lhooq

That's a bit disappointing. I would have happily paid for another Yuki 7206 if the endlinks were properly fixed. Fingers crossed on a good 7836, if they decide not to develop this bracelet further. My watchmaker was able to do just that with a couple of wide-pivot springbars for my 1016 Explorer. The bars are jammed in good, but the endlinks bend freely. Nanuq: Mine looks a lot like your lower diagram.

Just beautiful, and a great reminder of how timeless the Oyster Perpetual design is. Almost 80 years old and it still bears a strong resemblance to most of the current Rolex lineup! It definitely deserves some wrist time.

Thanks for the explanation, andreww, I didn't realize Omega was trying to match that shadow from the mission patch. But I still maintain that their engraver screwed up by indicating the shadow with a jagged line, and leaving what looks like Alaska floating in space!

I like how a big chunk of the Earth is missing, just like on the gen.

I wish it were that simple, but the 58 endlinks are an integral part of the 7206 bracelet. There's no way of separating the two. Besides, the lugholes wouldn't line up with the springbar pass-through on the modern endlinks.

Ta-daa! Having laid out my essential elements for this project in the original post, I was never going to be happy with my watch missing one of them. I was able to get good measurements of the rep crystal, but these weren't as useful as I thought they'd be. The places I would be ordering crystals from only gave outer diameters (with a couple of exceptions), and there were more than a few possible matches. I ended up buying from Clark again, and ordered a "Vintage Style" Tropic 19, and a pre-Daytona Tropic 21 as a backup alternative. (Thanks for the leads, alligoat!) Both crystals look much better than the one on the rep, though I really wanted the T19 to work since its profile is a closer match to the dome of the old Tropic 22. (Speaking of which, does anyone know when Rolex started putting shorter T22s on the 1016?) I received the crystals on Friday, and visited my watchsmith after lunch on Saturday. Bad news: The T19's outer diameter was correct for the bezel, but the crystal was ever-so-slightly too thick to fit on the case. He then tried the T21, and it was ever-so-slightly loose on the lip! Full credit, then, goes to my watchsmith. He told me he'd have a crack at it in the afternoon, and that I should come back in the evening. When I did, I learned that he'd been able to trim the inner edge of the T19. He handed me my watch back, fully assembled and looking like it had been born with that acrylic lump. Project finally completed! Here's the Stilty-style profile shot again: Let me pre-emptively critique the use of a T19: It juts out more than the old T22 does on a gen 1016, though this is partly due to the relative slimness of the Datejust case and bezel. The T19 also has a more gradual curve to its dome, and lacks the clearly defined edge of the T22. But this project was always meant to be a compromise, so I think I can live with these flaws. The dome looks absolutely fantastic, and gives the dial some much needed depth. From the side, I get the UFO-like profile I always wanted. A side-by-side comparison of my modified Narikaa and my Hont 1016: Dial and movement aside, Hont and Narikaa's Explorers are nearly identical, so this picture can be considered a before-and-after for this project. Visuals aside, what I love most about my project watch is its lightness and its low-profile fit on my wrist. This is entirely due to the excellent bracelet; the familiar solid-linker feels bulky and cheap by comparison. One last look at both watches: Thanks to its superb dial, the vanilla Narikaa makes a great 1016 rep. But what a difference a few changes make! When I bought the Hont earlier this year, I think it only took me a few hours to realize that I'd have to give this 1016 thing another go. It took a ton of research, a bit of legwork finding competent people, and a lot of praying for different parts to fit, but it all came together in the end. I hope my experience helps some of you out there. Maybe this means I can stop looking at genuine 1016s on eBay and dreaming? Nahhh...

My un-modded, cheap-ass, Dweller: And in the spirit of JoJo35's post, vintage red:

It's the lugs, mostly. I think the rep looks pretty good when you're looking straight at the dial, but turn it on its side and it scarcely resembles the real thing. The rep is based on a modern Speedmaster case, and the lugs are consequently too thick. The distance between the front of the bezel and the front of the lugs should be about the same as the thickness of the lugs. On the rep, the bezel is almost flush. Another big issue is the caseback, which is one of the worst I've seen on an Omega rep. (Good thing the NATO strap covers it!) Finally, I'm pretty sure the second hand ought to be white, not chrome. On the other hand, the dial is better than most of the ones on the fake SM300s being sold on eBay, and the domed acrylic shows it off nicely. It's a handsome piece overall and if the dealers would offer a non-date, non-Big Triangle dial, I'd be tempted.

Love my DSN 082--"moats" around the indices be damned! Davidsen's the only dealer who has managed to replicate the tricky blue/grey color of this dial, and the overall quality of the piece is excellent:

Forget the Snoopy and throw away your Alaska Project, the "FROM TIME MOON TO MARS" Broad Arrow is the only Speedmaster you need! Unfortunately, the clasp looks a bit off.

I like the cleanliness of the MkII Stingray and Sea Fighter, but there's something about Eddie's PRS-50B that really appeals to me. Maybe it's how the dial reminds me of the JLC Polaris I love, but can never afford! HikeUSA: Sorry, I didn't see your question earlier. The lume is above average overall, but disappointingly weak on the hands. It's outshone by the lume on Davidsen's more recent Panerais, or even by the hands on the better Planet Ocean reps. That said, it's a sweet-looking pattern if you get it charged properly:

You can send him an email at davidsenjpn@yahoo.com or davidsenjpn@gmail.com. Buying from Davidsen can be a minor hassle compared to other sellers (especially with regard to payment), but he moves quickly once paid and I feel his watches are worth the extra price and effort. I've ordered this Blancpain and a PAM 00082 from him, and both purchases were positive experiences.

Davidsen is the only one currently selling vintage Fifty Fathoms reps, though you used to be able to buy a pricier rep on Jewelryandwatch.com. eBay is still plagued by these Vietnamese fakes, as well as by "Polish Navy" type watches that are based on later models. If you're interested in an FF/TR-900 homage, you can get these from MkII (Stingray), Precista (PRS-50/50B), or Corvus (Bradley). I own a DSN FF95, which is based on the original '53 LIP-Blancpain. It's a solidly built watch with a terrific presence, and it's one of my favorites. As reps go, none of the Davidsens (there are many dial/bezel/hands variants) will match a genuine in a side-by-side comparison. The DSN Blancpain takes features found in Fifty Fathoms models spanning a couple of decades, and averages them out in one case. That said, the best Blancpain reps of his lineup are the FF95 (LIP-Blancpain), the FF21 (TR-900), and the FF01 ("No Radiations"). The Tornek may be the best of these three, as the original has a thicker bezel than the other early FFs. The thick bezel of the Davidsen is perhaps its biggest tell when compared to genuines. Scratch that: The biggest tell is how new and clean these watches look! Unfortunately, no one reps the new non-chrono Fifty Fathoms. Here's a recent wrist shot of my DSN. The acrylic bezel insert looks fantastic in the plastic:

I hear it handles great off-road because of the Full-Time 4-Skin Drive!

The watch is back from the shop and running again. Here's a tip: If you've never regulated your watch before and think it's something you can easily tackle, make sure you REALLY know what you're doing before you start. Bad things can and do happen! I snagged a cheap pair of calipers, but was unable to take a measurement of the case lip or the inside of the crystal. The outside measures 30.5mm, and I really suspect a T19 would do fine on this case. I acknowledge what lanikai wrote three posts above, but I'm pretty sure our cases aren't alike. Compare the side-on photos in this thread and in his, and focus on the angle of the bezel ring (steep on the MBK) and the shape of the lug horns (smoother curve and less pointy on the MBK). In fact, given that the Narikaa case appears to be identical to the Hont 1016's, and given that the Hont case is marked "ORIG ROLEX DESIGN 1610", my Narikaa JUST MIGHT BE a ref.1610 Datejust case. (Shame on me for not making the connection earlier.) Unfortunately, the 1610 leads me to a Cyclope 118 crystal (Clark lists it as a 30.6mm), which isn't something I want on an Explorer. It is a lead worth following, though. FYI: I measure an outer/inner diameter of 31.1/29.4mm on my Clark T22, give or take one kadam. In addition to getting my watch running again, my watchsmith spent some time this afternoon bending those endlinks like Beckham. They're not perfect -one corner is still peeking out, but I don't dare push it back in!- but they're a big improvement. See:

alligoat: I'll be passing by the hardware store on the way home from work today and grabbing some Verniers. I hope to get accurate measurements before the end of the week. The watch, incidentally, is heading back to the watchsmith for repairs. After the cleaning and losing several minutes over the course of two days, it stopped. I opened it up and it looks like the spring is tangled. Thanks for the info on the other potential crystal replacements. Here's the crystal list from Rolexforums. I don't think it's comprehensive, as it only includes some of the models you linked to the T21.

OK, I'm at home and seeing it for the first time. Looks great! I guess I confused 5500 for 6610 (there's my dysRolexia again) and immediately thought of a gilt dial with chapter ring. Oops. The NDT dial is very nice, but the MBK's is one of the best out of the box. (Shame about the "SWISS MADE", though!) Tough choice, but I think I'd stick with the 1016 just to be dimensionally correct. Either way, black dial on a brown leather strap is my favorite watch combination. Honey brown ought to give it a good dose of "casual" and "outdoorsy".

I seem to be having trouble with numbers, because your comment didn't sink in until just now. Unfortunately, I don't have any T19s on hand to try out, but I'll try to get an accurate measure of the lip diameter. There's a bunch of thick generic crystals on Ofrei that I'd like to sample. Does anyone know of an online list of Rolex crystal diameters? All I could find was the Rolexforums list that matches crystals with model numbers.

Dammit, I really want to see this. I'm at work and none of the pictures are showing up for me! I'm very curious as to whether a gen-sized crystal will fit on the MBK case. If so, then I might consider making a quick trip to Bangkok! (So much for cheap projects...) I know one guy who bought a genuine Tropic (32?) for an MBK 1019, and wound up disappointed when it didn't fit. As mentioned, I can't see anything in your post right now, but a honey-brown strap for a gilt 5500 dial sounds just about perfect. Most of the strapped vintage 1016s I see online are on black leather, but I think that combo works better on dials with newer, whiter tritium.

All of my pictures show the stock crystal that came with the Narikaa rep. (I imagine it's the same domed acrylic as on most of the other vintage Explorer reps.) Unfortunately, I never was able to get the Clark to fit. I asked my watchsmith if he could try a bit of glue to get it fitted, but he strongly advised against it. I'm guessing the poor fit is down to the rep case, rather than to wrong dimensions on the part of Clark Parts. Wish I had some accurate measurements to back up that guess. lanikai: I like to think I'll eventually own a gen 1016 someday. They're really not getting any cheaper!

The crystal came from Clark Watch Parts, which goes by the ID of "nostalgia-2000" on eBay. I think I mentioned the cost of the bracelet, which was $108 (or just a few bucks less than the actual watch!) from Yukiwatch. If you're talking about the NATO, that's from RLT Watches. I'd never seen the one from Timesshop before. On the website, the dial looks like it might be better than Trusty's, but it's hard to tell from the smallish pictures. Would you happen to have any closeups? I'm glad to hear my post was able to help you out. If you want to build on it, you could always go the "vintagizing" route and age the watch a bit, as several people have suggested to me. Personally, I'm OK with a "Back from the RSC" look, as I'll be wearing this at the office.

This is a post I wrote a couple of months ago at a different forum, before I knew about the existence of a dedicated 'Rep v. Gen' forum at RWG. I thought it would be worth a repost here: Last June, I bought an 18mm deployment clasp for my Speedmaster Professional from an authorized dealer. Prior to that, I'd been using a rep deployant I'd ordered from Perfect Clones. (I didn't get a real Omega clasp back then since my local AD estimated 2 months' shipping--and I was impatient!) A bit pricey as far as rep straps/buckles go, but I was pretty happy with the quality when I got it. The rep Planet Ocean 'leather' strap it came with was crap, but the clasp itself looked almost exactly like the pictures of the original on ofrei.com. Worn on my wrist, there was no way anybody could tell it wasn't the real thing. So why did I finally break down and pay big bucks for a gen deployant? The first thing that bugged me was that the buckle didn't close completely. The strap would be locked in place, but between the two halves there would be a 0.5mm gap on one side, and a 1mm gap on the other. Not something anyone could notice, but it's one of those things that slowly drives you nuts! Second and more importantly, every time I adjusted my strap length, the sides of the strap would be abraded by the inner metal surface. As good as the rep deployant looked, if you ran your fingertip across its surfaces you'd feel a lot of sharp edges. Finally, I figured that if my watch was 90% genuine, I might as well go for the full 100%. The Speedmaster is what I wear most, and I don't plan on ever getting rid of it. Why be cheap with my #1 watch? Here, then, are the comparison shots of the rep and gen Omega deployants. Originally, I just wanted to get a closer look at what was chewing up my straps, but then I remembered the Novesh comparo. The gen is always on the right, or is the lower of two pictures. Also, it's labelled! Let's begin: This is why my leather straps were getting damaged. Check out the sharp, unfinished edges to the upper-left and upper-right of the peg. The profiles are similar, and the rep is pretty comfortable on the wrist. I'd read that the older rep deployants weren't curved as smoothly. You can also see the gap I mentioned under the pushbutton. Very clear differences in the shape and finish. Maybe if the rep spent more time at the grinding wheel? Probably the worst-finished part of the rep. You can also see the big difference in the shape of the pushbuttons. Here's why the rep clasp doesn't close tightly. The bumps in the middle are what lock the two halves in place. The tolerance needs to be extremely fine to minimize play, and the rep just doesn't have it. Also, check out the rough surface under the 'feet' of the Omega symbol. Glue or brazing filler? More examples of sharp edges ground away. Note that the markings are almost identical, except for the three letters on one of the posts. These letters may differ on genuine examples; I don't know what they mean. Oddly enough, the rep has a more rounded slot than the gen! Sleeker profile overall, but is it worth the extra money? It's your call, obviously, but I wouldn't have bought the genuine article if it wasn't for a real Speedy. In hindsight, though, I wish I'd ordered the deployant from my AD, and worn the bracelet for a couple of months while waiting. Hope this has been useful to some of you Omega Men out there!

Er... "gen 7860" should read "gen 7206". Can't blame that on my fingers slipping, so I guess I started thinking of a 7836, then mentally switched the '0' and the '6'. Happens all the time!