Ahhhh.....gotta love it!
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a3...70c2framed.jpg
Druckbare Version
Ahhhh.....gotta love it!
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a3...70c2framed.jpg
1680 is the most beautiful Rolex ever. =)
Yes, this is a very beautiful Rolex watch. :gut:
I have to admit though, that I have learnt to appreciate this vintage model only after seeing it so nicely, and so often, presented in this forum. Due to R-L-X the 1680 has become a real dream watch for me. ;)
I agree 100%! I likely would have never considered a vintage watch until I say the photos of them from guys like Hannes, Percy, Jocke, etc.Zitat:
Originally posted by OrangeHand
Yes, this is a very beautiful Rolex watch. :gut:
I have to admit though, that I have learnt to appreciate this vintage model only after seeing it so nicely, and so often, presented in this forum. Due to R-L-X the 1680 has become a real dream watch for me. ;)
You guys are like crack dealers! Shame on you! :tongue: :dr:
Fantastic image,... great watch!!!!!!!
RedSub on it's best....
Thanks for the kind words...I think I'm growing fond of this one. :gut:Zitat:
Originally posted by bullibeer
Fantastic image,... great watch!!!!!!!
RedSub on it's best....
:gut: :gut: :gut:
Great watch, great picture, John. :gut: :gut: :gut:
What kind of camera do you use ?
Erik
Just moved up from the Canon 20D to the 40D in the last month. :gut:Zitat:
Originally posted by Bullit
Great watch, great picture, John. :gut: :gut: :gut:
What kind of camera do you use ?
Erik
Clearly, in my view, the nicest Sub they ever produced.Zitat:
Originally posted by PCS
1680 is the most beautiful Rolex ever. =)
Altogether, in my view, the 2 best models they ever came out with were the 1680 and the 1675.
I know that all the rage is about 1665's, 1655's, 1019's, vintage Daytonas, etc. but there is a good reason why the 1675 and 1680 (and probably the 5513) were the biggest selling sports models. Classic look and perfect functionality.
Boris
Just out of curiosity, why do you feel a 1680 is superior to a 16610 (cosmetic differences aside)?Zitat:
Originally posted by Boris_Koch
Clearly, in my view, the nicest Sub they ever produced.Zitat:
Originally posted by PCS
1680 is the most beautiful Rolex ever. =)
Altogether, in my view, the 2 best models they ever came out with were the 1680 and the 1675.
I know that all the rage is about 1665's, 1655's, 1019's, vintage Daytonas, etc. but there is a good reason why the 1675 and 1680 (and probably the 5513) were the biggest selling sports models. Classic look and perfect functionality.
Boris
i own only 2 vintages, the 6541 (whitout inlay ;( & the 1500 :ka: ;)
Regards
Pascal
From the First Owner; with the History ;) & Missing Inlay:
Meine erste Vintage, aus Erstbesitz: MILGAUSS 6541
http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/3...6541002zp3.jpg
http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/4...6541009fo8.jpg
My "Birth - Year" Watch 1500 Date, with Hands (not modell like ;))
http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/3...1500011ds0.jpg
Hello Pascal,,
Have you checked on classicwatchparts.com?
They have some pretty good aftermarket pieces for rare watches, intended precisely for collectors so that they can restore the original look / functionality to they watch.
For sure, it's not the absolute "real" thing, but it would enable you to get the watch back to a more complete configuration, and spare you the thousands of dollars to pay for a NOS one (if ever you found one, that is).
Cheers
Boris
Functionally, a 16610 is superior to a 1680: higher depth rating, quickset date.Zitat:
Just out of curiosity, why do you feel a 1680 is superior to a 16610 (cosmetic differences aside)?
But the 1680 was the 1st Sub date, and it's really cosmetically that I much, much prefer it to the 16610.
Cheers
I understand - I'm guessing you're a bit older than I am (37) so I've more grown up with the look of the 16610. I love 'em both, but those white gold markers....ahhhh... :cool:Zitat:
Originally posted by Boris_Koch
Functionally, a 16610 is superior to a 1680: higher depth rating, quickset date.Zitat:
Just out of curiosity, why do you feel a 1680 is superior to a 16610 (cosmetic differences aside)?
But the 1680 was the 1st Sub date, and it's really cosmetically that I much, much prefer it to the 16610.
Cheers
Pascal - VERY, very nice!!
PHANTASTIC! :gut: :gut: :gut:
Dear John, I'm 37 too. Now, I'm from January 1970, so technically, I could be older than you :twisted:Zitat:
I understand - I'm guessing you're a bit older than I am (37) so I've more grown up with the look of the 16610. I love 'em both, but those white gold markers....ahhhh...
I guess I just never really warmed up to white gold / metal indexes.
The only exception I will make...is not for a Rolex!
http://www.makedostudio.com/watches/...Mm_2.sized.jpg
Yep - you're about 3-4 months older than I - April.Zitat:
Originally posted by Boris_Koch
Dear John, I'm 37 too. Now, I'm from January 1970, so technically, I could be older than you :twisted:Zitat:
I understand - I'm guessing you're a bit older than I am (37) so I've more grown up with the look of the 16610. I love 'em both, but those white gold markers....ahhhh...
I guess I just never really warmed up to white gold / metal indexes.
The only exception I will make...is not for a Rolex!
http://www.makedostudio.com/watches/...Mm_2.sized.jpg
Interesting....That Seiko is quite popular, but those hands ruin it for me. :ka: