Eric,
I find your post very subject to opinion, end slightly nonsensical. I first wondered if you just forgot to put IMO (or, heaven forbid, IMHO), but searched and read a few of your other posts and realised that this was unlikely.
In response to your points :
1. To you, they may . Does this mean that the poster a few lines up is wrong or has bad taste ? And it could be argued that the point of the 23 is to look less sporty, for those who seek a more elegant look perhaps. The 'must have Arabic numerals' is...well...a bit silly, IMHO. ;-)
2. The partially skeletised dial is no older than that used in the 10. It's just different. By the way, a real 'purist' would probably say that neither is a real skeletised movement, but according to some RM PR material the 23 is 'partially', the 10 is just 'skeletised'. For what it's worth.
3. Say what ? And what, in your opinion, is the 'RM look'? The 23 crown is similar to that of the diamond-set 7's and the 19, however the crowns of the 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 are each quite distinctly different from the others. Does this mean they don't have 'the look' either ? Maybe they should all just be scrapped from the RM collection then.
I don't mind the 23 at all, wouldn't wear it myself, but wouldn't say no to it on my wife's wrist. I quite like the way they've done the roman numerals - quite different to most other offerings out there. RM's designs havn't been successful by being beige cardigan boring...
Just my 2 centimes (and all IMHO, of course)
Cheers,
Rob