 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Mar 27th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 50 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
... Scoring ONLY a 5/10 in "Wearing Comfort", the Panny REALLY "took it in the shorts" in THAT category!Then, to add insult to injury, the author decides that the watch is just plain overpriced and, accordingly ...
He slaps it up side the head! ...
... with a score of 10/15 ... Even though he states that the watch has "high image value."
In my book, 10/15 = 2/3 = 67% and that's a failing grade! ...
Finally, he rates the IWC "Overall Best" with a TOTAL Score of 83 points - even though this was the watch that was shown "early on" with a busted crystal
- that, apparently, imploded during the pressure test!!! ...
... Still, despite this glaring "system failure", he gave the IWC 9/10 for the "Running Test" (PLUS made it "Overall BEST"), while the Panny only received an 8.
Sounds like the author has a bad case of SPE; i.e., "Subliminal Panny Envy!" ...
Whatever happened to "Pressure Functioning"; i.e., something that would have included some points (or lack thereof) for surviving the under-H²O Test?!? ... It's just me, isn't it? ...
Yep, it's just me! ...
_______
'LOVE this "Incursoré":
BTW, HUGE Kudos to whomever I purloined these GREAT pix from! ... http://www.paneristi.com? ... http://www.timezone.com?
My most sincere apologies to "Whom-It-May-Concern" for NOT "embedding" any source reference in the original file names that I used to store 'em on my HD.
That was an oversight in my "acquisition 'n storage" techniques that I corrected many, many, moons ago - but, apparently, not before I'd already 'snagged' these images! ...
Last edited on Sat Jul 8th, 2006 03:50 am by Doofus