both watches are LNIB - plus I would have to add some cash.

I also find the Seadweller a tad small....

thanks! Marc

. . . cordially, Art

thanks in advance!

. . . by first admitting a subjective and unreasonable bias against Rolex . . . my perception of the Rolex brand is as more of a commodity rather than as a watchmaker. Let me also add that I've asked more than a few watchmakers to name the watch they respected most, to which the answer has unfailingly been Rolex; likewise with industry executives . . . they all admire Rolex. I'm not a watchmaker, and I'm not in the industry, so my perspective is entirely personal, and should be discounted as such. Having said that, there's a few reasons why I would make the trade.

First, unless you're a deep sea diver, the exceptional water and pressure resistance of the Seadweller - it's metier and the reason for it's mystique - is superflous. One could argue that the G O merely looks the part while the Rolex is the real deal, but my take is centered on the wearer, and not the watch. If I wanted a sports/dive watch, it's performance in it's purported role would be of secondary importance. For my purposes, a Seamaster or Fifty Fathoms would offer sufficient water resistance; having the most impregnable dive watch would make me uncomfortable personally because I would feel as though I were trying to convey an impression about myself that wasn't real. [Those Purists that know me personally are probably rolling on the floor laughing - my idea of a competitive sport is backgammon.]

Second, I've owned a cal 39 chrono, the Karree with a black dial . . . I fell for the aesthetics instantly, but it's outrageously accurate performance is what sold me on Glashütte Original as my favorite watchmaker. The chrono function is more appealing to me in a sports watch than a date indicator, but again, that's just a personal preference.

Third, and most important, is the way the G O has made the Sport Evo look like it was milled from a billet of steel. I prefer compact and robust designs, and the G O has it in spades. Finally, the display back of the G O, and the strap/bracelet options, are preferable to the (necessarily) steel back of the Seadweller and it's fairly common bracelet.

One last note, Marc, before I take off for the USC / UCLA game . . . I once met a woman that I found highly attractive, and was even more intrigued because she wore a Seadweller as her everyday watch! (Unfortunately, she had cats . . . ten of them, all black . . . just a little odd, not to mention my allergies.) Most cordially, Art

...sorry things didn't work out with the (cat)lady. I too would have passed.

thanks for taking the time to write your response. I will let you know how I like it as I am going thru with the trade.

best, Marc

a date as well as the chrono function. As one allergic to steel, I have been unable to seriously consider one. But now that the gold version is on the horizon I may do so. Please let us know how you like yours.

JackB

Rolex is common and more mass-produced. GO has a much higher level of finish and is less common. I don't own a Sports Evo, but do have a PML and am very impressed with GO as a manufacture. Your very question was also addressed on the GO brand forum of the other popular watch site a few months ago.