chefcook

195 - already in the box 390 - already in the box 210 - not there yet. That would be all I'd need. Something in PVD, a classic Luminor, a Radiomir, a sandwich dial, a logo dial, a brown dial, closed case back, see-through case back...

Nope, the new one clearly is 45mm. The new 42mm version does not have a beveled date window.

For 4 and 5 digit reference numbers (i.e. classic Submariner 1680, 16610 etc): You will need a special paper. For refinishing the Rolex Service Centers use 3M 40 Micron Micro Finishing Film. That is actually not paper but a thin plastic sheet coated with some abrasive material with a particle size of 40 Microns. Can be bought from the usual suspects like CousinsUK. Take a strong and perfectly flat piece of metal and fixate the 3M 40µ sheet to it with double sided tape. Then carefully brush the lugs in the right direction. For 6 digit reference numbers (i.e. GMT IIc, Submariner Ceramic etc): 3M Green 30 Micron wet or dry paper. Same procedure as above.

The box at least is fake. Would stay away if I were you. The SELs being recessed is not necessarily true with the six-digit datejusts. The pics of the watch are not the best and there are very good fakes out there of this model... Ask for pics of the case back. I'd bet there is a 18k or R marking on the back of the lugs.

Main Problem is that the Ingenieur seems to be discontinued by the factories. At least most of the dealers say they cannot get it anymore. Producing a date wheel would require demand of a minimum number and with the watch being out phased I doubt there is such demand.

Have to dig this one up again. Does anyone still have the file and is willing to share it?

That is interesting. What did not work with the 2893 in that case?

Of the two watches shown here I'd keep the 16610. The 1680 case is not that nice IMO, the lug holes look overpolished and seem to be too large.

Yep. Daytonas are and always were girls watches, like the Yachtmaster. Men wear Sub, Explorer or GMT.

Will work, the A2892 swaps directly and without modification with a genuine cal. 2500 or an ETA 2892.

Rep, not even a good one. Date font is off, dial is too small and this dial type was never sold in a new style case (six digit reference number). Case lugs are too thin, SELs don't fit too good, rehaut seems wokky.

Robert Moron sold quite a few Daytonas with questionable dials in the past. I would not touch a watch from him with a ten ft pole.

I like it. The size is just right it lost the cyclops (which only belongs on a Rolex IMO) and the new dial is so much nicer!

I hope it will be repped! http://www.breitling.com/en/news/index.php?idContent=64971

Accurate? It is far off in EVERY dimension. It is the worst rep for years!

yup, won't ship before wednesday next week afaik.

Great That really is an achievement!

Just explain how and why Manufacture Horlogère ValFleurier, the manufacturer of the Panerai in house movements, should use a 7750 ebauche to create a movement with a completely different layout, one additional barrel, different escapement position and different size (13 3/4 lines vs. 13 1/4 lines). Neither the wheel train nor the bridges or main plate of the p9000 show any similarity to a 7750. And basing it on a 7750 would miss the goal of an in house movement: Being independent from ETA!

No, it isn't

Base is an A7750 without chronograph and automatic winding bridges. This movement was already used by DSN in his Egiziano. Diameter is 1mm down from the genuine P.2002 and gearing layout is different. And of course it only has one barrel instead of three.

Crown guards are an easy fix on this one imo. The crystal would bug me a lot more. Rehaut is a little fat, too, but nothing that couldn't be turned down. If it would take a gen crystal this would be an awesome rep!

All the Aquatimer 2000 reps are far off. Wrong case dimensions, the quick release strap change usually does not work and a lot of people have their straps glued to the case. Lume on the AT2000 reps does not deserve to be called lume. The straps are not correct, too, by the way.

saw it yesterday evening and it looked horrible...

Looks nice and looks like the work was executed well. But why go for a base plate with 6497-1 stamping when the genuine has 6497-2? Does not actually seem worth the effort to go from one flaw to the other.

Why oh why do the chinese keep replicating see-through case backs even when the same model is available with a closed case back (ref. 641 instead of 601) which would be scarily accurate instead of the typical rep [censored]?