sssurfer

That is paneritis in stage 2. Sorry, you are lost.

Mickey, Freddy, really thanks for your advice. I am going to contact Tony and see what comes out of this. I am also going to resubmit the watch to my watchsmith and ask him confirmation about the movement beat. Just, I am completely scared at thinking to send the watch back to Tommy. It would be the third watch I have to send back in a row, and I never got anything good from sending a watch back to China (see my Lvmonia report). @gioarmani: if you are considering to buy this watch from Tony, I would sell it to you at less price than what I paid. I would avoid sending it back to China, and you would get a watch already tested and fixed, like brand new (I wore it just two hours). If you are interested, please PM me.

The Zigmeister's info: Genuine ETA 7750 all variants (all): Hour 2.00mm Minute 1.20mm Center Seconds 0.25mm Subdials 0.17mm Old Asian 7750 version all variants(21,600 BPH): Hour 2.00mm Minute 1.20mm Center Seconds 0.25mm Subdials 0.17mm New Asian 7750 (28,800 BPH) Normal ones - NOT the Daytona model (don't have one to measure): Hour 2.00mm Minute 1.20mm Center Seconds 0.20mm Subdial 0.20mm Also note on the New 7750, the center seconds post, is below the top of the minute hand tube. On all other versions of the 7750, the center seconds post is about 1mm above the minute hand tube, not below it. Therefore the center seconds hand on the new 7750's, has an extra long tube on it, to make up this height difference. So not only is the hand smaller in diameter, it's longer as well...

I recently got a Daytona, 2001 model, from Tony. I am posting this mini review essentially because of the interest that this watch raised in some fellow members, freddy333 among them. Freddy was especially interested about the movement, so there are plenty of pics of the movement. Also, all the pics are in very high resolution to show the even tiniest details. Sorry, no crown / caseback / bracelet / clasp / wrist pics so far. I hope to have time to add them sooner or later. This is just a quick mini review. (ok, I know, not so quick on downloading the pics... ) What got me to buy this model from Tony rather than the similar model from, e.g., Josh? Because of two reasons: 1. Price: 199 USD, s/h included (a weekly special sale). 2. The even remote chance to get a Swiss 7750 inside (as it was advertised). On those two reasons I decided to even pass over a less accurate dial than Josh's. On its arrival the watch was ok, running and with all the chrono functions properly working. It showed two minor issues though: 1. Hands not perfectly synchronized. An easy fix. 2. The crown spring was not perfectly working, so that the stem behaved like if it was too short. It was impossible to set the crown in the manual wind position, the crown was either going to the set time position, or engaging back into the threads. My watchsmith got it fixed by simply oiling the spring. I cannot tell about the watch precision yet, I have to wear it more. Here is the dial: As you can see it is decent but not 100%. The (mis)aligment of the pins is ok. The size, placement and crispness of the subdials, ok as well. Placement, shape and crispness of the logo, as well as placement of the text -- at par with other good reps. But the printing and crispness of the text are less than perfect. And the indices looks a little "fatty". The thickness of the case is relevant: 14.6mm crystal included. I would say without the crystal it is 13.8mm or so. This puts this case to a lower level than Joshua's, advertised as 13.5mm thick. About the movement now. My watchsmith excluded it is Swiss. He qualified it as a good Asian 7750, 28,800 bph and better refined that previous similar movements that he happened to check. I suppose it may be one of the latest Asian 7750 that The Zigmeister reviewed positively, but please expert chime in and tell us. Here are the pics: Thanks for looking, sss

I bet they will be quite good.

The latest version of my PAM reference Excel spreadsheet. As usual, several models and data added, and a few bugs fixed. PAM_table_v5.0.zip

Try Davidsen. Other collectors may source spare dials too, as long as you are a customer.

I see I am late here. Strap came out good, but next time I would try cappuccino stitching. To me, the warm, cream nuance (is it just the pics?) of that off-white requires warm tones for the stitching too. Blue and other cold tones would make for a better fit on a different, cold off-white, icy white like.

oh my, I thought I had been clear in my question on my 1st post here: ...actually, this from asad is a watch without date... EDIT: I just got enlightened. You were meaning to set the hands @ 12 on reinstalling them, not before removing them. Ok.

Some time ago, by pretty hijacking a different thread, I dared to say that the movement in the PAM 090/124/222 rep, the Seagull ST (or TY) 2530, was as good as the ETA 2892-A2 that powers the PAM 027/028 (both gens and reps). That statement got some criticisms, mainly based on two considerations: 1. The Zigmeister always appreciated the 2892-A2. 2. The ST 2530 has no date set position of the crown, so it lacks one function in comparison with the 2892-A2. As a owner and an extensive wearer of both a 028, a 090, and a quasi-124, I have to confirm what I said. 1. The 2530 is superior to the 2892-A2 in its auto-winding easiness. I have to manually wind the 2892 any 2-3 days in order to keep it running on my wrist, while I get the 2530 authomatically fully wound in just a few hours I wear it. 2. The 2530 does not lack the quick-date-set function, it just has it on a separate pusher rather than on a crown position. Btw, this reduces the stress on the crown, crown guard, and stem ensemble (naturally disregarding the accuracy with the gen). 3. The additional lens on the 2530's date window is even better than the 2892's. 4. Smoothness and precision are at par on both. ... So, flame on, if you want.

On a second thought, I still see no points in setting the hands @12 before removing them, as they can be set properly when one reassembles them back.

Awesome! Congrats! I am amazed at how two great fantasy projects came out right now that I too am getting close to post my own...

Gen dial, fake / replaced datewheel. I wonder why...

"Mythbusters"?!? Wow, it sounds appealing! I hate I have nothing alike that here in my country... AFAIK there have been no mentions so far of it happening during AR coating. And I highly doubt it will ever happen, as exploding is likely to require that the crystal is sitting inside the bezel. So tensions / pressures / deformations can rise between the crystal and the bezel and bring it to the cracking point. A few reports involved special occurrences. I find it fascinating what happened on the airflight. The fiddy exploded when the aircraft was landing -- i.e., minutes when the air pressure in the passenger compartment was quickly rising. If that fiddy was water resistant, it is likely that on those minutes the air inside the watch happened to be at a lower pressure than the air outside. So, the air outside acted like a press on the crystal. The fact that the watch did not explode instead while the airplain was taking off lets us speculate that when the pressure is instead acting from the inside of the crystal to the outside, this does not make the crystal break. In other terms, a crystal seems to explode when it tries to enlarge its diameter relatively to the bezel -- or naturally when the bezel reduces its diameter relatively to the crystal, what can happen e.g. because of sudden changes in temperature. But many reports involved no special occurrences. It is likely that those watches already had tensions hidden between their crystals and bezels, and some undetectable micro-events carried them up to the cracking point. E.g., on the watch that exploded while it was on the winding box, we can speculate about the effect of the constantly changing gravity vector's direction that happens when on such a box...

Ok, I just made a quick review of the mini-fiddy explosions that have been quoted here after having been reported on RWI. Results: 1 .The explosion on airflight (wow, that sounds scary! ) was of a fiddy, not a mini-fiddy (Rogerwine's watch, reported by himself and by Moderator crick on two separate threads). It was an "Ultimate Fiddy w/Sapphire Crystal" from Andrew. Another example of a member who wrongly assumed that he got scammed by the dealer getting a glass crystal instead of a sapphire crystal just because it exploded. 2. One mini-fiddy explosion was not an explosion, it was just a popping off out of the bezel, in one single piece (THOR509's watch, reported by himself). So, just a poorly pressed crystal. 3. The last one was the only true mini-fiddy crystal explosion (lumpyone's watch, reported by himself). In the end, what we have here is just one mini-fiddy exploded in two forums. While fiddies' and 212's explosions are countless. I stay on my thesis. I also stay on the fact that verifying what I hear, before reporting it, helps me in avoiding to spread incorrect info. My sincere apologies to Watchwatcher on this hijacking his thread. I just could not let incorrect info furtherly spread around, especially denigrating his own watch. It is a great watch. And it is also safer than a sapphire one.

Yes Tom Hawkes, I was not meaning that you are guaranteed that your mini-fiddy will not explode. Just that -- contrarily from the common believing -- glass is safer than sapphire. Still not 100% safe, though. I actually got two 212 and one mini-fiddy. All them glass. None of them exploded yet. They are quite recent acquisitions, though, with the oldest 212 being with me through 6 months, and the mini-fiddy just 1 month. --- On a side note: as I already declared somewhere else, I too find it is an excellent idea to put double AR coat on glass. As the scratch resistance of the AR coat is higher than that of glass, and lower than that of sapphire, the final result is that double AR coat makes the glass better, and the sapphire worse. Naturally this only refers to scratch-resistance, not crack-resistance.

I already addressed it here and here . Most of those members were merely assuming that their crystal was glass just because it exploded. Others told it glass on unreliable tests. While prices were speaking sapphire. Actually, I am so confident on what I am telling that I chose glass 212 for myself. (Btw -- even if this means nothing -- it did not yet explode. )

Good to know, thanks. I missed them, maybe it happened after my former research. And it's a while I am unable to connect to RWI. Still they look as a small minority in comparison with all the exploded 127/212/213. I suppose the mini-fiddy is also bought in lower numbers than those other models, so statistic is undoubtly biased, but...

@bazz & fxrandy: thanks for your answer, that makes sense.

Great watch, watchwatcher! Thanks for posting, I also got a very good hint from it on what strap shape is better to a mini-fiddy! Some time ago I made an extensive search about crystals exploding, and I found that it was 99% more likely to happen with sapphire crystals (DSN's excluded) than mineral crystals*. It was even doubt that any mineral crystals ever exploded. I also never happen to read of an explosion on a mini-fiddy, just 47mm fiddies and 1950-case 44mm models with sapphire crystal like the 212 and 213. To your question about a sapphire crystal that would fit the mini-fiddy, I suppose that one from a 212 / 213 / 253 would. I did not try it yet, though. BTW, welcome to the forum! (to your posting time after the three months lurking time, I mean ) * This makes sense, as sapphire is more scratch-resistant than glass, but less crack-resistant. This is due to glass having an amorphous micro-structure while sapphire has a crystalline micro-structure. So, glass is more elastic and therefore more resistant to those tensions and deformations that make domed sapphire crystals explode. Replacing the original crystal with DSN crystal brings safety because of the higher thickness of DSN sapphire, not because of a sapphire-vs-glass issue.

Thanks for the tutorial, Asad, I am sure it is going to make many members less scared about putting their hands on their watches' inside. Btw, did you really use your fingers to put movement parts in place? No pliers? No fear of removing some oil from the movement and/or leaving there some grease from your skin? May I also ask you how did you managed to remove text from the dial? That is something that I often tried but I never was successful at it. On a side note, I too prefer assembling the stem to the crown before putting it into the watch. @bazz & fxrandy: what's the point to set the hands @ 12 on a non-date movement?

Fiddy's crown is different.

You need a Seagull 2530 as it is the only movement that would fit the 090, its size and date placement are unique. I asked cousinsuk months ago to add that movement to their Chinese movements list, they must have have not been successful at sourcing it. I just ordered a 090 of which I only need the dial for another project. If you are interested, I may sell you the movement once I'll receive it.

Unfortunately, no. In the 090 the PR gauge is located @ 5Hr instead than @ 6. And the date window in the 090 rep is placed differently. The good news is that there is no reason to replace the 090's ST-2530 movement with an "Asian 21J": the 2530 is 100 times better.