Reply With Quote
There's one on SC at the moment, as it happens.
I hear that ADs will lend these to good customers...
I saw one of these yesterday in a shop and thought it looked great.
However, I've seldom heard them talked about or listed for sale secondhand- is this solely because they retail at £22k+
or is it generally an unpopular model anyway due to the colour?
What does the TZ-UK community think of this white gold model?
At that price bracket are there too many desirable alternatives to invest in a watch
which to the untrained eye looks steel rather than white gold?
http://www.rolex.com/watches/submari...19lb-0001.html
There's one on SC at the moment, as it happens.
I hear that ADs will lend these to good customers...
Oh yes...very tempting...I think they look better in the flesh than on the screen...
Stunning.
I have always said to the missus, if we win the lottery, that is the first thing I would buy (followed by houses,etc!!!!!)
In the flesh they are absolutely gorgeous. I love my SubC ND, but there are on a different level.
Originally Posted by markrlondon
That's very generous of them.
Gorgeous watch but I think the blue divides opinion. Also you get the argument that WG looks like steel. They don't hang around for long at grey dealers.
Best looking sub in my opinion. Love the colour. I also like the fact that people say it looks too much like a steel rolex, I think this makes it all the more attractive. Not too bling as yellow gold can be and the fact that your average joe would not know its a 20k rolex is all the more appealing to me. I would seriously think of swapping some of mine for one of these. If I had spare funds I'd have to one on sc right now.
I did try one on the other day which confirmed to me that I need one!
I also think they look better on your wrist than in a picture.
I love the blue but it is a hige chunk of money for something that does look like a steel watch.
Didn't someone on here in the last year source a blue face and bezel and put it into a steel one?
I think a steel one was forsale with the blue bezel/ face, not sure if it wasn't 7 or 8 k tho.
You are right. It did sell for something like that on here.
The only problem is that you need to leave your knackers as a deposit
First time I saw one of these was when on holiday in Venice 3 or 4 years ago and I instantly fell in love with it. Of course it was displayed without a price and naively I assumed it was a new variant on the steel sub, so you can imagine my embarassment after getting the assistant to remove it from the window, lock up the shop, allow me to try it on, show the wife etc only to be told it cost Euro 230000!
They do to the masses. As with the 116519 WG on leather, the same look can be achieved with the SS daytona with end links or just on a leather strap.
One's 7.5K the other about 18K, to me it's just not cricket.
Great stealth wealth IMO. When they get around to putting in the iridescent blue dial from the TT sub, it will be even better.
This is a watch I've wanted to try out for a long time but it is a heck of a lot of money. There was one listed at just over £12k on another forum a few months back and I deliberated on selling a kidney lol. Then Blowers offered one at just under £14k relatively recently...
"18ct White Gold Rolex Oyster Perpetual Submariner Date 116619LB. Automatic chronometer movement. Case diameter 40mm water resistant to 300 meters.Blue dial and bezel. 18ct Oyster lock bracelet. Box and papers dated August 2009. Our reference S18965.(replacement cost £18,560)
£13,950 SOLD"
The thing for me though is that a standard Submariner is such a fantastic watch, and what's more will live up to its dive credentials. Therefore creating the same watch in White gold, which is softer, just doesn't seem like it suits the type of watch IMO. You'd probably never snorkel with it, whereas I have at least gone that far with my other subs.
It's a nice watch, a friend's grail watch, but I think something that would sit in most people's safes 99% of the time, or at least never be used for the intended purposes of a highly water resistant piece, unlike its steel counterpart.
That's exactly what I've said on many occasions.
It's a nice watch, a friend's grail watch, but I think something that would sit in most people's safes 99% of the time, or at least never be used for the intended purposes of a highly water resistant piece, unlike its steel counterpart.
I would have thought 99% of the steel variety never get even slightly damp.
Personally i think it looks cold and uninteresting. As has been said, add in that WG generally looks no different to SS, and is less durable, so why commit so much coin to it. Yup, stealth wealth and all that, and you'd obviously have to be in the know to appreciate it is WG.
Sooo many things i would prefer to spend in excess of £20K on, but, each to their own of course.
It's the impracticality and sheer pointlessness that means it's a lottery win-only purchase. It's purely a luxury piece - and why not.
It's a dive watch and supposed to be practical, which it isn't (the latter i mean)
If you're just after a dive watch you don't need a Rolex at all. A £120 Seiko will do the job, as will a G Shock.It's a dive watch and supposed to be practical, which it isn't (the latter i mean)
The white gold sub just takes it all to a new level of luxurious excess.
I like it a lot too. I agree that the stealth wealth thing would be great. I like a heavy watch and that thing must weight a tonne!
I must admit I kinda like the sheer excess of the Sub in precious metal....it's just the model with diamond hour markers that's a bridge too far.
A friend of mine has a yellow gold Sub and wears it all the time, it looks great- but she is a petite blond female, not a big hairy farmer.
I love these and like many it's one of my 'lottery watches'....
Funnily enough a couple of years ago when I bought my 116610 and 116710 from the same AD in a year they got one of these in and offered me 25% discount before I'd even asked!
Even at that discount outa my league though!
- - - Updated - - -
I love these and like many it's one of my 'lottery watches'....
Funnily enough a couple of years ago when I bought my 116610 and 116710 from the same AD in a year they got one of these in and offered me 25% discount before I'd even asked!
Even at that discount outa my league though!
Ideal for a trip to Monaco.
By helicopter, of course!
Although no trees were harmed during the creation of this post, a large number of electrons were greatly inconvenienced.
That must weigh what, 3 times what a steel sub does? Do they uprate the spring pins to cope with that or do they use standard ones..?
I like that, very good looking watch.
Beauty at its best, is there one on sc?! Can't find,
Beautiful watch! Understated elegance at its best!
Just don't forget the custard.
I like the watch but it's not that much different from the steel models so I don't really see the point.
But the discussion is about a Rolex Submariner so by definition it should be fit for purpose, which I'm sure it is. However its practicality must seriously be questioned.
When would it ever be practical to dive with a Rolex Submariner of any type and value, when cheaper, more suitable alternatives exist?
Let's not go down this tiresome discussion route, for a change, please.
Personally, I adore this watch, but I'd be satisfied to own the steel variant.
FFS - enough.
There are enough daft tw@ts on here beating that particular drum without you adding to the volume!!
How on earth people who are members of a 'watch forum' pontificate about what is or is not 'excess' is beyond most (who are not members of aforementioned watch forums).
When you look long into an abyss, the abyss looks long into you.........
I thought this was a discussion forum?
I thought some members do wear there Subs or SD's in anger, or 'at work', why shouldn't we have this discussion, because it displeases you?
Burnsey was in agreement Baz - chill.
When you look long into an abyss, the abyss looks long into you.........
Very few of 'us' here buy watches with their original use, or practicality in mind.
Baz, you sweat if you have to bend a strap around your wrist, in case it creases FFS
I don't want to argue, just found your post somewhat ironic.
It's got me thinking about practicality, so how practical is it for someone who has a bad case of watch ocd to be wearing a 47mm oversized scratch magnate costing £7000? that does not sound very practical to me.
If one only wears it occasionally in the house languishing in one's smoking jacket watching Antiques Roadshow then it seems a fairly safe option (cotton gloves are essential BTW).
When you look long into an abyss, the abyss looks long into you.........
i like it just for the different coloured dial. But if I want stealth wealth I prefer a Patek Aquanaut.
What are you talking about (straps) I don't fret about any of them, nor do I have an appetite for arguments either?Very few of 'us' here buy watches with their original use, or practicality in mind.
Baz, you sweat if you have to bend a strap around your wrist, in case it creases FFS
I don't want to argue, just found your post somewhat ironic.
Ah yes, I have an image in my head of a Cyril Fletcher sort of character sat in a very nice chesterfield chair.
You must have a spy camera In my lounge, though you're a bit wide of the mark with the AR suggestion.
My problem with the blue sub is that so much of the value is in the gold so it's really a fairly boring watch tarted up.
If I had 20k to spend on a watch I would want a much more interesting movement as well. Something like a JLC Duometre or an ALS.
Posting Permissions
