freddy333

The xtal is installed so that it is in a somewhat compressed state, which maintains a constant (expansive) pressure against the case & that provides the seal. However, if/when the plastic begins to harden due to age, UV exposure or minor defects - innate or due to damage - the seal may fail & the failure point will leak. 50 years ago, when genuine Rolex Plexiglass xtals were newly manufactured, they were much more pliable & resilient than the NOS parts are today. This is why it is often better to install a good aftermarket xtal rather than a NOS genuine Rolex xtal if you plan to use your watch near or in water. Still, even with a new xtal, in the case of an valuable watch, I would (& do) either avoid moisture altogether or have the watch (properly) pressure-tested (at least) yearly. Otherwise, your watch is only water-resistant until it isn't.

The dial is good, but not great, but the case & movement look very good. The question, as is always the case with these pre-assembled frankens, is whether the watch you receive will match the seller's description/pictures. I have never heard of this seller before, but, based on what I have seen & what I have heard from our own Ziggy, most of these frankens require a full overhaul upon receipt by the buyer. In some cases, the 'assembly' is so filthy & the work so dodgy that parts often need to be replaced to make the thing even function correctly. Maybe this seller is 100% honest & professional (that would be a 1st in my experience), but, as always when spending >$1,000 on a non-gen (from a non-gen seller), buyer beware. If you do purchase the watch, please post some good, clear pics here when you receive it. I would love to see it.

JlC today

All of the lugs in my project cases were done with a hand drill & I still have all 10 fingers (w/o holes).

Ditto.

There was at least 1 thread on this topic, which was inspired by an ad campaign several years ago -

The crown on the 1st dial is slightly off, but, overall, I think it is better than the 2nd dial, which looks like a standard aftermarket dial. But, as always, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Wrong. Any watch is only water-resistant when tested & proven to be so, & it is only water-resistant until it is not (ask Nanuq). Assuming any watch, especially reps (which are assembled with little or no QC), is water-resistant is an accident waiting to happen.

Overall great work, but you are far from complete. Mint is 1 thing, but, as many of us learned along the way, modification & assembly are the easy parts, relatively speaking. Making a new 60-ish year old watch look 'real' is the hard part.

Keep in mind that these are old watches that have likely been serviced (& polished) multiple times over the years. So there is likely to be wide variations of wear & finish. I think it is more important that all of the parts appear to have the same patina rather than worrying about getting a curve or individual detail 'correct'. Most long-term Rolex collectors will tell you that a gen 'just feels right', which is another way of saying that everything appears to be the same vintage & nothing sticks out as being wrong.

Maybe you need a breath mint?

Nanuq has a gen DRSD, which is 1 that I have used as a model before. I am sure if you ask nicely, he might provide an image or 2 (or you could just use the RWG search).

Looks good so far, but, as always, you should find & use a single gen as a guide & simply replicate the 'patina' on that gen. Otherwise, you are effectively somewhat blindly throwing darts at a dartboard.

For the same reason that an original Warhol print costs multiple millions of dollars or a new Ferrari costs hundreds of thousands - brand recognition, supply & demand.

Here is a gen for reference & remember there are also minor variations -

If you want opinions on a component, post good, clear pics of the component. Otherwise, it is difficult to offer anything useful. What I can say is that all of my 62xx Daytonas have MQ dials.

Great picture of a beautiful watch.

I think you are correct & I was wrong. Your comment reminded me of some Bakelite earrings I saw a few years ago that were translucent (red).

The only case that I am aware of where Rolex used Perspex was for the 6542's insert. Again, it was likely chosen because of its familiarity within the aircraft industry (the original GMT having been made for Pan Am). The xtal was acrylic plastic. To the best of my knowledge, Bakelite is an opaque material, so it would not be useful for components that require transparency.

A number of key players back on deck. So what was it that beckoned you back?

Click me