lhooq

R: Yup, I love the slim fit of the 1601, especially when it's combined with a skinny riveted bracelet. It feels completely different to a 1990s Datejust on solid links. J: I don't know how much each of those cases cost you, but I think one would make a great base for a low-cost Explorer build. I imagine $250 (the same as a Trusty 1016) would get you far, though the tricky part would be a good dial.

Thanks, R! As hard as the 16203-based Explorer tries ("I have a gen dial, dammit!"), the Space-Dweller always wins out on charm.

automatico: I always appreciate your insight! I've always wondered about that switch to a 5.3mm tube, though. Oversupply at one of the Rolex warehouses? My 16203-based Explorer actually has a 6mm tube, following modifications by jmb. But that was due to an order screwup by a seller that rhymes with 'jeweler's fools', not because I was that obsessed with accuracy and rodeo robustness. I do agree that any of these cases will make a good 1016, but I find it fascinating how the basic Oyster case changes shape depending on the model, and evolves over time--usually in a non-linear fashion. For example, I've found that the 6610 mid-case more closely resembles the 14270, than it does its immediate successor, the 1016. But my 16014 will remain a Datejust, hopefully to be finished by mid-July. Justin: Now that looks really promising. Good crown position, nice curves on the lugs... and I assume it takes a genuine crystal? Are those holes pre-drilled?

I was never that interested in APs until donerix turned me onto the Diver. That looks terrific, mjmj! A bit of an Explorer day for me. (Second from the right is what I actually wore for most of Monday.)

I recently bought a 16000-series case (for $66!) so I could put together a Datejust franken. However, I'm still waiting for a few parts to come in, so I've had this case sitting on my desk for the last month. And the more I looked at it, the more I started thinking about Explorers. (Naturally.) Specifically, I wondered how it would look with a Tropic 22, and a spare jmb bezel I had in my parts drawer. Years ago, Stilty (with whom all 1016 franken goodness begins) took a look at several Datejust cases and found the 162xx series to be the closest match to the genuine 1016. Compared to the 16xx Datejust, the 162xx has the thicker lugs and the improved caseback design that's more like a 1016's. The downside, in my opinion, was that the lug profile is harsher and more trapezoidal than the gentle curves of a 1016. Nevertheless, my Space-Dweller was built on a 1601 and -slender lugs aside- it's a very credible 1016 on the wrist. Just to cover my bases, Explorer #4 was based on a 16203. Its bulk gives it a closer resemblance to the 1016, overall, but the "shrugged shoulders" lugs (as automatico would put it) mark it out as a more modern design. (I guess this is the point where I say that these are all details that NOBODY will notice unless they've got your watch in hand and are looking at it up close. Preferably with a gen to compare it to!) So why not a 16xxx? It's like a mix between the 16xx and the later 162xx. The lugs of this 16014 are a bit thicker than the 1601's--by 0.5mm at the center of the case. And compared to the 16203, the tops of the 16014's lugs have that gentle curve seen on older Rolex designs. Finally, while I didn't photograph the casebacks, I can say that the 16014's has a greater resemblance to the 1016's caseback than the others do. It's not a perfect match with the 1016, but... Let's go to the photo comparison: It's looking good for the 16014. Another feature that I wanted to check was the rehaut. The depth and profile of the 16203's rehaut is spot-on with the 1016's, while the 1601's is noticeably shallower. From left to right is a 1016, 16203, 1601, and the 16014: Pardon the stand-in dial! The 16014's rehaut isn't as deep as the 16203's, but it has a more vertical profile than the 1601. A pretty good compromise, all things considered. Am I missing something that disqualifies the 16xxx from the "Best 1016 Impersonator" contest?

woof*: The Presidential is neat, but I think the Daytona starts to look too "Omega" from a distance! RA: Beautiful combo. I really love that caseback sticker!

The 380s on the rep 7836 will fit. They're a bit tight against the case, and their profiles aren't a great match with the lugs, but they'll fit. They're also the best avaliable options for the DW case, as far as I know. I tried both a 589 and a 605 and there's no physical way that a springbar can go through the hoops and the lugholes. As for Poljot-powered 7032 reps, I remember seeing pictures of a hybrid that used a 3133, Yuki dials and hands, and an aftermarket case (possibly Yuki) meant for a 7750-powered Tudor chronograph. Unless you're sitting on a pile of Russian movements, this sounds like a lot more work and expense than looking for a good Valjoux 7734 movement.

I use the rep, folded-link 7836 that can be found from multiple sources. I bought mine from Mary (Watch International) last year. Alternatively, you can use a solid-link 78360, but I'm not sure who sells good versions of those. C: I checked my 7032, and it doesn't have the pusher cutouts, either. Maybe you have one of his earliest cases? homecd: Despite their similar looks, the Poljot 3133 is very different to the Valjoux 7734. At the very least, you would need a thicker case to accommodate the Poljot movement.

Hike: J told me that you'd gone with a Jubilee a while back, but I guess I'd missed it. That looks fantastic! The Jub is just about perfect with the tricolor Newman.

Thanks for the feedback, guys! TeeJay: Unfortunately, I haven't got a 20mm Jubilee to try out on my 7032. I'm still waiting for one to come along at a decent, non-extortionate price. (Good luck to me on that.) mrboombasteke/rek001: I thought I was bidding on Daytona-correct endlinks, but that "B" suffix makes all the difference, since 574Bs are endlinks for Air-Kings. The upside is that the fit is pretty good, and the endlinks don't shift around on the springbar like others do. Still wish I had 574s, though... woof*: I knew I forgot something! You just had to go there.

Full marks to Andy for patience! To the OP, I suggest a Perfect Clones 5512 with Asian movement. That will hold you over for a few dollars, until you start homing in on what you really want.

I don't think anyone has ever made a direct comparison between the aftermarket cases, or against a genuine 7032. Based on what I've read and seen on these forums, though, Phong looks to have the best mid-case and caseback, both in terms of accurate looks and build quality. Phong's case will also accept correctly-sized, genuine endlinks (i.e. 589 or 605), while DW's will not. I don't know how Yuki's or NDT's cases rank against these two. Despite the need to trim the inner diameter to get a genuine crystal to fit, DW has the better bezel with more accurate engravings. Like Phong, NDT and Yuki also have inaccurate fonts on their bezels, both for the 7031 and 7032. DW also has, hands-down, the best aftermarket 7031/2 dial out there. It's not perfect, as there could be improvements made to the subdial profiles. But these are minor deficiencies and very difficult to notice. Best hands are from Yuki.

The upside was that I was able to meet the incomparable sssurfer in Rome, and see a couple of amazing pieces at his watchsmith's shop. These included a genuine Paul Newman 6239--with the caseback off! Speaking of sssurfer, here's a Panerai for the weekend:

Ugh... What is it with these 7032s and their affinity for pavement? Something similar happened to me last October, in Bologna. One springbar wasn't fully in when the bracelet caught one of the straps of my backpack, sending the Tudor into the sidewalk with a sickening SMACK. The case and crystal were badly scuffed-up, the crown was crushed on one side, and one of the subdial hands popped off. But after some repairs, it's still going. I'm glad yours made it through OK!

I never know when to continue an old thread (in this case, my 6239 FAP/V72 project) or to start a new one. On the one hand, it's nice to have everything available in one place. The downside is that the longer a thread gets, the more likely it is to be ignored by members who haven't viewed it yet. (I assert all this without proof.) Anyhow, I think there's enough new content here to warrant a new thread. I mean, I did buy a new bracelet, right? As far as I know, no one has paired a vintage Daytona rep with a 19mm Jubilee. Why is that? To be honest, I'd never really cottoned onto Jubilee bracelets, and used to find them a little bit showy. Then again, I used to think the same about mesh bracelets on divers... I've always preferred the basic Oyster or a strap, and it wasn't until earlier this year that I slapped a cheap Jubilee rep onto one of my older 1016 builds. Suddenly, it became a lot more interesting! What made the combination work, I thought, was the way the polished midlinks matched the polished bezel of the Explorer. Similarly, the mirror-polished 6265 bezel matches very well with the 62510H shown below, nudging the Daytona from 'Sport' to 'Dress'. I don't think a black plastic insert would look as good, and I'm too lazy to swap bracelets and find out right now. The black subdials and tachymeter markings still keep the Daytona from being a credible dress chronograph. (Or in other words, I still want a good 6238 rep.) But it's an intriguing look, a nice alternative to have, and a very comfortable bracelet. My only regret is that it's a much more modern bracelet than the 6239--1993 based on the clasp. A rolled-link 6251 would be better, but they can be hard to find, and expensive, too. The bracelet was in decent shape (stretch-wise) when I got it, but the surface had become uniformly dull. I had my watchsmith work his magic on the links; he rebrushed and repolished while I waited. Not bad for a half-hour's work! Note that the endlink fit is good, but far from ideal. "574 B" is not an updated version of the Daytona-specific "74" endlink, which I would've known if I did my homework... Heigh-ho, onto the pictures!

SM300 for most of Saturday:

Tell me when, and I'll see if I can, er, save some money on my strap shipments!

This is true. At a glance and at a distance, it is very difficult to detect the 0.5mm difference in subdial spacing. Try this test: You have five seconds to say which one is the V72. Go!

Superb, diesel! You're a real friend to let that EE go. I think I would tell any of my friends to go jump in a lake (or whatever body of water may be convenient for them).

Utheman: I've seen that moon! (And that moon's seen me!) A couple more from Singapore:

Congratulations, dutchguy. It looks beautiful! That's definitely not the DW crystal. I suspect it's a gen T21.

Late-night Longines here:

Unfortunately, Yuki's 7836 has been unavailable for many months now. But if my information is out-of-date, please PM me immediately!

Looks good, after I do all the color correction in my head. Josh REALLY needs a better camera.

Say it ain't so, O.J.!