freddy333

If the green leather item is a fold-open display pad with a suede lining, I would be interested in it if you do not want it. Otherwise, not knowing what you paid, no one can tell you how well you did. What I can tell you is that the tube is for a 5.3mm crown &, in spite of its being in a Rolex package, it looks used. Likewise, if the packages arrived unsealed (with those 'x' holes in them), I would hazard a guess the rest of the parts are used as well (some watchmakers put the used/worn parts they remove back in the packages the new parts came in & then resell them because they are Rolex parts). But with vintage Rolex parts being somewhat rare & hard to get, if you need them, then you did well just finding them. If you do not need them, then you probably could have done better things with your money.

Gen bracelet 7206/80 9315/280 9315/380 93150/580 Considering the cost of the individual gen parts, you ought to include a gen 1680 in your hunting/gathering. For not much more than you are already spending to build a franken, you would end up with something that has alot more value. That is what I would do.

Back to my time tool

I have no direct information on any, but that means nothing. The only other (probably) non-gen dials of this level of quality that I am aware of are the infamous 'Texas' Newman Daytona dials. To this day, those dials continue to generate hot debate among top collectors. Even Rolex has been unable (or unwilling) to conclusively identify them as non-gens. So if these Tudors are not gen, I would love to know who (& how they) made them.

If it were a vintage model (matte dial with tritium lume & without the blingy metal bits on the dial or pearl), I would say it looks like a 40+ year old watch. But, for a modern (non-tritium) watch (especially with the ROLEXROLEXROLEX running around the inner flange, which marks it as a pretty recent model), I think you overdid it a bit. Also, is it me or is the datewheel stuck between dates?

Exactly my point. I think it is more likely that these dials are old (gen) service replacements & not new/recent aftermarkets. That being the case, these Rose Tudors may very well be gens, as the seller original was told & believed them to be. As it is, I have been on the fence over this since day 1. But, now, I'm leaning way over to the gen side (& losing my balance).

I am surprised to hear that.

These have been around for many years. Their biggest flaw (of which they contain many) is the location of the 2 uppermost subdials. On the gens (& good reps), the pinions in the centers of those subdials should be a millimeter or so above the equator of the dial, not in line with it. In my opinion, as rosnik already mentioned, this is a mistake that precludes the watch from serious consideration. Sorry.

Every aftermarket vintage Rolex dial I have seen glows fairly brightly when activated by a direct light source. And it remains glowing for at least 10 minutes. That goes for dials from NDtrading, Phong, Yuki, Minh Quh, MY, etc. They all (incorrectly) glow. At the same time, all of my vintage gen dials -- either original or later Rolex service replacements (that are more than 30 years old) -- have either no glow or give off a (barely perceptible) faint, green hue that may be seen only in pitch black darkness & only for a minute or 2, at most. So, with that in mind, I just noticed that the only glow emanating from my Tudor Rose Sub comes from the pearl (which came from Ofrei) & hands (which glow a different color than the new pearl). The lume on the dial gives off a (barely perceptible) faint, green hue that I can only see when there is insufficient light to charge my camera's sensors, even at its highest ISO setting & with infinite exposure time. I mean, the dial lume on this thing is just dead (like my gens). This is what it looks like immediately after being charged under direct incandescent light for about 15 minutes The point of all this is that I am once again feeling like this watch, part of the lot scored (just in time & for a song) by a handful of very fortunate RWG members last year, is gen. Because of the dial's 't<25' marking, it is clearly not original equipment (as the watch would have left the Rolex factory saying only 'SWISS'). But it lacks the 1 thing that identifies virtually every other repaint or aftermarket dial - a mistake. Just 1. But there are none. The finish looks gen, the printing (even under my 10x loupe) looks gen, the fonts look gen, even the lume looks gen. I have been through my picture archives at least a dozen times & other than the 't<25', this dial looks like most gen dials. Thoughts?

Scratch? Who said anything about a scratch? No scratches (or flies) on me.

Kurt, just contact Eurotimez. They can probably get you 1.

Took most of the night, but I think I finally got the scratch out of my beater

Beautiful watch, Stephane. The EXII looks best in white.

Actually, the reverse is generally true - the more expensive cases (DW, Yuki, NDtrading, etc), having been designed to gen specs, tend to be the same, whereas cheap copies, being less concerned with dimensional accuracy, tend to vary. I agree with Nanuq, since we know nothing about the parts you have, it is impossible to tell whether or how they will fit together. So your best option is to dive right in & find out. Then report back with good, clear pics.

Correct Hand Stack (from bottom - hour, gmt, minute, second)

I just scratched my beater's crystal , so I switched over to my Rose Tudor until I can deal with the damage tonight

Great shot! My beater - a tool watch that looks like a tool

Wear latex gloves or finger cots (covers fingers only) & never touch the hands with anything but your (clean) tools. In most cases, you can remove fingerprints & light oils from hands & dials with a clean piece of Rodico, a Play-doh-like material that is available from most watch parts suppliers (ofrei, cousinsuk, etc).

Exchangeable image file format (Exif) is a specification for image files used by digital cameras that provides information on the creation & settings used to create the original image. By default, most digital cameras include this information as metadata in the image file. However, it can be edited out (removed) via most image editing applications like Photoshop, Paint Shop, etc. If the image contains Exif data, you should be able to view it by viewing the file's properties. If the Exif has been removed, then you will not see this extra data.

I agree with others' comments about the insert (need a better 1) & I would also square-off the intersections of the CGs where the vertical line meets the horizontal line (they are rounded on your friend's watch). Also, you might remove the crown/tube & grind down the case where the tube installs so, when the bezel is installed, you cannot see the case behind it. Then, reinstall the crown/tube & shoot another pic if you want follow-up input.

What is the model number between the lugs?

The point is that you would be better off with a freshly (& professionally) serviced movement. An unserviced Swiss movement is just as likely to fail as an unserviced Asian clone, regardless of how 'pretty' either may look.

Great shots of beautiful watches , but I think you need to check your white balance to do them proper justice.

I know which movement you have now. As you know, the movements in reps are used &/or unserviced, so your problem is likely due more to the usual lack of QC than the fitment of new (mostly cosmetic) parts to an existing design. It sounds like your watch just needs a basic overhaul, but you will probably have to see what the seller recommends since you just received it.