freddy333

fx - That is on my list of experiments. But I have a feeling the amount of force that will be required to imprint into steel using constant pressure from a vise will greatly exceed my little hobbyist's vise's limitations. For that, I think a very large shop vise would be required and I do not have access to anything like that. The big problem now, is finding more scrap caseback to experiment on.

You have to love a dome.

Houston, all systems are GO! I just received my custom stamp (in case you have forgotten by now, I was searching for a way to replicate the sunkin appearance of the lettering on vintage Comex and Sea-Dweller casebacks). Here are pictures of my tool (well, not my tool - this one is always hard) And here is a sample of what a stamped number looks like from my initial round of testing of stamping quarters (I used quarters because they are close to the same thickness and tensile strength as a stainless steel caseback and I have more quarters than scrap casebacks) As you can see, it is quite nice and I think it addresses all of the issues discussed throughout this thread. The impression left by the stamp, which was produced with 3 successive (moderate) whacks with a 5-pound sledgehammer, has all the hallmarks (no pun intended) of the added-on numbering on some of the Comex casebacks. This is a recent example from Antiquorum My initial tests make 3 things clear The original (gen) lettering (especially, the Comex number that was added later) was stamped I will need to locate some additional scrap casebacks to perfect the technique, but a hand stamp can produce a clear, properly aligned print in hard metal The caseback should probably be placed on top of a concave metal form to maintain alignment and to limit the amount of collateral deflection should you use a bit too much force (2 of my previous quarters will no longer fit through a coin slot) But the important news is that the technique works. Like anything new, it will take some tweaking to get the final result just right. But that just takes time. So anyone know where I can get a handful of blank casebacks for cheap?

Without seeing the T16 sitting (out of the watch) next to a T39, I have to say that it looks more like the OEM crystal that came in my WM/MBW DRSD. Similar, but with a lower profile than the T39 Superdome. Oh, and beautiful watch (I missed the forest for the trees).

That begs the following questions -- Did the dog get to wear the watches? Did the watches get fleas? Did the mortgage get paid? Has anyone seen my galoshes?

Which is why you should not have any trouble finding buyers (at almost any price) for your Superdomes on TZ.

There is something unique about the way images appear in a true superdome that you do not see in any other crystal type. If you look at the watch from the side and then slowly turn it toward you, as the crystal just reaches the cusp of your viewing angle, the entire dial suddenly appears to be floating on top of the crystal. It is quite an amazing optical illusion caused by the refraction of the light rays due to the cut of the lens. Doing the same thing with the OEM MBW or any flat crystal produces an image that appears lower down into the watch case and only after the viewing angle is more perpendicular to your eye.

Nanuq -- Speaking of dropping 20k on a watch, did you see this article (you might want to click the link at the top to read the first part first)?

I think the 1680 will look great once you get the date wheel problem solved. Great CGs. The only thing that catches my eye is that the bezel insert looks too old for the watch. With that much wear & fading, I would expect the dial & hands to be discolored at least a bit.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.