Posts 2,890 Likes 11,950 stevec14 ·Sep 28, 2020 A good looking watch, despite my first glance thinking it was being worn upside down on the right arm (the outside of the cuff link gave it away)
Posts 2,769 Likes 3,678 Donn Chambers ·Sep 28, 2020 I still cant get past the bezel on these, but the rest is very well done.
Posts 1,406 Likes 2,776 Martin_J_N ·Sep 28, 2020 No, No, No, that is just not for me at all, no definitely not. 😲
Posts 18,275 Likes 27,660 Foo2rama ·Sep 28, 2020·Nowhere near as grumpy as he used to be... The picture is inverted.
Posts 10,957 Likes 54,577 Walrus ·Sep 28, 2020 Looks a lot better without the gold on the bezel like many of the modern constellations.
Posts 2,769 Likes 3,678 Donn Chambers ·Sep 28, 2020 Donn Chambers I still cant get past the bezel on these, but the rest is very well done. taking another look at it, if they just removed the Roman numerals but kept the overall shape of the bezel, I might consider one.
Posts 1,787 Likes 2,000 michael22 ·Sep 28, 2020 Foo2rama The picture is inverted. No, you're just looking at it the wrong way.
Posts 1,605 Likes 6,485 Dero13 ·Sep 28, 2020 I don't like the integrated bracelet on these. If they fixed that and the bezel I might be a player on one of these
Posts 993 Likes 1,800 Emeister ·Sep 29, 2020 I thought 4 in Roman numerals was IV and not IIII as displayed on this bezel. 😕
Posts 617 Likes 2,976 Rudi99 ·Sep 29, 2020 The Connies from the 50s and early 60s have so much more elegance than those... My honest opinion 🤔
Posts 2,579 Likes 3,850 Pvt-Public ·Sep 29, 2020 Emeister I thought 4 in Roman numerals was IV and not IIII as displayed on this bezel. 😕 This Omega is from the late 40’s Both these pocket watch dials (Rockford and Elgin)are pre 1930 I believe and have IIII instead of IV. Edited: Sep 29, 2020