sssurfer

It was my suspicion even before you said it, Mark. I feel proud and honoured and grateful that such a fortune occurred to me. Surely I am aware that what I got from you is true artwork. I am currently wearing that watch on a daily basis, and I keep getting amazed each time I look at it (and each time I look at it I think of you). But I also know that you are able to equal that level again. And other members should benefit from your skill too. That is why I keep recommending you any time I have the occasion to do it...

I searched months along and I found nothing. Only option seems getting an (even different) inexpensive rep with solid caseback and swapping casebacks.

Same here. Mjmurphy, make use of the search button and you are likely going to get info on what you are after. Oh, and welcome aboard!

3 reps in 3 weeks is not a bad average at all (especially before being even biten by the PAM bug ). Congrats, and welcome aboard!

Wow! Welcome!

I had a watch relumed by Finepics and it is absolutely stunning. Even if examinated at 10x it seems machine-made, not hand-made. And it was not the simpliest watch to relume: bars, not dots, as hour marks; and three numeral marks at 6, 9 and 12. I had no lume experience by palp, but as for Finepics I can recommend him eyes closed.

Take your time, Mark, we know that all your decisions will be to the best. And always thanks for your efforts.

Personally, I did not notice any slowdown

Welcome, fellow, to the dark realm. Noone knows what the heck is the appeal of those black beasts. But once you have one single look at them, something begins growing, and you come closer... closer... until they bite you. Then, there's no return. Some months before even becoming aware of the very existence of rep forums I was glancing through a watch book. In search for a Patek Philippe, you figure. Near the Pateks, alphabetically, there were 2 pages about Panerai. 2 pages over 320. One single look. I still remember. It was an 'Egiziano'. I was lost.

First!

It is working -- provided that the user just pays a little attention in keeping it properly aligned with the caseback's shape. I also have to say that I covered it with tape, though. I essentially did it in order to furtherly protect the caseback, not to make the tool's opening smaller... but the opening is a little smaller now that what it was originally.

@Usil: It's an old trick from ebay sellers to keep the price ridicolously low and to add ridicolously high s/h fees. Usually the sum equals the real price of the item + real cost of s/h, and it is so in this case too. I was keeping an eye on this item since when it came out from another seller @ 50 USD. When I found it @ 40 USD, I bought. And now it is @ about 27 USD. When I bought it, Davidsen's opener was not available yet, though. @Mikellem: Let us know what you will think of it, Mike. I found that there are actually two different sizes for 44 mm cases around, differing for a fraction of mm. The blue tool is sized on the larger, so it is a bit too large for the smaller. I heard that Davidsen's cases are even larger (just an additional fraction mm) than the larger ones. I hope it is not too large for the smaller ones.

Ciao Pobiga, I bought exactly that tool from that ebayer on last July, at about 31 Euro (s/h included). Now I see it is 21 Euro. Grrr, I'd better have waiten It is a great tool anyawy, I use it on a regular basis coupled with Narikaa's sticky balls. A little on the larger side, but not really a problem.

Our great experts surely will help you better than what I can, but as I came here before them I humbly add my thoughts. It could be because one (or more) of these issues, in decreasing order of likeliness: 1 - Crown (and stem) was not properly inserted on manufacturing. i.e. the push point (or screw, depending on the movement, I seem to remember that on the 6497 it is a screw) to release and insert the stem was not being properly pushed (or screwed) when they insterted the stem. 2 - The keyless work went a mess. 3 - The stem is too short. So I suggest that, as a first step, you open your watch and try to reinsert the stem by properly pushing the point (or screwing the screw). There are threads here and on the other forums on how to do it. This should also help you in diagnosing the other two possible issues.

A site that does not make mention of PAMs is not worth the bytes it needs to bookmark. Just joking. Great find, By-Tor, thanks for sharing!

Chanel Ceramic Black is a great choice! From Andrew, I also like the Diamonds (Baguette) White. Actually, on ladies, I personally prefer 'lighter' (brighter) watches -- but you are right on your choice for black Ceramic... curiously enough, Ceramics do not look so good in white. Some time ago I gave my wife a watch that still looks gorgeous on her evening dressing, and that still is the one I love the most among her watches. It resembles the Diamonds Baguette White a little, but I find it a little less obtrusive. If you are interested, you may have a look at it here. (Unsure on whether it is still available, though).

Exactly. It is just because it is the best I can do with glass. And it is also very close to what I now suspect to be the best possible without incurring in problems from distortion and brightness decreasing, i.e. 1.5x - 1.55x. Noone knows what the hell genuine mag is. Measuring pixel-wise several pictures of gens one would bet that it is 1.8x. And 1.7-1.8x was the mag we (the self-named 'watchmen') made on our first cyclopses. But now we are almost sure that Officine P. heavily retouch their pics on their website instead. This suspicion has also been supported by experts, I have been told. To make the things even more complicated, different PAM models have different cyclopses -- differing both about diameter and magnification. And some members here assured that they may witness that even different exemplars of a same model may have different cyclopses. I think this is due to the different rehauts in different models. And, actually, one of the greatest difficulties we found on our first try was to find a tradeoff that could work on most models. Personally, I now think that OP can go up to 1.7 (maybe even 1.8, no more than that) just because they may optimize their cyclopses on the different models, they may use aspheric (which, alone, multiplies by 4 the cost of a lens), and they have gorgeous bright datewheels. But if we want a cyclops that can go on almost all models, at a reasonable price, we have to stay at 1.5-1.55x (just consider that even at as low as 1.5x, brightness would be less than a half of the unmagnified). The great advantage of sapphire is that, on 6 mm diameter, it can reach 1.5-1.55x even with a lens less than 1 mm thick (while glass needs 1.3 mm just to go to 1-4-1.5x). 1 mm thick means NO PROBLEM ABOUT TOUCHING THE WATCH HANDS ON ANY MODELS... and there is even some more room left to think about 7 mm cyclopses. Personally, I am an aficionado of 7 mm cyclopses too, because of 3 reasons: 1 - that is the diameter found on the most recent models; 2 - I think it looks better... something like the 2.1 mm thick Palp crowns, that people here even prefer to the gen crowns (1.9 - 2.0 mm thick); 3 - especially because, at a same mag, larger diameter means lower distortion. But in order to get a same mag (i.e., same focal length) with a larger diameter one needs to also raise the ROC (i.e., the thickness). On sapphire one has the room to do that.

Great work, and some nice streptococci!

Wow Pug, I thought I had a problem, but it is small compared with yours!

You are right, I have been excessively pessimistic. I rounded the refraction index of sapphire down to 1.7, and this resulted in FL = 12 mm. Instead, sapphire refraction index ranges from 1.757 to 1.779, that results in FL around 11 mm for ROC = 8.4. Taking ROC down from 8.4 mm to 8.2 mm accounts for the remaining 0.28-0.48 mm difference towards the FL I said. The equation is the so-called 'thin lens equation': FL = ROC / (RI - 1) (where RI is the Refractive Index) Finally, here are your complete figures on ROC = 8.2 mm: If Refraction Index = 1.757 then: FL = 10.82, Mag = 1.38x @ 3 mm, 1.48x @ 3.5 mm If Refraction Index = 1.779 then: FL = 10.52, Mag = 1.4x @ 3 mm, 1.5x @ 3.5 mm As you can see, Mag differs only for 0.02x on the quality of sapphire. I think that 0.02 is negligible, but if you want to be sure then ask your company about the refractive index of their sapphire, or - even simpler and better - the effective FL of that lens. So yes, I think that that lens may work. At 25 USD or less, it definitely is worth a try. Such a thin lens might also sustain a little increment in thickness, so to work in 7 mm diameter (for more recent PAM models), without interfering with the watch hands. If you are interested and if your company also manufactures 7 mm lenses then let me know and I'll make the calculations for you (thin lens equation alone will not suffice).

Ok Admin, thanks. When it will happen again I'll take a screen capture of my posts list and a record of what happened, and I'll let you know. I understand that it may be difficult to sort problems out when they don't happen.

Nice idea, but better adding "Rolex" Reps Under $50 into the title of the thread. Else, for PAMs, there is also the loose lever fix. It does not cost anything other than some mm of electric wire and a little elbow oil.

As I supposed. Very close to my calculated value of 8.4, with that 0.2 difference surely imputable to roundings. Well, ROC = 8.2 is not so bad. It gives FL = 10.52 - 10.82 (depending on the quality of sapphire). Assuming FL = 10.7, then mag is 1.39-1.48x. Almost as my 'best glass lens', but with a very smaller thickness. Not bad at all. You may want to give it a try. The only problem we 'Watchmen' found on our first try was that sapphire has scandalous price, especially when not in massive production (100+ pieces). On single pieces we have been asked 100+ USD for custom lenses like those we needed. But if your company has them readily available then price may drop. May I ask you how much they asked you for it?

Here I am (hi Chief, I see you are reading right now! ). Central Thickness is supposed to be the total thickness of a lens. Instad, your source seems to use the term 'Central Thickness' to mean what we can call 'Active Thickness', i.e.: Central Thickness minus Edge Thickness. In this case 'your' cyclops has: Central Thickness = 0.95 mm 'Active Thickness' = 0.55 mm Edge Thickness = 0.4 mm These figures give: Radius Of Curvature = 8.4 mm (NOT 5.21) Focal Length = 16 mm if glass, 12 mm if sapphire Mag: 1.2-1.3x if glass, 1.3-1.4x if sapphire 1.2-1.3 is the usual mag we have on our reps. I personally recently experimented a lens with Focal Length = 12 mm (i.e. Mag = 1.3x at 3 mm, 1.4x at 3.5 mm) and I can assure you that its mag was just a tiny bit higher than that by our 'original' rep cyclops. In order to go to Mag 1.4x - 1.5x, we need Focal Length = 10 mm, that corresponds to: With glass: Radius Of Curvature = 5.15 mm (5.21 is ok as well) 'Active Thickness' = 0.96 mm (0.95 is ok as well) Edge Thickness: the lower, the better. Any companies that Finepics, archibald and I asked in the past declared unable to go below 0.3 mm. So we can say, if we are lucky: Edge Thickness = 0.3 mm and (therefore): Central Thickness = 1.25 - 1.26 mm With sapphire: Radius Of Curvature = 7 mm 'Active Thickness' = 0.67 mm Edge Thickness = 0.3 mm and (therefore): Central Thickness = 0.97 mm If, on the other hand, the info from your source are to be intended as 'Active Thickness' (i.e. CT minus ET) = 0.95 mm, then WITH GLASS it would have exactly ROC = 5.21 mm as they said, and this would led to Focal Length = 10 mm and (therefore) Mag = 1.4x at 3 mm, 1.5x at 3.5 mm, again as they said. If they can provide such a lens with an Edge Thickness = 0.3 mm or less, then this is our ideal cyclops and no better can be done with mineral glass. Hope this helps. Please keep us informed.