freddy333

Well, you found that website that sells the 1165xx with the right case, and I have been searching for those watches for years. So it obviously does not matter how long you have been doing this. It is all luck & timing. So we just have to get lucky & find a source for those flat Daytona casebacks......and I am sure they are out there somewhere.

That would probably work since the engraving on rep casebacks is not very deep (which is 1 of the ways to identify them as reps vs the rare gen 'WINNER' watches, which have much deeper (hand) engravings). Do you know of a source for these casebacks with the engraving? All the 'WINNER' casebacks I have seen were the same beveled style that comes on these reps anyway.

Probably a good place for it.

And your pair of franken lovelies just reminded me of something that I forgot to mention in the original post -- I would also recommend polishing the polished parts (not the brushed sections) of the bracelets on these 116520 reps with a dremel & some green & red rouge. This will help to smooth out most of the 'grainy' appearance of the bracelets that come with all these reps. I can usually tell a gen 1165xx from a rep by the way the light reflects off the polished parts of the bracelet. After modding it, the difference is much less noticeable.

Just to be clear, the total cost is closer to $650 or $700 than it is to $500 (unless we can get either or both of the sellers to give us a more reasonable rate for a group buy (I would buy another of the watch-ebay watches if it could be had at around $200)) & I agree that it is alot of hassle. But I think the results speak for themselves for those of us with more money than sense.

NOTE - YOU will need to research current site locations as they have changed since this article was written. STEP 1 Get 1 of these (this watch has a nearly perfect dial & rotor, but its case is too thick or high-profile) and remove the movement from the case (release the stem (gently press the button in blue) & remove the 2 case straps/screws (marked in red)) STEP 2 Get 1 of these (this watch has a (more correct) low profile case & potentially heartier, 1st-generation secs at 6 7750 (note that the evidence for this is purely anecdotal & is NOT scientific), but the dial is a bit 'off) (Note the additional metal below the crown & shape of the CGs - the low-profile cases all look like this) and remove the movement from the case (release the stem & remove the two case straps/screws) (There may be exceptions to this rule, but all of the movements in the low-profile Daytonas I have seen (several) had this same rotor. So if you see a Daytona rep with this movement, it is likely the 1st generation secs @ 6 A7750) STEP 3 Remove the hands, dial & rotor (held on by 1 screw) from both movements, but keep track of which parts came from which watch (very important). Onto the 2nd (Idolreplicas') movement, install the dial & rotor from the 1st (Perfect-Clones) movement & reuse the same hands (essentially, you are just swapping the dial & rotor from the 1st watch onto the movement from the 2nd watch. You should now have a heartier movement with a very accurate dial & rotor. STEP 4 Modify the CGs of the 2nd watch's case to match this gen (file or grind down the extra metal below the base of the crown & reshape the CGs) STEP 5 Reassemble the watch & you should now have a watch that looks like this (and a spare that contains most of the flaws that were previously spread out between the original 2) (Hands, shirt, jeans & boots sold separately) (Note the correctly shaped CGs & the (correct) shallow rehaut, which are due to the case's lower profile & placement of the movement) Now, if someone knows of a source for a correct (flat, brushed) caseback (and, possibly, a slightly lower-profile (gen) bezel as the final icing on the cake)........ __________ Alternatively, to save a bit of work playing musical hands & dials, you can just swap the movement from the 1st watch into the 2nd watch's case & leave it at that. I think the hands on the 2nd watch are a bit more accurate than the 1st watch, but we are talking minute differences here. And, like I said, there is no factual evidence that the earlier generation of secs at 6 7750s (in the 2nd watch) were any more reliable than the current versions. This opinion is based entirely on my observation that many more of the old style secs at 6 7750s seem to still be running years after they were purchased vs the recent versions which seem to die within a few months. This is just a gut feeling on my part, so do not flame me if your watch is an exception to the rule. But I would like to know your experience if you have 1 of these early versions that may be identified by the unique rotor design. While the movements are removed, you might also consider applying some powered graphite as explained here (the watch described in that thread has now been running (to within COSC standards) for about 2 weeks)

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.