Pugwash

Unitas was a movement manufacturer bought by ETA. Just because you call a 64xx a Unitas doesn't mean all movements called Unitas are 64xx handwinds.

Oh crap. The right-wing nutbars are back. Whatever happened to the no politics rule?

Firstly, I'll assume you're talking about expensive Swiss 7750 replicas, otherwise the difference is obvious: The Asian 7750 isn't an ETA. Secondly, IWC replace rather a lot of parts in their 7750. Even the Swiss 7750 movement isn't the same as an IWC 7750. The proper Swiss SFSO had an ETA 2824, which was the exact same part as was in the genuine Breitling. As for the FM Conquistador with the 2892, you'd have a hard time finding a new one these days that's not got an ST18 in it instead of the gen Swiss part.

If you're going for a 21j replica, you're not going anywhere near the best.

SOSF. Same movement as the gen, and that feature is missing from every other rep listed.

I don't have a modern Sub or SD, so I may well have to go for one of BK's Seadwellers.

Remember, kids, shares can always drop another 95%.

Before I read all the replies, I'll say yes, you probably are.

Mine is this: Click to embiggen

The 360 is a 28k8 movement that has an additional 360k movement just for the 100ths of a second chrono. http://www.tagheuer.com/the-collection/con...dex.lbl?lang=en Automatic movement for time, hand-wind movement for the chrono. And no. No reps of this one.

There's something there, but it doesn't glow.

Pics? Detail:

Any decent Datejust will pass muster better than any sporty SS rep. However, I stand by my statement that I can spot an out-of-the-box replica Rolex at over 10 feet, as long as I control the lighting conditions, of course.

When you put it like that, a 1950s Tudor for the price of a super-rep is damned good.

35mm or so. For those that are interested, it was

Pics will be forthcoming. However, I was wondering if anyone knew how old it was. It's a Tudor Oyster 7904 and as far as I can tell it's over 50 years old. It's a 131xxx serial. It looks like I got it for a good price, too.

I suspect his set up would count as "fancy" to most of us. ... and I agree with Robbie. There's something missing. Maybe it's the way he pulls the crowns out or composes the shots. I don't know. Technically, I could learn an awful lot from his lighting, if I had his budget.

I saw it for sale and realised it was a superb piece of design. Not overly flashy, no stupid old-style numbers, great dial ... all round classy watch. ... and on top of that, it's not impacted my "New Watch" fund.

It's a perfectly cromulent word.

It's a Tudor Oyster. It's got a screw-in crown with a single bar under the Rolex logo. It's hand-wound, not automatic, and has an acrylic crystal. I believe it dates to the 1950s, but I'm nowhere near expert enough to date it. More detailed pics soon.

I just picked this little beauty up: Click to embiggen

I'm going to go out left-field and suggest the Panasonic LX3.

Yes, they exist. No, we can't get them.

http://watchesinmovies.info/