Ronin

Sad indeed.

I purchased from him many times, and he was responsible for getting me into building SOXA's. A great guy....

May he rest in peace.

Is it the crown or tube that is stripped. I might have a crown if that is the problem.

Beautiful, great work! Will the result be the same with a gen 1680 dial?

Yes, so far this particular movement has had perfect date wheel to date window alignment for ALL GEN Rolex Dial's I have. A Stilty or Yuki ring opened up .5mm on the ID, and one notch added should make it a drop in. This is a GMT movement however, an I am not sure if DG 2813's have modernized up to this style yet.

I think this is as Andy said, the result of the old 'hand' lumed dials. Some lumers (new word), may have been more heavy handed than others. This is also why, I believe, you end up with the I-Beam style dials as well, as they were too afraid to lume outside the lines.

Add to that, I would not be surprised if, back in the day, when serviced the lume would get added on top of some of the older lume.

Both my Gen 1680 (for Tritium) service dial, and Ubi's 1665 (for Tritium) service dial, have the white printed markers, but no actual Tritum applied. That was left to the servicing tech but then the radioactive scare hit. It is not inconceivable to find Gen Rolex's with Service Dials and just painted markers sans-lume.... But I digress.

@Powershot - Great Photo!

Great work, Ronin.

Were this just another standard ETA-powered watch, I would say it looks great & leave it at that. But, considering how clever this project is, it really is too bad the lettering on the dial is not better aligned & the datewheel does not have the correct flat-top 3. Still, I cannot wait to see the completed watch.

I think you are referring to the MBW dial that was used for demonstration purposes. The completed watch is at the top by the OP and is Gen Dial. As for Flat 3's, we all know 'serviced' watches often deleted this. And personally, for the 3 to 4 days per month (2 in Feb) that a 3 appears in the window, I am would not be overly concerned.

This was a very fun, but challenging project. I was happy to help out. Now I must build one for myself! This was also a job of managing the costs, and optimizing the bang for the buck for J.

Now let me let everyone in on the secret to making in my opinion an excellent GMT without breaking the bank, or screwing around with crap ETA-2846's and converting to GMT, or 2836-Converted-GMTs.

• This is a 'real' GMT movement. 21,600 bph, and --wait for it-- a correct NON-OVERLAY datewheel that closely mimics a real Rolex DW from a Serif perspective... or at least from a few feet away. Plausible, service replacement.
  Let me say this again--- NO OVERLAY, excellent font size and serif, and CORRECT PERFECT Date Window Alignment for GEN Rolex Dials.
  Let me say this again--- NO OVERLAY, excellent font size and serif, and CORRECT PERFECT Date Window Alignment for GEN Rolex Dials.
  
  What is this mystery movement you might ask?
  
  From what I can tell it is a LATE MODEL - 2009 -> Dixmont Guangzhou (DG) 3804. (Note: The Ofrei 3804 is NOT THE SAME, or other old stock at the usual watch supply shops.)
  
  
  • Fitting in the GEN case was made possible by making a small modification to my STILTY 1575(1601)->ETA adapter ring. Hand to open it .5mm, and add one notch for a case clamp.
  • Stem alignment for GEN 1675 case was nearly perfect.

Here are some pics, including "de-brightening the DW, with some Irish Breakfast Tea.

GEN Dial. I test fitted a 1675 dial, GEN 16750, GEN 1601, and MBW dials, and ALL aligned perfect with the date windows.

COMPARE STOCK ETA DW Size. Any ETA in a REP, with GEN spaced DW REQUIRES an Overlay!

ETA on top.

Perfection

Stock size ETA behind a MBW dial.

DW "clips in" and rides on calendar mechanism.

Adding a little 'age'.

Pound

No worries, I started reading F333's post, and was like ~when did he get that rep?... Then it dawned on me, a blast from the past.

Bling

(For those not looking at Time/Date stamps, this is a bump from 2007!)

drugs

@Nanuq, that Wal-Mart list is awesome!

As for Opus, I toured the winery back in 1995 when they were still coming out. It is a quality / consistent product. Consistent being the key word. Personally, I like my wine to vary from vintage to vintage-- but for those who want the same flavor profile year after year, Opus gets it right. Some would say it is a bit 'over engineered'. Still, a great California offering.

My buddy sells it at his wine shop for $69 to $89 a bottle.

The most expensive bottles of wine I have personally consumed, thanks to a very wealthy friend were-- $16,000 & $23,000 (what he paid in the 80's). (We drank a DAYTONA!!! ) They were 1979 Mouton Rothschield (Paulliac) and 1979 Lafite Rothschield (Paulliac). We did a side-by-side tasting and traditional French meal with them. While they were excellent perfect 100's, no beverage I can think of is worth that much.

I like everything except the Vostok "logo". The logo reminds me of a late 70's early 80's hair band logo. --or wait, I know the Van Halen Logo. Otherwise

Looks like a Clark or standard rep to me.

Here is the profile of a gen 'flat top' t-127

Yes it should. You will need the DW Overlay however.

By they way. If the tendency of the preference of this "poll" represents a validated opinion, "vintage" Rolex prices can only go up in the market.

Actually, I think the value of the last generation will go up. (16610, 16710, 16600, 16570). Personally, I am hoping this is the case for me with my 16570 as I think the new Exp II will be polarizing with lovers and haters. A similar thing happened with the GMT II when the IIC came out. Pepsi's were the HOT Rolex then.

Keep the largest dimension to 180 pixels or less.

Once they start ARing the crystals they will be on the right path.

I totally agree with this. AR would be TRUE modernization for Rolex. I have to say, holding my gen Ball Watch, Breitling, Ebel, Sinn and even DOXA's with double AR next to my non-AR ExpII makes the Rolex looks a bit dingy, and cheap by comparison.

The only real modernization Rolex has done was the move to Ceramic bezels, and improved bracelets. The simple "weight gain / fattening" of the rest of the watch without redesigning hands/dial/markers or adding AR really does not make their designs modernized IMHO.

It's not going out on a limb to say as we've seen the average watch size grow to about 42mm. I've got to assume that, like my preference, this reflects the preference of the watch buying market. In the last few years we've seen watches trending toward huge - 45-50. That's since pulled back in to a reasonable average minimum at about 42mm. So after the trend whoring, we're left with a new norm - something more modern.

...

My point is simply about personal preference, and while the norm has changed... there will always be choices for preferences either side of norm.

Really? Or like my glossy computer screen rant, is this becoming the only choice available? GQ, Esquire, WSJ, and other fashion blogs are starting to poo-poo bigger watches again. ???

Up to 42 I think is safe for most wrists sizes. Many design elements factor in. White/light dials make the watch look even larger than black/dark colored dials. Thick, high standing also contribute to wearablity. A thin 42 will probably wear better than an overly thick 40. (I sold both my Breitling SteelFish and Blacksteel, because they were too top heavy. However, my SuperOcean Heritage @ 46mm but THIN, wears fine on my 7")

Rule #1: Make everything shiny. The ceramic bezel, the sapphire crystal, the white gold surrounds, the dial. There's a study somewhere that people are more likely to buy shinier things. Diamonds anyone?

Good marketing does not automatically translate to a good or optimal product. Another example is the computer/monitor industry. The shiny/glossy screen technology pushed upon us by Apple has plagued the computer industry. Try and find a laptop these days without a horrible glare ridden screen. Shiny might sell, and might make the occasion photo of the grand-kids look good in a dark room, but at the end of the day, it is sub-optimal. (Sorry about the computer industry related rant). Likewise adding chrome to the bumper of a car does not make it inherently better.

I still think most of the modern Rolex and even Breitling designs were on the drawing board pre-recession and bigger is better boom.

Water