sssurfer

Just to recall that, as far as I know, neither PVD nor DLC/ADLC do affect the finish (polished/shiny, or matte) of the underlying surface. In other words, it's the underlying surface that actually makes the look, not the coat. And polishing PVD would simply erase it (provided one can manage in doing it).

This is a gold star review (where is my 'rate' button?) Thanks, lanikai!

Which model? The one in the pic I posted is a genuine PAM 104 I-series.

Hi J., I suppose that my bad English is once again playing tricks on me. I got a bit confused. What relation is there between an "I" rep and the picture you pointed to? (that, in consideration of the open "6" and the 2600 millesimation stated at the bottom of the page, rather looks as a "G" series?). Even if that pic is of a J series, what relation with the I rep? Here is a pic of a "I" series: To make the things even more confused: 1 - There has a been a case report of at least one I series with open 6 (possiby those are exceptions due to using residual dials from the H series on the earliest pieces of the I series). 2 - There have been reports that the J series actually have the "L SWISS MADE L" close to the 6. Ok. But you tell that the rep is I series (on the caseback, I suppose). And that makes the "L SWISS MADE L" placement inaccurate. 3 - Finally, the /1500 millesimation is inaccurate to an I series (it should be /4000). To me, that rep looks badly inaccurate in its caseback, and possibly in the "L SWISS MADE L" placement. The caseback is inaccurate on its own because of the "/1500" thing. The "L SWISS MADE L" issue is on hold until more consistent info about the look of the J series will become available. But should it even result accurate to a J series, it stays inconsistent with an I series... Or not? BTW, the BB102xxxx number would even suggest a D series...

Oops, apologies, I just realized that's not exactly the same watch that I bought, I bought one like this one (this is not from Tonyxkf, Tony seems not having it anymore, but it is exactly the same watch): On this model (non-"co-axial"), the omega logo and text are a little larger than the genuine, so that the bottom of the "OMEGA" text ends up a little below the dot marks @ 10Hr and 2Hr. Here is a pic of the gen for comparison: The model that I mistakenly pointed to on my first post, the "co-axial" one, actually features a much better logo and text, very close to the genuine. The problem with this model is rather the mark @3Hr, as you can see from the following pic of the gen: Apologies once again for my mistake, sss

Considering that Seamasters from "our" dealers are all above 200 USD, I got this one from Tonyxkf @ CQout, and I am very pleased with it: http://www.cqout.com/item.asp?id=3313201 It is a decent rep, and at that price it is a bargain. The HE valve is incorrectly placed, the bezel needs the usual fix, and the logo and text placement on the dial are not 100% as well, but the overall look and finish are excellent. And tony is a serious dealer.

Wait and see...

No better way to summarize in one single line both anything everyone needs to know, and two years of headaches by the all of us, J.!

Chiming in, at last. Dadog and kruzer, you both correctly interpreted what I said about the ST-2530 and the 2892. Kruzer and I do not have a same evaluation about this issue. Kruzer's evaluation is based on his good experience with the 2892, and his less-than-good experience with the Seagull's. And, on a second line, also on The Zigmeister's gorgeous report about the 2892, I would guess. My evaluation is based on my personal good experience with both the ST-2530 I have, and my almost-perfect-but-not-perfect experience with the 2892. Nothing important, but I discovered that I move my left arm so little that in order to keep the 2892 running I have to shake the watch by hand every other day or so. This does not happen on any other movement that I have, either Seagull or Asian 21J or 2824. And, on a second line, also my watchsmith is not a great fan of the 2892 (e.g., he likes the 2824 much more). Please no misunderstanding here: by no means I want to suggest that the 2892 is a bad movement. Just, to me, it is not the best one of any movements. And just that the ST-2530 is underestimated -- or, better, poorly known. I also think that the different experiences by kruzer and I may be due to the possibility that even the Seagulls may exist in different incarnations. I remember of a topic somewhere, where someone affirmed that many ST-2530 are not actually original ST-2530, but chinese lesser-quality copies of that chinese movement (!!!). That guy was basing his statement on several evidences that I cannot clearly remember now, but they made sense. But, especially, I do not feel it is a matter of 2892-vs-ST2530 here. I raised it, and now I am sorry I did it. What is important, and what I think that we all can agree on it, is that the ST-2530, when not flawed, is far better than any other Asian movement we are used with, and it can sustain comparison with the best ETA movements. Btw, kruzer was right on interpreting that my evaluation of the ST-2530 did not take in account that it has one functionality less than the 2892. I was speaking about his power reserve (that, as I said, I found better than that of the 2892), his smoothness (equal to the 2892), his precision (same), and -- as far as I tested it -- its solidity. My watchsmith, who disassembled it completely, got very well impressed at its good finish, oiling, etc. He did not get impressed at the 35J (like a noob about movements like me), but rather at the overall construction and details.

Exactly! That makes for the main trouble to rep makers to manufacture that kind of crystal.

It is the famous so-called "sandwich crystal". If you make a search for it you will find some posts about it here. Also the rep makers are currently heading towards this kind of crystal, that is probably the only way to go to genuine-like date magnification. A few reps already have it: some submersibles and, curiously, the low-cost (and now retired) 104 from (e.g.) Josh. And yes, I echo HauteHippie about how great it would be to know the real diameter of the cyclops on the 063...

HauteHippie made excellent cyclopses, but they were a little overpowered (and of a too large diameter) on the 027 and 028. His cyclopses are the best on D/E PAM series onwards, and -- disregarding the diameter issue -- also on pre-D series, as long as not 2892-A2 powered (this is the movement of the 027 and 028). lello is not providing with cyclopses but datewheels. If you want your 028 date problems solved, you need both a new cyclops and a new datewheel, because the rep date font is bad. As a proud 028 owner, I worked exactly on a correct cyclops for the 027 and 028. Unfortunately they are sold out now, but we may find a way around it. PM sent.

Too shy to tell him that you had it double AR coated as you preferred it that way rather than the way OP are selling it? ?!?!?!? Replica manufacturers don't add any additional AR! Actually, we can take us fortunate when they just add a barely decent single-side AR (I am speaking about true AR, not the "light" AR coating, which is just a blueish tint, a fake AR). So far, the only way to get double AR on PAM is by making it ourselves, thanks to chieftang and k2222...* That makes me wonder... did you have your Fiddy double AR coated? Or may be that that guy called you out because of the BAD/FAKE AR coat, not double AR? Speak about you. *EDIT: I just saw the new PAMs by Trusty. Yes, he claims them double AR coated. This is a very recent development, nothing like them until very recent times.

Yes, the Officine use single side AR on all models up from C/D series onward (plexi exluded ). They do so because on the external side of the crystal they want to preserve the original sapphire scratch-resistance, that is even higher than the excellent resistance of high-temperature (double-side, to keep it short) AR coating. And they do so essentially because the PAMs have to keep their fame of hard watches, watches that you may undergo heavy work without they getting damage from it. Naturally this is not the most common case nowadays, still OP want to honour their historical inheritance. Im my opinion, anyone who think he's not going to subject his PAM to heavy work and exposure to scratches would make well in having it double AR coated. He is going to gain on good look and easiness of reading much more than what he is going to loose on scratch resistance. Inaccuracy is not an issue here, because -- as chieftang already pointed out -- also genuines get relumes, AR coatings, all sort of changes/improvements. It's bad dial, bad lume, inaccurate CG, loose lever, etc,, that make rep tells, not relume or double AR coat.

Chieftang, in your instructions: 3. Extract your crystals and label each one with a crystal number Do you mean to apply a post-it, or an adhesive label, or what, directly on the crystal? Or it is enough to just put a paper label into each crystal's plastic bag? Thanks!

Just to recall to everyone that the fastest way to neutralize chloride's (especially bleach) action is by oxygened water (i.e. hydrogen peroxide, i.e. H2O2). You should find it at your drugstore's. Dipping a bleached strap in it for 20-30 secs, then rinsing the strap in clear water for 30 secs, will shorten your rinsing time 10-15x.

Leave it on rubber, or #2.

Hi W., also Ajoesmith and I are trying that. I currently have my movement at the watchsmith, but I plan to try several cases as soon as I get it back. Mind you telling us anything more about the troubles you already found, so I may be aware of what is there waiting for me?

A gen crystal is the less needed of the several mods. If you manage to get one, you will also have to modify the cyclops' placement as on the gen the cyclops is placed a little more to the center than on the rep. This is due to the date window, that in the rep movement is a little outwards than in the gen. If you want double AR coat, remember to have it applied with the cyclops removed, before reinstalling the cyclops again. Also be aware that, as yellomen alredy pointed out, the gen AR is single side. Actually, the most needed mods are three: 1 - A new case without the date change pusher. 2 - A new crown, as you correctly already noted. 3 - If your watch is like all the other reps with the ST-2530 movement, a datewheel with the correct Panerai font. Hard to tell from your pics. If you post a pic with date detail, I may tell more. Yes, all the dealers use to advertise it as an Asian 21J. That is just because they either don't bother to know what is inside, or they are worried that by telling another movement they would possibly have the buyers moddled up. But stay assured that that movement actually compares to the "classical" Asian 21J (a Miyota 8215 copy) like a Ferrari to a Fiat.

It's not a 21J, it's a Seagull ST-2530 / TY-2530. 35J. The best Asian movement around, at par with the ETA 2892. Have a look at the case side near 8Hr. Anything there? Try and push it.

I'm in for 2 too. Edit: raised to 3! (I suppose no problem in doing a Radiomir crystal, chieftang?)

Happy New Year to everone. May the new year make us more understanding each other. (an obvious wish by a non-English-speaking member... but that's not exactly what I meant )

Andy, you made my day! THANKS!!!

Aarrrrggghhhh... I know it is a complete noob question, even a fora noob not a rep noob, but.... suddenly I've begun to see the replies to any topics this way: I would like to go back to the old way, with replies displayed in a readable format one each after. How can I? Thanks in advance to anyone who can help...

It's a Seagull ST-2530, more recently renamed TY-2530 (from TSINLIEN YIQING CO.,LTD). All the PR PAMs with the PR gauge @5 have that movement. An excellent movement that has nothing to do with the Miyota, 2892, or 7750. Btw, 35 jewels (!). And, if I remember correctly, 17 lines.