freddy333

Thanks for the pics, Lani. The gen looks similar & I expected egress would be easy & straight-forward (it is the reverse that I was unsure about) My only questions relate to re-installation, which you may not be able to answer - 1. Do you place 1 of the gaskets in the case (as it appears in your pic above) & then just press the lens in? Is it that simple? 2. There are 2 gaskets & I have never received a Rolex part that came with anything extra. So, where does the 2nd gasket go?

Raphael? Nah. The movement posted earlier was just another in the series of bastardized ETAs. But opting for a balance bridge (where the balance wheel is affixed to the pillar plate at 2 points) over a cock (where the balance wheel is affixed at only 1 point) in this movement certainly caught my eye & could signify 'real change' (or not). That said (& at least in the case of the GMTII), I would have much preferred that the factory produce a reliable CHS GMT movement rather than tarting-up an ICHS ETA with some Rolex-like features. The former results in a watch that looks more like the real thing when worn, while the latter may result in very slightly better long-term reliably (assuming the movement is properly serviced, which is rarely the norm with rep watches).

Never mind the bezel (you cannot accurately tell the shade of color from his pics), but it looks like the GMTIIC will now be fitted with the Rolex clone movements (with balance bridges). According to Josh's site, 'This product was added to our catalog on Tuesday 20 October, 2009.' These are certainly not 1:1 copies of Rolex movements, but it is certainly a (visual) step in the right direction & I like what I see. I would love to see how (after a proper servicing) 1 of these function vs a gen. Unfortunately, it does not look like they went far enough to replicate the correct handstack or fix the rehaut 'engraving' (maintaining the usual 1 step forward, 1 step backward theme) Gentlemen & ladies - I think ETA's decision to turn off the market spigot may have ultimately done little more than to prompt the factories into directing their reverse-engineering talents towards copying gen movements. We may be seeing the beginnings of a rep watch renaissance.

116400 GV Milgauss You can see 1 of the screws to the right of the red box in the 1st pic (the 2nd screw/tab is covered by the rotor). It looks like they installed a spacer ring that is covering the tabs.

Check this out.

Now, that IS interesting - it has a balance bridge (instead of cock) similar to the Rolex Here is the real thing for comparison

If you think that is bad, just wait til they sell out & then see what they go for a year or 2 down the road on ebay. In fact, forget ebay, they will probably end up on Antiquorum or Patrizzi. Too bad, because it looks like it may put the Daytona Bible to shame. Be sure to click on the pages of the book on their website to see the large images - they are some of, if not the best watch pictures I have ever seen. The detail is astounding Ah, no.

Ditto. I can kind of understand why we have not seen Asian-made Valjoux chronos (very complicated movements), but the 1030-based calibers are some of the simplest movements around. Now that we have cheap/accurate 7206 bracelets, I can only imagine the trouble we could get into if we had access to a supply of cheap/accurate 1030s. Or, dare I say it, a 1030GMT. With these mimic movements, I think it a good thing that you cannot see through the caseback.

Here is the link. Mods - Please remove the duplicated pics.

I guess I stand alone in viewing these lame attempts at mimicking a Rolex caliber by replacing a couple of parts on a partially decorated ETA as silly. The only people who will see it are the owner & his watchmaker (who will know, instantly, that it is not a Rolex caliber). What is the point? I hope people are not paying extra for this.

I doubt the AR on the Rolex lens is that delicate, otherwise the packaging would contain bold warning labels with explicit handling instructions. Since none of the watchmakers I discussed these with were even aware of the AR, I have to assume that it should stand up to 'normal' (for a Rolex-trained watchmaker) handling. Still, I always wear finger cots when working with lenses anyway, but I hear you. Just wondering why we did not do a low temp coating for the GMTIICs right from the beginning? That way, we could have masked off the underside of the crystal just as Rolex has likely done.

The photography is absolutely breathtaking. At least, based on the pics posted on their website. Only 600 hand-numbered copies will be printed, so hurry & get your order in now!!!!!!

Thanks, Chief. My inspection of the gen crystal only adds support to the proposition that Rolex's AR is similar to that used on eyeglass lenses, which is easily smeared/damaged/removed (especially with ammonia-based glass cleaners). Believe me, I have ruined the AR on enough pairs of eyeglasses (& received appropriate reaming from my optician for doing so) that I have been ultra sensitized to treating this lens with kid gloves.

I am working on something similar.

In a pinch, you can use a rubber-jawed hobby vise. I have 1 from Sears that I sometimes use instead of my crystal presses because it provides a more stable & even pressure. As you may already know, I am about to break my sapphire cherry as well, so I cannot provide any specific guidance for you. However, there are a number of websites containing info on the pros & cons of converting Rolex/Tudor Plexi lenses to sapphire (some recommend against it for technical reasons, while others provide the service). A google search is a good place to start.

Ditto.

You can check most TZ sellers' reputations on TZ's sister site, watchnet.com. Exceptions do pop up from time to time, but I would be very wary of anyone selling 'gen' anything (even on TZ) for alot less than they average on ebay.

Thanks again, Lani.

Never seen that 'code' on a gen bracelet. Maybe the factory modified the text to identify their rep part from other factorys' copies? Glad to see you received your order before hell froze over (which is a Silix trademark).

YG is not my thing, but I can still appreciate a great score when I see 1 Wear it well.

Thanks, Lani. I am pretty sure the existing rep crystal can just be popped out from the backside, but I am not sure about the installation of the new crystal. I only work on vintage (Plexiglas) crystals, which install differently. So pics of the install process, specifically, showing when/where each of the 2 gaskets & crystal go in, would be real helpful. With only 1 gen crystal available, I do not want to break/damage it. A man has to know his limits --Harold Francis Callahan

Thanks, that is what I thinking, but your experience just clinched it. Is the rep crystal the same shape (flat) like the gen? And a question for anyone who installs alot of sapphire Rolex lenses - What is the procedure for installing a sapphire crystal & gaskets (there are 2 gaskets with the GMT crystal)? Do you install 1 gasket, then the crystal, then the other gasket? Or what?

The 2 limiting factors with the LX3 are its relatively measly zoom (only 2.5x) & its relatively large size (for a p&s). The lens on the LX3 does not fully collapse into the body like many p&s cameras & this makes it difficult to slide the camera into a pocket.

I still contend that it is not the camera (any competent 4MP p&s will do), but the photographer that makes the picture. Most of my pics are taken with a 6-7 year old Canon A80 (4MP) p&s & I think they look pretty good. I do use my Canon DSLR in low light & for those shots that require more (natural) depth. But, most of the time, the A80 is sufficient. I also like the Panasonic LX3 (I had 1 on order when my A80 died, but Canon repaired it (free) & Dell kept delaying shipment of the Panasonic, so, in the end, I just canceled the order & stuck with my A80). On the other hand, I almost bought a Nikon D60 & would have been happy with that.

Stranger things have happened. Like some black paint on dials turns brown (tropical) or white tritium turns who-knows-what-color inside some sealed cases. I think they are trying to avoid repeats of those kinds of things.