Comments:
My 6265 with a very different look (Panda like) with the Big Red Daytona script.
Another Rolex Cosmograph, this time 6265 from 1972.
Seen a few months ago.
Along with a nice 6239.
Along with a nice 6239.
Which one do you prefer, the 6239 or the 6265?
Personally, I'd vote for the 6239, here.
You?
Best,
Nicolas
Exactly the same reason which makes me prefer the 6239. More... Sober? [nt]
No message body
Difficult choice... but for me it is an evidence.
Two very nice models, but personally I prefer the 6239 without any hesitation.
The simple push buttons, the two lines of the dial and above all the more refined bezel with a finer, more legible typography.
It's just wow!
No Daytona? None for me ;-) If 2 watches left in the world, then I would pick the one with Oyster and its features [nt]
No message body
how come these age so well especially the dials-always pristine? Never patinate etc was Tritium always the culprit? [nt]
No message body
Well, Radium is much more killer than Tritium. But mainly, dials were massacred by humidity. [nt]
No message body
But not in any of the ones that I see being listed for sale on past 12mos. Hence the dilemma. If all original as claimed how are these defying aging. [nt]
No message body
I am with the majority here The 6239 is more “ stately” or elegant
But I would not say no to the 6265 either
Julian
Julian
6239...
...while I like the idea of a bracelet, I also like the simpler pushers of the 6239.
I hear you, my friend. I find the bezel and the cleaner dial of the 6239 more appealing. [nt]
No message body
A different variant of 6265
My 6265 with a very different look (Panda like) with the Big Red Daytona script.
Dave
