SportsterRider

Looking at various pictures of TC's crown compared to a gen, I can't see any real difference. Personally, I wouldn't waste the time or money on it. That's a good looking dial, and it looks like the version the rep factories must have copied when making the Noobmariner dial. "Rolex" is printed slightly bigger, and the "O" is slightly ovaled. Anyway, great looking watch!

Very nice! Congrats!

Sneed is correct here. A good many Rollie reps still use the older 'rep' style crystals without the gasket groove. On these examples, the crystal itself simply presses into the rehaut/gasket and doesn't have any gasket groove (and the gasket is about the size of a rubber O-Ring and nothing like a gen spec Rollie gasket). Now it IS possible that some of these models *may* be able to take a gen spec crystal, but it wouldn't be correct and I'm not sure I'd trust it in water. Heck, this is one of the reasons why the Noob Exp 2, and the WM9 (and later TC, BK, ETASwiss, etc) were such a big deal when they came out, because having gen spec construction opened up all kinds of possibilities relative to building frankens. Of course, for popular models that use the old rep style crystals, I'd bet a custom gasket could be made to allow them to take a gen spec crystal, assuming the diameters are similar/the same.

On mine the clasp is stamped 93250. Can't remember what's stamped there relative to the date code. Also, the sides of the links are polished. I'm still learning about the 1680, so I'm not sure if this is correct or not.

Cruddy iPhone shot of my WM9 V1, with Noob dial/hands, gen insert (flat 4), gen crystal, TC V1 bracelet, serviced/lumed by Zig this Jan. I've had this since 4/08 and it has gotten the VAST majority of my wrist time since I got it. It's held up very well!

Stunning. Simply stunning work, RA.

I don't know. On one hand all you hear from folks is how Rolex is too slow to change, never produces anything 'new', the Sub is an 'old mans watch', and can't compete with the likes of Omega, Breitling, etc. Their bracelets are cheap, they don't use AR, etc, etc, etc. Then they go and produce a new sub, with a much improved bracelet, fancy new ceramic bezel, AR on the cyclops, and give it a slightly beefier case ('cause, you know, the Sub is just too small) and people complain that they shouldn't have changed the 'classic' Sub. This isn't aimed at you, TJ as I've seen all of the above mentioned on many different watch boards. Personally I think they did a good job of updating the Sub, while still keeping the overall look intact. It's definitely more 'bling' than the previous model, but it's on par with it's contemporaries from Omega and others. That being said, I bet the new Sub would look sharp if they could give that insert a matte finish. At least they didn't polish the center links!

Very quick pic of my Andrew 1680 'project'. Gen crown, Yuki tube, some CG work and some polishing. Coming along though..

Eh, I've own both a DSSD and a GMT-II C for the last coupla years and neither of mine have cracked, despite being banged around as much as any of my other watches. They are both, however, scratch-free. Can it happen? Of course it can, just as it's possible to shatter a sapphire crystal. But it's such an unlikely occurrence that I wouldn't pass on one over that concern. Besides, if it does crack, just get a new insert. In any case, going with the TW is a good choice as it's definitely the superior rep.

Sound a lot like the stuff people were saying when they made the switch from plexi crystals to sapphire. By and large, the cerachrome will be more durable (well, certainly the genuine will.) than the aluminum/alloy insert in the 16610 in much the same way sapphire is over plexi. Just don't knock it off a wash basin!!

If there are any left, I'll take two.

I've generally sized my watches by how the lugs fit my wrist. As long as the lugs don't extend beyond the width of my wrist, the watch tends to look well sized. When they hang over to where the bracelet/strap becomes shaped like a 'V', as opposed to an oval, it tends to look ridiculous. I know that's subjective, but everything is, right? Kids like to wear jeans that hang so low as to render the act pointless. They think it looks great. Me? Not so much. That being said, from a comfort standpoint (I have a 7.5 inch wrist) the classic 40mm diver is my favorite. For a while I was heading towards 45mm with the UPO, and a couple 44mm PAM's, Skyland, etc. They fit my criteria above, but I've since gone back to the 16610 and find it sooo much more comfortable. My "big" watch is now my 42mm PO and I find myself wearing it less and less as it's simply not as comfortable as the 16610 and 1680 in my collection.