sssurfer

Thanks avitt, I am a PVD fan and your posts have been very instructive.

This oil hypothesis is a very good one, IMO. In this case even just oiling, not polishing, would have the same effect. Unfortunately I have no DSN PVD watch to verify it. If, on the other hand, it is the polishing action that gives the result, then we have to assume that the polishing cloth is someway able to remove any fractions of the PVD coating. This is possible. Even if on the paper PVD is as hard as sapphire, in reality it can get scratched much more easily than sapphire -- as several Paneristi and myself can bear witness of. I cannot explain this, perhaps it is because its exceptional thinness.

Sorry, but it is incorrect, more of an urban legend. I already showed it here, here, here, and here. Your watch is on my list too. You -- and all others who got their Fiddies from that batch -- uncorrectly assumed that your crystals were glass just because they exploded. Noone had his crystal professionally tested to tell whether it was glass or sapphire. If you had your crystal professionally tested please tell me and I'll remove it from my statistic -- but sapphire will remain absolutely prevalent as exploding. You and the others have not been scammed by EL and Andrew because they sold you glass advertised as sapphire. You have been scammed because they sold you thin sapphire prone to explode. Yes, that was because DSN sapphire is thicker than EL's, Andrew's, etc. Not because his is sapphire while the others' was glass.

That Cape Cod finishing actually makes DSN PVD much better, IMO! I am just scared to death at thinking to make a PVD coat even thinner by polishing it...

I hope it's just an April fool joke. I wonder how can one single Italian pay Bonati more than Richemont-Vendome. I also wonder how can David Beckham wear that watch and be married with Victoria.

Already addressed here. The minifiddy's crystal is glass, so it won't explode -- other than under exceptional circumstances, obviously. Posted something here. Also the fingernail test so well described by fendushi is surprisingly quite accurate. Just, you must have good ear.

Be extremely cautious on removing the dial! The dial has sort of a plastic ring that duplicates the bezel on the inner side of the bezel. The ring is inserted and fixed on the dial by means of tiny plastic pins. Do not pull the ring, rather instert a flat blade between the dial and the ring, and make gentle lever action to remove the ring pin after pin, also taking care not to scratch the dial. I scratched the dial and got the ring deformated by pulling it. Watch ruined. And The Zigmeister withdrew from working on B&R because of their tricky construction. Member ajoesmith used to provide PVD coating for B&R.

Contrarily from what many people think, the low cost PVD on PAM reps from "our" collectors is true PVD. But it is directly applied on brushed stainless steel without any previous beadblasting, so it looks shinier than genuine PVD. It is also made of a slightly different chemical substance than gen Officine Panerai PVD (kruzer00 and chieftang may explain it better), what makes it darker and a little less hard than gen PVD. Unfortunately, no auto PAM in PVD other than the 028.

A white datewheel, Teejay?!?

Try and click here. (oops, just saw Frankt arrived first) Great find, fat tail. Thanks for sharing.

Exactly. That is because of sapphire crystal structure vs glass and plexi amorphous structure. Higher surface hardness, but higher internal rigidity too, that makes it easier to break under high enough stress. Btw, even sapphire is not 0%. Carborundum and diamond can scratch it. It happened to member Victoria.

I think we can say: If you need a loupe to detect low crossbars, either you have a good rep or a bad sight. If you can detect low crossbars in your rep by naked eye, you may live with it also getting assuration about your good sight.

Definitely not. Breaking/popping/exploding prevalence (not tendence): Sapphire 90-100% Glass 0-10% Plexi 0%

... And the 212, 213 and 253 have no date... On the other hand, several 2007/2008 Manifatture models have date and display back. No decent rep so far, though.

It should fit.

kasigi, was it sapphire? @geeeyjo: @80 USD your 127 hardly is sapphire -- hence also hardly going to break / pop out / explode.

Nice purchase and good deal, congrats! Personally, I love the B&R -- even if 46mm square is definitely too large for my wrist.

Davidsen "A"s are better than those of many other reps. And you may expect an even further improvement on his next auto models. -- I hope --

Agree. May I offer myself?

Congrats on your former projects, I think that these forums make for a pretty good fit to your tendencies. Did you post a pic of your 104? It did not show up. Nice project you have there, I plaude it. Just be advised that a gen like that actually exists, it's the PAM 209. And why do you want it without the cyclops?

Thanks to peepshow, mil_sub and babola for their replies that add to the collective knowledge about the matter. E.g., I was not in knowledge of which reps are better and which worse about the "A" issue. Thanks to cksent69 for taking part. Thanks to all the others for their amusing criticisms. As babola pointed out, someone can't stand the "A" issue, many others don't even notice it. To me, all this rep thing is a hobby and a game, where I like to discuss about all details, even the tiniest ones, and even when they do not really bother me as someone may think.

We all heard that almost all the PAM reps have inaccurate "A"s in the "PANERAI" and "MARINA" text. That inaccuracy would consist in the horizontal dash, placed lower than in the gen. I tried to objectively compare the text between a gen and a rep. As a gen I picked up a 111 because it is a common model. As a rep I do not own a 111, I had to use a 090 (Joshua's model). Look at what I found: I would say it's not a matter of low horizontal dashes. It's a matter of thin horizontal dashes, not in the "A" only, but everywhere, also in the "L", "P", "R" and "E". So that all the inner black areas inside those letters look larger. This can hardly be detected in the "L", but it looks evident in the "P", "R", "E" -- and especially in the "A", probably because the inner black area of the "A" is the smallest of all, so that even a minor difference shows up more evident. (Quite difficult to explain it with my poor English, my apologies). Your thoughts?

I think that rnewbie was heading to a PR PAM. In this case, unfortunately, very few choices: Your best option is a 028A, as it it is the only one that can go to 99.9% accuracy after good modding (new crown, PVD, datewheel, cyclops). Sold out since a long long time. And noone is going to offer it on the 2nd wrist market. Your 2nd option is a 2892-A2 027A. Almost like the 028A, and without the PVD hassle. Mods required: crown, datewheel, cyclops. Just, it lacks the "sunken" PR gauge, so it can go to 99% accuracy at most (not so bad, IMO). Sold out like the 028A, but a little less rare, so it might surface out again on the 2nd wrist market at times. Your 3rd option is a Silix' inexpensive 027A (80 USD), then heavily modding it (new crown, datewheel, cyclops, caseback). Just, it has an Asian auto (DG 3886) inside instead of an ETA 2892-A2, so the size of the case and crystal, and the position of the PR pin, are slightly different than the gen. Even after full modding, it can go to 80-90% accuracy at most. Your 4th option is a 090. Great movement (Seagull ST/TY 2530), possibly the best of all, but the quick-date-change side pusher is a giveout in terms of accuracy. Also, the position of the PR pin is slightly inaccurate, and the position of the date window is grossly inaccurate. Finding a different case with no side pusher, that can accept that movement, is a nightmare (neither ajoesmith nor I have been successful at it so far), as the Seagull 2530 is the thickest movement ever.

Unfortunately the movement is completely inaccurate.