JohnG

Uh oh. Little (or maybe not so little) white lies. I am curious how Josh is going to explain this...

Could I put the ETA movement from my SSD into a gen SD? That would solve all the problems with the bezel, sel's, too-large corona on the crystal, etc., etc., etc..

This is a case where I would rather have the rep than the gen. The gen contains materials obtained by desecrating a grave site. It is every bit as tasteless as the fictitious watch Andreww refers to above. The rep is a pretty watch with none of the objectionable material contained in the gen.

I know, what a fake-out!

To hell with that! Let the NEXT generation pay for of the national debt! Why should WE have to pay for it?

The insert on mine came somewhat recessed - if you run your nail over it it is definitely below the lip of the bezel. Perhaps this is common to all v2's? Picking angles and lighting my SSD looks a lot nicer in this shot I think. And on my wrist it is even harder to see the defects. I remember when I got it (this was my first rep - got my second today) thinking, "THAT is what people are so upset about?", as I looked at the pearl. From more than a foot away you can barely even see it - it's TINY! I like knowing what's wrong with the watch but I don't expect to bump into anyone who could call it out even just as it is. I saw some guys in the Rolex Forums oohing over a sub-based SD rep (in an article on counterfeits a thread was linking to), saying, "it is SCARY how good these are getting!" It was a crappy rep by SSD standards but they thought it was pretty good - they saw SOME of the flaws but missed stuff like the crown guards!!! I am not too worried. And I don't plan on lying when people ask me anyway...

The overlap in my photo is WAY exaggerated. It is an optical effect because the case was reflecting something dark just under the bezel making it look like a shadow. The bezel overlap looks just like BK's in similar lighting. The endlinks? - luck of the draw I think.

He is a member of this and other forums and from everything I have read (and experienced) a pleasure to deal with. He bought the watch and decided it wasn't his style and sold it after wearing it three times. You might ask him who he bought it from and if you find out - tell me too - I am curious. I haven't seen the Cartier Explorer anywhere. The watch is really nice by the way. I love everything about it.

I bought this Explorer I Cartier from Takashi and it arrived VERY quickly and well packaged. He shipped it about twelve hours after I paid for it (maybe less). I didn't know much about double-branded Rolexes before I bought this watch. It turns out that Rolex used to allow all its major retailers to put their names on the the dial of the watch. Cartier and Tiffany's were the last two retailers to have this privilege. This is a replica of an Explorer I sold by Cartier. I have also included a couple of pics of the Sea-Dweller I purchased from Ruby about a month ago. The watch has flaws but I am thrilled with it anyway. And there is one pic of my Poljot. This is the watch that started my love affair with watches in general. Thanks again Takashi! Explorer I Cartier Super Sea-Dweller version 2 Poljot "Sturmanskie" Civil Chronograph

I will be the first to say Welcome! Please understand that it is upsetting when attention is drawn to the forum. I hope you will become a part of the community and help us keep our hobby somewhat secret. If you agree we should try to not draw too much attention then I am everyone will join in and welcome you here. Your friend, JohnG

I would hope he would at least get a hearing. No one ever came back to translate those posts so most of us, I suspect, don't have any idea what they actually said. If the posts were more innocuous than we were initially led to believe and he agrees not to publicize the hobby anymore as a condition of his membership I don't see what harm there is in letting him stay. Banning him out of hand is a nice way to invite retaliation. I think giving him the benefit of the doubt and asking him nicely to not draw attention to the replica watch world might be a more prudent course of action. But what do I know?

Yeah, this is another problem I read about but didn't notice it in these shots until you mentioned it... Yeah, that's what I meant by the "peaks" between the teeth being to large - I didn't know what you call them. Jeez, anything else? That is MY SSD by the way... Anybody want to buy a month-old SSDv2? Can't afford that - think I will just go back to LLBean watches.

Here is another between that same gen and my SSDv2. I tried to get the photo from the same angle since it is a good shot of the bezel teeth on the gen:

I recently confirmed, with the help of several members, that my new SSD from Ruby is the "v2" or 2nd version with the "thicker" bezel (not actually thicker as discovered by Tribal - but rather machined differently so that it sits slightly higher on the case). As a result of my curiosity about my bezel version, I had studied a lot of pics of the old and new SSD bezels. So I was very disappointed when I discovered, while browsing on The Rolex Forums, the following pics of a gen SD bezel. It is clear that even the new bezel leaves a lot to be desired. I have made a composite below of close-up side lateral views of the bezel of a gen SD, the SSDv1 (from BK's new case/bezel offering comparing the old and new bezels) and my own SSDv2. One of the distinguishing features of the new bezel is that the tooth cut terminates about half way down the vertical lateral face of the bezel. This, I had thought, made the bezel appear thicker (in addition to the difference in the machining that causes the v2 bezel to sit higher on the case - according to both BK and Tribal). But when I saw a close up side view of the gen bezel I realized that the lower termination of the tooth cut is actually much closer to the old v1. I have placed red lines on the composite so that you can easily see how far down the face each tooth cut ends on the various watches. I also noticed that the peak between each tooth is narrower on the gen but is more closely matched by the v2. Here is the comparison: To me the solution is a tooth cut that is slightly more vertical but does not remove more material at the top of the cut - only at the bottom of the cut. This would give the tooth a lower termination and a narrower peak between cuts. Additionally it would give a more symmetrical penetration of the cut into the bezel material - the gen appears to have about the same penetration at the rim of the bezel as at the vertical flat. The v2 appears cut appears to have a more conical geometry... And I guess the obvious question at this point is, am I being way too anal about a watch that has a huge (and equally un-modable) rehaut thickness problem? Perhaps, but I am interested not just in the problems that can be fixed (and which I may never fix anyway) but rather in the features that distinguish the watch from the gen. Even if I don't intend to or can't fix certain flaws, I still like to know what they are. I imagine the SSD bezel issue has been talked to death already but I thought I ought to contribute something once in a while instead of just make wise-cracks.

fh ogu radc hiby ohhr hno uib s spubty goubh-ahgirn. hyh ug noiurh glcuurrh!!!

I would not swim with a watch that is only rated to 30m. Slapping your wrist down on the water when swimming can generate pressures in excess of that on the watch. With ANY rep I think it is very wise to have the watch tested FIRST and then decide what level of water activity is appropriate for the watch. I have a SSD and plan to use it for spear fishing AFTER I have confirmed it's 100m rating (claimed by several dealers). Here is a standard water resistance guide: .

That video has been edited! In the version I saw (8 minutes and 17 seconds), before the clapping has finished, the elephant writes accross his painting, "HELP ME!!!!" and is suddenly hustled away by his handlers while voices off-screen are heard saying, "what the hell?" and "did you see that?" Suddenly a figure rushes the camera shouting "sa piling ni mao! sa piling ni mao!" and the camera goes dark... It was quite disturbing.

Congratulations BK and thank you for the help identifying my SSD version! JohnG

Ok lady killer.

I agree. Many people have no idea how badly the macro function can distort an image. A simple experiment taking photographs with and without macro of the same watch (at different distances obviously) produce dramatically different results. On my own SSD I can double the apparent "wokkiness" of the rehault using macro and placing the camera as close as I can to the watch.