chiman12

That is sad to hear...thanks for the update B!

Very nice M!

Close...it's a 27.5mm...same dial size as a 5510 or a 6542...

too much talk about banging and not enough appreciation for the Explorer! Like it J...LIKE IT!!!!

Thanks W! Yeah...I bought it as a package from a member a while back, not direct from a dealer...

That is a beautiful build...congrats...

It is nice to see the complete watch and great write up as always! So...you did wind up using the bent gen seconds hands?

I gotta admit...that is a very nice build!

Love it and great write up! I recently purchased a 3717 and must say that it is starting to be one of my favs

A beauty M...specs baby...specs!

Its also interesting that the 7809 was used in B.N. Greenland expedition...never knew that. With patina on the dial and the natural aging on the case, you can claim that you survived the Expedition (not saying that you are old)! What is also interesting is how much Military action Tudors have seen as compared to their Rolex cousins!

I knew you would doing something cool with it! Great job J!

Great collection and great photo skills!

Nice build S! I am green...

The truth is that in Rolex history there has been a THIN cased and a..lack of a better term...regular cased 1675. I have posted the measurement of a mid-case of a gen 16610...so someone needs to measure a thin and regular mid-case of a 1675 and that is a direct comparison. I AM not hypothisizing that the gen 1655 case (or any other case) is thinner than a 1675 case. My position all along is that the 1675 case is NOT that MUCH more thinner than a modern day sub case as some has claimed in this thread that it is so. FWIW have a gander at link below, great comparison across the board of the sports brands with measurements http://www.watch-pop.com/rolex-vintage/rolex-vintage-11991.html The content of the link also indicates that the 1675 came in two different thickness, so not ALL 1675's are built the same (as it has been indicated)...more interesting have a gander at the 16610 thickness...pretty much the same overall thickness of the thin cased 1675. Why is the overall thickness important also? I hypothesize that because the mid-case thickness would make up about 35-40% of the overall thickness, while the case back and crystal thickness would make up the rest. With the 7mm crown tube being 3mm and the 5.3mm crown tube being 2.5mm...the minimum thickness difference between the two would be 0.5 mm or close to it to support the mid-case walls around the tube. So...can some take a set of calipers to a gen thin and thick 1675 mid-case already??? This will solve my curiousity...

Nice work Joey! Luv those flat top 4s!

Nice R! I like diversification!

Looking good! Great start to a great project!

z....once again...there is no concrete evidence provided...and all there is heresay...I'm sick of discussing this too... once I buy a gen 1675 (which might be forever, because I am broke!)...we'll reconvene this discussion...or maybe not...over and out

Continuing on with the GMT versus submariner thickness debate... Guys...what I'm trying to point out is that a gen 1675 (which I don't have a gen to compare to) is the same thickness (if not thicker) as a modern day sub and a little thicker due to the thickness of the movement. This means that the the overall case is thicker to accomodate the thicker gen GMT movement. Assuming that the case backs are pretty much dished the same to accommodate the rotor depth, then the mid-case would have to be a bit thicker to accomodate the slight thickness differential. Now comparing this to the 16750 and the 16570...the Japanese Rolex encyclopedia stats indicate that the thickness are on the average of 12mm. So it would only make sense that the 1675 mid-case is thicker than the 16750/16570, which confirms RA pic of his comparo to a gen 16570 From Rolex spec sheets...1575 (GMT) thickness= 6.47mm, 3035=6.35mm. BTW...The thickness of a mid-case 16610 about 4.7mm...my REP 1655 mid-case is 4.83mm...so consistent from MY point of view, because I don't have a gen 1675 to compare. In summary and according to what I have in front of me, the 1675 mid-case should technically be as thick if not thicker than any modern day sub and also any successor of the 1675 (except possibly 16760).

Okay...let's focus on the gen 1675 should be thinner than a modern day sub argument... Based on my digital calipers total thickness, including case back and crystal... My gen 16610 13.1mm my rep 1675 converted from a rep 1:1 1655 is 13.13mm (with modifed flat case back) According to the Japanese Rolex encylopedia... The 1675 thickness ranges from 12-13mm 1655 thicnkess ranges from 13mm to 13.5mm 16610 gen thickness ranges from 12.5mm to 13.mm So the 1655 rep thickness is consistent and within the 1675 gen thickness. Take into consideration that I flattened out the rep 1655 case back to make it look like a 1675 case back, so you will lose about .5mm What does this mean...we are all barking up the wrong tree... The 1675 has the SAME thickness as a modern day sub and the assumption that a GMT should be consistently thinner than a modern day sub is incorrect...

This is not a pissing contest, but a debate...you claimed that the 1655 1:1 rep case is too thick, I claim not...so far all you have been doing is comparing by physical appearance...just as I have... RA...the 1655 you are sourcing is not the rep 1:1...take a look at my actual pics of rep case (on the bottom), compare the position of the lug holes to yours...mine are further out and wider...yours are further in and smaller. How do I know that mine is the 1:1? I was one of the first few members to source the 1:1 1655 rep right away to convert it into a 1675. By making evidential claim in my thread...you are claiming to be a 1675 guru...so have you even measured the thickness of the both mid-cases or not??? Yes...your reputation as a claimed 1675 expert is on the line here...

More evidence that the Josh 1:1 1655 or rep case is not too thick and in fact maybe too thin... My "oh my god super-de-duper ultra hyper chiman is broke because of it" franken 1655 on top and 1675 constructed from Josh 1655 1:1 on bottom...the rep case thickness looks pretty good to me...maybe a little thin...

I really don't know where you are getting your rep cases, because I DEFINITELY know from first hand that a 1675 or 16570 rep case is not double the thickness of a gen case and the most there is 1-2 mm and at the most 3mm variations in thickness for gen cases and this is due slight variations based on the year of production. This is documented in the Japanese handbooks, in other words, they measure the thickness of the mid-case. So once again it is incorrect to claim that ALL 1675 cases are the same A to Z. I would actually like to see your molds that you claim you've collected throughout the years as then you would have molds to make the perfect 1675 case.... As for machining the rep 1655 case backs to match the flat spot on the 1675...that is a simple procedure, because if you look carefully at the rep 1655 case backs, there is a slight flat spot of which the factories probably rounded to make it look like a rounded 1655 case back. All you really need to do is sand that flat spot back down and make it visable again.

Wow! I like it when an old thread becomes active again! Acutally to correct RA...the 1675 came in many thickness throughout the year of its production (just like the 1016), so the rep case may not be too thick. The Japanese Rolex handbooks are great at documenting case thickness and sizes. But RA is correct in stating that 5.3mm crown will look small on a 1655 without modified the CG's to PCG's (crown gapping is less apparent). But the main problem is the 5.3mm tube, it is smaller in diameter than a 6mm tube. You can never make a 5.3mm crown fit, unless it is on a rep tube that can fit a 5.3mm crown.