freddy333

Always good to see you burning up the bandwidth. I hope life's treating you well.

Had this on all day But taking this 1 out to dinner

I think you are a bit confused. All mechanical watches (generally those that do not contain a battery) are driven by a mainspring. In a manual-wind watch, the mainspring must be wound manually to keep the watch running. In an automatic or self-winding watch, the mainspring's tension is maintained by a revolving metal weight called a 'rotor' inside the watch case. But both types require manually winding to get them started. I would strongly recommend that you Search out a mechanical watch FAQ & get a basic understanding of what mechanical watches are before going any further (most of the collectors on RWG have an FAQ section on their website that provides an overview of how to care for a mechanical watch -- read it!). (A watch winder is just a convenience accessory that mimics the motion of your wrist & can be useful if you have either a large number of watches that you wear frequently or watches with dates that can be inconvenient to reset when the watch runs down.) If your watch has a crown, use it (as I indicated above) The only watches that cannot be wound are quartz, those that do not have a crown (very rare) or those that have damaged/defective/seized movements (your only option with 1 of these is to return it to the seller).

To check it, manually wind the watch 40 turns & then set it to an atomic clock (time-a.nist.gov, etc.). Note the time (to the exact second) & then wear it as you normally would (if you remove the watch at night, do that). Check it again in 24 hours, noting any deviation from the atomic clock. This will tell you whether the watch is gaining or losing, and by how much. Then you will need to have a watchmaker regulate it -- an easy & inexpensive fix.

The seller is saying that you ordered the same watches & had no complaints. He is also saying that your friend might be expecting gen quality from a rep, or he might have damaged them in some way (improper winding, dropped, etc.). I am not drawing any conclusions, just interpreting what the seller said. Without seeing clear pictures of the watch he received & comparing those to the pictures on the seller's website, we are just throwing darts at a board here -- that is, guessing & hypothesizing. I would also recommend (strongly) that you attempt to work things out with the seller, privately, before posting publicly. If you cannot come to an equitable solution, then I would post a complaint in the appropriate public forum (but get good, clear pictures to back up your friend's claims before doing that - it will help to prove your case).

Me too.

Lebowski is not a cult film, it is a masterpiece & should be required viewing for all fans of the cinematic arts (or cerebral humor). But I should add that I saw it, twice, with female friends and neither enjoyed the movie or got the humor at all. Similar reaction with 'There's Something About Mary', which made me soil not 1, but 2 pair of Pampers, while my female friends sat there stone faced or grimacing. These are probably not what you would call 'chick flicks'. But 1 of the characters in 'Mary' did appear to be wearing a gold President, so I guess that makes it watch-able (pun intended).

Thanks & yes, that IS the same 1 I got a few years ago on CQ. Never mind about the rotor (no one ever sees that)........it has the 1st generation secs at 6 7750, which seems better able to 'haul' the extra secs at 6 gearing without suffering a premature death (mine has been running for3.5 years) & the case alone is worth the cost of the watch since it is the only 1165xx rep that has nearly correct case dimensions. (Our case at right, all other 1165xx Daytona reps at left) However, the dial has a number of inaccuracies, so I purchased 1 of Joshua's 2001 Daytonas & swapped the dial from that watch into mine. So, now, except for its having the wrong caseback (all 1165xx Daytona reps have the wrong caseback) & a slightly too tall bezel, I have the best of the best & the watch (viewed from the front) is almost indistinguishable from the gen (but you do need to mod the stock CGs as I have done here) If we could only locate a source for the correct (flat & brushed) modern Daytona caseback (like this, but without any engraving)

Try a different web browser & be sure it is not set to high security or configured to block javascript (or parts of the RWG site). If you are using Internet Explorer, try Firefox or Opera (or vice-versa). Also, disable any personal firewalls (Zonealarm, Norton, etc.) that you may have running. As for your purchases, I would contact the sellers & work something out before making the issue public -- regardless of whether you list names or not. If you are not dissatisfied enough to pursue the matter with the sellers, why post complaints publicly?

sssurfer -- Where did you get your Daytona? It looks like you have the same 1 that I got from a UK auction site a few years ago (the dial & CGs look the same), and it is one of the few that are still running. It also has a lower profile case, which sets this version apart from every other 1165xx Daytona rep I have seen.

That rug really tied the room together. -- The Dude. This is what happens when you fcuk [anagram] a stranger in the ass! -- Walter Sobchak. Brilliant flick. Too bad about Donny though...............

I do not know about NDtrading's cases, but it will fit (sometimes, with a bit of mechanical persuasion) either DW's or Phong's case. There are numerous threads in the Rolex forum that describe this. Use the Search.

What 16528?

Getting some mysterious wrist time

The Silix version is highly inaccurate, but horological inaccuracy on a woman's wrist is rarely held against her (or noticed). Joshua sells a version that is highly accurate (nearly indistinguishable from the gen), but powered by the highly unreliable secs at 6 7750 movement. The former looks like a fake & the latter may be a ticking time-bomb. Choose your poison.

I have been collecting watches (both gen & rep) for many years & my tastes have changed as I have aged & learned more about watches. I began, like many people, with an eye towards the more fashionable, popular or high tech end of the watch market, with yellow gold factoring in as the common denominator throughout my collection. But as my style of dress has morphed from fashionable to classical, so have my tastes in watches. But I think the deciding factor that best set the direction of my current collecting habits came, one day in late 2000, when someone on TZ posted a picture of his all-steel collection of about a dozen vintage Rolex watches. Instantly, I recognized the understated sophistication & monochromatic purity of these steel antiques & quickly began to realize how much testicular impact my 'power-pop' grouping lacked in comparison. The image of that all-steel vintage Rolex collection has since become ingrained into my psyche & has forever changed the way I look at & collect watches. So within the next year, I had sold, traded or tossed my Royal Oaks & Pans as well as most of my yellow gold watches & embarked on a mission to re-educate & re-direct my collecting around a more Rolex-centric, steel theme. Today, with a few notable exceptions, my collection is right where I want it to be -- mostly vintage Rolex steel with a few non-Rolex or non-steel models whose beauty I have always appreciated, but rarely wear (because yellow gold looks ostentatious on me).

I had pretty much said all I have to say on the general subject of reviewer compensation, but By-Tor's comment opens another can of worms that I feel merits a separate discussion. When it comes to referencing sources within a 'review' (I draw a bold journalistic line between what constitutes an uncompensated review & a compensated promotion -- the compensation (whatever form it takes) being the key here), it seems to me that a reviewer has 2 options -- 1. either leave out all references to the source of the item under review, or 2. include (as part of the research/reviewing process) all RWG sellers that offer the same model, so the seller who provided the item for review will not receive a boost in their sales as a direct result of the 'review' & the taint of seller/reviewer collaboration cannot be raised. That, to me, is the only way for a reviewer to be able to honestly & accurately state that their review is neither a promotion for a particular seller/source, nor does it directly benefit the seller or source of the item under review.

If Pugwash follows the guidelines, then it makes no difference.

Having done a bit of (audio) reviewing myself, this is the general guideline I follow: To avoid any appearance -- real or imagined -- of special consideration or impropriety, the item under review must be returned to the seller immediately after the review is completed. If the reviewer wishes to keep the item, he/she must purchase it (at retail or whatever is the generally advertised price) through normal distribution channels. The seller or maker of the item under review may not participate (beyond answering questions that may be posed by the reviewer) or be present during the reviewing process, which includes any article that may result from that process. As a consumer, I tend to discount (or take with a huge grain of salt) any commentary from a reviewer who received the item under consideration for free or at a discounted rate below the currently advertised price.

Wearing this gen 1601 with black 'Mystery' dial for a bit until I transplant its motor into my Double-Red

The Venus/Lemania movements have symmetrical (not asymmetrical) pushers. I agree that the dial is not this watch's best feature, but the watch looks nice & that Venus movement is smooth, silky and a self-winder like the Valjoux used in gens or DWs. Not a bad piece for the price.

He popped in, briefly, a week or 2 ago, but I got the impression that he is busy with other things (life) & not really focused on watches or RWG right now.

If customs is holding the watch, they probably already know it is a fake. I do not know what the laws are in your country pertaining to the buying of contraband (fake trademarked) goods, but I suspect the watch was held for that reason. Therefore, I would either let them have the watch & contact the seller. If you really want it, I would find some way to claim it without admitting that you purchased it. Maybe send them a letter stating that you are a journalist and the watch was sent to you (by the watch company) to review for an article you are writing (make sure your letter is well-written & spell checked or they will never believe you are a journalist). That way, you have 'plausible deniability' & it is difficult for them to prove that you purchased contraband goods.

Does anyone know if the caseback from Josh's 7750-powered 6263 (Dia 39mm x 12.5mm Thk) will fit his 116520 (Dia 40mm x 13.5mm Thk) The reason I ask is because the caseback on all 1165xx rep watches is wrong -- they all come with a beveled caseback similar to this one (though the width of the bevel may vary) The caseback on gen Daytonas is completely flat across the back, similar to this (though 11652xx Daytonas are brushed instead of polished) Here is a picture of the caseback on 1 of the Daytonas given as prizes to the winners of the Daytona 500 race (note that this is a picture of a gen 'Winner' caseback, not the well-known rep with a similar, but fake engraving on a beveled caseback). Gen 1165xx casebacks look like this, but without the engraving I have 1 of these pre-Daytonas that Josh sells (Dia 37mm x 12.5mm Thk), which has the correct flat face, but its diameter is about 2mm's too small Fitting one of these flat casebacks to a modern Daytona rep would not only improve the appearance of our 1165xx reps (since the caseback would look the same as the gen), but, more importantly, it would allow the watch to sit lower on your wrist, which helps to offset the slightly thicker case used for most of these reps.

Ending the workweek with the beater (the weekend begins tomorrow, Saturday)