freddy333

Getting back to the original topic (the search for a proper set of DRSD hands), I finally received a photo of the Tudor hands from Michael (classwatchparts). So I combined both Michael's and Clark's hand photos, resized each to match and converted everything to monochrome to eliminate the color differences between the two sets of photos.

I just spent the last 45 minutes staring at dozens of photos of DRSDs that I downloaded from TZ over the past few years and the only thing I know is that there is no clear winner. There appear to be several variations of each hand. Some look like Clark's, some look like Michael's, some look alot like the OEM MBWs, and others look like someone flipped a coin and combined all three in different combinations.

Here is my MBW

Here are 3 variations on the DRSD theme

So now I am totally confused. Can anyone spot the fish?

And before anyone accuses me of trying to rip someone off, let me say that the only places my watches can be seen are here or on my wrist. The only people I want to fool are the people who think you have to spend $5,000 or more on a Sub or Sea Dweller to get a quality timepiece. And the (often ingenious) work of many of the artists & craftsmen here constantly prove that is not the case.

Afterall we're not trying to fool anybody here.

Speak for yourself, Khemosabi. But, otherwise, I am with you.

Nanuq, that is exactly what I hoped you would say.

Gentlemen, start your engines -- I think it is going to be a very busy (and hopefully very productive) weekend.

Freddy...I hear what you are saying about the dials. It would be nice to have a crystal that would turn the MBW "SEA DWELLER" text the right color of cherry red, wouldn't it?

I was looking more at the black. The spurious reflections and haziness of the stock crystal don't even do the MBW dial justice.

Yeah, I know what you mean about the weak color of the red lettering. It sucks and is one of the reasons I bought the aftermarket dial (which I think is just a bit too red). But, on the positive side, I have seen alot of rep DRSD dials that really exaggerate the color. And since every rep part errs somewhere, it is alot better to err on the side of not having enough color than having too much.

I think the black (really more like dark gray) on the MBW dial is another of its weak areas and another area where the aftermarket dial gets closer to a gen dial. The MBW black is also too smooth, whereas the black on gen dials appears slightly textured. Almost like the texture you get when paint crinkles a bit. But most of the better gen dials I have seen with a loupe have a similar texture, which the MBW lacks.

I still go back and forth between the two dials, trying to figure out a way to fix the 3 glaring problems on that aftermarket dial (too narrow crown & hour markers, uneven lettering). But I think Ziggy's the only person I know who has enough artistic talent & experience to be able to even attempt to correct (repaint) those things without causing more problems.

Does the Clark have the well polished look of a gen crystal? Does it catch the light and sparkle like a gen?

This notion of material quality to me is more important than exact geometry.

I agree about the material quality. But I would say this -- at this level (gen vs Clark), the shape and height of the crystal would be far more obvious, if there was a difference (there is not), than the material quality.

As far as I can tell, there is little or no difference between the way the Clark & gen superdomes reflect light (sparkle). Keep in mind that the MBW crystal is at a disadvantage in the photos above because the printing on the aftermarket dial is noticeably crisper and cleaner (which is one of the things that I find so seductive about it - unfortunately, for me, its flaws outweigh its benefits). But without having a gen superdome in front of me, I cannot say with 100% certainty that Clark's sparkles as well as a gen. If Nanuq is still following this, he would be better able to answer that since he has both (or, at least, whichever aftermarket crystal he has appears to have the same minor defects the Clark superdome has).

Mojo -- Not exactly a perfect comparison since the dials and datewheels are different, but here is a side-by-side shot of my OEM MBW next to an aftermarket dial with the Watchmeister datewheel topper sitting underneath Clark's superdome crystal

As you can see, each crystal reflects light differently. I think it is pretty clear that Clark's maintains a truer reflected image than the MBW OEM (note the poorly focused, double-image of the lamp at the top of the OEM crystal). And whatever image distortions may exist in Clark's superdome, they are not very apparent during normal use. But considering how the Clark's crystal distorted the crosshatch pattern in the previous photos, it would be nice to see the gen superdome next to the other two for the ultimate comparison.

Nice work, Pug. I would love to see full frontals of each.

Exaggerated distortion of the sample

Yes, those were the photos I was referring to.

When viewing a distant image, Clark's superdome has a similar (but possibly wider) distortion. It looks like the center of the lens may have been ground a bit too flat in contrast to the rest of the lens. I can also see the same type of refraction (in the crystal on the right) that appears to break the vertical line in the lower left corner of that lens, and it looks like it occurs at about the same place in your photo as it does in mine. I have a feeling your sample aftermarket superdome may have come from the same source that Clark's comes from.

Nanuq -- Thank you for the clarification. I think you may have been posting at the same time I was, so you may not have seen the photos and description of the effect I am seeing in Clark's otherwise excellent superdome. But based on your 'ringed' description, it sounds like the same ever-so-slight deviation that affects Clark's. Is that what you saw on the other aftermarket superdome sample?

KKS -- Like minds. Believe it or not, I emailed Timeman yesterday about his Superdome, but have not heard anything back yet.

I have a few of Helfand's T39s and they definitely do not compare to the gens. But your comparison did not include one of Clark's Superdomes, which are better than Helfands. And I think the only difference Nanuq identified between Clark's and the gen was a slight deviation in the way the center of the lens was ground. Otherwise, sitting next to each other (unlike Helfand's version) they look about the same.

Here is a comparison I did that shows how an image is refracted differently through different crystals (Clark's superdome and 2 flat top T39s (one is Helfand's))

If you look closely (through the Clark superdome) at the vertical line on the left, you will see that it refracts about 1/3 of the way up from the bottom. While there should be a gradual magnification of the line, it should not appear to separate as it does. It is difficult to tell from the photos, but you can see similar refractions all the way around the crystal at about 1/2" in from the outer edge. This causes the image viewed through the lens to appear very slightly wavy where the grinding/polishing of the lens is imperfect. The effect is like one of those circus mirrors that distort your image, but no where near as strong, and it is almost undetectable unless you view the same image through a gen superdome right next to it.

I have one of Clark's T39 Superdomes (Reference Number 25-39) that I purchased as a replacement for my WM/MBW DRSD's OEM crystal (which looks very nice, but does not have quite the height or image quality of a gen superdome). After seeing Nanuq's recent post comparing a good aftermarket superdome (which I think is Clark's) to a gen superdome, I began to wonder if it is worth going the extra mile for the gen?

Both crystals look the same from the outside. But, when viewing the same image through both crystals, the aftermarket seems to distort the image in the center of the crystal. I was wondering what others who have experience with both crystals feel about this and if the difference is that noticeable in actual use or worth the difference in cost? The only source for gen Superdomes I have found wants $165 each. As I am going (almost) all-out on this watch (not planning to replace the movement with a gen (at least not now)), I do not mind paying the premium if there is a detectable difference in the appearance of the watch at relatively close (3 or 4 feet) range. But since this level of mod is getting into hair-splitting territory, I wanted to seek the advice of our more experienced modders.

This minute hand looks to be more accurate than the standard MBW. Should fit the ETA 28xx variety.

These are gold but I suspect Clark also carries the silver.

http://cgi.ebay.com/Hands-ETA-2824-yellow-...bayphotohosting

He has them in silver also and for a few cents less than $15 per set. I just ordered 2.

Thanks for the tip.

Hi Freddy,

I use genuine Tudor sub hands for their 2824 movement from Micheal at http://www.classicwatchparts.com

Pete -- I just heard back from Michael at classicwatchparts. He says 'we only have aftermarket ones'. He only has 1 Hands section on the site and it is aftermarket. Is it possible yours are aftermarket? It is not important to me that the hands are gen as long as they look gen and whatever you have on your DRSD looks like what I am after.

This minute hand looks to be more accurate than the standard MBW. Should fit the ETA 28xx variety.

These are gold but I suspect Clark also carries the silver.

Thanks. I emailed both Clark and Michael to see if either (or both) has the hands in silver. For the price, if he has the right set, I will order them.

Hi Freddy,

I use genuine Tudor sub hands for their 2824 movement from Micheal at http://www.classicwatchparts.com

I can't see any on his website at the moment but if you email him at michael_ck_young@hotmail.com he can probably help you out.

Can you post some pics of the front of yer drsd, its looks great from behind...

P.

Pete -- The hands on your DRSD look the better of the two and are what I am lookin for. Are those the ones you got from Michael at Classicwatchparts? And I apologize if you already told me this, but does your DRSD have the ETA 2846 and did the Tudor's fit without modding anything?

Here is the front

I wish I shared your enthusiasm for the watch's backside. The recently added gen bracelet clasp and correctly numbered end links improve it, but the stock MBW back, while more or less correct in its content, is way off the mark in its execution. It did not bother me at the beginning when the watch had numerous flaws. But as the mods progressed and each flaw got corrected, the back, with its clearly modern laser etching (it is not even fair to call it an engraving) has become a painful embarrassment and is now the weakest link in the chain. But thank you for the compliment anyway.

You will need to measure your insert, but these should do.

Interesting ideas, Logan. But considering how much damage I did to my scrap parts with an engraving bit and a nail, I can only imagine what a mess I would make with acid or a sand blaster. Also, I do not see how you could restrict the action of either acid or sand to affect only the inner grooves of the lettering without damaging the adjacent areas.

But very clever ideas just the same.

Avitt -- I mostly agree with you. I actually fit one of the Watchmeister DWs to the 2846 that originally came in the watch, but, shortly after that, the movement died and I swapped it out for another 2846 and installed the OEM MBW (metal) DW on the replacement movement.

It was not that noticeable through a crystal without a magnifying lens (cyclops), but the slight dot-matrixy appearance of the Watchmeister fonts along with my inability to center most of the dates (an off-center date is one of those all-too-typical rep 'features' that really bugs me) has left me ambivalent about swapping the datewheels again. I do like the way the Watchmeister looks though, so I will take another look at it when I take the watch apart to do the next set of mods, maybe this weekend if the rest of my drill press vice parts arrive in time.

I think I prefer the 22nd, but here is my 23 on the OEM WM/MBW (I still cannot make my mind up whether I like the Ubi/WM DW's bolder sanserif font or the OEM WM/MBW's serifs, which I was able to center perfectly)

I do not know if either is original. But, of the two, the second looks better (there is more uneven spacing between the lettering on the first one). The crown looks a little wobbly, but I think that is the photo. If not, then I would disregard it.

Freddy, I'm convinced that there was no additional work done on my case back. It shows no signs of hand engraving. You have to remember that this rep is from a different generation than today's MBWs.

You may be right. But I am sure there is a way to replicate the original stamped appearance.

Yesterday, a friend recommended one of the craziest ideas I have ever heard, but after thinking about it overnight I am beginning to wonder if it makes sense. Here is the idea -- If you think of the groove of each letter in a caseback like a groove in a vinyl record and then picture the v-shaped stylus running along the groove. What happens when you run the stylus back and forth over the same section of the groove? It widens, softens, deepens and becomes less etched. So, my friend suggested, why not take a larger stylus (a small 'finish' nail) and just run it back and forth along each letter. Then, of course, follow with a polish (possibly with one of those rubber Dremel bits).

Is this insanity or genius?

Thoughts?

Update -- I just tried the nail procedure on a scrap caseback and it could work, but only in the steady and talented hands of an artist like Ziggy. the nail does widen, round and smooth the lettering, but I was unable to keep the nail inside the groove of the letter (which is the same problem I had with the diamond engraving bits on the Dremel). This illustrates one of the other problems with modern engraving -- it creates a much shallower groove than the original vintage stamping.

Pete -- I see your point, but I think you may not be seeing the same difference I see when I compare your sanded/polished caseback to the gen in the photo I posted. To my eye, the lettering on the gen looks alot more like the lettering on Avitt's caseback, which is wider, deeper, smoother, rounder than the lettering on either mine or yours. Yes, you did a great job of wearing down the lettering, but the remaining lettering still looks too modern. And that is the problem.

PP -- A nice polish would look great on a modern watch, but I think it is out of place on a vintage watch.