Fake Rolex, Justified ?

[cyberface]

Vipers said:

Seiko G shock, and things changed.

Didn't Casio make the G-shock?

Edited by cyberface on Wednesday 25th November 08:34

[Vipers]

cyberface said:

Vipers Seiko said:

G shock, and things changed.

Didn't Casio make the G-shock?

They certainly did, and still do, became very popular in the offshore diving fraternity. I always thought they were a very good looking watch as well.

Edited by Vipers on Tuesday 24th November 22:08

[andy_s]

Ha - very nice Vipers, great to have had it on so long, thanks for the pics, the box brownie though is, well, simply stunning

[Vipers]

andy_s said:

Ha - very nice Vipers, great to have had it on so long, thanks for the pics, the box brownie though is, well, simply stunning

Sad I know, but I collect old cameras, its one of about 9 so far. I can actually recall my dad using it at weddings. My dads other one I have took a 116 spool, the neg is postcard size, also picked up an MPP 5 x 4 inch plate camera for £50, still works, anyway back to the thread.

[blackburn]

And the Sea Dweller, circa around 76-77





[/quote]

That S.D. is really nice. Want one!

[Stuart]

Vipers said:

And the Sea Dweller, circa around 76-77

Now that is beautiful. Friend has something similar - I think you've just made up my mind that my birth year watch (1974) should be something like this.

[CommanderJameson]

Stuart said:

my birth year watch (1974) should be something like this.

You're two years younger than me.

Now I feel old.

[Stuart]

CommanderJameson said:

Stuart said:

my birth year watch (1974) should be something like this.

You're two years younger than me.

Now I feel old.

Yes, but my hairline recently celebrated its 57th birthday.

[dr_gn]

Vipers said:

andy_s said:

Vipers, get the box Brownie out and give us a flash. Pretty please. With sugar on top.

Righty tighty, first off the No 2A Box Brownie, circa 1926, which my dad always told me he brought from a gypsy for 6d (Thats 6 old pennies for the newer generation on this site)



And the Sea Dweller, circa around 76-77

What diameter is that Sea Dweller?

[Vipers]

dr_gn said:

What diameter is that Sea Dweller?

1.5 inches measured across the bezel. And a tad under 1/2 inch thick.

[dr_gn]

Vipers said:

dr_gn said:

What diameter is that Sea Dweller?

1.5 inches measured across the bezel. And a tad under 1/2 inch thick.

Very nice looking watch, but too big for my weedy wrist

[LukeBird]

CommanderJameson said:

Stuart said:

my birth year watch (1974) should be something like this.

You're two years younger than me.

Now I feel old.

Hmmm what would I have as a birth year watch (1987.... )....

[Vipers]

dr_gn said:

Vipers said:

dr_gn said:

What diameter is that Sea Dweller?

1.5 inches measured across the bezel. And a tad under 1/2 inch thick.

Very nice looking watch, but too big for my weedy wrist

No worries, join the club.

[dr_gn]

Vipers said:

dr_gn said:

Vipers said:

dr_gn said:

What diameter is that Sea Dweller?

1.5 inches measured across the bezel. And a tad under 1/2 inch thick.

Very nice looking watch, but too big for my weedy wrist

No worries, join the club.

My choice was a Rolex Explorer I:



Which I thought was a very elegant watch. I know it is not the best movement, and is maybe not a typical Rolex, but as soon as I saw it I knew that was the one for me! Had it for 12 years now from new, never missed a beat.

I *do* really miss having a date display though and I hate those cyclops lens things...hence my question about your watch.

[mel]

CommanderJameson said:

Silver993tt said:

The manufacturers of so called "original" watches aren't crooks when they charge $1000s for something that has a manufacturing cost of $10s? More the fools that support these companies.

What's the manufacturing cost of a Rolex Sub, including all the packaging and COSC certification?

Put it this way when the milsubs were supplied it came with no packaging, case or strap (the straps were classed as "Consumable attractive" so although you signed for them they had no permanant loan value attached to them, the actual watch most divers had one on their loan record but again oddly and in a naval quirk non senior rates (i.e able and leading seaman divers which is the majority) aren't allowed to hold a permanant loan record, so their section senior rate would often have upto a dozen of them on his account from naval stores, in my case at one stage I had in my desk draw 3 or 4 rolex milsubs, a couple of seikos, a citizen and a few CWC's all of which had been current issue at various stages, when one went back into stores if it was servicable it was simply lucky dip (or how well you got on with the stores accountant) as to which make and model you got, and if you "lost" one or didn't hand back the right quantity when you got drafted somewhere else you were meant to get billed for their value, the rolex milsub had a billable value of £60! and I handed all four back! I did oddly keep my original citizen issue watch which was the one I got given when I first qualified and stores simply lost the paperwork so I never got billed for that one.

[Vipers]

dr_gn said:

My choice was a Rolex Explorer I:



Which I thought was a very elegant watch. I know it is not the best movement, and is maybe not a typical Rolex, but as soon as I saw it I knew that was the one for me! Had it for 12 years now from new, never missed a beat.

I *do* really miss having a date display though and I hate those cyclops lens things...hence my question about your watch.

Got to say, a nice looking watch, my first Sea Dweller didn't have the date on, missed is so much. Yes they are thick when you add the glass as well, will post side view for you this evening.

[Vipers]

Righty ho then, they are thick -



and they stick up a tad, thickness is as far as I can measure is 17 mm. But with the bulk, and weight, after wearing it for 33 years, guess you sort of forget about it.

[dr_gn]

Vipers said:

Righty ho then, they are thick -



and they stick up a tad, thickness is as far as I can measure is 17 mm. But with the bulk, and weight, after wearing it for 33 years, guess you sort of forget about it.

Thanks for the pics. It's rather the diameter than the depth that I think would make it look wrong for me. My Explorer bezel diameter is only 1 3/8".

I'll have to have a look out for one 'in the flesh' and see what's what.

[CommanderJameson]

Vipers said:

You know what? That's a brilliant-looking watch. Absolutely superb. Love it. Even better for being a daily wearer.

[dr_gn]

Vipers said:

Righty ho then, they are thick -



and they stick up a tad, thickness is as far as I can measure is 17 mm. But with the bulk, and weight, after wearing it for 33 years, guess you sort of forget about it.

Out of interest, do you know how much they go for these days?