RobbieG

but with this tan suede strap:

Yeah, it could be, but more likely he just has his own opinions. Also of note is he is from Glashutte and Eastern Germany has a rep of thinking of watch stuff differently from the Swiss norm as well so maybe he is kind of a hybrid. He is old school though so it is unlikely he is like a kid brainwashed by Rolex. Anyway, agree with all you say about ETA. Mine have always been great too. Just trying to get at what makes a movement tough & robust or if there is no telling. As you know, I have a lot of different watches with a lot of different movements. Its just that they are all effectively new (<5years) and never serviced so I can't really tell anything at this point. In 20 years I'm going to know more if I'm still alive and I will see which if any give me any trouble. LOL. Also agree that it is bull that you can't compare rep to gen. And I say that being a gen guy. I just obsess over the finest details which I am well aware os stupid but I do it anyway. There is no effective difference between any good ETA rep and any gen in form or function for the most part - like the SFSO or a 16710 IHS for example.

No worries Rob. BTW, I guess he must mean the Rolex screws are hard. All I remember is he said they break a lot. But then maybe he is heavy handed? It seems like it would take a lot of force to break one of those screws huh? Oh well, we obviously both lost a bunch of stuff in translation. Plus as I said his English is bad. In any event I appeciate your taking the time to help me understand all these things as of course I have no experience working with watch movements. And again, I think it is interesting that different watchmakers can have different perceptions of the same movement issues. Oh, and if you work on airplanes I'm glad there is only one way to do it if it prevents them from falling out of the sky. So in that case I guess my "black & white" statement doesn't apply and I stand corrected. I only meant that in any dynamic situation there is never absolution which is not what you are talking about. Best... PS: If you get a chance I wonder if you could tell us a little about the rate adjustment question I asked in that other thread. I can never get any other watchmaker to really explain why one method is prefered over another. It also seems like some movements have a ton of weights on the balance and some none. I'm interested in the relationship between that and the various methods of imparting pressure to change the centrifugal force. In other words is there a reason to use tabs vs a screw vs a swan neck or is it just the individual regional histories that determine it and it just stuck over time? Thanks as always for teaching us Rob. We all appreciate it!

We could probably start a whole new thread at what may be the primary issue here punctuated by your comments about "black and white". I have a made a quite successful career recently out of disproving exactly the opposite in that there is absolutely more than one way to view or do every job. With that comment you have basically un-confused me as to why you might have been unable to absorb the slightly differing view. So to that end maybe I'm closer to understanding what the heck happened here. As to my presence and genuine movement questions: There are more genuine watch experts here than I have ever found on TZ by the way, hence the reason that I tend to try and ask those questions here first. Moreover, despite my own collection being entirely genuine at the moment, I'm still here for the simple facts that the knowledge base (starting with you) is big, the people are nicer and subjects have discussions not limited to what a poster can fit in the subject line. There is no contest in my view between RWG and TZ and that is why I am here and not there. I do a lot of business with the AD in question. It is a family operation that I am personally close to as well. The new watchmaker is sort of becoming part of that family so to speak as that is the kind of people they are - and I am. Truth be told I have kind of been making friends with said watchmaker on a personal level over the last month or so. I actually called him this morning to discuss something else if you must know and broken English and all he was quite amused that such a standardly discussed topic has caused such a stir. I guess the thread served its purpose since I for one, and I'm sure many people here, had never even heard of the grinding rotor issue nor that it can likely be prevented with regular service. In other words, at least I learned something which was why I sought out the answers in the first place. But alas, instead of just ending at that, it was YOU, not him, that felt the need to attack what he was saying and try and make it seem that one of you had to be wrong. I don't have to even be a watchmaker to see that you are both right. Thank God for that. I kept telling you the guy didn't disagree with anything you said about the movement. He said that with proper service it is unlikely to happen but he was aware of what you speak of. I probably have said that about three times now but it just didn't go in. In sum, the thread isn't a pissing contest. I hope nobody who read it walked away with that. I sure didn't. I was originally just trying to get at what makes these things "tick" - no pun intended - and I got there on this particular subject. For that I am grateful to both The Zigmeister and the mystery man from Glashutte. One of the major issues with discussion forums is that more often than not valuable discussions end like this one because one or more parties forgets that the goal is information and that neither life, or its answers are ever black and white. It is one giant shade of grey. It makes me irritated whenever a meaningful discussion is cut short because of defensiveness. It happens constantly and I just don't get it. No matter. Same old just as you say Rob, although with all due respect I'm surprised that you can't see what you have contributed to the "same oldness" of it in this thread. No hard feelings...

Since Rob seems uninterested in responding I took it upon myself to ask the local watchmaker for some clarification on those specific comments this morning. Here are the answers I got: 1. The lubricant issue he was refering to is that the grinding issue is more likely to occur with lube failure which obviously can be directly related to the quality of the product. He points to the fact that these days there seem to be all these "low cost" alternatives for service outside the Rolex network. His contention was really that many people use these sources and as a result many times the movements are not properly cleaned and oiled or even taken all the way apart - hence to low cost. When properly cleaned and lubricated using the materials Rolex recommends he sees very little failures 2. Regarding the full bridge leveling issue he said that it isn't normally any issue but just that from a design perspective it makes sense that something with two sides is always going to be flatter with less effort. Not that flat is always the answer depending on the postion of the microstella screws on the balance. Again, he reiterated it isn't a big deal, but having the two pinions on either end is nice because he can help solve some rate issues easily and without messing with the balance which obviously comes "balanced" from the factory. He just said it is always best not to mess with the screws on the balance unless you have to. 3. He said again that many of the Rolex steel screws are soft and if you tighten them too much they like to break. The ETA ones he says are super hard and almost never break with tension. 4. Reagrding the Ladies models maybe I didn't communicate it right the first time. He restated that since they are smaller there is some issue with how some of those parts fit together specific to the ladies model (I guess I don't fully understand what he means) in the case of the grinding rotor and that it can be tricky to get it lubricated correctly more so than the gents movements due to the size. So he says special care has to be taken to make sure to do it right whatever that means. His english isn't so good. Anyway, this has been a fun exercise for me to continue to learn about the differences in movements and how different watchmakers view them. Seems like a lot of seemingly little details can make a big difference in a movements performance. I guess the biggest thing I learned is that as always, proper service is the key. Especially that it be serviced by someone who is aware of the little quirks and design flaws that all movements posses so that steps can be taken to prepare for what are known trouble spots. Cheers...

Engraving is too fat, shock protection is wrong for the series & the dagger shape is wrong. I'm going with fake...

Sheesh Rob. A little touchy here aren't we? That is some pretty nasty bile you are spitting at me there brother. I think I have treated you with the utmost respect in this post in all my dealings with you over the years so I'm not real clear where this is coming from. So what you are saying then is YOUR opinions are the only valid ones then? News flash: This post isn't about you - or me - or my local watchmaker. It is about making a contribution to an interesting subject which you have and I think we all are thankful for it. I'm just trying to get at the truth here by soliciting info from anyone I know to portray themselves as an expert. With that comes giving people the benefit of the doubt. I don't know any more about you as a watchmaker in terms of being an expert than the guy I just met. Yeah, that's right I just met him. He moved to town from Glashutte and my longtime friend who is a Rolex AD just hired him. I guess he is supposed to know what he is doing. Maybe you are right and he doesn't, but I really resent you insinuating that my thread is trival or somehow designed to take YOUR shine down. There just isn't anything of the kind here and you maybe need to rethink your attitude about it. I never figured you for the rooster type ready for a fight to the death if another qualified opinion invades your territory. The bottom line is that NOWHERE in this post have I slighted your opinion or tried to start a watchmaker war. If you see it that way I think you are wound a little too tight my friend. Look, I have gone out of my way to contribute to my own learning here and the learning of others by posting many questions and answers, reference materials, etc. over the years and even more so recently. I have also made it very clear that I am soliciting info to others in the wild and merely reporting what I hear. So the real question is why you feel that if someone disagrees with you (not me mind you - I'm just an unbiased observer trying to f'ing learn something, man...) that you now have no time for what is it you say - [censored] for tat? I thought what we are after is learning and hearing other views in an open forum. Maybe I have that wrong? I never find it particularly surprising that two people in the same industry - regardless of what it may be should disagree with each other. I'm curious why it surprises and apparently threatens you. I might add that in the interest of knowledge I told my local watchmaker what you said to see what his take on it was. He simply said that all your comments were accurate in that the phenomenon does happen but only said that it is less likely to happen with regular service which I thought I made clear in my post. He managed to do that I might add without a shred of hostility toward you at all. But yet you are hostile toward him. What gives? And those two thread links you posted of mine? What may I ask is wrong with either of those? I'm trying to add to the knowledge base by asking questions for my own and the other member's benefits. If you notice, I even asked specifically in them for your valued opinion which I'm just as interested in hearing as the one from my local master watchmaker. Look, all I know is the guy is from Germany and has completed the highest Rolex training. I have no idea what that even means, but I'm certain that he wouldn't have the job he has if he didn't know something about what he is talking about so I guess I have to value his opinions as much as yours. The bottom line is that your comments to me are way out of line and you owe me an apology. This whole attitude from you is completely uncalled for. Especially when I go out of my way to share whatever I can learn about watches with the group to the point of posting diagrams and making special trips to my local watchmaker for answers to questions that you (thankfully) helped create. You get alot of work from this board and that work comes in large part from people respecting you which you have earned. You know what? - so have I. So how about showing me the proper respect and helping us mortals understand WHY you disagree with this other watchmaker instead of stamping your feet and running off to your room. If you come back down I'll even bake you an apple pie and sing you your favorite song. In any case, I'm sure we will ALL appreciate your expert opinion as always. Regards, The "other" Rob

I found this on Youtube. Really cool animation with lots of amazingly beautiful movement shots.

Yeah they must have did that for a reason. Probably because they didn't want to tarnish the rep even if customers are lazy about having their watches serviced. They can't risk the image tarnish so even if the rotor post really isn't an issue with regualr service and lubrication they figured it better to just correct it since it will have problems if not cared for?

No doubt there. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE my ETA movements - ebauche or otherwise. They are just amazing for the money. I have noted the power reserve phenomenon on my gen Rolex's too. I wonder what the deal is with that? Anyway, it just intereting to hear different watchmaker's views on movements. There are so many variables. I mean look at Patek. Just beautifly decorated and world class runners when recently serviced and adjusted but they are like Ferrari's in that they are always breaking because of fragily too. VC isn't far behind. I think the Glashutte region watches area nice balance as the 3/4 plate makes the gear train a bit more stable. Lange's and Glashutte's seem to have all the beauty and still appear to be universally regarded by watchmakers as being rugged. But the Patek and Piaget and Breguet and VC movements seem to be regard as more fragile than Rolex and ETA. I wonder what the line is on AP in that regard? Anyway, I don't think anyone could argue that ETA wins hands down in any competition for both quality and robustness against cost ratio. That is for certain.

I just wanted everyone to know that I finally put my SFSO to the test as I wanted to see if the watch could survive a 6600ft emersion. I think it did. I would have posted a picture of the watch after the dive but I couldn't because I'm dead and my skull is crushed into the shape of a canoe... OK, I got that out of my system. I always wanted to post something stupid like that ever since I learned of the depth rating of this watch. 6600ft. Sheesh.

Interesting but I just talked to my Rolex service guy who is a master watchmaker and he refuted everything The Zigmeister said. His contention is that the grinding rotor issue only really shows up and causes damage on very old watches that have a history of not being serviced. He also said the the ladies movements are more prone to it because the reduced size makes proper lubrication of theses parts more challenging. He said he never sees significant metal shavings on any watch that has been appropriately lubricated within the last few years as it should be though. He said the main culprit is that people wait 7 years or more for service and it should be done in 5 years or less. He also said many people go outside Rolex to do service to save money and the quality of aftermarket lubricants is suspect. This is one movement he says that must be serviced by Rolex. Further, the Rolex movements reversing wheels can be removed for better cleaning unlike the ETA ones which he said is a nice way to really get the watch clean. He also said that he likes the full balance bridge because when adjusting it is easy to get it completely level due to the complete horizontal plane, whereas the balance c*ck is more difficult. Further, he said he likes the safety bridge not because of toughness but it makes it easier for him to do things in cleaning without risk of hitting the balance. The one negative thing he did say though was that Rolex screws are very soft and ETA's are very hard and as such you can get them nice and tight. By contrast he said the Rolex screws are so soft that they can be broken quite easily. He says whatever steel they use in the screws is not very high quality. In sum, he said that there is just no contest between the quality and functionality of Rolex movements vs. ETA with Rolex movements being superior in toughness and overall quality in nearly every way. I guess watchmaking is no different than any other mechanical trade. You will always get different opinions as to the pros and cons of different cars and engines from different mechanics. I for one am a sponge for hearing this information from as many watchmakers as I can as I find it all extremely interesting, conflicting views and all.

Here are a couple of a gen 2000 Exclusive Automatic Chronograph that I just sold. Marginal photos on my part, but hey, how many times do we see a TAG picture thread?

Yeah, I'm sure a lot of people will. One thing though whoch pleases me and I'm sure many others: I think Rolex made a big improvement in the fit, finish and feel department with the new ceramic GMT. It just has a much more substantial and non-flimsy feel that is totally different for them. Not that there is anything worng with the original designs and feel, but the new watches have definitely lost that rattlly, cheapy, edgey kind of thing which is unique to high end watches. That may be a good thing or a bad thing depending on the objectives of the wearer. The new ceramic watches are defintely more refined for sure and more rich/dressy. Again, many will be disappointed that they have lost that "utility" feel.

I thought this was interesting and valuable to see the increase in prices over time. Please see attached image and use the zoom button in your image viewer to enlarge to your desired size...

This was started in another thread but I thought I would post the info in it's own thread for anyone who doesn't know. Rolex has completed design for a new case, bracelet and ceramic bezel for the Submarnier Date. Please note that the watch has a beefier looking case but it is still 40MM. It was debuted in aPRIL AT Basel and is just starting to show up now with the first run of orders. The price? $29850 in WG or $27250 in YG. The projected price of the TT and SS is unknown. It is also a rumour that the SS version will NOT have the polished center links, although I don't think I believe that as the SS GMTII ceramic has a similar case and style and has the polished links. Time will tell. The watch is going to be scaled in over a three year period. The first two are the solid gold models. Both have a special dark powdey blue dial with one in all white gold and one in yellow gold. These will be followed by the two tone watches in black and blue in 2009 and the all SS model in black in 2010. Here is a larger, more detailed pic of the WG version that is shipping now.

Yeah, like the color scheme or not this IS the new Sub. New case with CG's like GMTIIc and new bracelet. Much more chunky case feel. It also has the new ceramic bezel of course. The Sub is no longer a tool watch gents - white gold and blue notwithstanding

Yeah, you and I are similar on that front. I basically just woke up one day any realized I'm NOT a watch collector. Who would have thought? Just because a guy owns many watches doesn't make him a collector. I realized I am a watch wearer and owner and there is a big difference. I think nothing of collectable value, just what pleases me. Case in point, as you know I too had a gen 16710 but in my case I never wore it. So even though it is easily one of the most collectable watches on the planet right now I sold it without a thought. I got a great price for it but still, if I were a collecotr I never would have sold it. Again, I will add a few and probably still be at around ten or eleven, but from here on out I will add much more carefully so I love the new ones as much as these seven. I can't say that right now about the four not pictured...

Yeah I know huh? But what is funny is that most of these key 7 watches in my collection came from owning the reps first. I never would have made many of these purchases in the starting lineup or ever even know about the watches if not for reps!

No gen Rolex just like that one, but funny you should mention it as there is finally a Rolex with that color scheme now. It just came available this year. You can now buy a special edition Submariner in white gold with the new style bracelet with polished center links. It has a special blue dial and a blue bezel to match. It looks really cool with the blue dial and blue bezel surrounded by an all white gold case and bracelet.

Cool Pic. Nice Sinn.

I'm hangin' with Bytor today... Tomorrow I'll give the AT some love... And I'll finsh the long weekend in America with the PO...

Cool Lani. How do you like it? Did they build it nicely?

Just found this. GREAT post Andy. Really. And it really shows how great a rep Ingy can be when modded. You are making want to do mod projects again! This watch never knocked me out, but that doesn't mean that I don't really appreciate it. It is surely a very inportant piece in IWC's line. It has the one of, if not the best movement they make and its toughness is nearly unmatched in the industry. While impractical, it is so nice to own a gen and rep of the same watch just for posts like this. I don't know how you leave that gen in the vault man...