Page 1 of 2
Zuriner Depth Charge
Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2011 5:55 am
by FlyPenFly
At first glance, I was kind of like bleh, another Pam clone but looking at it further... I'm intrigued.
To my eyes, it looks like a thoughtful iteration of the original PAM design, not a blatant copy. It's not like an Invicta or Ocean7 cloning and uglyifying but a thoughtful progression of the original PAM. It feels more in line with something like Magrette or Crepas who pushes the original design instead of outright focking it up.
And at $1100, the price is right. I maaay order one of these.
Credit: TLEX :
http://oceanictime.blogspot.com/2011/07 ... zv-01.html
Re: Zuriner Depth Charge
Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2011 6:32 am
by fastward
A Swinese PAM clone? How is that different than another Swinese watch?
Re: Zuriner Depth Charge
Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2011 6:58 am
by FlyPenFly
Well its a stretch to call it a clone with the stylistic differences including the lugs, crown, crown guard, hands, case back... what's the same is the bezel and the sandwhich style dial. Although I don't think PAM was the one who first did a sandwhich style dial they certainly made it famous.
At least they didn't Helson it up, I want to make that brand a verb.
Re: Zuriner Depth Charge
Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2011 7:01 am
by ezcheese
They are gonna get their asses sued off by Richemont Group.
Re: Zuriner Depth Charge
Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2011 7:04 am
by toxicavenger
damn it looks like a version of another micro brew that people complain about being copies of OG models.
Re: Zuriner Depth Charge
Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2011 7:05 am
by FlyPenFly
ezcheese wrote:They are gonna get their asses sued off by Richemont Group.
I've read that the big companies (Richemont, Rolex, Swatch) aren't suing yet because if it does go to court and the ruling goes against them, it opens the flood gates that even Western based companies might try... not sure about it but kinda makes sense enough for it to be believable.
Re: Zuriner Depth Charge
Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2011 7:07 am
by craniotes
Jae, how about this one?
Regards,
Adam
Re: Zuriner Depth Charge
Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2011 7:12 am
by FlyPenFly
Haha I'm with TLex on this one.
Re: Zuriner Depth Charge
Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2011 9:31 am
by matt.wu
craniotes wrote:Jae, how about this one?
Regards,
Adam
May as well..... that Zuriner is as much a rip-off as the actual replica......
(IMO of course)
Re: Zuriner Depth Charge
Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2011 10:12 am
by CesarG
FlyPenFly wrote:At first glance, I was kind of like bleh, another Pam clone
i stopped at that
Zuriner Depth Charge
Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2011 10:22 am
by dshap
hks3sgte wrote:FlyPenFly wrote:At first glance, I was kind of like bleh, another Pam clone
i stopped at that
Plus one.
It's a 341 clone.
Re: Zuriner Depth Charge
Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2011 10:26 am
by toxicavenger
dshap wrote:hks3sgte wrote:FlyPenFly wrote:At first glance, I was kind of like bleh, another Pam clone
i stopped at that
Plus one.
It's a 341 clone.
actually they are both clone's.
Re: Zuriner Depth Charge
Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2011 10:32 am
by FlyPenFly
Its a better looking clone than the original clone
Re: Zuriner Depth Charge
Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2011 10:35 am
by matt.wu
FlyPenFly wrote:Its a better looking clone than the original clone
I can forgive you once for the Chanel watch...
I can just about muster to forgive for this one....
But one more time, Jae, and that's it. You're outta here.
Re: Zuriner Depth Charge
Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2011 11:01 am
by FlyPenFly
I think modern Rolex's are boring and ubiquitous.
You're bringing out the inner troll in me Matt!
How can anyone not like this just because it has a women's handbag maker's name on it?
Re: Zuriner Depth Charge
Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2011 11:22 am
by matt.wu
FlyPenFly wrote:I think modern Rolex's are boring and ubiquitous.
Oh no he didn't. That's it, the final straw.
(Actually, I can agree with you on that to a degree.....)
Re: Zuriner Depth Charge
Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2011 12:30 pm
by toxicavenger
FlyPenFly wrote:I think modern Rolex's are boring and ubiquitous.
You're bringing out the inner troll in me Matt!
How can anyone not like this just because it has a
women's handbag maker's name on it?
this is definitely a good reason to not like it. heck why doesn't Zuriner steal this design and sell it? I might actually would buy one then.
but with this name it sucks, kind of like that men's tiffany watch for sell on watchrecon!
Re: Zuriner Depth Charge
Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2011 12:34 pm
by CesarG
Only Tiffany watch worth a mention...
Re: Zuriner Depth Charge
Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2011 1:58 pm
by T.R.
FlyPenFly wrote:I think modern Rolex's are boring and ubiquitous.
You're bringing out the inner troll in me Matt!
How can anyone not like this just because it has a women's handbag maker's name on it?
That is precisely WHY I don't like that one!
As for the Zuriner.... I once peed on it in zurinal.
That is no different than the other microcloners, quite frankly. But if you don't wear it around of bunch of know it alls like us, who else would actually give a crap?
Depth Charge? sounds like a fart in a bath tub.
Re: Zuriner Depth Charge
Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2011 2:00 pm
by fastward
Re: Zuriner Depth Charge
Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2011 2:02 pm
by Chris S.
Haa TR that's what I thought someone here at work just showed me the doogie cannonball on YouTube.
Re: Zuriner Depth Charge
Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2011 2:21 pm
by T.R.
Chris, that chick in your sig appears to be eating some... well.... um.... hm. Dammit.
Re: Zuriner Depth Charge
Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2011 2:24 pm
by CesarG
gross
Re: Zuriner Depth Charge
Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2011 5:01 pm
by Pasquale
Jae
Ur better off with this..I almost bought one
http://retrospectwatch.com/1954.html
Re: Zuriner Depth Charge
Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2011 6:55 pm
by Chris S.
