jmb

Hard tellin', one of those "need to be there" kinda things! Mike - I have ETA hand sets so if you need one drop me a line...

The cannon pinion has nothing to do with the sweep hand fitting on IT'S pin unless the cannon pinion is so high the tip of the second wheel is below the cannon pinion and the sweep hand tube can't reach it. In your pictures that is not the case. Maybe you got a sweep hand with a Rolex or a21j size tube?

To me it's one step above a rep dial. A lot of "refinished" dials claim to be repainted onto a "genuine" base but who can really tell anymore. Some that claim to be refinished/repainted are obviously rep dials with feet in the Rolex position.

I never have been able to figure out ol' DW. If he hadn't flaked out he coulda made a fortune supplying parts... I have a case, guess I better build it into something someday...

I usually remove the DW.

Send it back and we'll work it over...

Cool, if we can figure out the period we're all set...

I epoxy the dial to the dial spacer ring for the movement.

I always buy a dial and hand-set from Yuki and so far the hands have been very nice.

I need to raise my prices... What's that old saying about "A fool and his money?"

If you can get decent depth with the acid you will probably be able to create sharper marking than I'm able to. I would love to use, and have tried, a .1mm engraving bit but the tip is too fragile and the SS just eats them up. I compromised on a .2mm tip which makes the corners, etc., a bit soft for my liking.

The trick to doing the Tudor case-backs is to get the engraving nice and deep. I do this with several passes with a rotary engraver at about .001" per pass. The stainless really eats up .1 and .2 mm bits...

That's scary...

I saw discussions on TRF and Timezone where "transition" was mentioned but the majority opinion seemed to be in favor of no lug holes. But, we appear to have an example here that dispute that opinion! The plot thickens...

Interesting, every on-line picture I have seen has not had a T with holes... Does anybody know what the "T" denotes?

In doing an LV for someone on RWI I found that they are just labeled 16610 T w/o holes and sans T for holes.

That was first attempt, the second go-round was spaced as in your pictures. But, my reason for starting this thread was to nail down THE STINKIN' PERIOD!!!!!! I never thought about the freakin' period until your project when you asked whether the period was there or not. Your research seems to parallel mine in that Sub models with 16610 T reference all seem to have a period. Al of the 16610 models I looked at don't. I have also seen pictures of two 1983 Explorers where one had a period and the other sans period. It's about to make my head unscrew!

Joey - lookin' good! Somebody check this out. Would this be a service case which was then engraved with old serial number or is it a fake? The S/N is from late 60s but the case reads "Orig Rolex Design" like a later case!!! http://www.mywatchmart.com/listing/86008-fs-rolex-1016-explorer-i-unpolished-case/

Glad you like it, raw! I think I've pretty much figure out most things except the stinkin' sometimes there period!

Nice shot of that, D! Research I've done indicate that when the patent ran out then the 12:00 side bore only the reference number from 1980, 1981 (6.2M to 7M) and starting in 1982 ORIG ROLEX DESIGN. I still have not seen any mention of the period on any site so I'm left confused. Auto - your right about the "quality". The newer ones look very crisp but some of the really vintage stuff looks like it was done by hand with a pantograph or even free-hand! Here's what my CNC does with a diamond drag point.

It seems that nothing is very consistent about the case engraving considering the 12:00 side of the case. I've discovered that prior to 1980 the engraving should read "REGISTERED DESIGN" , 1989-1981 this spot is vacant andonly the reference numbers is engraved. Starting in 1982 "Orig Rolex Design" appeared and al seemed cut-and-dried except for... I have seen example of factory engraving with and without a period after the ORIG. When looking through a mountain of images for a 16610 T I discovered that all of the "T" models seemed to have a period where the plain 16610 had no period. I have also ran into this on 1016 cases as well. If anybody can shed any light on this I would love to "see the light" so I can make my engraving more accurate.

what da Bug sed... If it seems too tight better to sand off a couple thou than crack a gen crystal. I size the bezels to the Clark T22, never had a gen to compare.

What a shame, no more good Space Dweller dials.

M, if he uses a Yuki dial they have Rolex feet and will need to be clipped anyway...

2824, 2783, 2784, or if you want an 18k vph movement Felsa 4XXX or ETA 2451... I'm sure there are others too. DISCLAIMER - The Felsa and ETA 2451 require a little "determination" to fit...