Comments:
Very well put discussion, my friend.
To answer your question, I still don't like it, and I doubt I will.
There is something " Anti Rolex " in this watch, something too tortured in the design of the whole watch, and particularly in the dial.
What do we have? A YM II GMT? A Date Just which wants to be the frog bigger than the beef?
A strange, odd, weird " blend of the kinds "...
Mechanically, I applaud... Aesthically, even if it is really subjective, I am sad, skeptic, disappointed.
The roman numbers, which are partially eaten ( at 5 / 6 / 7 o' clock ) go in a weird way with the rest of the dial... As if there were just necessary to fill the gap due to the big(ger ) dial.
The small 24 " Subdial " seems to not be at its place, as if the GMT was really accessory on this watch.
Cool, thae annual calendar, but a big con: Look at the date, it is too centered. It ruins the ( already lacking ) balance of the dial.
Now, seriously, I don't really think Rolex needs our Feedback. They sell almost one million watches per year, they don't even need to hear us.
And they're right... After all, I am pretty sure this one will sell quite well.
I am only concerned when I have to answer to myself to this question: " Is this a watch for me? ".
I have no hesitation to say: No Way.
But to each his own cup of tea.
Best,
Nicolas
Impressions on Sky Dweller and Rolex, after a few days.......
Folks,
I eagerly awaited the Sky Dweller and I felt a bit let down when I first saw it. I decided to go back to it after a few days to see if my initial impressions were correct. On one hand I would like to extend kudos to Rolex for trying out something different by combining GMT with an annual calendar. On the other hand, the watch doesn't speak to me as I had hoped. So here by likes and dislikes:
+ discrete month indicator
+ movement and setting via bezel. Speaks to some innovation and ease of use
+ size of movement and watch
- 24-hr ring makes the dial busy
- don't like the cyclops date
- fluted bezel
So Rolex if you are listening, I would like a little more elegance from this watch (particularly at this price range). Please give me the plain bezel like in the 214270, make a window for the 24 hr indicator, give a see thru case back, and give me an option for a leather strap.
I was looking through Gene Stone's "The Watch" and appreciated the variety of watches Rolex made in the early days. It seems that they have marketed themselves into a corner as a maker of "tool watches". Of course, I love quite a few of them, but how about a little bit of variety? I can't remember seeing an ad for the Rolex Prince in forever. Are there anybody else that would like to see this fantastic brand diversify just a little bit in to elegance?
J.
Thanks a lot for this headscratcher, JMan.
Very well put discussion, my friend.
To answer your question, I still don't like it, and I doubt I will.
There is something " Anti Rolex " in this watch, something too tortured in the design of the whole watch, and particularly in the dial.
What do we have? A YM II GMT? A Date Just which wants to be the frog bigger than the beef?
A strange, odd, weird " blend of the kinds "...
Mechanically, I applaud... Aesthically, even if it is really subjective, I am sad, skeptic, disappointed.
The roman numbers, which are partially eaten ( at 5 / 6 / 7 o' clock ) go in a weird way with the rest of the dial... As if there were just necessary to fill the gap due to the big(ger ) dial.
The small 24 " Subdial " seems to not be at its place, as if the GMT was really accessory on this watch.
Cool, thae annual calendar, but a big con: Look at the date, it is too centered. It ruins the ( already lacking ) balance of the dial.
Now, seriously, I don't really think Rolex needs our Feedback. They sell almost one million watches per year, they don't even need to hear us.
And they're right... After all, I am pretty sure this one will sell quite well.
I am only concerned when I have to answer to myself to this question: " Is this a watch for me? ".
I have no hesitation to say: No Way.
But to each his own cup of tea.
Best,
Nicolas
YM II GMT....+1
intriguing but,....something wrong with the layout.....on the other hand,a very appealing new YM with blue dial.
Mo
Agreed.......
Nicolas: thanks for the response. My point is that some few changes in aesthetic presentation may make the watch a hit among WIS too. I agree that Rolex is an ultra conservative company that has shown no sign of listening to requests like this, and that there will be enough takers as is to make the watch a commercial success. But what I was also hoping for is a cult success!
J.
Not really that hard to set Sky-Dweller...
And actually kinda fun. I would expect this more from Seiko (perhaps), but it is interesting. Per the Rolex website, essentially there's the reference (GMT/second time zone) time setting capability via the turning of the fluted bezel and unscrewing the crown and positioning it to the time setting position, then the local time setting (same way - via moving the bezel to the next position, etc.), then, of course, the date on the next bezel position (month and date, I like how Rolex does the month by indicators on the hour indexes, very cool and innovative), then neutral position and push the crown in and screw-down. Enjoy. HAGWE!
Yes. This is.....
Something new and cool! I love the innovation and the strength in the look of the movement too.
J.
honestly, i really like this one and
look forward to seeing it in the metal
i agree about the leather strap (i think the gold version has that option))