freddy333

Yes, I think that was the problem I had when I tried to fit the retainer ring from the original donor case into the DW case. It was hitting something and the movement stopped running.

I think the original (Flytimer) donor watch used a retainer ring along with case clamps, but the ring does not fit the DW case. Unfortunately, I took the movement out of the donor case without first taking photos, so I am not exactly sure how it was installed. If you have pictures, that would be helpful. I am pretty desperate at this point since I have tried every standard method I can think of..

I thought of doing that, but I don't really want to modify or cut into the case back on this watch.

Zig -- The problem is that that is exactly what I have been working at for the past couple of months, but I am not getting anywhere. Any chance I could contract this task (of stabilizing the movement in the case) to you? I realize that you may not fare any better than I have, but I have run out of ideas and I am now just chasing my tail and running around in circles. I think the only hope is a fresh perspective. Can you PM me?

Sorry, I do not understand your question? I am not looking to chance anything.......I am just looking for a solution.

I am looking for alternative methods for locking the V72 movement into my DW Daytona case (the circled areas are the case locking screw holes) After spending weeks trying everything I can think of, including cutting/bending/modifying literally scores of 'assorted case locking tabs' & trying to manufacture case locking tabs from Campbell's soup tin lids, I have finally given up. Either the locking screws keep the caseback from closing (and I have tried several different screws), or the locking tabs do not hold the movement tight enough to keep it from flopping around in the case, or something.. So I am wondering if anyone has run into this problem before and what you did that worked. I cannot tell you how frustrating it is to have my Newman 6239 sitting here running perfectly, but unable to be worn because the only thing holding the movement in the case is the winding stem. Winding it, setting the time or just normal wrist movements cause the movement to 'knock around' inside the case, which is not a good thing I am getting desperate and wondering if I might be able to get away with either squeezing a few dabs of silicone sealant (designed to seal automotive windshields (this is the stuff that comes out of a tube and dries like a gray colored rubber)) at a few points around the movement, between the movement and the inside of the case?? Of course, the silicone dabs would have to be placed at locations so that it does not interfere with any of the movement's moving parts. Another thought was to wedge a few toothpicks in between the movement and inside of the case at the same locations, and break them off leaving only the tips. I think that would probably work, but I am worried that if any of them came loose they might end up lodging themselves in the movement...not a pretty thought. Any thoughts or recommendations? Ziggy??? Anyone???

Is it the amber tinting of the dial that suggests the watch has an authentic patina, or is it the 'matte' texture? I would like to add an authentic-looking patina, but I would like to maintain the whiteness of the dial's text and markers. Although it is somewhat less typical, I have seen a number of vintage Subs and Seadwellers on TZ with white (or very nearly white) dial markings, and I am wondering if adding the texture of Nanuq's dial without the yellowing will look real or not? Ordinarily, I would just do some testing on old dials, but, unfortunately, I killed all of my scrap dials during my previous re-luming testing and they were all tossed into the bin. I am kind of thinking that the can of 'Matte Finish' I have now (shown above) will probably do the trick, but I really do not want to have to buy another MBW DRSD if I am wrong.. Any thoughts?

Predfan -- Nice work, but for this watch I want to keep the markers as close to white as possible. I have a number of pictures of gen DRSDs and Subs from TZ that still have white markers. I know they tend to be rarer, but that is the look I am after. But I do like the appearance of the black part of Nanaq's dial.

Nanuq -- That is what I was afraid of. But I thought people were using a spray can of varnish as opposed to an air gun, at least I think that is what was recommended in one of the tutorials I read (but cannot find now). No? Also, I would like to replicate the texture of your dial, but I want to keep the markers and text white. Will an amber colored varnish also yellow or darken the markers and dial text? If so, maybe I should try the spray I have now? Any thoughts???

I want to vintagize my MBW DRSD dial using the spray varnish process other members have used successfully, so I went to my local art supply store and asked for a can of 'matte finish' spray varnish. But as I was just about to begin spraying the dial, I noticed that the can does not say 'varnish' anywhere on it...it just says 'Matte Finish' as you can see here This may be a stupid question, but before I kill my dial or make a return trip to the store...can anyone tell me if this looks like the right stuff (matte varnish), or is this a can of something different--like clear matte paint or something like that? Did the store in fact sell me the right stuff, even though the word 'varnish' does not appear anywhere on the label? I always thought that the only difference between 'varnish' and 'paint' is that varnish has a slightly caramel (yellowish-brown) tint. If so, since the can says 'Non-yellowing' does that mean it is not 'varnish'?

Nanuq's photo is very telling. With one exception (Clarks), the 2 aftermarket Superdomes I have both suffer from this telltale ring of distortion, which makes images viewed through them somewhat distorted and a bit foggy. The Clarks lens does have a small bit of distortion, but the ring is much wider and affects the circumference/edge of the lens (as opposed to the much more important center) and is much less noticeable if held up in the same position as the lens in Nanuq's photo. The salient feature of Clarks lens and the thing that puts it head and shoulders above all of its (aftermarket) competition is its clarity, which is on par with the gen. The following picture (originally taken to compare dials) demonstrates the difference in clarity between an aftermarket lens (on left) and Clark's (on right). Compare the diffused, doubled image of the lamp reflected in the aftermarket lens on the left (I think this was from Helfands, but I am not positive) and compare the image in the Clark's lens on the right Because the dials are different, it is not a completely fair comparison, but I can tell you that images viewed through a Clark's (or gen) Superdome are crystal clear in contrast to the same image viewed through the slightly foggier and hazier filter of most aftermarket Superdomes.

As you can see from Nanuq's comparison photos, the differences between the 2 Superdomes (the gen and brand X) are minimal, and the differences between the gen & Clark's are even closer. I have both Clarks and the gen and, believe me, the differences are almost imperceptible and relate only to a slightly increased diffraction of straight lines (when viewed closely & directly) as they cross the circumference of the lens. The increased diffraction appears to be due to a flattening of the inside face of the lens, which is more rounded on the gen. But, again, this deviation is minor & only noticeable at direct & close range. Otherwise, when viewed from any other angle (and to any casual viewer of a watch fitted with Clark's Superdome) the lens looks like the gen. Another issue to consider in favor of Clark's is that these gen T39s are now getting on in age (they have not been manufactured in several years), so their stability and water resistance may be questionable. There have been numerous postings on TZ suggesting that owners not swim with a watch fitted with a gen Superdome. On the other hand, in addition to being less expensive ($60 for a small bit of plastic is not exactly what I would call cheap), Clark's lenses are newly manufactured and seem to be quite well made. I would have no qualms about swimming with a watch (properly) fitted with a Clark's T39 that has been recently tested for water tightness (this is one of the reasons my gen T39 is sitting in a parts box instead of sitting on my DRSD).

First, make sure the crystal does not contain any hairline cracks or fissures. Remove the crystal from the case, clean it well and hold it up to light to see if you see anything. Then, if it looks ok, reinstall the crystal with a new gasket (if applicable for your watch) and use silicone watch sealant on both the gasket and around the bottom edge of the crystal. Also, be sure to apply a light coating to the entire caseback gasket and the gaskets in the crown tube. Depending on the maker of your sub, there can be between 1 and 4 gaskets in and around the crown & crown tube. If the caseback gasket was damaged (you said the original one was in 2 pieces), then it is very possible that the crown tube gaskets are also damaged or lacking silicone sealant. And although some believe it is ok to close the case with one of those 'balls' or a wad of tape, I do not believe these methods provide a reliable seal. You should purchase a Rolex caseback wrench. You can find cheap ones for as little as $40 or so (I have an extra one (mint condition) that I would be willing to sell for $25 plus shipping costs--PM me if you are interested). This is one of the wisest investments you can make if you plan to be opening your cases in the future.

Here is a comparison of Clark's T39 Superdome with Helfands and 1 other vendor's dome (sorry, the other vendor's name escapes me?) I have Clark's T39 Superdome in this I think the Superdome being sold on TZ is overpriced, especially since Clark lens gives you 98% of the appearance of the gen. I have seen new gen Superdomes go for between $150-$200 on ebay. If you are patient, you can find them there. If not, $250 will get you a 'mint' (which is not the same as new) one today.

Hard to tell exactly what you have there without clear, macro photos, but what I can make out looks nice. It should make a great looking Datejust someday. I am sure that Tribal will take very good care of it.

2 things you can always count on when considering a Daytona (or other expensive Rolex) purchase on ebay - 1. Anyone who knows enough about watches to be able to remove the dial or movement from the case, knows exactly what the parts (and watch) are worth. You will NEVER find a gen Daytona dial and/or movement in usable condition being sold on ebay for less than market value, which, for a Daytona, is going to be at least a thousand dollars (and likely multiples of that). 2. Anyone who posts blurry photos and has a low number of previous 'watch' sales and/or with less than 98% buyer satisfaction ratings is likely a crook and a fraud. The auction you inquired about is a textbook example of both.

Nanuq & Repaustria are correct. You do not need the gasket, it just adds a bit more seal, but I do not have one in this 1665 (fitted with Clark's T39 Superdome)

If the watch is important to you, I would have it water-pressure tested by a watchmaker or keep it away from water altogether. And that means taking the watch off when you are washing or bathing as well as swimming. Even if a rep is advertised as being waterproof to some random depth, I would take that with a huge grain of salt, at least until you have the watch properly tested by a trained watchmaker. And even for watches that I have built myself (fitted with new seals), I tend to keep them away from water. Most of my watches are vintage models with gen parts that are often 2 or more decades old. Over time, plastic crystals can become hardened and brittle and may not properly seal against the case even though you cannot see anything wrong with them.

I find the black dial difficult to read under anything other than good lighting conditions, so I prefer the white dial. It is hard to say why the Daytona has become such a grail watch. Part of the reason is its connection to auto racing and Paul Newman (Newman is rumored to have worn a Daytona in the movie 'Winning', but it looks to me like another model) and part of the reason is the chronograph itself (chronographs have become very popular in general among collectors), and no doubt part of the lure is the constant lack of supply that Rolex bottlenecks as part of its very clever marketing strategy for the watch. Remember, that it is only in the last decade that the Daytona has became The IT watch with 2-5 year waiting lists. Believe it or not, during most of the Daytona's first 3 decades of life, dealers had alot of trouble moving them. Buyers thought the watch was ugly and overpriced. And, then, in the late 80's, an Italian magazine published a photo of Paul Newman wearing a vintage 6239 Daytona that his wife gave him as a birthday present and that seems to have been the match that lit the fire which has been growing hotter ever since.

There have been a few articles & tutorials on Datejusts recently. Here is mine.

Actually, the metal 'washer' normally found beneath the bezel on the 1665 (both gen and MBW) IS a spring. It should have a slight bend in it. The amount of bend controls the tension on the bezel -- the flatter the spring, the easier the bezel turns, the more bend in the spring, the tighter the bezel is to turn. Your 1665 MBW should have the flat spring below the bezel. If it is missing, I would contact the person you bought the watch from.

Pug -- Beautiful watches! And if I am not mistaken, it looks like the factory has finally drilled the correct (larger) sized lug holes. I hope you get alot of use out of them.

I agree with Repaustria -- the dial looks more like an NDT than a gen. But it looks an interesting project.

Vmena -- Good to see the finished project. Stainless Datejust is one of my favorites too Nice work.

Good work. .