freddy333

In '66, either type would have been fitted, often depending on customer preference. However, the end links used with either bracelet did change during the 6239's run, but all of the correct links are unobtainium now.

To be accurate, a riveted or folded-link Oyster bracelet would have been spec'd.

Post a pic of the movement & you will have an instant answer.

Yes, it does look a bit too tall. This is often a problem with some aftermarket Daytona cases. On 1 of my early Daytona projects, I had to grind down a crystal to get it to seat at the correct height. That may be what you need to do here. Or, better yet, just ignore it since you are more likely to damage a good crystal rather than someone calling you out due to a slight height issue. Ideally, the bezel should begin where the bevel on the crystal begins. In other words, when you view the watch from the side, all you see rising above the bezel is the bevel of the crystal (little or nothing of the straight vertical part). Google is your best source for gen pics, but many non-Rolex watchmakers opt for aftermarket crystals due to the expense & difficulty in sourcing them through The Network. So be careful not to mistake an aftermarket crystal for a gen out there.

If you post dial pics (1024x768) of the options, then it will be easier for people to post opinions. As for the movements, I have been a bit out of the (rep) game for the past few years, so others with more recent 7750 experience will need to provide the guidance there. In the meantime, as always, anyone considering a 7750-powered secs @ 6 Daytona is encouraged to search out Ziggy's & By-Tor's brilliant Asian 7750/Daytona guides so you understand what you are getting into.

Impossible to tell for certain with that picture, but it looks fake to me.

Based on my own experience as well as conversations with Ziggy (way back when), none of this is new. More than 10 years ago, I began telling people not to complain about the 'crazy' prices being asked for gen Rolex parts (when you can source them), because those prices will seem like (missed) bargains next year. & that is precisely what happened & the pattern has continued to this day. As the old-timer watchsmiths retired, there are fewer 'old-timers' to take their place. Those few coming out of Lilitz & similar (Rolex-sponsored) schools may not be prepared for the cut-throat world they will enter upon graduation - assuming they can find quality, sustainable employment. That leaves the franken owner stuck with choosing between risking trouble with Rolex if they attempt to seek service within The Network or having their pride-&-joy mucked-up by a wannabe or bottom-line-driven bargain watch 'modder'. I think it also worth mentioning that all the major watch forums are experiencing slow-downs as new technology (eg, smart watches), ever-rising purchase/repair costs & just plain boredom spirit eyeballs (& attention) away from watches. Unfortunately, I do not have all the answers, but I can recognize a pattern when I see 1 & this is not a good 1.

I think the 'misalignment' you see is due either to parallax or camera angle. Still, what I am referring to is the centering of the coronet over the word ROLEX. I have never seen a genuine Daytona where this alignment is uneven when viewed dead-on. Rolex would never let something like that leave the factory & certainly no Rolex customer would accept it.

Looks good.

I have not seen any genuine off-center 62xx Daytonas. Can you post some pics?

Odd. Several years ago, I posted a thread comparing my disassembled gen 6239 pushers (removed from a sealed Rolex package) to Ofrei's (PD61.701) &, after sizing for my case, I could not tell the difference between them. You do know that the pusher stems must be cut & slotted (for a screwdriver blade) to fit your case? If you have the original pusher, simply measure & cut the Ofrei to match it. If you do not have the original, install the pusher into the case & test fit the movement. Cut its length so that the movement clears during casing, but has sufficient length to operate the chrono when assembled.

Well done. The only major 'tell' are the 3 slightly off-center lines of text.

Wore my DRSD today

Sub again

Clark's sells the correct battery. Although others may allow the watch to function, they greatly stress the circuit & will cause its premature demise. Be aware that these batteries only last about a year or so. Often, although the movement is humming, if the battery is more than a year old, it is probably due for replacement. Re the sticking date - the date change mechanism is similar to most other mechanical watches, so same rules for troubleshooting apply. Remove the dial & make sure the ring is in good shape, located correctly & its channel is clean. Once you have verified the date change condition, run it with the dial off. If the date changes correctly, investigate what it is contacting on the rear of the dial. If it still sticks without the dial, check the underside of the date ring & ancillary components. Once you watch it in action without the dial, it is usually pretty obvious where the problem lies. Back in the 1960s & early 1970s, in addition to the military, NASA used Accutron-timers in some of their instrumentation.

Nice work! Are you using the proper 1.35 Volt Silver Oxide cell? My Accutron was a hand-me-down from my father, who received it from the watchmaker relative I referenced earlier. So I am its 2nd owner. I have had the Spaceview parts for years and originally planned to convert the watch. But due to the watch's family provenance, I decided to keep the watch as is & archive the parts, especially, since this model was used in alot of Bulova's early Accutron advertising.

Sub today

I am with you in the case of Accutrons. I have been a fan of them since they originally hit the market in the early 1960s. A relative, who was a watchmaker, owned a jewelry store back then & I remember him having to go to NYC for a 2-week Accutron training course at Bulova. He returned with a beautiful gold Spaceview that hummed when you put your ear next to it! Back then, that was the epitome of 'space age' technology & it still seems unique & cool.

Changing the IP would muck up our domain name translation, and I was finally able to blackhole the miscreant, thus eliminating the problem. Thank you.

And the purpose of your posts was what?

This is for those who're FreeBSD Unix system admins: Is there a way to drop/disconnected an IP addresss on-the-fly? I've got an old server running FreeBSD 4.11, which, for a variety of reasons, cannot be upgraded to current kernel (long story). So, we're stuck dealing with it as-is. The server's been running without incident for ~18 years and has never suffered a breach or internal security issue. Trouble-makers are routinely added to our ipf firewall's deny list, which does a good job of keeping them away. However, this one (46.229.168... Advanced Hosters of Netherlands), although blocked at the firewall, is constantly banging on the site (currently pinging 40+ ports with variations of the core IP (e.g., 46.229.168.74, 46.229.168.72, 46.229.168.68, et al) and they're beginning to bog-down our connection. Another server's running BSD 6.x, with tcpdrop, which makes dropping offending IPs like AH easy. But, unfortunately, the BSD 4.11 doesn't include tcpdrop, so I'm looking to find an alternative way of dropping IP connections. Anyone?

Update - It was recommended that I try firefox-esr instead of the standard firefox, so I uninstalled firefox & tried firefox-esr & it worked. So please ignore this thread.