BB-8 is surprisingly a "Crown" fan and wants to take this Polar 42 "exploring" around a few star systems. He beeped that the orange GMT hand rocks with a Rebel jump suit and that if anyone says his new watch friend looks like a toy watch with the big hands, he is going to personally ask Luke to shaft them with his lightsaber (no sexual pun intended)馃榾
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Guys !
Hi @Longbow
Hi @Nobel Prize
Hi @Riviera Paradise
Riviera ,Did you mean this Luke's shaft ?
[emoji12]
On a more humorous note from the Malaysian perspective , lots of people here think there's a Rolex Conspiracy theory going on
Rolex secretly makes watches specially for the Rich Chinese Towkays (Bosses ) or Businessmen. Correct me if i'm wrong but are there any expensive Modern Rolex referance models like the Daytonas DJ or Subs or RE II that begin or end with the number 4 ?
If the model number begins or ends with 4 you can be GOD-DAMN bloody sure it wont be on the wrist of a Chinese. 4 or 'Si" in Hokkian Cantonese or Mandarin means Death !
I know for a fact that when a Malaysian Chinese Towkay decides to own a Rolex , he's not interested in knowing the Calibre or identifying in-house movements or bother about Cyclops or Oyster Bracelets
He will look at the Reference number first & foremost & study it carefully. It must have at the very least the number 8 which means Properity in Mandarin or 3 which sounds like the word Long-Life ! The more the 8s or 3s repeats itself the more the Chinaman is pleased !
Let's take an example of Model number 16233 . I think its a DJ 18K/ SS with champagne dial . 16233 sounds like
" All the Way Easy Long Life ! "
This is A DEAL CLINCHER for the Chinese Towkays !
Another Model Number 18238 which sounds exactly like "Prosper Easily Long life prosperity ! "
You Will NEVER see ANY Rich Chinese driving an Audi A4 or RS4 or an Alfa Romeo 164 in Malaysia. That number 4 simply means Death to a Chinese especially the Alfa Romeo 164 which sounds exactly like " Alfa Romeo All The Way Die ! " So Audi & Alfa for Heavens Sake , stop using this model number in the Asian market !
2nd Criteria for a Chinese Towkay who wants to purchase a Rolex is that the watch must be a mandatory at least 50% 18K Gold or 100 % 18K Gold !
Ok . I'l leave the rather absorbing sophisticated highly technical Rolex issues to my esteem colleagues in the forum.
My Blue Connie will be arriving in 4/6 weeks time & my next acquisition after that is the Rolex Explorer 1 Ref 214270 expected to arrive on the Malaysian shores by Oct/ Nov
Like it isn't happening now?馃槈
I own a Rolex Oyster Perpetual from the 1950's with the cal. 1030 movement. I've been told that if I broke it up for parts, it would be worth 2X to 3X more than as a functioning watch.
I get the business aspects of keeping the inventory, training watchmakers, etc. Yet most other companies make that investment.
Black markets are never good for consumers.
gatorcpa
Because I 馃が love Omega!
But damn, that Tudor is nice! Can I get that as a birth year watch, 1966?
So an Airbus A380 would make a good private jet for such a Chinese boss? What does 7 mean, anything? Just thinking about all those Boeing 737s and 787s.
or just old ...at least that's what my eyes keep telling me.
@Riviera Paradise so, no Rolex Day-Date "best in class" watches for me until Rolex figure out how to do an oblong curved cyclops lens for the day window. I'm starting to think that all this no-date design purity stuff is an old git conspiracy to avoid having to admit to being blind.
imho the new Ex2 is a legend in the making ... 馃憤
everytime i look at it it looks less "off" and more... interesting馃槜... def growing on me
Because I 馃が love Omega!
But damn, that Tudor is nice! Can I get that as a birth year watch, 1966?
One of the few Rolex watches that I would consider and the one that Omega doesn't quite have an answer to IMHO. In this watch you can see how clarity of design/purpose is the typical emergent property from a (good) highly vertically integrated organisation, the same is (mostly) true for Apple Computers.
As an engineer I recognise what vertical integration can deliver on a small scale, but there comes a point in system complexity (products with more than 200 parts) when you have to rely on other organisations that better master the key "ingredients". "Doing it all in-house" has its limits. The true measure of integration skill is when an organisation can marshal resources from multiple diverse origins (different countries, cultures, languages, maturity etc). I would hate to sit in a Boeing 777 with Boeing gas turbine engines, Boeing tires and Boeing avionics. The B777 is a great airplane because they beautifully orchestrated the integration of suppliers such as Rolls Royce, Michelin and General Electric to name but a few masters of key sub-systems. That Rolex feel the need to do everything in-house is more of a statement of weakness than strength.
Great engineering is at it's greatest when you can bring the best-of-the best together and the list of "the best" can be frighteningly long for an aircraft. Check out this high-level summary of all the stuff you will never be able to do fully in-house.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATA_100
Thankfully Rolex don't make aircraft.
Check out this high-level summary of all the stuff you will never be able to do fully in-house.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATA_100.
I don't disagree with your statement, you sometimes need to outsource to better manufactures for critical components. I do appreciate Rolex's single minded approach that when they do it in-house, they need to do it the best - the whole Daytona movement example is a great case study - outsourcing to Zenith and then developing the best auto-chronograph movement (the 4130) in-house when the time was right.
To be honest, I don't think Boeing is such a great example - by outsourcing so much of the critical parts of the aircraft, what does the Boeing company really bring to the table? The wing assembly was really it's last in-house intellectual property that was unique - on the 777 I believe outsourcing the wing assembly to Asia will be the end of the company - unbelievably short sighted. Basically giving the keys to the kingdom away and will ultimately create an aircraft competitor in Asia. Rolex and Boeing are at the two ends of this engineering spectrum. I would rather be closer to Rolex's position than Boeing.
馃榾
I didn't know about the Zenith-Datona connection, thanks for that ....more stuff to research on a rainy weekend. 馃憤 And what does all this have to do with Omega? I would really like to know what "mission" and "requirements" they had for BW2016.
Most worrying, as I happen to understand this, sounds like we might be in the same business...
Currently working A350-1000, ATA 57...
And I've worked for Boeing... Seattle, where I started to grow webbed feet...
And I have nothing against Rolex although I suspect an ETA 2892 stands against any of their calibres ... (Sound a bit like a troll but, hey ho)馃槈
Cheers, Chris
