Jump to content
  • Sign Up to reply and join the friendliest Watch Forum on the web. Stick around, get to 50 posts and gain access to your full profile and additional features such as a personal messaging system, chat room and the sales forum PLUS the chance to enter our regular giveaways.
Jet Jetski

Have you ever felt like buying a Rolex ...

Recommended Posts

41 minutes ago, WRENCH said:

My dad had one of these.

s-l1600.jpg

and looking at it, if it was hung in the drivers window, the lenses are on the wrong way round.

Logical you hand signal from the drivers side and it would be hung on the passenger side. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Daveyboyz said:

Logical you hand signal from the drivers side and it would be hung on the passenger side. 

its only a picture. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Daveyboyz said:

Logical you hand signal from the drivers side and it would be hung on the passenger side. 

It’s for when the car is parked unattended at night.

All German cars I’ve owned right back to my MK1 Golf GTI’s have this wired in. Depending on which side of the road you park you flick the indicator stalk left or right and when you turn off the ignition the front and rear sidelights on the side you select stay on on that one side. 

Your TT will be the same.

Edited by BondandBigM
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Daveyboyz said:

Why would you hang a picture of an indicator from the drivers side? 

have you bought a rolex?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, BondandBigM said:

All German cars I’ve owned right back to my MK1 Golf GTI’s have this wired in.

True. It looks from the picture that by twisting the knurled knob, the light could be used left or right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Daveyboyz said:

Logical you hand signal from the drivers side and it would be hung on the passenger side. 

Bearing in mind you won't be sitting in the car at night when the lamp is hung out of the window, 

If you had a garage fit a parking light, it would always be fitted on the drivers side, as the logical way to park a car at night (and the safest) is facing the way it will be driven. As per the Highway Code.

 "Rule 248 of the Highway Code states 'you must not park on a road at night facing against the direction of the traffic flow unless in a recognised parking space."

 So putting a parking light on the passenger side would be pointless as it is there to warn other motorists (not pedestrians) that there is a parked car in their path. 

1 hour ago, BondandBigM said:

Maybes that is one of those reverse images that often pop up on google or the lenses are just screwed in the wrong way round.

I just got Frank Cannon to blow up the image, the letters are correct, so it's the lenses, maybe it was last used in France. :laughing2dw:

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, WRENCH said:

 

I just got Frank Cannon to blow up the image, the letters are correct, so it's the lenses, maybe it was last used in France. :laughing2dw:

Have you seen how they park in France

:laughing2dw: :laughing2dw:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, BondandBigM said:

Have you seen how they park in France

:laughing2dw: :laughing2dw:

 

Do they ? :laughing2dw:

I spent some time in Paris, and on flat streets they always left the handbrake off and the car in a high gear, so you could "shunt it" to get a wider space to get in and out of. Mind you that was when all you saw were these things. 

CC-Paris-186-700-R4-fq.jpg

2CV-trip-in-paris-800.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, WRENCH said:

I spent some time in Paris, and on flat streets they always left the handbrake off and the car in a high gear, so you could "shunt it" to get a wider space to get in and out of. 

 

Lived three fabulous years there in the 1980s. What you describe is exactly how it was done  —  except that, on properly flat roads, you didn’t even bother putting the thing in gear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, yokel said:

Lived three fabulous years there in the 1980s. What you describe is exactly how it was done  —  except that, on properly flat roads, you didn’t even bother putting the thing in gear.

I used a bicycle, how I am alive I do not know. :laughing2dw:

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, WRENCH said:

My dad had one of these.

s-l1600.jpg

and looking at it, if it was hung in the drivers window, the lenses are on the wrong way round.

maybe you could rotate it

3 hours ago, BlueKnight said:

True. It looks from the picture that by twisting the knurled knob, the light could be used left or right.

I just said that.

Is this thread still going?  I feel a bit like that chap in the song Eton Rifles - just nipping off for some tea, be right back, that's the spirit!

Jet Jetski in 'Revolutionary R*l*x thread proves divisive' shock.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Jet Jetski said:

maybe you could rotate it

Remember, it was designed by "the Prince of darkness" Joseph Lucas. Rotation would be beyond their scope. :laughing2dw:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, WRENCH said:

Bearing in mind you won't be sitting in the car at night when the lamp is hung out of the window, 

If you had a garage fit a parking light, it would always be fitted on the drivers side, as the logical way to park a car at night (and the safest) is facing the way it will be driven. As per the Highway Code.

 "Rule 248 of the Highway Code states 'you must not park on a road at night facing against the direction of the traffic flow unless in a recognised parking space."

 So putting a parking light on the passenger side would be pointless as it is there to warn other motorists (not pedestrians) that there is a parked car in their path. 

I just got Frank Cannon to blow up the image, the letters are correct, so it's the lenses, maybe it was last used in France. 

I didn't think it was a parking light... I thought it was an indicator.... Hence I was way off. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Daveyboyz said:

I didn't think it was a parking light... I thought it was an indicator.... Hence I was way off. 

When these things were available, this was an indicator.

trafficator.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, WRENCH said:

When these things were available, this was an indicator.

trafficator.jpg

trafficator, non?

I still remember my dad using the verb 'to trafficate' and I seem to remember seeing an old car at a rally with one flinging out at around shoulder height of the door pillar with 'trafficator' actually on it, like a brand name.  Patent pending lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's really baffling is why people who don't own a Rolex get all bent out of shape about people who do and although they have never owned one seem to know EXACTLY why somebody buys one.

I have owned several Sub 5513, Sub 116610LV, GMT Master II 16710, Milgauss 116400GV, Deepsea 116660 and still own two classics Explorer II 16570 and Sea Dweller 16600

But apparently I am an ignorant snob, moron, planker etc etc - it is so clichéd  - in all the years I have worn a Rolex I have only had one comment and it wasn't to ask me if it was real.

large.1361862122_IMAG05932.jpg.5ab1598c1ce1b7bc719034ec45a8609a.jpglarge.DSC00202.JPG.96083811ceaba6cfd8bb19561adfbf19.JPG

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, JoT said:

What's really baffling is why people who don't own a Rolex get all bent out of shape about people who do and although they have never owned one seem to know EXACTLY why somebody buys one.

I have owned several Sub 5513, Sub 116610LV, GMT Master II 16710, Milgauss 116400GV, Deepsea 116660 and still own two classics Explorer II 16570 and Sea Dweller 16600

But apparently I am an ignorant snob, moron, planker etc etc - it is so clichéd  - in all the years I have worn a Rolex I have only had one comment and it wasn't to ask me if it was real.

large.1361862122_IMAG05932.jpg.5ab1598c1ce1b7bc719034ec45a8609a.jpglarge.DSC00202.JPG.96083811ceaba6cfd8bb19561adfbf19.JPG

its the 'porsche mentaility' john, they want a rolex but can't afford one, etc. thats how it seems. Hence Parnis etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to come back on those points.... I am sure some of it is jealousy but there is a great deal of observation and logic involved in the non-Rolex position.

Was my opinion not valid on this before I owned Rolex and is somehow more valid now I own some?  I could write a book on the issue purely based on the thousands of conversations I had when working in the industry and from the fact that a lot of these frankly average watches 20 years back which I considered no value at under £1000 each and that I ignored then are even less value now that they are £5000 each. 

The buyers of these watches are people, so obviously there are different kinds, and when I make generalisations I am not inferring that all are like this; to think that anyone here would call other users of this forum ignorant should be cast out of your mind.

The fan boys who endlessly research the most obscure details and know the ins and outs of the brand supply information that people try to leverage profit out of.   Dealers trade and re-trade the same watches at higher and higher values when there is no supply (despite there being minimal demand) until the fact that the watch is unobtainable makes people think they need to get one.

Rolex produces huge numbers but deliberately creates fake rarity in some of the models to drive to drive some of this hysteria...some people are backng away from the brand now unhappy with their behaviour...others will be unperturbed.  

I have owned and handled many watches... Rolex are much improved on what they were but they are still pretty basic and cost too much (especially when they do produce something sophisticated/complicated like a sky dweller they just cant compete with the likes of Vacheron or Patek) but the circle **** of owners and the advertising and way they are regarded as a commodity just makes them such an obvious choice to people who both know and appreciate watches and to those that know nothing except "Fat bloke in the pub said Rolexes are the best so it must be true"

Edited by Daveyboyz
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Daveyboyz said:

I have to come back on those points.... I am sure some of it is jealousy but there is a great deal of observation and logic involved in the non-Rolex position.

Was my opinion not valid on this before I owned Rolex and is somehow more valid now I own some?  I could write a book on the issue purely based on the thousands of conversations I had when working in the industry and from the fact that a lot of these frankly average watches 20 years back which I considered no value at under £1000 each and that I ignored then are even less value now that they are £5000 each. 

The buyers of these watches are people, so obviously there are different kinds, and when I make generalisations I am not inferring that all are like this; to think that anyone here would call other users of this forum ignorant should be cast out of your mind.

The fan boys who endlessly research the most obscure details and know the ins and outs of the brand supply information that people try to leverage profit out of.   Dealers trade and re-trade the same watches at higher and higher values when there is no supply (despite there being minimal demand) until the fact that the watch is unobtainable makes people think they need to get one.

Rolex produces huge numbers but deliberately creates fake rarity in some of the models to drive to drive some of this hysteria...some people are backng away from the brand now unhappy with their behaviour...others will be unperturbed.  

I have owned and handled many watches... Rolex are much improved on what they were but they are still pretty basic and cost too much (especially when they do produce something sophisticated/complicated like a sky dweller they just cant compete with the likes of Vacheron or Patek) but the circle **** of owners and the advertising and way they are regarded as a commodity just makes them such an obvious choice to people who both know and appreciate watches and to those that know nothing except "Fat bloke in the pub said Rolexes are the best so it must be true"

I have agree on the huge numbers produced, after to speaking to a Grey dealer a few weeks back, he mentioned that AD's have plenty of stock sitting in there safes but they want to also cash in on the hype train of Rolex too. For example, he brought £250k worth of watches from an AD to sell on from his stall in Hatton Garden. 

I guess if you know the right person and grease the right palm you can get pretty much whatever model you want...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Craftycockney said:

I have agree on the huge numbers produced, after to speaking to a Grey dealer a few weeks back, he mentioned that AD's have plenty of stock sitting in there safes but they want to also cash in on the hype train of Rolex too. For example, he brought £250k worth of watches from an AD to sell on from his stall in Hatton Garden. 

I guess if you know the right person and grease the right palm you can get pretty much whatever model you want...

Did he get the papers too lol 

This thread wasn't started to knock R*l*x, and I definitely could afford one if I was a one-watch chap.  The forum is quite a rarefied atmosphere (or it was until I joined) and there are opinions either way: the thread was started I suppose due to the awe I have for the stranglehold R*l*X have on public perception in the 'real world' beyond watch forums. And how irritating that can be.  I do not think it is due to the horology - there are many vintage watches with Aegler 'Rebberg' movements out there, it's the one signed R*l*x everyone wants.  And I am quite thick skinned and well known for ploughing my own furrow, normally oblivious to or regardless of 'opinion'.  Yet it is interesting that what started really as an idle, light-hearted question still has legs, despite having been discussed to death for the last ten years.  I would not be surprised if some who had sworn not to get involved on yet another R*l*X thread eventually gave in and could not resist that siren brand ...   calling, always calling ... :whistle:

Edited by Jet Jetski

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of all the non-WIS I know who own a Rolex as their only watch, almost all bought it on "aspiration" and the fact it was a statement that "they had made it".

Of all the non-WIS I know who own a Rolex as well as another watch(s), this is not the case.

Not scientific, anecdotal to some degree, but a pretty healthy sample size.

Regarding the Watch savvy I know in the real world, only one of my network is a Rolex owner currently and he also has a few Omegas and from my watch chums here in the sunny South, Omega are by far the most popular luxury watch offerer.

People like to chat about Rolex because there is a lot to talk about.

The reason it can get negative is pretty obvious, there are a lot of thing wrongs with Rolex currently. Failure to actually supply the watches to the shops being the most obvious.

Personally I think the current ( albeit theoretical ) white dialled OP is just about the nicest watch of its kind on the market and not stupidly priced ( if it was actually available ) ... so no Rolex hate from me. Just huge scepticism about a company that I suspect is not what it says it is currently. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Nigelp said:

It's the 'porsche mentaility' john, they want a rolex but can't afford one, etc. thats how it seems. Hence Parnis etc. 

It's the "poseur" mentality. I'd have a 71 911 2.2 T, they're a driver's car, and I like them, a lot of the others are as bland as a Marks & Spencer slipper, regardless of how fast they go. Same with bikes. Ducati's were avoided because of the propensity to explode, but they were a motorcyclist's bike, but after Pierre Terblanche designed the 916, and they swept up on the race circuits world wide, every high street cruiser wanted one. So instead of saying "look at my Rolex", the talk in the wine bar would be about how fast their bike would go, and what they were going to spend on it to make it go even faster. Which invariably led to a quick journey in an ambulance. I have no problem with Rolex, people can buy what they want, and if they feel the need to flaunt their "eye candy" as they call it, on Instagram, then that's fine. Down side to that one is, as a few find out, that some nasty men come to your house when you're on holiday and nick your stuff. 

3.7 M views.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, WRENCH said:

that some nasty men come to your house when you're on holiday and nick your stuff. 

 

 

Or in the case of my Rolex buddy, 4 nasty men came to his house twice in 3 years while he was at work and nicked his stuff ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, JonnyOldBoy said:

Or in the case of my Rolex buddy, 4 nasty men came to his house twice in 3 years while he was at work and nicked his stuff ....

Unfortunately, people do that because they know. Every now and then you'll see news of some high profile collector getting done over, it is completely wrong, but too many make it too easy for the criminal.

Edited by WRENCH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...