KBH 7 Posted July 24, 2010 You don't have to be snotty about it. I asked a simple question. So apparently you're the only one that this factory sells to, since the other BKK dealer says they are no longer available? And please hold of on the snide remarks. I apologise ( I concede that northern UK humour doesn't travel well - especially to the colonies ) Whether Im the only one - who would know. All I can categorical confirm is that I still go and get these from the self same guy in Bangkok as I did all those years ago in the days when THESE watches where christened Noobmariners. Same watch, same supply. . Thank you for the clarification. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JoeyB 0 Posted July 24, 2010 Hey Does anyone know how to stop kestrels attacking a V4 Breitling super avenger ? I need to go back outside . Are you certain they are not vultures...? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Baldrick 1 Posted July 24, 2010 Personally I believe that ALL hyperbole should be stripped from adverts on the forums, I don't think dealers should be allowed to influence members by making broad statements about where the watch for sale is sourced, none of this 'noobfactory / milgauss factory' nonsense, it's of no consequence to the buyer where the item originated, all that should matter is the accuracy of the description / specification / photographs / reputation of the dealer / warranty aspect AND it should be a FULL description with appropriate photos, the original blueprint for this was established way back on TRC and that's all that should matter. I'm unsure as to the legitimacy of the claim of 1:1 'made from a genuine sample' so not sure what could or should be done about that. It should be sufficient for ALL dealers to simply give out the information that a buyer needs in order to make a decision, that decision can and may be supported by other members, however I don't think V1 / V2 / V3 descriptions should be allowed, after all WHOSE V1/ V2 / V3 are we talking about, this presupposes that ALL versions come from the same factory, which isn't the case. I do accept that dealers should be allowed to describe as NEW and IMPROVED, 'cos unlike Omo or Daz, you can determine a difference on most occasions and it would serve the members well to know what the differences are from previous iterations. In general we don't need to be subliminally advertised to by the use of hyperbole! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Brightlight 0 Posted July 24, 2010 I feel it is incumbent upon me to point out, just in case anyone gets the wrong idea and jumps to conclusions that "Noob" does not stand for "New British" despite the involvement of Narikaa and TTK. Noobs have nothing to do with oil as it is unlikely they have seen any. And there is no truth in the rumour that Narikaa said he only wanted to get his life back.................. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KBH 7 Posted July 24, 2010 Although I agree with your premise, Baldrick, we still need to be able to know which model we're getting. If someone does a great review on a particular watch, whether it be Noobfactory, Milguass factory, v2, etc. We need to be able to have a method of ordering to make you you get the model that you're wanting. Sometimes even pictures can be deceiving. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JoeyB 0 Posted July 24, 2010 I feel it is incumbent upon me to point out, just in case anyone gets the wrong idea and jumps to conclusions that "Noob" does not stand for "New British" despite the involvement of Narikaa and TTK. Noobs have nothing to do with oil as it is unlikely they have seen any. And there is no truth in the rumour that Narikaa said he only wanted to get his life back.................. No need. "Noob" has a good reputation for being accurate and working well. I doubt anyone would confuse that description with anything Brit... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Baldrick 1 Posted July 24, 2010 It should be incumbent upon the dealer to provide a reference no to facilitate ordering, as well as declaring ANY differences to previous iterations, no need for mention of factory / V? versions or anything, just look at the photos decide if it's your baby and order with the ref #.'seemple' ! That way you CAN'T be mislead! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Brightlight 0 Posted July 24, 2010 I feel it is incumbent upon me to point out, just in case anyone gets the wrong idea and jumps to conclusions that "Noob" does not stand for "New British" despite the involvement of Narikaa and TTK. Noobs have nothing to do with oil as it is unlikely they have seen any. And there is no truth in the rumour that Narikaa said he only wanted to get his life back.................. No need. "Noob" has a good reputation for being accurate and working well. I doubt anyone would confuse that description with anything Brit... Goes to show, just one mad king and the damage is done, now the damn colonials get uppity. Fortunately we haven't forgotten the nationality of your "Founding Fathers" and it wasn't Greek Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JoeyB 0 Posted July 24, 2010 I feel it is incumbent upon me to point out, just in case anyone gets the wrong idea and jumps to conclusions that "Noob" does not stand for "New British" despite the involvement of Narikaa and TTK. Noobs have nothing to do with oil as it is unlikely they have seen any. And there is no truth in the rumour that Narikaa said he only wanted to get his life back.................. No need. "Noob" has a good reputation for being accurate and working well. I doubt anyone would confuse that description with anything Brit... Goes to show, just one mad king and the damage is done, now the damn colonials get uppity. Fortunately we haven't forgotten the nationality of your "Founding Fathers" and it wasn't Greek It wasn't all that much Scot, either. Had it been Greek/Scot Cornwallis might have had his Brit ass thrown out of the country much quicker. The fustanella, and the kilt are certainly the dress of warriors and likely related. Didn't the Scots just recently dump the Brits too? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Brightlight 0 Posted July 24, 2010 I feel it is incumbent upon me to point out, just in case anyone gets the wrong idea and jumps to conclusions that "Noob" does not stand for "New British" despite the involvement of Narikaa and TTK. Noobs have nothing to do with oil as it is unlikely they have seen any. And there is no truth in the rumour that Narikaa said he only wanted to get his life back.................. No need. "Noob" has a good reputation for being accurate and working well. I doubt anyone would confuse that description with anything Brit... Goes to show, just one mad king and the damage is done, now the damn colonials get uppity. Fortunately we haven't forgotten the nationality of your "Founding Fathers" and it wasn't Greek It wasn't all that much Scot, either. Had it been Greek/Scot Cornwallis might have had his Brit ass thrown out of the country much quicker. The fustanella, and the kilt are certainly the dress of warriors and likely related. Didn't the Scots just recently dump the Brits too? I have to be honest, the mad king was actually German. Unfortunately the good Stuart dynasty we provided when we civilised the Sassenach (English) and created the Union, died out, and England, as with their football managers, do not think anyone English is suitable to be royalty, so they import them. I think the last actual English kings were the Tudors. (and we all know Tudors are just wannabe Rolexes ) The Scots have only half dumped the English, they do not yet have full independence. England has always been reluctant to see the break up of the Union as most of the North Sea Oil and Gas would then have been Scottish instead of the profits being used to enrich the South East of England and London. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JoeyB 0 Posted July 24, 2010 I think the last actual English kings were the Tudors. (and we all know Tudors are just wannabe Rolexes ) ;) :rofl: And absolutely not 'Noob Factory' Tudors... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pollux1 3 Posted July 24, 2010 I think the last actual English kings were the Tudors. (and we all know Tudors are just wannabe Rolexes ) :rofl: :rofl: And absolutely not 'Noob Factory' Tudors... I wonder is there any way of checking the last Tudor King's rehaut? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JoeyB 0 Posted July 24, 2010 I think the last actual English kings were the Tudors. (and we all know Tudors are just wannabe Rolexes ) :rofl: :rofl: And absolutely not 'Noob Factory' Tudors... I wonder is there any way of checking the last Tudor King's rehaut? Elizabeth I was the last Tudor, and at last report she had no rehaut... The Tudors were Welsh. They were followed by the House of Stuart, Scots. Brightlight was right. and England, as with their football managers, do not think anyone English is suitable to be royalty, so they import them. It just might be that our very own greg_r has a legitimate claim to the English throne! Or maybe sconehead!!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
greg_r 81 Posted July 24, 2010 I think the last actual English kings were the Tudors. (and we all know Tudors are just wannabe Rolexes ) :rofl: :rofl: And absolutely not 'Noob Factory' Tudors... I wonder is there any way of checking the last Tudor King's rehaut? Elizabeth I was the last Tudor, and at last report she had no rehaut... The Tudors were Welsh. They were followed by the House of Stuart, Scots. Brightlight was right. and England, as with their football managers, do not think anyone English is suitable to be royalty, so they import them. It just might be that our very own greg_r has a legitimate claim to the English throne! Or maybe sconehead!!! That's what the 'R' stands for in greg_r. "Rex". no wait... that was the dog's name..... nevermind... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JoeyB 0 Posted July 24, 2010 ...bunch of animals on this site... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Baldrick 1 Posted July 25, 2010 The Tudors were Welsh. They were followed by the House of Stuart, Scots. Not quite. The Tudors were Lancastrian, the dynasty commenced with Henry VII (R.1485-1509), (his father was of Welsh lineage), but that predates the establsihment of the House of Tudor, he was supported by both Lancastrians and Yorkists who were alienated by Richard III's usurpation of the crown. He secured his position by marrying Elizabeth of York ( d. Edward VII ) , which united the Houses of York and Lancaster, throughout his reign he was troubled by revolt and pretenders to the throne such as Perkin Warbeck or Lambert Simnel who impersonated Edward V, in 1485 Henry estabkished the Yeomen of the Guard, ( the oldest military corp still in existence today). His daughter Margaret was married off to James IV of Scotland, ( Mary Queen of Scots, James VI of Scotland and James I of England were all descendants ). The House of Tudor's reign was from 1485 - 1603, (118 years) The House of Stewart PRECEDED the House of Tudor, not followed, it commenced with Robert II, (r. 1371-1390) , most people get confused about the lineage because of the succession of the throne of England and the unification of Scotland, England and Ireland, upon Elizabeth I's death, she was the last of the 6 reigning Tudors from 1485-1603, he was the 9th from a reign of 14 Stewarts, the longest reigning European royal dynasty from 1371-1714, reigning 100+ years BEFORE and 100+ years AFTER the Tudors. ( 343 years). Most English think they conquered Scotland, the reverse was the case Once again no bubble and squeaks were involved. @BL, I'm shocked that you don't know your Scots history, the House of Stewart NEVER died out, that was propaganda carried out by the House of Hanover who feared a resurgence of Jacobite rebellion and hoodwinked the public by claiming there was no more issue from the House of Stewart, the reverse was the case, Charles Edward Stuart issued heir whilst in exile in Italy and the line continues to this day with Prince Michael of Albany current head of the House of Stewart and rightful heir to the British throne, which was usurped from the House of Stewart by Hanoverians NOT Ethel Mermans. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Brightlight 0 Posted July 25, 2010 @BL, I'm shocked that you don't know your Scots history, the House of Stewart NEVER died out, that was propaganda carried out by the House of Hanover who feared a resurgence of Jacobite rebellion and hoodwinked the public by claiming there was no more issue from the House of Stewart, the reverse was the case, Charles Edward Stuart issued heir whilst in exile in Italy and the line continues to this day with Prince Michael of Albany current head of the House of Stewart and rightful heir to the British throne, which was usurped from the House of Stewart by Hanoverians NOT Ethel Mermans. You mean I've been taken in by damned Sassenach propoganda....................again Ah'll awa an bile ma heid then. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Baldrick 1 Posted July 25, 2010 You've spent too long in that Godforsaken hell-hole Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Brightlight 0 Posted July 25, 2010 You've spent too long in that Godforsaken hell-hole Aye ah'll hae tae return tae ma auld heilan' hame.............. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Member X 91 Posted July 25, 2010 Does any thread in this place stay on topic? lol Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Brightlight 0 Posted July 25, 2010 Does any thread in this place stay on topic? lol What do you mean exactly? It is not a million miles from Noobmariners to the Royal families of the UK surely? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Baldrick 1 Posted July 25, 2010 Does any thread in this place stay on topic? lol What do you mean exactly? It is not a million miles from Noobmariners to the Royal families of the UK surely? Absolutely not! I know for a fact that Prince Charles was one of TTK's best customers, he had a complete set of Noobfactory Noobmariners delivered that he used to hand out to visiting dignitaries, true ! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
trailboss99 994 Posted July 25, 2010 Ya know, I can almost see Chuck doing that. Cheapskate that he is. Col. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ska 11 Posted July 25, 2010 Wouldn't they be called Duchymariners???? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
