freddy333

Here is the rear side view of a gen GMTIIC crystal. As you can see, there is AR applied to the back of the crystal (below the cyclops) On the watch, the AR produces the famous black hole effect over the cyclops Based on my own experiments a couple of years ago, the AR is definitely applied to more than 1 surface. This is 1 of my test lenses with AR applied only to the bottom side of the crystal On the watch, the single-side AR does greatly reduce glare, but it fails to produce the black hole over the cyclops So, as Rolex states in their service literature, the AR is applied to 2 surfaces. Obviously, as you can see in my 1st pic, there is AR on the bottom side of the crystal. The question is whether that 2nd surface is the top of the crystal (below the cyclops) or the top of the cyclops (I suspect the former)?

Of course. The index markers on white Newmans are always unpainted. But they are always painted black on black Newmans My 6241

Rolex only ever offered the 6238 with 6635s or 7205s, both fitted with the same 71 ends. However, since later 6239/6241s were supplied with 7835s (fitted with either 271 or 371 ends), it would be reasonable that Rolex (or an owner) replaced a worn out 7205 with it. It all depends on how much originality figures into your scheme.

PM sent.

Maybe it is the angle, but that shot makes me nervous. In direct sunlight & with the dial covered in glare, the date window should look like a black hole on a gen xtal

Check the dealer listings & use the Search for By-Tor's Daytona reviews.

That looks like a gen xtal. Do you have the full xtal model number?

Here we go again...........

If it is for a gen watch, here, here &, if you know what you are doing, here. Otherwise, I would get 1 of these, which is effectively what Rolex fits during service.

The gen xtals are clearer & have greater sparkle, if that interests you. But, for aftermarket, you cannot beat Clarks.

Ditto. Under similar circumstances, I might bring up the subject myself & explain that I have a collection of both reps & genuine watches & belong to an online group that celebrates the best of each. Then invite him to check rwg out & leave it at that.

Ending the work week wearing 1 of my Subs

Changes since 1st pic was taken 6239 (left) Bezel Dial (modded & added gen coronet) Handset (gen) Pushers (gen, but same as Ofrei's) 6263 (center) Bezel Crown/Tube (gen) 6241 (right) Bezel Dial (modded & added gen coronet) Improved photographic skills.

Here is PC's version A number of the usual issues (fonts, colors, insert, CGs, etc), but, for the money, not bad.

To be honest, I have never handled this bracelet (it is new) & 382 end links are a bit longer than the spec'd (for Subs) 380s or 280s, so it is possible that you may need to grind/file the inner curvature of the 382s to get them to mate cleanly with the Sub case. But, overall, these bracelets are nearly indistinguishable from the gens, which is not the case for the poor rivet copy that is now fitted to that watch.

I had a bit of time today, so I thought it might be interesting to compare 3 of my grails today to where they were a few years ago. Other than the previously missing bracelet on the 6241, see if you can spot the changes. Before Now

Sapphire-lensed GMTs are not my specialty, so excuse me if I am wrong, but are the bezel fonts supposed to be serifed on the 16710? Otherwise, great pics & write-up.

Riveted bracelets are fine, just not that 1.

Ditto & replace that crummy bracelet with 1 of Yuki's folded links ('This time the endpieces can perfect fit with gen 20mm springbar' - Yuki) (Click pic for link)

It looks pretty cool to me. Not something I would ever consider wearing (at least, not in public). But, in a display case, it would look stunning.

(click pic for link)