freddy333

I was offered a set of 4 gen cyclopses 4 years ago at $24/each. And with the way Rolex parts prices have been heading for Mars, I am kind of doubtful that these would now be available for so much less. But, hey, even if they are the same rep cyclops that we have on our watches now, I still see $2.50/each as a great buy.

Sounds like you need a bigger eyeball (or cyclops).

That was my thinking as well.

Sounds good. And I used digital calipers to measure my cyclops.

Lani - based on the options you listed, the 6.5 x 5.5 is clearly the closest. While the rep cyclops may not be the exact dimensions of the gen cyclops, I think both watches look similar enough that that should be the correct size. But I guess it would not hurt to get a 2nd measurement from another member before placing an order.

Lani - I just responded to your other thread. 6.5 x 5.5 should be correct.

The cyclops on my chs rep measures 5.65 x 6.96mm. 6.5 x 5.5 is probably the correct size.

The Lange 1 has always been my ultimate grail as well, but I am not going to pay the price for a gen & the reps of this watch are all rubbish. But these have been tiding me over

A well deserved pat. Your watch looks great. I generally use either a piece of rodico or vinyl tipped tweezers to place hands into position on their pinions & then either a Bergeon hand setting tool or a staking bit to set them in place. But everyone seems to have their own procedure. Wore this to dinner

Count me in for 2 Lani.

I had the same idea & found that same listing over the weekend, but I cannot find it now. The seller described the crystal as fitting several current Rolex models, but I decided not to order it because there was something I did not like about the seller, but I cannot remember what it was? Is the seller by any chance located in Texas?

Alligoat reminded me of something -- Right after By-Tor posted that review, I was pretty convinced that I had to get some type of Rolex GMT. So I set about comparing our collectors' current GMT offerings with gens. I did find a couple of 1675 reps (vintage being where my heart is) that looked pretty copasetic. But had By-Tor not panned them (for the most part in favor of the modded GMTII he reviewed) & the C not arrived (in such a big way) when it did, I would probably be working on a 1675 project watch today instead of wearing my 116710 on the way out to dinner But at some point I will probably do a vintage GMT Pepsi franken on a jubilee. By-Tor has done his work well.

Ok, that makes more sense & while I think the Vietnamese back is more accurate, I had trouble rationalizing $450 too. But I may at some point since I am working on some upgrades again.

What is the story behind the dial & DW? Gens? Either way, the watch definitely has a sleeker look with a white dial.

I would like to add that the 1st time I handled the gen GMTIIC (in an AD), I did not notice the AR on the cyclops (nor did the sales woman mention it). Later that evening, I saw the 1st good, close-up pic of the GMTIIC posted on TZ. Here is that picture Of course, it was nearly impossible for me, an admitted WIS, not to see the way the cyclops reflected light differently than the rest of the dial, but I went away thinking, 'What a cool photographic effect. I have to figure out how he did that.' And I spent a couple days experimenting, trying to get the same 'effect' on 1 of my watches, but to no avail. Then, some time later, there was a thread on TZ where a couple of the long-time members were asking the owner of the GMTIIC how he did that effect? (Apparently, I was not the only 1.) After the owner explained that the cyclops was AR'd, I made my 2nd reconnaissance trip back to the AD to try on the GMTIIC again. That time I noticed it & it is 1 of those things that once you know about it, you see it all the time. Like suddenly becoming aware of a particular car that you have probably seen hundreds of times before without noticing, but once it gets associated with something special, you start seeing it everywhere. And that is the way the GMTIIC & its AR'd cyclops affected me. The point is that even a WIS like me did not notice the AR'd cyclops until I had seen it up-close with that picture. And, even then, I attributed it to a photo effect. So I just do not see how the average gen owner or man on the street could possibly ID my rep as anything other than a gen Rolex watch when 'out in the wild'. At least, not based on the appearance of the cyclops.

The the 16710 By-Tor reviewed is probably the most accurate GMTII I have seen. But I have to agree with Frank that the best out-of-the-box GMTII is the GMTIIC & by a wide margin.

Do you have Phong's caseback on an MBW case now?

I am surprised to hear your opener slips on Phong's (Vietnamese) caseback. One of the inaccuracies of the MBW are its too-shallow teeth (though my caseback tool does not slip). The external engraving on the Vietnamese caseback has more correctly sized & proportioned lettering (the words 'OYSTER' & GAS' are engraved wider than the rest of the lettering & the dot between 'patent' & 'valve' is correctly sized/placed on Phong's). Although the Vietnamese caseback's engraving is not as laser-perfect as the MBW (neither is the gen), after a proper sanding/buffing I think Phong's caseback would look more like the gen than my MBW. No one but me ever sees the inside lettering, so it is of much less importance to me than the outside lettering. New MBW on right (ignore the 2 arrows, but note the depth of the teeth & size/location of the engraved dot relative to the dotted line between 'patent' & 'valve') Phong's Vietnamese caseback MBW after vintagizing

That is 1 of the reasons the $450 Vietnamese caseback is more accurate than the MBW. If I was certain it would fit, I would probably have picked it up when it was offered. Good luck on your GW caseback search.

Excellent pic of the DRSD, Lani. Same for me on Monday

Good point.

I noticed that things did not add up when I checked the numbers early today. I added the Null options because people kept saying they were being forced to vote for both models (chs & ihs) even though they only had 1 rep. I checked the controls for the poll, but did not see anything that forced people to cast votes for each of the 3 sections, so I added the Null option so people could cast a vote (if forced to) in the other column that would then be ignored. Although none of the totals properly add up, I think we can draw a couple of conclusions from the tally thus far. Of the 27 chs watches out there, roughly half (14, including mine) are still running without problems. Of the 35 ihs watches, rougly half (17) are still running without problems. So both movements are suffering an approximately 50% failure rate. It is probably still a bit too early to be meaningful, but I think it is also worth noting that we started receiving the chs watches about 2-3 weeks before we started receiving the ihs watches. So the chs watches have been in use for twice as long as the ihs & yet the failure rates remain similar. The conclusion I draw from all this is that there does not seem to be any evidence that the chs movements are any less reliable than the ihs movements, since both seem to have similar failure rates. I think it is also safe to say that the problems are inherent in the movements and/or GMT gearing & not directly related to the order of hands on the stack. That is, if given the choice, you might as well opt for the chs version since you stand about the same chance of breakdowns either way.

Mine is about 4 years old, but I think I saw them listed on Andrew/Josh's site a few months ago.

6238 Sunday

Just re-paint the Steinhart's GMT hand green, swap dials/date wheels & install the new movement in the GMTIIC case. Done.