I think I can safely attribute my obsession with automatic watches (as opposedto digital quartz watches, which are an entirely different obsession of mine) tothis particular Rolex. It doesn't get a lot of wrist time anymore primarily becauseit's a little on the small side for a men's watch these days, but I still throwit on occasionally, and after a little bit of winding, it keeps time every bitas well as my much newer Rolex GMT Master II.I like it. For me, it's worth the$3.33 per month. It'snot worth it for everyone, though, so make your own decision.What I don't like about the Paparazzi:Watch face limitations. While I love the idea of customizablewatch faces, I wish I had more options, and I wish they weren't related tothe watch itself. The bracelet could stand to be replaced,and the acrylic crystal is plenty banged up from the all the punishment I threwat it in high school, but mechanically, it's perfectly sound.The Rolex Oyster Perpetual sold for all of $125 in 1965, or at least, that's whatmy grandfather paid for it. Design. Other than the size of the Oyster Perpetual, I'd say it's just about as fashionable today as it was in 1965. The look of Rolex watches doesn't change much over time which means they will not only function for additional generations, but they will still look like relative modern automatic watches rather than ancient family heirlooms. Brand. Whether you like Rolexes or not, there is no denying their popularity.
No comments:
Post a Comment