freddy333

Where was your boyfriend while you were fabbing the Austrian countryside?

As any of you who have been collecting reps for more than a few years probably know, experience is a 2-sided sword. That favorite rep you proudly wore 10 years ago (thinking that it looked like a digital copy of the gen when you bought it) became an embarrassingly laughable hunk of worthless metal as you read & gained more knowledge. Today, that previously coveted piece just gathers dust at the bottom of a rarely opened drawer or back of a closet. In my case, here is 1 of my 1st vintage Daytonas presented in all of its (almost accurate) glory next to 1 of my DWs (if you need a caption to tell which is which, you have alot of reading to do) Anyone else have before & after pics of 1 of your 'learning experiences' that you are not too embarrassed to show? ____________ Mods -- Although the examples included in my post happened to be Rolexes, this thread was not intended to be Rolex-specific (it is open to any & all brands). So why was this moved out of the General Discussion forum?

Well, I know 2 things -- 1. Never apologize for having knowledge, even if that knowledge is not popular 2. It takes a BIG man to handle a huge vagina Perhaps, not every woman, but certainly all of the good 1s (A smart friend modeling my Daytona beater -- she is a Ph.D) p.s. Have not seen you around much lately, Vic. Been busy collecting watches (or heterosexual men)?

What am I wearing today? It is a 'Mystery'

Over the years, I have accumulated a few books on the subject of style & dress from my father or as gifts. On the subject of watches, each says the same thing that GQ article said (small & understated is the proper way to go)

That is a real beauty, chrgod. And I think you hit on something there -- I have a feeling that in 5 years time, we will be referring to the mid 2000s as the 'era of the big watch" just as the mid 80s are often referred to as the era of the 'big shouldered power suit'. It is also worth noting that the styles & wardrobe advice offered in that GQ article have been around since the 1930s & never really go out of style. This is what is called 'classic style' & it is often identified with people like Cary Grant or Sean Connery. If you look at either of the films these guys made in their heydays, they would still look as stylish & smart today as they did when those films were made.

To be honest, I bought my first 2 Pan reps based on an article I read in GQ that was promoting the new big watch trend 5 or 6 years ago. But I ended up selling both a few months after receiving them (I always thought it looked like I had some type of techno-droid medical device or tool for the sight-impaired strapped to my wrist every time I saw myself in a mirror -- regardless of whether I was wearing a tie or a t). But, recently, I had begun to think of myself as an oddball since even traditionally conservative Rolex finally hitched their watch wagon to the big bang club. But now it looks like sanity is returning along with more sane & classic sized watches. A good thing in my book. But, then, that is 1 of the reasons I prefer vintage watches anyway, so I am already at the cutting edge of the next big fashion thing.

Check this out

Good work on that crown. I think Avitt had to do the same thing on 1 of his DWs. There are at least 5 or 6 variations of each of the Newman dials & some of them have really bad crowns. The best of them have crowns that are nearly exact copies of the gen crowns, while the worst I have ever seen is 1 of Phong's (jewelryandwatch.com) (I just copied this dial from his site today) Fortunately, most of the Newman dials I have gotten from DW have the better crowns (and, overall, are the best made dials). The 2 most obvious flaws on these dials are the incorrect font used for ROLEX (mainly the 'O', which lacks the variable thick-side/thin-top stroke which is missing on most of these aftermarket dials) & the incorrect font used on the subdial numbers (most obvious on the '3', which lacks the proper tail as on the gen) Yes, there is alot of case to case variability in the manufacturing tolerances. I think DW sources the cases from different factories. 1 of mine was a nightmare as well. Great family shot.

Another Newman taking shape & looking good. How much work was it to fit the V92 in the case? I think the only dimensional difference between the 2 movements is that the 92 is a hair thinner than the V72. There is 1 small fly in the ointment (if accuracy is the goal) -- you have the wrong pushers for a 6265 or any Daytona with an Oyster dial (or the wrong dial for a non-Oyster case/pushers). The 6265 s all came with screw-type pushers, but it is a relatively easy swap once you locate the correct pushers. Also, the Oyster 6265s came with either a Twinlock or Triplock crown, but both were 7mms, not the smaller 6mm that came on earlier Daytonas. I did not mean to criticize, but I thought it better to know than not.

TwoTone is probably right, but try pulling the crown out to the date-set position & running through all of the dates. Sometimes, the date wheel can become partially dislodged out of its track & the dates are then off-center in the date window. If that is the problem (rare, but it does happen), running the dates should either pop the date wheel completely out of its track or realign it. If it does the former, send it back. If it does the latter, case closed. A longshot, but I would give that a try before you go through the time & expense of shipping it back. You might get lucky.

Congratulations on the DRSD. Looks great & I am wearing the same watch right now But tonight, I am off to a comedy club & dinner & I will probably go gen Hope everyone has a nice Saturday night.

Nice work, Pug. Thanks.

I think dive watches are just fun to wear. A DRSD is my daily beater. But the logical half of my brain agrees with the original post's proposition that it is silly to wear a watch that was designed as a diving 'tool' (at least in the case of vintage Subs.....current models are more bling than tool) for everyday wear on dry land. Sean Connery has the panache to pull off a Sub & a tux, I do not. But with jeans & a t, sure, why not?

Taking a little spin today

I see things a bit differently. Ever since I purchased my 1st ETA-powered Rolex rep (25 years ago), I have always felt that these watches -- those that are reasonably accurate in their design execution -- were under-priced by at least 100%. Even at $500, look what you get -- a watch that for all-intents-and-purposes IS the real thing to the vast majority of the general population. A watch that is powered by a highly reliable Swiss-made movement which, with proper servicing, should provide a lifetime of accuracy in terms of both timekeeping consistency & functional appearance relative to the gen watch it is based on. And, while not perfect, many of today's rep watches are actually quite well made. How many times have you looked down at your wrist not because you need to know the time, but just to marvel at the sheer beauty or construction quality of your latest Pan, Rolex or Patek rep acquisition? If you are like me, 'frequently' is probably the answer. Do you think to yourself, 'Not bad for a POS', or do you wonder, in amazement, why anyone would pay 10, 20 or an even larger multiplier more for a gen when your rep is so bedazzling in its display & deportment? Is a $500 price tag for a basic Sub or Luminor rep that cost no more than $50 to manufacture a 'rip off'? Well, maybe, but maybe not. Certainly, if quality is your primary benchmark, then yes. Any $200 Seiko, Timex or Bulova will exceed the overall fit-and-finish of the best rep watch. But if you compare the manufacturing cost of the average ETA-powered Bell, Breitling or Porsche Design to the price tag hanging off its typically multi-thousand dollar bracelet in an AD's case (& the gen sellers do not even have to apportion their profit margins to account for the illegal aspects of the rep business), the answer is alot less clear & I think that that seemingly extortionate $500 price starts to look alot more reasonable in that context.

Yes, but I was ignoring all of THOSE variations. So I think it comes down to the old watchmaker's line 'if it fits the case, it must be right'.

Me too & I think they are both standard issue gen bezels. I thought someone's book.....maybe Dowling's.....indicated that Rolex bolded the fonts for the in-house movement 116520, but I must have read that wrong. I have gone through more than 100 gen 16520s (not to mention the dozen or so in the Rolex book) & in addition to the 2 bezels you have on your watches, I am seeing other variations as well. For instance, look at the alignment of the 'P' & 'R' in PER HOUR. I found 5 different alignments on the gen 16520 bezels. I think I am going to run off & join a convent (that has no clocks).

Much better, thanks. Love that case.

You know, the bezels are probably fine. I am looking through my 16520 archives & there are definite variations in the bezel fonts (though not so much for 116520s), so I am sure they are fine. ___________ I also just checked my Daytona Legend is Born book & I see the same variations there. So never mind. But if you come across another source for those flat, brushed casebacks, shout.

We may very well be at the point of looking for variations that fall within the normal Rolex range of watch-to-watch variability, but do you see a difference (in person) between the boldness/thickness/depth of the fonts on the 2 bezels? The bezel on the left looks to me like the correct 16520 bezel, while the 1 on the right looks like it is stamped with the bolder/deeper fonts on a 116520. Do you see that? Again, I may be over-detailing this whole thing. Hard to tell from here.

Damn! The search goes on then. Hmmmmm............Now that I see them together & close up, I have a question.........& I may be bass-ackwards about this but........does your 16520 have a 116520 bezel on it? I thought the difference between the 16520 & 116520 bezels were that the current 1 (116520) has deeper & bolder fonts, while the previous 1 (16520) had lighter gauge fonts like the MBW. Your MBW bezel looks exactly like the bezel that came on my low profile 116520 case. Right down to the slightly elevated 'UNITS PER HOUR' text, which has always made me think the factory fit leftover 16520 rep bezels to these 1st gen 116520 reps. What do you think?

The cases (most likely out of Viet Nam) come from NDtrading & are custom made to fit the 1570. Without any mods, they are the most accurate vintage Rolex cases I have seen. But whether these bare cases are worth nearly 3 times the cost of an entire MBW watch is a judgment call.

You know it, Ubi. That is exactly what I want to see. So is this caseback fitted to your 116520 project or is that the 16520? If the 116520, can you get more? And did you find a gen or proper profile aftermarket 116520 bezel for your project? And, if so, can you get more those too?