freddy333

Watchbuff -- Every watchmaking book I have ever read takes great pains to make 2 things clear: 1 - there is only 1 way to repair a watch -- the right way. 2 - never force anything. If a part does not fit, you have the wrong part or you are assembling it wrong. Ziggy is a long-time member of this board and a subscriber to both axioms (rules with which I wholeheartedly agree). Your way of doing things clearly runs counter to his, and like any good craftsman he takes great exception to Rube Goldberg approaches and their rationalizations. I am not trying to take sides here, but I think it only fair to suggest that you are fighting a losing battle. If someone seeks your services, that is your business. But if you are going to post reports of your work and it does not follow the 2 principles I noted above, I think you have to be prepared to accept your fate.

Go to rolex.com or search images.google.com for similar Subs and compare them to yours. I am not an expert in modern or current Rolex models (I only do vintage).

It looks so good in print that I am breaking with precedent & wearing it again today The printed version of my wrist check subject resides in this book, which every RWG member should own

Beautiful work & I agree about using it with formal wear. It works for me.

We will have to agree to disagree on that.

Pug - My 1st Skype infection was the Pykse worm, which Skype security said they were aware of & working on. I cannot remember what the 2nd one was, but it is all academic at this point.

Not to hijack the thread, but my computer has been hacked twice through Skype, so it had to be removed and that was that. I know that Skype has thousands of happy users who have never had a problem, but installing it (or any other software) solely to contact 1 person is not an option. In general, I think most people prefer email over all other forms of communication. p.s. And if you (TTK) ever locate that MBW 5514 (or 5513) I inquired about last year, please let me know.

Excellent points, TTK. If only it were easier/simpler for mere mortals to contact (without requiring a software installation) or purchase a watch from you.

Plexiglas scratches easily, but does not show fingerprints. Sapphire does not scratch easily, but it shows every detail of every fingerprint. It is also commonplace today, whereas a nice Plexiglas dome is cool and refreshing. (My modified MBW 1665 Double Red) To each his/her own.

6239 Newman posed against same in new 'Cult Watches' book

You had better start his watch fund now, it will only get more expensive later. Congratulations.

Published Oct 2007 & beautifully illustrated. Covers a number of the most popular 'cult' (or grail) watches from the likes of Rolex, Jlc, Patek, Tag, Vc, Panerai, etc.

I have emailed Josh to see if he can get other MBWs like the 5514 or 5513 Subs. Even if he cannot, having an easily accessible (and reliable) source for 1680s & 1665s is great news for everyone. His 1665 does look like a 'gen' MBW (and the way mine looked in its pristine (unmodded) state).

My all time fav is this 'Daytona' close-up from Kill Bill

Breaking from 2 traditions today. Instead of beginning the workweek with my Double Red, I thought I would strap on my daily Daytona. And instead of posting a pic of the daily Daytona on my wrist, I thought I would post a pic of it on a friend's wrist, which is FAR MORE prettier than mine

Kurt - I prefer vintage to modern & both look spectacular, but I think the modern version looks more realistic. I think the NDTrading dial is too smooth. If it had more texture, I would probably prefer it. A number of people have posted methods for adding vintage texture to a Rolex dial (here is mine) if you want to give it a try.

It sounds like you forgot to set the locking screw (a small, squarish screw that sits along the outer perimeter of the datewheel ring that you turn to partially cover (lock-in) the date wheel). Either that or the datewheel was not installed all the way.

Diesel - The caseback is not flat, it is just narrower than the caseback that came standard on this watch (the standard caseback is the same one that comes on other 7750-powered Daytona reps). I simply removed the rotor from the movement & then swapped the original (too deep) caseback with an extra DW I had laying around (other than the caseback, I believe the case is a standard DW Daytona case). This all came about after I had posed (to DW) the idea that he consider selling these watches, but powered with a manual-wind Asian 7760 instead of the auto-wind 7750, so users would not have to mod the movement (and purchase the extra, shallower caseback) like I did. I have not seen the actual 7760 movement, but it would be thinner than the 7750 since it lacks the auto-wind components. The sticking point is, according to DW, that the 7760 is considerably more expensive than the 7750 and he would have to price the watch around $700-$800. He did not think there would be a large enough market at that price range. I disagreed and told him I would poll RWG members to see how much serious interest there was. After some initial buzz, a number of members posted that they felt the price was too steep (and too close to the V72 DW kits) & interest seemed to fade, so we never went any further. Personally, I still think this would be The Best Buy in Daytona reps, because I continue to receive compliments on my watch from people who are pretty good at spotting Rolex reps and the feature that fools everyone are those asymmetrical pushers. These 7750-powered Daytonas with asymmetrical pushers seem to be even rarer than the gen Paul Newmans, which is VERY rare. It would be nice if the dial was a bit more accurate (subdials a bit smaller & the crown lowered a bit to its proper location). But, like I said, what makes this watch unique is its asymmetrical pusher layout. And short of a $2,000 investment plus the time & effort to track down and assemble a V72 DW, I think this watch makes alot more sense. I certainly would have bought one.

Please check your email.

Congrads. Waiting for the pics.

R -- Does this look right Assuming the spring arm & rectangle part is now correctly positioned, it looks like whatever cam the rectangle part is supposed to move is out of alignment or something, because I am still unable to press the top pusher lever. It does not move at all, and the bottleneck is definitely where that rectangle meets the cam. Actually, it almost looks like the 'U' shaped side of the rectangle part is not even fully seated against the cam. But I cannot get the cam to rotate in either direction to try to realign it with the rectangle part. I have tried reseting the chrono several times, but that does not make any difference. Which screw are you talking about removing and am I going to have problems getting the cam reassembled after I remove it (or the screw)? I have never disassembled that before. I do not know if this is related, but this movement still has the original problem that started this whole mess -- the hour totalizer hand keeps moving when the chrono is OFF. The odd thing is that if I reset the little spring on the chrono reset lever, the hour totalizer is fine......that is, until I use the reset pusher the next time (like when I was trying to realign the cam in the paragraph above), the hour totalizer hand starts running again. When I removed the bridge to check the reset lever spring, it is fine--right where it belongs. And everything else looks correct also. Does that make any sense?

Zig - Thanks for the reply. If I understand you correctly, I tried that already, but, in that position, the pusher is locked.....I cannot push it in at all. Tell me if this is correct: I rotated the rectangle 90 degrees, counter-clockwise, so the 'U' shaped edge is resting against (and in between) the cams to its right. Then I moved the arm to rest against the outer, sloping edge of the rectangle (its the edge at the top of the rectangle in the pictures). Does that sound right? With the rectangle & arm in that position, the pusher is locked, so that I cannot press it in at all. I have to run now, but I can take another picture of the rectangle & arm when I get back to be sure I have it in the right position (I am pretty sure I do).

Outstanding work, Tribal!

Delta -- Did you forget to complete your post? In any case, I did see Josh's updated 6263 bracelet, which is better than some of the previous vintage rep bracelets, but I still think a gen folded link 7835 makes more sense on a DW. All 3 of my DWs have 7835s that I got from Andy (Timeman). I know the 357 end links are not spec/correct, but, as you know, the correct ones are just about impossible to locate & insanely expensive if do find them. The 357s leave a tiny gap between them & the case, but it is not noticeable under most conditions. So, all things considered, I think the 7835 with 357s is a better compromise than a rep Oyster bracelet

I would be interested in 1 of these (without date).