blix

Def fake. Such blatant tells. Hopefully we'll see a nice rep. one of these days.

Thank you for the critical remarks! Though, the numberals I have done on purpose. I've seen quite a few 1655s with numberals like mine, or even worse (I can always decide to paint-fill them). Moreover I have to say that I didn't know the date-magnification was off. I thought it was closed to gen. as possible (w/o buying a gen. crystal). Any tips on a new crystal, or is gen. really the only choice? And the bracelet... I guess it's about personal preference. It is an original bracelet, that also was used on 1655s. So it's 'original' -- though, generally the folded bracelet is more common. Thanks again. Thanks bro! I guess you're right about the safety part. Although, I am really happy with the overall look of the 1655/7206 combo. I've tried it with 93150(incorrect), 7838(correct) and of course the 7206(correct), and personally I choose the 7206 on both looks and comfort. I'll take my chance regarding non-fliplock clasp.

You're absolutely right striker. Although, I have no experience with removing dials, or hands for that matter. Thus, I'll hold off on that. Is that you 1655 in the pics? Dial and hands look great. White markers, yet with a vintage look. Chapeau.

I hear you. I've ordered some tools at Watch Biz. With some, I mean pretty much everything besides a pressure tester and a ultrasonic cleaner. I've tried once, to remove some hands... I should have done some research before I did, because I totally messed up. Didn't cover the dial, didn't cover the tool with some protective tape. Result: hands and dial scratched. I find it hard to believe people can take off the hands without damaging them.

Thanks a bunch, Ubi. I am also in the market for a new dial. But being a mod newbie, I want to practice hand removal, and dial removal, before I try it on one of my 'real' watches. Assemble, disassemble, remove or change the crown, changing crystal: No problem. Hands and dial... whole different league!

Thank you Ubi. Do you have any critical remarks? I was thinking about taking just a tad more off the CGs (in the middle of the 'curve'). All comments appreciated. I'm still very much learning.

Ugh, Ubi. Your knowledge is remarkable.

Yep, it is correct. The twinlock crown was used on 5512/3's. You don't really see them no more, because the triplock system is safer/better. I believe Rolex changes the tube/crown twinlock system to a triplock if they service a 5512/553. I think the 24-700 tube -should- fit your crown -- they are both twinlock. Good luck.

The back of the inserts yes. I've no experience with gen. inserts and the SSDv2. Though, I believe the only way to fit a genuine insert is to sand down the back/bottom.

Sand it down.

New post: Update: - Added gen. 116 crystal - Dial lumed/ages in 'vintage-style' (my first dial ever -- so be nice!) On to the pictures: What do you guys think? Old Post: Thought I'd post some pictures of my lately acquired, and soon after modded, Explorer McQueen 1655. I traded this watch for my PAM288 (it's just -too- big...) with Mapman57 on RG. Mapman was so helpful to drill the lugholes to accept gen. springsbars, he also put in a Clark OEM specced crystal to replace the stock crystal. I was very happy with the changes that were made, but I just had the feeling that it needed some more work. It's an old watch, so it shouldn't look NOS. What I've done to it: I've shaven the CGs per gen (atleast I tried, and I think it came out pretty darn good for a first time), shaven the lugs a bit to duplicate years of polishing. Also completely busted up the case and polished it, to give that 'old' looks. Ditto with the plexi crystal. Specs: - Josh 1655 - Clark crystal spec per gen - Lugholes drilled for 2mm springbars - Gen. springbars that I stole from my dad - Yuki 7206 bracelet What I will do in the future (when my mod skills get above subpar): - Age dial & hands - (maybe) replace the dial with a nice aftermarket one Shut up and post the pictures already! Alright, here goes: I love rivet bracelets: Last, but not least... a wristie: Almost forgot, some action shots: I'm still in the progress of modding/completing this watch, thus, if you have suggestions: Please post! Thanks.

Lol, nvm. Picture didn't show up when I posted -- I thought you couldn't decide between the 5512 or 1680. 5512 would be my guess, after seeing the picture.

5512. I mean, both.

Interesting. Thank you for posting.

Are there any aftermarket crowns that are a good replacement for the -huge- stock crown? Preferably old style w/o twinlock/triplock markings.

Thank you woof, you just made my day!

He does? But not through his website, correct? I guess I will PM him. Thank you for the insight!

Great value indeed. Good base for a budget(ish) franken. It's a bummer Josh doesn't accept Paypal. Is there anyone else who carries this exact same model, and that does accept Paypal?

Nice macro shots.

It seems so. But as said: I am looking from a non-modded perspective. If you franken out the obvious tells it is a very nice replica, on-par with a 4th gen. I would not call it better, but I wouldn't call it worse either. Both have their pros and cons. I'm sure AR differs from batch to batch. Thus meaning that there's a good possibility that I just got lucky, and you did not regarding to AR on the crystal. As in most cases with replica watches: you have to get lucky and hope for a watch that doesn't have any misplaced printing, indices, lume and so forth.

I'm not either, per se. But you have to agree with me that the 4th gen overall has less tells compared to a 5th gen. Retort on your points: 1. Very much true. 2. Haven't noticed, I'll check later on. 3. Still there. 4. No true, my 4th gen. has a lovely gen like AR (nothing over the top as the 5th gen) 5. True. Though, I rather have happyfeet than grey printing and weird logo placement (and still an incorrect klogo) 6. Yep. Biggest tell too. I will not consider wearing mine before I get genuine HE-valve and crown. Blatant tell. 7. Don't agree. It's different, but not better. Still nothing like the genuine. Imo this new version has more obvious tells compared to its older brother (HE-valve, crown, AR). The 4th gen. was a great out of the box replica, sadly the 5th gen. is not (it would have been acceptable with normal HE-valve and crown... ridiculous how something so crucial can be [censored] up/overlooked.) Do not see this as a biased comment, because I have both watches. I just want to inform people that the new rep is not what people make it out to be.

Hear, hear. The _only_ improvement is the new logo (still off). I've summed up all the new flaws they introduced with this new version (vs. 4th gen.): - Blue colored sapphire (the AR hue is ridiculous, even compared to old model genuines) - HE-valve length - Crown length - Omega logo to close to OMEGA printing - 12/3/6/9 markers are tiny - Pearl was apparently fixed - it is not centered as claimed - Omega logo might not have happy feat, but it doesn't look like the genuine - Grey dial and date printing I'm not sure why everyone is praising this version. I have both the 4th and 5th generation, and I can tell you with all honesty that the 5th doesn't even come close to the 4th gen. that is if we're talking unmodded/franken best out-of-the-box quality. It's a great base if you want to go franken. But even then, you'd have to replace the dial, hands, crown, he valve and crystal. I'd just get a secondhand genuine instead.

GW.

Thanks zorg, but Migge got me covered.

Thanks, bro. Address on the way.