New rolex

[suadaunanh]

i got it about 3 months ago,price : 10,300.00,what do you think about it ? worth it ?




Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[rewolf]

SPAM
not digital, round-shaped, gold ... I wouldn't even pay $10 for it

[horror_logic]

...not digital, round-shaped, gold ... I wouldn't even pay $10 for it +1

Gold is on the up at the moment !! Melt it down

[retroleds]

Looks like a fake to me....the magnifier doesn't look right. I have the same watch in gold-filled but it needs serious servicing, which I don't do.

[rewolf]

@retroleds: there's a link in the OT and this link is the only reason for the posting... google rank...

[SASM]

@rewolf: This is no spam, but the new Rolex Oyster LED Reversi
.

[LEDluvr]

Bravo Hanno! Now that is a Rolex worth buying!
As for the Rolex that started this thread... well... no thanks.
The only Rolex I would consider is the Submariner - the black face "Bond" diver watch.
Otherwise.... forggetabouttit!

[Old Tom]

As an aside does anyone here have a photo of the Rolex 7065, the only LED watch Rolex ever made (well, they made at least one cos they showed it at a watch fair in the late 70s)? Documents supporting this model exist but pictures of the actual watch don't seem to have made their way onto the net.

[bucko170]

Rolex Oyster LED Reversi

It's looks great with the LED display - I want one now

[LEDluvr]

As an aside does anyone here have a photo of the Rolex 7065, the only LED watch Rolex ever made (well, they made at least one cos they showed it at a watch fair in the late 70s)? Documents supporting this model exist but pictures of the actual watch don't seem to have made their way onto the net

Are you serious Old Tom?! I had no idea Rolex ever condescended to made a digital, LED or LCD. This I have to see. I hope someone has a pic somewhere......
Could it be that the 7065 was a prototype that was never mass produced?

[bucko170]

There is a bit of a write up here regarding the Rolex LED watch http://www.oysterquartz.net/

"In fact, according to James Dowling in his book The Best of Time, of the 50 patents issued to Rolex between 1960 and 1990, 21 of them were for electronic watches. Rolex was even issued patents in the 70s for digital (LED) watch movements. One such movement made it all the way to the prototype stage and was issued the reference number 7065."

[rewolf]

@rewolf: This is no spam, but the new Rolex Oyster LED Reversi
.

[Huertecilla]

I lóve this thread.
It is
Thánk you for this funny stimulation of the grey matter

Can somebody please, please, pretty PLEASE open it with the Nicole´s picture and the cal. 7065 Dowling reference from oysterquartz.net on the TZ-UK.com forum?!

I am not doing it because the semi illiterate anglo-saxon mechanical Omepanro worshipping charivari can drink my blood as it is.

[rewolf]

IIRC we have a member who is also member on a Rolex forum. I just don't remember who it is.
Maybe we should wait untilk April 1st before posting this to a Rolex forum

[markyd3]

Looks like a fake to me....the magnifier doesn't look right. I have the same watch in gold-filled but it needs serious servicing, which I don't do.

You could always sell that to me for a bargain price Ed!!

[retroleds]

I like Nicole's idea best. I'm doing somthing like that with my Seiko Kinetic. Turns out the button for checking the time reserve is at the perfect 1 o'clock position, so now I just need to work out the stem issue. I'll keep the saphire crystal.

Should we just nuke this thread - seem way off course and the OP isn't really joining in. I'll remove that linkage buried in the original post - caught me off guard. I don't mind having up links to competitors(selling/repair) sites, I think I have to have up links to other forums and sites for thoroughness......I don't think I need to provide free advertising and page rank improvements to people who do it surreptitiously. When I was just slightly younger, I would have buried the guy's site with spam and bogus site submissions - 10s of 1000s of them. Original poster, you have been warned.

[Huertecilla]

IIRC we have a member who is also member on a Rolex forum. I just don't remember who it is.

My apologies for the delayed response, but it may very well be me

I am on the r.l.x.de forum under ´Huertecilla´ too.

[jones38]

its a snazzy looking watch, no doubt about it. But worth $10,000? I don't think so.

[bruce wegmann]

I bought 2(!) P1s for LESS than the price of this rather ordinary, zero-historical value watch. You've got to give me more than a brand name to pry that kind of money out of me. It's like people paying stupid money for modern Harley-David motorcycles; still the roaring, clanking monstrosities they were in the 1920s (but now with 21st-century paintjobs...about the only thing that's actually changed!)...they've been trading on the "nostalgia" factor for decades (at least, if I HAD to drive a vintage bike, give me an Indian or Henderson; at least, they have some rarity going for them). Even the Rolex freak at my NAWCC chapter admitted, after having my P1 on his wrist, that "I would wear that". Enough said...

[Huertecilla]

It's like people paying stupid money for modern Harley-David motorcycles; still the roaring, clanking monstrosities they were in the 1920s

Actually Rolex is far worse. The engines and cases are bsially the same as 35 or more years ago.

The HD has been thoroughly redesigned and uses rather modern technology to retain an old bike image while meeting the newest safety- and environmental regulations.

The crux of your response however is spot on. Neither Rolexi nor HDs are bought for the hardware but for the added value of brand and image.
The prices is connected to thóse two and totaly disconected from the physical object.
This is why collectors pay 150$ for a plastic hangtag with Rolex&anchor on it, that fetches 2.50$ with Citizen&seahorse on it.
The letter R-O-L-E-X also turn a 15$ Swiss pocket knife into a 150$ one....

[Huertecilla]

A new entry on tz-uk sales corner:

http://www.tz-uk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=183328

with just the example I gave....

The topper:



for a mere 162$