freddy333

Very likely. Poor visibility was the reason Rolex enlarged the pointer mid-way into the 1675 series & have continued to use them. I can tell you from experience that the small GMT hand is often difficult to see when glancing at your watch.

Ending the work week wearing 1 of my

The inner flange (rehaut) on older Rolex watches has a brushed finish specifically to cut down on reflections

I am not an expert on 1680s, but that crystal looks a bit like the cyclops version of the (non-cyclops) Tropic 19 (which has beveled sides) that I originally installed on my 5514 (later replaced with a NOS T19 dome when I converted it to a pre-Comex 5513)

I like the dial, too, but this is 1 of those rare occasions when I have to disagree with you, Alligoat. All of the 6240s I've checked in my picture archive (not to mention the Daytona Bible) have Oyster dials & the 6240 was experimental only because it was the 1st Rolex ever fitted with screw-down (waterproof) pushers. I do not believe it was an experiment where Rolex was toying around with dials - whether to use an 'Oyster' dial or not. And with the dial being the most important & valuable part of a vintage Rolex watch, I would have to think twice (or more) before plunking down any serious cash on a non-Oyster dialed Daytona with screw-down pushers.

If you are working on a 3rd '42, I think you got da' wrong man, my friend.

Well, like they say, God is in the details. But that does not mean 1 cannot employ perfectionism while turning that sow's ear into a silk purse. My Phase I '42 was the epitome of a bargain basement build, but I think it turned out perfectly.

You know, if you run a coat of clear, matte varnish over the dial (to tone down the shininess, especially over the index markers) & replace the crown with a gen (or narrower aftermarket), that would be a very interesting piece. I love the overall color.

Someone has too much free time.

I am not positive, but I think that is the same seller I got mine from. They are very good (close to last gen version) indeed. The key improvements are - the properly spaced 110 & properly (though not perfectly) fonted/spaced UNITS PER HOUR (you can search out my review from last year for additional details). From my benchmark distance (an arm's length) & on an otherwise credible Daytona, I certainly would not question this bezel.

Unless the stem broke off inside the pillar plate, you do not need to remove the movement from the case. However, you will need to remove the caseback & note the movement model number (stems are purchased for a specific movement) & see if there is enough of the stem left sticking out of the main plate so it can be removed with tweezers (after you unlock the stem). A good, clear pic of the movement showing the model number & stem would be helpful.

Ditto most of the above, but the Mystery dial, being somewhat rare &, from my experience, quite eye-catching, adds a bit more value. Of course, value is in the mind/heart of the buyer.

Wore my beater today

Looks like they are for the later Zenith or Rolex-powered Daytonas. Not Valjoux, sorry. A better pic would help, but, from what I can see, they do look gen, if that is any consequence.

Except for the glowing lume (which everyone knows irks me on vintage Rolexes), great job. You might consider giving the outer face of your Hev a gentle sanding, which will slightly darken it & make it look 40+ years old.

Thanks, but I believe this video was posted in another thread last week (or the week before).

No offense to the offerer, but, yes, kbh is exactly right.

To the best of my knowledge, 6542s were only produced with small GMT hands (none red, at least I have never seen a verified gen with a red GMT hand). If you find a '42 with a large or red hand, the original hand was either replaced with a later 1675 hand or an aftermarket part. And I have never heard of a case where an RSC fit a '42 with a large GMT hand.

Ditto.

Just for added redundancy, in the case of the 1675, yes This is only a guess on my part, but the varying lengths of small GMT hands may be due to their being made to fit 2 dials - 6542 (OCC) vs 1675 (SCOC). Also remember that, although you can swap crystals between a 6542 & 1675, the date will be off-center in the cyclops because of the differing dial sizes. If you also swap GMT hands, that would explain why some terminate at the chapter ring & others cross it. And with all the musical chairs parts swapping that goes on either in the hands of owners & collectors or nonchalant watchmakers, it should not surprise anyone to see varying arm lengths.

Every '42 I have in my gen picture archive (or that I have seen elsewhere) has a chapter ring.

Too bad the watch was not in focus, but very very cool pic just the same.

As usual, I think you did a tremendous job getting the hand made, but, unfortunately, it is not on par with your insert. The tips of the GMT hands in all of those pics look exactly like mine - equilateral triangles with the flat, bottom side exactly perpendicular to the red arm wand. From what I have seen, this appears to be 1 of those areas where Rolex was consistent. You might consider having someone (that is not a member) post a pic of your hand on VRF or TZ to get some additional opinions. Watches like the '42, unlike most other vintage models, are all about the details. I agree with Zeleni that it is difficult to locate gen arms & most of what I see listed on ebay are aftermarket (often from generally reliable sellers). But, unfortunately, in this case, there is not alot of wiggle room, if you know what I mean.

It also looks like it may be aftermarket. It takes alot of testicular fortitude to send that much cash to an Asian seller with only 34 previous sales (& none of those viewable).