (not, as been stated, that it takes years to produce a Rolex) and their number of certified watchmakers employed is the lowest among all major brands. Look up their production numbers compared to other high quality watch makers.
2) They have mastered the song and dance of propaganda in their advertising and promotion efforts. They were not the sole developer of the “waterproof” watch, they were not the first or sole developer of the self-winding watch, etc. This hyper inflation of their watch making and design abilities have made them the poster boy for mass market bling consumers and THE largest producers of mediocre, overhyped watches within the watch making and watch connoisseurs communities.

This is not just my opinion; this is the opinion of educated consumers/ connoisseurs and the watch making community. Please do the research. Note: reading the Rolex discussion forums and Rolex “true believers” websites is hardly doing quality research.
Let’s look at some of the most remarkable mechanical watch making achievements in the last 35 years.

First lubrication-free watch (an achievement that ranks up there with the first transatlantic solo flight).

First watch that passed extensive tests for space flight, and not just in the US.

First use of sapphire crystal.

First 1000 meter “waterproof” watch.

Most corrosion resistant metal case material.

Highest level of complication in a watch.

Minute repeaters.

Tourbillons in all configurations (wait till you see a gyro-tourbillon!)

Innovative materials in movements and case.

First belt driven watch.

First mechanical chronograph with a memory.

And so many, many more.

Look these up, Rolex has not achieved any of them.

One of the most intriguing design features in recent years has been exposing the movement to view so that the actual gear trains, balance wheel, escapements are in open view. Interior finish is at least as important as it is in an engine, so why give a brand like Rolex a pass on this. Why doesn’t Rolex show off it’s interiors?

So, if you are speaking about a pre 1975 or so Rolex, they are/were fine watches (although still not the very best) and very collectable. After the mid seventies Rolex changed their entire focus as far as watch making was concerned. Instead of making the best watches, they would use propaganda to make the uninformed consumer believe they were making the best watches. Again this is not just my opinion; it is the common opinion within the watch making community. Do the research, don’t just swallow the common “knowledge” of the uninformed.

Another thing, the COSC certification is not at all what most people think it is. The unfinished movements which are uncased are tested. Most medium quality mechanical movements can pass this series of tests (for example the ETA 2992A2, which I buy for $98). In fact, most of the highest quality makers never submit their movements to this test, because it is not strict enough for them.

Also many brands have different levels of quality witin the brand. TAG Heuer, Victorinox, etc. sell low end quartz watches every where, but their upper end watches are all mechanical and very good buys, but hard to find in the US.

There are more watch brands than most are familiar with. Try F.P. Journe if you want to see one of the best, and that is just barely scratching the surface as to what is out there.

You know? I'm beginning to believe that you are to watches what Jeff Higgins is to firearms....

But when it comes to spoons????

maybe- be RPKESQ is presicley correct.

The core propositon of Rolex is that it is a workman-like tool watch. Like a Seiko diver. The brand has been extended to become something else entirely.

Yep...Rolex used to mean "tough". Same as Porsche. But today's wet sump water cooled Porsches? Porsche USED to make a workman-like yet enthusiast car. Today? Porsche sells the dial name and the status. BTW, thanks for NOT writing a poltical rant.

My pleasure. If theres anything else I can not write for you, just drop me a line.