# Wow. I'm the first......................................



## Docwein (Feb 11, 2006)

just got back from the city. Met Bill, and saw the Kingston, sorry I did not bring my camera, others will post pictures. I have to say the watch is amazing, we lucky few who ordered one are in for a treat. :-!


----------



## k7lro (Feb 12, 2006)

.


----------



## Quartersawn (Nov 20, 2008)

Docwein said:


> just got back from the city. Met Bill, and saw the Kingston, sorry I did not bring my camera...


You should be flogged! :-d


----------



## GarageBoy (Oct 9, 2008)

Man it was difficult getting pics in there


----------



## Recht (May 8, 2006)

It was a fantastic time. The Kingston is stunning! My pictures will appear by Monday...


----------



## giosdad (Nov 29, 2007)

It was great seeing everybody and meeting Bill. 

I have tried to temper my excitement for the Kingston as these projects take time, but seeing the prototype really got me yearning for the day that they are ready for shipping. The bracelet really looks great. The gloss dial with gilt accents is out of these world. 

For those concerned about the 20mm to 16mm taper. I barely noticed it. (I knew of the taper prior to handling it.) A nice solid bracelet with a great vintage look.

The room was too dark and with a gray day outside they was no natural light coming in. The pictures I took are horrible. Hopefully other have better skills or camera than I do.


----------



## TheDude (Jan 27, 2009)

GarageBoy said:


> Man it was difficult getting pics in there


Dang! I wish I weren't sick.

If I could have been there we'd have some pics... I would have had my 5D (ISO 4000) and my speedlight to use... o|o|o|


----------



## ntr (Feb 28, 2009)

giosdad said:


> I have tried to temper my excitement for the Kingston as these projects take time, but seeing the prototype really got me yearning for the day that they are ready for shipping.


Thanks for the info but not for calming us o|



giosdad said:


> The room was too dark and with a gray day outside they was no natural light coming in. The pictures I took are horrible. Hopefully other have better skills or camera than I do.


Better horrible pics than none (do not tell us that they would let us think that the watch isn't nice?) :-s


----------



## Thieuster (Jan 22, 2009)

3 PM overhere in Europe and I've been visiting this page / thread since 9 AM local time, thinking that one of the fellow (NY-based) MKII owners would have posted some pics after his return home, late last night.

I'm with ntr on this one: this doesn't calm us!

So, which of you guys is going to step up?
(btw: any news on the TR?)

Menno


----------



## sfglenrock (Aug 29, 2008)

ntr said:


> Thanks for the info but not for calming us o|
> 
> Better horrible pics than none (do not tell us that they would let us think that the watch isn't nice?) :-s


Well, you asked for a horrible pic, so I aim to please. Unfortunately this was the best I got. I'm hoping someone shows up with some nice pics soon. I have to say that the Kingston was fantastic in person. The black gloss dial with gilt was just beautiful. It gives you the impression that you're holding a vintage watch.

Also have to say that meeting Bill and all the guys was a great experience. This was my first GTG and seeing all the amazing watches live and in person was just incredible. The biggest thing I took away from this, beyond how friendly everyone was, is just how little I really know about watches. And as you can see from the pic, how little I know about photography. Sorry for such a bad pic.


----------



## Cowbiker (Jun 27, 2007)

It's better than the other ones so far.;-) 

Thanks for sharing, seriously.:-!

Cheers,

Sean


----------



## sfglenrock (Aug 29, 2008)

Cowbiker said:


> It's better than the other ones so far.;-)
> 
> Thanks for sharing, seriously.:-!
> 
> ...


I just wanted to set the bar really low. I think I've succeeded. :-!


----------



## Bill Sohne (Dec 1, 2006)

*Ok some photos...Not my best work*

Hi everyone....

As other mentioned there was no natural light yesterday in NYC... Major showers and later lighting..

I was able to get a few ok pics for viewing and size comparison....

wrist shots with a previous version Sea Dweller...










a crown side shot










caseback shot..










comparison to a 5508




























a table shot with a 5508 and a 1016 and a Paul Newman homage...










Overall the event was very busy...

The Kingston looked as I knew it would and the bracelet ( sorry for no pics) looks great. Anyone who ordered this watch will be happy if they liked a vintage Rolex 5510, 5508 , 6536 or 6538.

Personally I am old school and will be getting a non-date model, gilt ... not sure about which bezel.. both were there and I did not take any pics of the date kingston sorry..

FYI : This is not the FINAL CROWN. So please do not post about why its not signed. I found the previous crown thread kind of silly ( This is just my opinion). I am almost tempted not to post these photos as they are not that good and could lead to another thread on the crown...

It is now in Bill Yao's capable hands...

Good Hunting to all

Bill Sohne


----------



## TheDude (Jan 27, 2009)

Wow. Beyond fantastic. Thanks!


----------



## Thieuster (Jan 22, 2009)

thedude said:


> wow. Beyond fantastic. Thanks!


+1!!!:-!:-!


----------



## giosdad (Nov 29, 2007)

OK You guys asked for it. I hope these give you perspective on size. I have a 6.5 inch wrist. This is the matte (non gilt dial)




























Here is a wrist shot with my Sea Dweller to give you an idea of the Kingston size.


----------



## iFunky (Feb 19, 2006)

Thanks for sharing gentlemen! Much appreciate, now waiting for the final version with the 8mm crown it'll be a keeper im sure!

Any body tried to get a close shot of the gilt dial? Have u seen both luminova C3 and BG9? what do u think?

Cheers

Yves


----------



## messenius (Aug 16, 2007)

Thanks for the pictures, Kingston looks great

I didnt' know there was/is a non gilt, non gloss dial option as well. Is that with date? Was a bit difficult to see from pictures...


----------



## TheDude (Jan 27, 2009)

messenius said:


> Thanks for the pictures, Kingston looks great
> 
> I didnt' know there was/is a non gilt, non gloss dial option as well. Is that with date? Was a bit difficult to see from pictures...


I believe that one has a date. If you look carefully at the photos, the 3 o'clock marker is shorter in length (like a date window) and appears to have a numeral in it (2 possibly).


----------



## messenius (Aug 16, 2007)

Yes you are right

Must have been too excited to see it ;-)


----------



## TheDude (Jan 27, 2009)

Oh, and even though the Kingston looks huge compared to the Rolex, don't worry - the original is a bit smaller than one might expect...

Daniel Craig wearing his 6538.


----------



## gerard88t (Feb 28, 2006)

It would be kind if Bill can make and post appropriate pictures for us that invested in the watch that are incapable to run into NYC so readily. It's nice some of you tried sharing photos but I think I speak for others that bought the first orders; we'd like a similar opportunity to see the bracelet et al. of the Kingston. Thanks for sharing the pictures.


----------



## John S. (Oct 7, 2007)

To say there was no natural light is an understatement. It was a dark bar on a dark day. I wish I could have taken my cameras, but I was rushing just to get there...and didn't make it until late.

But the simple fact is this: These pictures, while a valiant effort, do the watch a great injustice. I'm not saying everyone shouldn't post their pics...because all those who couldn't be there are waiting to see them...but the Kingston is simply an incredible piece of industrial art. Bill has gotten everything right: the size; the dial; the bezel numerals and bezel finish; the razor-sharp and beautifully finished case; the weight on the wrist; this is a watch that competes...in terms of design, fit and finish with anything out there today. Period. Placed next to classic watches yesterday, it fit right in. Trust me, all of you out there who were smart enough to order one, you are going to be stunned and thrilled when your watch arrives.

In my opinion, the Kingston and the next couple things coming from MKII are going to move the brand to a whole new level. Which is pretty incredible, considering that they were already amazing products and an amazing value.

I've been collecting watches for over 25 years...both military and "civvie". The Kingston is going to become an immediate legend in the watch lovers community.


----------



## Thieuster (Jan 22, 2009)

John S. said:


> In my opinion, the Kingston and the next couple things coming from MKII are going to move the brand to a whole new level. Which is pretty incredible, considering that they were already amazing products and an amazing value.


" ... and the next couple things to come..." This is an intriguing sentence, I tell you! Should I start saving?

Menno


----------



## ntr (Feb 28, 2009)

Thanks to all for those pics!:thanks

Really eager to get the Kingston. It's a beauty!

I'm just wondering whether the indexes of the non gilt matte dial are not bigger than ones of the gilt dial.

Could one (or more:roll attendant(s) let me (us) know whether that's just a matter of pics or if it's actually the case..

Regarding the two NATO straps, any comment as well?


----------



## tomr (Mar 28, 2009)

It certainly is very encouraging to hear all the positive reports from those lucky few to see the Kingston first. I was a little concerned, however, to see from the pictures with the Kingston along side the Rolexes, how much larger the Kingston seems to appear. I guess that should be expected next to a 6538 or 5508, which is 37mm, but it even appears larger than the Sea Dweller which is supposedly 40mm. I'm just glad that Bill didn't go along with all those who were calling for an even larger size during the early specifications phase.


----------



## Beau8 (May 24, 2008)

Bill did a great job~Cheers! ;-)


----------



## cpotters (Jan 29, 2009)

I am a crappy photographer AND the pictures I have do NO justice at all to the Kingston and the people there. But I understand how anxious everyone gets when they're far away and they want to get updates of any kind.

Just remember - Bill WILL be posting proper pics in a matter of days, just be patient. In the meantime, here's a few to show how dark it really was. A great group of folks, though, as it was my first time at any of these types of get-togethers.


----------



## cpotters (Jan 29, 2009)

A few more snaps to show you what a lousy time we had (kidding).


----------



## Steve356 (Apr 25, 2006)

I had the opportunity to see it too and I was very happy with what I've seen. I was a little concerned that it might be too thick at 14.5mm but it did not seem to show and the watch appears very well proportioned and everything is in balance. 
I was checking out the white dial version first and assumed that was the only one Bill brought with him. I later saw someone comparing the gilt dial with the white dial and I assumed the gilt dial was a vintage Submariner that someone had brought  It looked that good from a distance. the green C3 lume works well with the shiny gilt dial. I was all set on the white BG lume for the gilt dial but now I am not so sure. 

Bill also showed the new Stingray with the Tornek dial. the new dial is much improved IMHO in that the indices are further out and that makes the watch dial look larger and clearer. New hands are also nice.
Not sure if we're supposed to mention the other new one. well, I'll just say it's a new and improved version of a previous diver model. it's beefier and more like the original which was in attendance as well courtesy of John.


----------



## siggy (Jun 2, 2006)

From the pics posted the dial is probably the most important thing that makes the watch looks vintage but it looks when it comes to all the other little details that put the finishing touches on the watch Bill has just nailed it.

That bezel looks great, caseback, lugs, everything :-!

I feel sorry for the guys hoping to pick up a Kingston when it goes retail, they'll have to be quick!

regards

siggy


----------



## TheDude (Jan 27, 2009)

Steve356 said:


> Not sure if we're supposed to mention the other new one. well, I'll just say it's a new and improved version of a previous diver model. it's beefier and more like the original which was in attendance as well courtesy of John.


Haha - I was wondering who was going to spill it... :-x :-d


----------



## NWP627 (Feb 24, 2008)

Steve356 said:


> Not sure if we're supposed to mention the other new one. well, I'll just say it's a new and improved version of a previous diver model. it's beefier and more like the original which was in attendance as well courtesy of John.


Please don't hold back! It's not nice to tease fellow WIS.
N


----------



## k7lro (Feb 12, 2006)

.


----------



## Yao (Dec 12, 2006)

k7lro said:


> It's public knowledge having been shared in an open meeting. Unless Bill said :-x, I'll bet he won't mind if you share the details with "us".


I asked the attendees not to share the information about the new piece and not to publish any photos of the watch. I do appreciate that everyone is honoring my request. Details will be available in about a week.


----------



## k7lro (Feb 12, 2006)

.


----------



## tomr (Mar 28, 2009)

Thanks for the reference picture comparing the size of the Kingston to the Rolex. However, I'm not sure the watch pictured worn by Daniel Craig is a 6538, as it appears to have a silver bezel as opposed to black. It certainly doesn't look like a large watch, though. Although I expected the Kingston to be slightly larger than the 6538 at 37mm, for some reason it seems to appear larger than the Sea Dweller which is supposedly 40mm. I'm sure there is some explanation for this appearance, however.

Also, I am curious about the mentioned matte, non-gilt dial, as I have not read any previous reference to such an option. Personally, as part of phase 2, I have been leaning toward the gilt, non-date dial with the red triangle bezel, but have been undecided regarding the gilt vs silver hands, and the C3 vs BGW9 lume. Hopefully, as more detailed pictures of the variations become available, it will assist me in my final determinations.


----------



## rmasso (Mar 31, 2009)

*Suggestion on the KINGSTON....*



giosdad said:


> OK You guys asked for it. I hope these give you perspective on size. I have a 6.5 inch wrist. This is the matte (non gilt dial)


Bill, Obie,
Is the matte/non-gilt dial going to be an option on the Kingston? As another forum member noted, I do not recall seeing this discussed before. I really like the way it looks. I wouldn't mind buying both versions, Gilt non date and non-gilt with date as shown above. (Am currently stage 2 Kingston order)

Is there any chance you will release the matte non-gilt dial as a general/standard MKII model? Perhaps to differentiate it from the Limited Edition Kingston you could change the following:


Modify the case slightly with crown guards?
Offer it only with a standard sub-mariner bezel, as shown above but no red triangle
Do not use the same crown as the Kingston but one like on the LRRP
Perhaps remove the name KINGSTON from the dial.
Possibly use the 2892 movement like on the LRRP MILSUB
Change the riveted bracelet to a standard Sub bracelet but keep it at 20mm Lugs.
I welcome anyone's thoughts on this. I think those are sufficient changes to differentiate it from the limited edition Kingston. I personally think this would be a fine addition to the standard MKII line without being too close to the Limited Edition Kingston.

It would be similar to the Stingray vs. the Tornek Rayville, please don't slam me on this folks, I am not as familiar with the Stingray vs. Tornek but know they are very similar. Just noting this as an example of my recommendation above to add this stunning KINGSTON into the standard MKII line.

Best Regards,
Richard


----------



## TheDude (Jan 27, 2009)

tomr said:


> Thanks for the reference picture comparing the size of the Kingston to the Rolex. However, I'm not sure the watch pictured worn by Daniel Craig is a 6538, as it appears to have a silver bezel as opposed to black. It certainly doesn't look like a large watch, though. Although I expected the Kingston to be slightly larger than the 6538 at 37mm, for some reason it seems to appear larger than the Sea Dweller which is supposedly 40mm. I'm sure there is some explanation for this appearance, however.


It is reported as being a 6538, but mistakes happen. I assumed that the bezel may have faded (as is common on these watches). Also, the flash may be reflecting and causing the bezel to appear far lighter than it would in person.


----------



## gerard88t (Feb 28, 2006)

Yao said:


> I asked the attendees not to share the information about the new piece and not to publish any photos of the watch. I do appreciate that everyone is honoring my request. Details will be available in about a week.


Bill
When do you think we'll see pics from you of the parts of the Kingston already displayed to the general viewers at the meet? Are we still anticipating a finale past the end of the year before we see one kit shipped? 
thanks


----------



## tallguy (Feb 14, 2006)

TheDude said:


> It is reported as being a 6538, but mistakes happen. I assumed that the bezel may have faded (as is common on these watches). Also, the flash may be reflecting and causing the bezel to appear far lighter than it would in person.


You are correct; it's a faded black bezel;-)


----------



## obie (Feb 9, 2006)

gerard88t said:


> Bill
> When do you think we'll see pics from you of the parts of the Kingston already displayed to the general viewers at the meet? Are we still anticipating a finale past the end of the year before we see one kit shipped?
> thanks


They are right here:

https://www.watchuseek.com/showpost.php?p=2347106&postcount=150

In regards to when the initial pieces will ship, we are still waiting for some suppliers to come through with parts. Once they are all in our possession then we will have a better idea of when preorders will start to ship. A delay from a supplier will cause the ship dates to move very easily.


----------



## gerard88t (Feb 28, 2006)

obie said:


> They are right here:
> 
> https://www.watchuseek.com/showpost.php?p=2347106&postcount=150
> 
> In regards to when the initial pieces will ship, we are still waiting for some suppliers to come through with parts. Once they are all in our possession then we will have a better idea of when preorders will start to ship. A delay from a supplier will cause the ship dates to move very easily.


Obie
I saw those. I was asking about the pieces like the bracelet, some said they saw in NYC. Would be neat to see a preview alongside the head.


----------



## Steve356 (Apr 25, 2006)

Yao said:


> I asked the attendees not to share the information about the new piece and not to publish any photos of the watch. I do appreciate that everyone is honoring my request. Details will be available in about a week.


Oops, sorry . I should've kept quiet


----------



## heb (Feb 24, 2006)

*I know the thing comes with a metal bracelet, but...*

....it seems like a sin to wear it with anything other than nylon.

heb


----------



## kkmark (Feb 23, 2009)

Great to see the watch in pictures at least! 

I think that distortion from the camera lens is responsible for making the 39mm Kingston look larger than the 40mm SD...

Otherwise, wondering whether the caseback more shiny than the case lugs or was it the camera flash? 

Best,

Ken


----------



## cpotters (Jan 29, 2009)

kkmark said:


> Great to see the watch in pictures at least!
> 
> I think that distortion from the camera lens is responsible for making the 39mm Kingston look larger than the 40mm SD...
> 
> ...


Definitely the flash: no problem in person


----------



## Schmiedel (Apr 23, 2006)

> _I asked the attendees not to share the information about the new piece and not to publish any photos of the watch. I do appreciate that everyone is honoring my request. Details will be available in about a week._


 I thought this was already discussed in the "Stock List/availability " sub-forum, no? I figure it is an reworked Stingray.


----------



## vuhuynh (Jan 29, 2009)

*I don't think the Kingston is bigger than the SD*

The Rolex SD is smaller even when compare to the Rolex submariner date due to the fact that it has smaller dial's diameter, thicker crystal and thicker bezel.


----------



## gerard88t (Feb 28, 2006)

*Re: I know the thing comes with a metal bracelet, but...*



heb said:


> ....it seems like a sin to wear it with anything other than nylon.
> 
> heb


You are allowed your strap choice, but I would bet more guys prefer to have viewed it with its bracelet. There are not as many guys out there in the general watch public into the military strap look I'm certain. I would take another add on instead of that strap if it's offered in the kits. I already own a g-10 strap like shown on Daniel Craig's wrist. It rarely comes out of the drawer for use, so I can't imagine myself removing the Kingston from the bracelet for anything less appealing like that strap.


----------



## tomr (Mar 28, 2009)

*Re: I don't think the Kingston is bigger than the SD*



vuhuynh said:


> The Rolex SD is smaller even when compare to the Rolex submariner date due to the fact that it has smaller dial's diameter, thicker crystal and thicker bezel.


The previous version Rolex SD illustrated in the pictures with the Kingston is listed as 40mm, while the older Rolex Submariners (models 6538, 5508, etc.) are listed as 37mm, so the SD is definitely larger. What you describe, may, in fact, reflect how the watch appears, do to the characteristics you defined. I'm not quite sure why the Kingston, which is suppose to be 39mm, appears larger, which is why I asked the question of those who attended the gathering and saw it in person.

I guess that I am just trying to channel the nervous anticipation one might exhibit with with the expectation of a new arrival (being the Kingston, of course) by over analyzing every little detail that is posted here. Somehow, I don't feel that I am alone in that regard. Thanks again to those who have contributed their first-hand observations.


----------



## vuhuynh (Jan 29, 2009)

*Re: I don't think the Kingston is bigger than the SD*



tomr said:


> The previous version Rolex SD illustrated in the pictures with the Kingston is listed as 40mm, while the older Rolex Submariners (models 6538, 5508, etc.) are listed as 37mm, so the SD is definitely larger. What you describe, may, in fact, reflect how the watch appears, do to the characteristics you defined. I'm not quite sure why the Kingston, which is suppose to be 39mm, appears larger, which is why I asked the question of those who attended the gathering and saw it in person.
> 
> I guess that I am just trying to channel the nervous anticipation one might exhibit with with the expectation of a new arrival (being the Kingston, of course) by over analyzing every little detail that is posted here. Somehow, I don't feel that I am alone in that regard. Thanks again to those who have contributed their first-hand observations.


I am referred to the Sub date which has the same case dimension with the SD . The SD looks smaller.


----------



## usc1 (Jun 25, 2007)

*Re: Ok some photos...Not my best work*



Bill Sohne said:


> Hi everyone....
> 
> As other mentioned there was no natural light yesterday in NYC... Major showers and later lighting..
> 
> ...


What happend to all your pics Bill? :think:

The comparison pics would be cool to see. :thanks


----------

