freddy333

It really is not a big issue since so few people will know anything about hand stacks or whether yours is right or wrong, & even fewer will ever get close enough to your watch to check it either way. But it is 1 of those little details that ices the cake & you know how neurotic watch collectors are.

Just noticed it. The factory obviously used the same (uneven) press to fit all the crystals. But this is something you also see on gen watches, so I would not let it bother you.

Definitely something not right there. I am on my way out the door, so I have to keep this short, but on chs models the hour hand should 'jump' in steps between each of the hour index markers. Neither the minute hand nor the GMT hand should move during this setting. When setting the time at the 2nd stop of the stem, all 3 of the hands should move -- GMT, hour & minute.

Most parts houses sell gasket sets for Rolex. Try ofrei.com, julesborel.com or cousinsuk.com. The Triplock comes with 4 gaskets - 1 goes inside the crown, 1 goes around the outside of the tube & the remaining 2 go inside the end of the tube that comes into contact with the inside of the crown (they sit next to each other just inside the outer lip of the tube).

If all else fails, spray a liberal coat of WD40 (penetrating oil) & let it sit for 5 minutes. The caseback should then come off with a caseback opener.

All of the posted problems relate to the syncing of the GMT hand & it appears to be occurring with similar regularity on both the chs & ihs models. For the record, I purchased the Swiss ETA chs version. As I mentioned elsewhere, the movement looks & tests like a standard Swiss-issue ETA.

Nice. En route to dinner with friends Chatting after dinner over coffee (mind the crumbs)

From what I see so far, the 'sync' problems seem to be both temporary (fixable by the owner) & afflicting all versions of the GMT regardless of whether they are chs or ihs. But after Ziggy has overhauled 1 of the chs versions I think we will be better able to pinpoint those problems that are specific to the chs movements from those that relate to either the general GMT functions of either movement or those typical problems that plague most surplus (unserviced) ETA and/or Asian movements.

I keep reading posts suggesting alot of problems with the correct hand stack movement in the new GMTIIC, but I have yet to read an account of a single owner who had to return his/her watch for repair/replacement. Although I do not fiddle with the GMT functions, my watch has been running fine & keeping good time since I received it. If you have had to return your chs GMTIIC for repairs, would you describe the nature of the problem & what the seller agreed to do about it. CERAMIC MODEL ONLY PLEASE

Thanks for posting the pics. Interesting, but not my cup of tea.

The only reps I have seen, so far, of the DSSD look like the 1 that Mark is selling, which is crap From Mark's description POS Asian movement, incorrect case dimensions, too-small CGs (never thought I would be saying that about a rep), fake-looking dial (with the old depth rating), etc., etc. I am sure the factories have or are near to releasing a much better version. Hopefully, it will be made to the same standards of quality/accuracy as the new GMTIIC & will be available with a gen ETA movement, but time will tell. Here is the gen for comparison

TWS -- Thanks, but US ADs do not stock or sell Rolex parts 'over the counter'. They refer you (me) to Rolex, which does not sell parts (to retail customers) in the US either. I have had the screws on back-order from Jules Borel for over 2 months & I was told yesterday that it will be at least another few weeks & they cannot guarantee that. Like you, patience is not my strongest point either, so I am trying other options.

Ofrei's dot (pearl) is better suited to vintage inserts (without the metal surround) where it more nearly matches the original vintage Rolex pearl & stands proud of the insert plane

With nose to grindstone

I have seen or owned a number of really nice reps over the years, some truly amazing in their detail or replication of a complicated design/feature. But using my definition of super rep (a rep which, out-of-the-box, is nearly indistinguishable from the gen & goes beyond merely matching a gen's appearance/features, actually providing a glimpse into that elusive tactile experience of handling a genuine high quality luxury watch), there is only 1 replica watch which merits the title of Super Rep............. The (Correct Hand Stack) Rolex 116710LN GMT-Master II Ceramic While not perfect by any means (the date font is inaccurate, the index markers not quite as wide as the gen's, the rehaut etching is not quite as precise, the bezel intermittently resets .5mm off from its proper null position, etc.), but its minor sins err more on the side of omission than commission & they are truly overshadowed by the watch's resplendent grandeur. A classic. A legend. A true Super Rep.

I think you lost me........ The top picture (the 1 with shoes) is my chs rep. And I really do not see any difference in the space between the inside edge of the bezel & the crystal between the gen & rep. Can you be more specific or do you have closeup pics of both that show what you are seeing?

Hand stack refers to the order in which the hands -- hour, GMT, minute, second -- are installed. In the case of the gen GMTII, the lowermost hand is the hour hand, followed by the GMT or 24-hour hand, followed by the minute & second hands, respectively A correct hand stack (chs) rep would have its hands ordered the same as the gen. The incorrect hand stack (ihs) GMTII has the GMT & hour hands reversed.

Thanks. Mine averages about +12 on the timer, but that translates to about -2 or -3 on my wrist, which is within COSC standards & quite acceptable for a rep that I have done nothing with beyond the initial 40 winds to get it going In spite of its relatively minor flaws (san serif (incorrect) date font, slightly narrow index markers, etc.), I continue to be mesmerized by this watch. And that is saying alot since I am not generally fond of modern watches. As you can see, the output is relatively consistent (pretty good for an unserviced ETA) with nearly 0 beat error (the evenness of the balance's rotation in each direction) & a good, strong amplitude (the degree of rotation of the balance). All in all, quite respectable.

To answer your question -- yes. The sweep on any 28.8k bph movement (in proper working order) will be smooth & this 1 is no exception. However, I forgot to mention in my previous comments regarding the chs (correct hand stack) GMTIIC that this beauty arrived within 1 week of my placing the order. My dealings with Josh/Andrew have always been satisfactory, but this transaction definitely stands out as 1 of the best in my experience -- delivering a stunningly beautiful watch at near warp speed. In fact, to call this watch a 'rep' seems almost unfair.......it is that good. On the slightly negative side, after making my 4th reconnaissance trip to an AD to do yet another rep vs gen comparison (trying to find that 1 big flaw that mars just about every rep), I suddenly spotted a flaw that I never noticed before (though I am not sure how I missed it). As others have correctly noted, the date font is printed slightly too large, which brings the date a bit too close to the edges of the date window. But that is not a big deal since it is not really noticeable unless you know what to look for & have a gen close by for comparison. But what is noticeable, at least now that I have become aware of it, is the font itself, which is sans serif. The gen font is slightly serifed (the legs of the numbers terminate in small, perpendicular legs) as can easily be seen in these pics of 2 different gen GMTIICs As far as I can tell from the pics on the collectors' sites & the 1 ihs rep I have seen in person, all versions of the GMTIIC rep use the same date wheel with incorrect sans serif fonts.

In the case of salespeople, especially those in car showrooms who tend to make their living on commission, I think their differing treatment of you (based on your appearance) was due more to their perception of you as a potential sale than to how successful they thought you may or may not be. Having spent alot of years in sales (including car sales), I have done this many times myself. Either you look, to the salesperson, like a potential sale or you do not. I am not suggesting that this is correct or even a proper way to be successful as a salesperson, but it is simply just the reality of the way human nature & the sales game usually plays out.

Thanks, Alex. Excellent post.

The stems are the same, but the DJ & Seadweller cases are different dimensions, so you will probably need to trim the stem to fit the case. I purchased a set of 3 new 1570 stems from ebay. I think they cost something like $35 for the set. The stem was fit with a gen Triplock 702 crown/tube. Unfortunately, I misplaced the dial screws (the 2 screws that clamp the dial feet inside the movement) when I overhauled the movement, so I have not been able to complete the project (with gen silver flat-3 DW) yet. So if anyone has a spare pair of 1570 dial screws, please let me know.

Some of the confusion may be due to the fact that the Seadweller was based on the Comex 5514 (Helium valve no date Sub)). However, unlike the 5514, which was designed as a true 'tool' watch for & sold exclusively to the Comex diving company, the Seadweller 1665 was a commercial retail product designed & available for sale to the general public (although it was still intended for professional divers). Rolex felt that because the public had requested a date version of the Sub, the lack of a date feature might limit potential 1665 sales, even among professional divers, so it was included. It is possible that Rolex produced a few no-date Seadwellers, but, if they did, they were intended for internal (market) testing purposes only & never officially released for sale or listed in any of their product catalogs.

I will second that. In the really good old days, you used to be able to buy OEM Rolex parts (over the counter) from just about any AD. Those days are long gone.