 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Sat Apr 11th, 2009 |
| Location: | Auckland, New Zealand |
| Posts: | 7504 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
. I do that all the time.....In my opinion, Rolex takes the usual middle road when they express designs. For example, when the trend was to go big, it took Rolex a few years to follow and when it did, it didn't go overboard and didn't make cases and dials as big as a frisbee. In fact, Patek went bigger ahead of Rolex and Audemars Piguet, Jaeger-Le Coultre, Cartier and even Zenith, led the way ahead of most of the luxury brands. As proof, just recall AP's Royal Oak Offshore T3. I think you can land a small plane on its dial
and the Royal Oak Offshore T3 was issued about 6 to 8 years ahead of the big DSSD.Rolex's interpretation of size stops at the 43mm of the DSSD and the slightly bigger looking Yachtmaster II. I think they are telegraphing a message that all their futuring and modelling shows that 44mm seems to be the limit. They may be right and they may be wrong. Time will tell.
Their Datejust line has also been fed with some steroids and the usual 36mm DJ of a few years ago is now issued at 39mm although slightly heftier and heavier.
So, to get to my point, Rolex always strives to be a classic, to be timeless. It's in their heritage and for sure, in their vision. They strive not only to be the most coveted brand but also for perfection. All this brand power combines when you go to your favorite AD. I find Rolex "smallish" as you say but then again i think they have made a bet on where size will settle at in the buyer's mind and in the buyer's wrist.
Doubts? Check out the Tudors. They also stop at 43mm with the Iconaut at the top of the range.
Hope this helps.