freddy333

I thought Honpo's version (as well as this new 1) got the crystal's curvature about correct. But I look forward to seeing your new pics so we can get a better idea.

Could it be that they actually engraved & properly spaced the rehaut advertising.......er, I mean lettering? Or is it just an odd reflection in your picture? If so, I am duly impressed. Too bad they continue to get the font for the 'O' in ROLEX wrong.

email sent, you can reply in the am. Thanks.

Does anyone have NDTrading's shipping address in CA? If so, please PM it to me. TIA

The 1 bright spot on an otherwise wet & gloomy day

Vintage Rolex prices have certainly dropped, but I have yet to see a 62xx Daytona in any kind of reasonable condition going for less than $20k. If you find a certified gen for $8.5k, please PM me the link. Thanks.

I agree. Sadly, it looks just like mine did. The crystal needs to be AR'd (on its underside) below the cyclops. Then I think it will match the gen.

Ditto. And based on the distant, slightly out-of-focus pictures (typical scammer ploy), I suspect there is less here than meets the eye. If you know what I mean.

Chief - Why not ask the lab to AR the underside of a half-moon section (the date window side) of 1 Rolex crystal. Then, set it on top of anything black & place an oem (non-AR'd) rep cyclops on top of the AR'd side of the crystal (you do not need to cement them on, just set them there). Shine some light on the whole shebang & snap some pics. If the date window looks like the date window area does on the gen GMTIIC, then you know what we need to do. If not, try placing a double AR'd cyclops on it & shoot more pics. My guess is that you will have a fairly definitive answer with the 1st set of pics.

Both my gen 93150 with 580 end links & 9315 with 380 end links fit my Tudor 7016 (with 1.4mm dia springbars, which are smaller than the 2mm dia springbars I normally use in my Rolexes). Vintage Rolex Subs (like the 5513) & vintage Tudor Subs (like the 7016) share the same basic case size/shape, so the standard Oyster Sub bracelet (93150) & 580 or 585 end links should fit your Tudor. The only fly in the ointment is that there appear to have been some variation in the Tudor Sub cases that I have seen (especially in the size of the springbar holes in the lugs), so I cannot provide any 100% guarantees, but it should work.

Huh???????? How did this all become so personal. Can we (all) just focus on the matter at hand? Please. If there is 1 thing I have learned in 20+ years of watch collecting (mostly Rolex) is to trust only that info that comes 1st person. In this case, I think most would agree that Dowling is 1 of the few people, outside of Rolex S.A., who is both reliable & able to get accurate (& occasional official) info out of the source (Rolex). The subject of AR & why Rolex does not use it has come up more times than I can remember on TZ & each time the best sources have been consistent in saying that, with the exception of the date window on the GMTIIC, Rolex does does not AR their watches. Now that does not mean it is impossible, only that it would be pretty unlikely that a watchmaker would have information that Dowling does not have. That is all I am saying. And until I hear otherwise from a reliable source (including what I see with my own eyes), I remain, with all due respect, wholly unconvinced.

It is a well known fact that vintage Doxa owners are all snobs (& non-vintage Doxa owners wish they had 1).

1st off, you should know by now to take anything an AD tells you with the huge grain of salt (I have a friend whose family owns a large upscale chain & they know NOTHING about Rolex watches). Secondly, any differences you see between the gen crystal & the rep in this picture are due to the inherent differences between a gen Rolex crystal & a cheap rep crystal (again, see Nanuq's post on this for clarification). It is not, with the exception of the area below the cyclops, due to any AR coating on the gen crystal. According to Dowling, who is the most reliable source of factual Rolex info since Rolex themselves are not disclosing much, there is no evidence that Rolex is AR coating any of their crystals other than the limited use of it on the GMTIIC. Again, I think all you need to do is AR the crystal below the cyclops & you will achieve the same effect as on the gen. There is an easy way to lay the issue of whether the gen GMTIIC has AR applied to the surface of the cyclops - Take a bottle of Windex glass cleaner with ammonia to your local AD & ask them if you can clean the crystal with the Windex. Assuming the sales person is well versed in Rolex facts (not likely) & assuming the cyclops does have an externally-applied coating of AR on the cyclops, they will tell you no because the ammonia will remove the AR coating. But if the sales person allows you to try this test, go ahead & clean the crystal with the Windex. Repeat a few times. If, after the Windex, the gen date window looks like the rep on the right, then you know the cyclops was externally coated with AR & your sales person will have alot of explaining to do to their boss. But if it still looks like the gen watch on the left in the pic above after a few cleanings with the ammoniated Windex, you can be sure that there is no AR coating on any external surfaces of the crystal or cyclops (which is what I suspect is the case). Here is an excerpt from the instructions that came with my last set of AR'd sunglasses (my last computer CRT came with similar warnings) --

'A man's gotta know his limitations.' --Clint Eastwood, Magnum Force

Thanks, Stephane. But I think most of the credit, in this case, has to go to the incredible models.

You know, 3 is in the correct location for a stem release. But while the Philips screw may not be the release, removing it may allow you to either see a screw through the hole or allow you to lift the circuit board a bit to see what is under it in that area. Just lift the board gently & do not force it.

Ziggy's suggestion of remove the crown from the stem may be your only option. But, before trying that, try pressing 1 (although it looks like it may be just a locating pin), unscrewing 2 (though it is really too far inward to be a release & it is hard to tell if it is even a screw from the picture) & unscrewing 3 (which looks like it is just there to secure the circuit board to the frame) In some cases, you need to remove the circuit board to get to the stem release, which may be the case here.

It appears that Rolex is applying their AR coating to the underside of the crystal (below the GMTIIC's cyclops). The reflections you see in the pics I posted are coming from the crystal itself. The cyclops then magnifies & refracts (bends) the images that appear through the crystal. You can AR the entire cyclops until the cows come home, but that will not make the date window look like it does on the gen.

Like Ziggy said, there should be a small screw on the back face of the movement (the side that faces you when you remove the caseback) adjacent to the stem. If you are unable to locate it, can you post a good, clear macro (close-up) picture of the movement?

The site is located in Malaysia & I cannot even get it to display a page. Good luck.

I see this on my arm today Looking forward to seeing this on my arm tonight

I have no personal knowledge of the site, but it has been discussed numerous times. Use the Search feature at the top of the page for this (& any other info you need) & I am sure you will find what you are looking for.

According to Rolex, the only AR used on their current line is on the GMTIIC (in the area of the cyclops). Unfortunately, they refuse to provide any details beyond that. However, according to J Dowling, Rolex will not consider widespread use of AR until/unless it can be made both scratchproof & impervious to normal cleaning substances like ammonia (used in Windex), which is known to smear or remove AR coatings. For that reason, I doubt Rolex applies AR to any of the external surfaces of the GMT's crystal or cyclops.

So much for AR'ing the cyclops..... But, at least, no one has to worry about having to remove a cyclops now. Any idea whether your AR can be applied to the underside of the crystal below the cyclops? I think that would probably achieve the correct effect.

I think it is time to come to the realization that the Emperor has no clothes. After spending ALOT of time looking at both cyclopses on my GMTIIC's crystal under varying light conditions -- outside, inside, incandescent, florescent, etc -- I cannot tell the difference between them either. And therein lies the rub. I think we have been barking up the wrong tree. But I finally became convinced after just returning from a reconnaissance trip to my local AD to compare the AR'd rep cyclops with the 1 on the gen watch in the store. (Yes, I took my rep GMT into an AD, but it was strictly for scientific study.) Although (& I think this bears repeating) I would still be hard-pressed to ID 1 of these GMTIIC reps in the wild (fitted with its original oem, non-AR'd cyclops), when viewed under the right lighting conditions, there is a striking difference in the way the gen GMTIIC reflects light above the date window.........or, rather, I should say the way the gen does NOT reflect light above the date window. No matter what angle I looked at the gen from & no matter where the light was positioned relative to the watch, the date window area on the gen looks like a black hole compared with either rep cyclops on my watch. The difference between the gen & rep cyclopses was/is consistent & unmistakable (assuming you know what to look for). Here is the bottom line - I still believe that the AR coating on the gen is applied solely to the underside of the crystal (within the confines of the real estate taken up by the cyclops) & nowhere on the cyclops itself. In addition to seeing reflections from both of the rep cyclopses that I did not see in the gen, I also noted that the AR'd rep cyclops produces prismatic effects that neither the gen nor the non-AR'd rep cyclops generally produce under similar lighting conditions. In fact, out of the 40+ pics I took of my watch with both cyclopses installed, only the 5 I posted above did not contain this. I purposely did not post any of the others because this rainbow effect from the AR coating makes spotting the AR'd cyclops quite easy (&, again, I rarely see this on the gen & when it occurs on the gen, it occurs throughout the entire crystal (see Nanuq's posts about this effect for more on this)). See if you can spot the AR'd cyclops in these pics.........& no, I did not reverse the positions of the cyclopses Again, this is what it should look like Here are the 2 rep cyclopses from a similar angle Early on, around the time the 1st ceramic GMTII reps arrived at the beginning of the summer, someone (it may even have been me) suggested that before any group buys of AR'd cyclopses get started, someone (I think Lani was the 1st to send his cyclops in to Chief for the AR) ought to have a single watch fitted with an AR treated cyclops & post some good, clear pics of it so we can all see the results. Then, if the date window on the test watch looks like the date window on the gen, it would make sense to proceed. But I think we all got ahead of ourselves, because I have yet to see even 1 rep watch so fitted with an AR'd cyclops that looks any different than the oem rep cyclops. If I am wrong, please point me in the right direction. p.s. The AR'd cyclops was the 1 over the 9 o'clock index marker (it has now been removed). p.p.s. Even though this road turned out to be the wrong 1, I think Lani & Chief deserve thanks (Thank you, Lani & Chief) for all of the time & effort they put into this project. Sometimes these experiments turn out & sometimes they do not. But the only way to know is to try.