thewightstuff

following on directly from another thread, and indirectly from a few others on here ive been noticing a continual decline in both the quality of discussion and information within these forums, things that were once the attraction of RWG for me. it seems that visits here are more hopeful than enthusiastic anymore and increasingly and repeatedly disappointing there seems to be a prevailing trend towards a more pi$$ing contest type of posting rather than any real discussion around the accuracy of watches posted from private members. the juxtaposition of this against the heavily critical scrutiny of watches posted by dealers creates an interesting paradox and increasingly a huge fracture in the forum itself. my own reasons for coming here initially were not only to indulge my watch passion and talk/meet within a like minded community but also to strive to improve both the quality of my work and that of my rep watches. the stream of information around improvements, parts options, fitments, shortcoming and techniques was matched only by the continual education of the subtleties of the watches themselves. learning nuances of the gens and where my own watches fell short helped me to improve them continually as much as i could. the gold standard of any rep is the corresponding gen model and having the light shone by anyone who could pick flaws between or point out what/where to look was always a pleasure for me. now while as with all communities, not everyone is in sync it seems that increasingly i seem to be more out of step than in while my own outlook doesnt seem to have shifted. there seems an increasing trend that any observations made regarding accuracy were less and less welcomed and are now either ignored, dismissed or posters austracised and as such posts of this kind are frustratingly but not surprisingly given less. an example of such is the myriad of posts regarding CG work where the original poster despite their question actually doesnt want anyone to tell them how to improve their CGs. The posts are infact looking for affirmation of their skills and unparalleled accuracy while often flying in the face of such with any response that devaites from this expectation, no matter how sound or how worded is unwelcome and often simply skipped. it could be argued that such things are bound to become increasingly common, this generation is the most coddled and protected generation the world has ever seen after all however it would seem to me that classing this as such serves nothing. it seems that many members are less vocal and unfortunately a few are increasingly more vocal without much content. whether this is the cause or as a result is unclear to me however it is widely accepted that by nature forums always drift towards the lowest denominator rather than the higher. this doesnt meant that theres people here whom i feel are "lowest denominators", the opposite is infact the case however the premise that debate when organised in such a way as an internet forum always slips towards the less meaningful is sadly a sound one i fear. the outcome regardless is a much less rewarding experience within from my own perspective. i myself find myself choosing not to post in many circumstances where i have information that one would think would be of benfit to the community as a whole and when i do, having to word things so carefully that theres almost no point. whether there is increased ego coming into play around the community at the expense of or in place of pride i cant say though the presence of any ego whatsoever in a hobby that involves replica watches does give me a wry smile for sure. hopefully some others have some thoughts on this and some sort of balance can be restored. with luck im not an island in my thinking

wtf guys, so theres in all actuality no room for comment over the merits and shortcomings of reps here, especially if those participating and offering their thoughts have gens? just so i'm sure, you would rather everyone just presented merely a charade of a debate and critique but all concluded that any rep being discussed was amazing/flawless etc inspite of the evidence to the contrary? surely you wouldnt prefer it that when a watch is presented no scrutiny is allowed to be placed at all. surely its wrong that no questioning or correction is allowed on parts listed as "genuine" that clearly are not and no challenge to words such as flawless are to be made in the least? im sure i dont need to over play how uncomfortable that makes me feel on many levels and why such a state can only be counter productive to everyone here. it doesnt serve to improve the awareness and understanding of those interested, it doesnt serve to prevent misinformation becoming fact and most of all if doesnt serve the push for higher quality and accuracy amongst all the hobbyists here, myself included. i for one am not accepting these terms both from a personal perspective and as a member of this community. i learn things here everyday about models of which i have little or no experience and hope that my views on models of which i do have some as a result of direct interaction and ownership can benefit others. a gold standard exists for each rep in the form of the genuine rolex model whether anyone likes it or not. since everyone spends so much time and effort in trying to create something exact it would appear that actions prove that this is indeed the level towards which everyone strives, atleast in terms of aesthetic accuracy if nothing else. while it may appear that the quality of a rep is subjective in many ways, it is worth remembering that there is an absolute value against which all can and more importantly will be measured. as such it would seem that comments regarding the accuracy of features from those both au fait or in ownership of genuine models would serve the community with valuable contributions and should be welcomed. there was never any attempt at effecting superiority due to me owning genuine models or casting any opinion regarding replica watches and no comments regarding quality of workmanship or effort. if you choose to not take onboard any comment offered in these forums and use them constructively in the improvement of your watches then that is entirely up to you but you should be ashamed for trying to stifle comment in this manner. infact the two posts above are symptomatic of much that is wrong with these forums and hint at something thats both much more prevelant and often expressed far stronger on many threads here. namely that expressing a view that certain features on a watch are less than accurate when its that of a private member is becoming increasingly taboo. the juxtaposition of this against the scrutiny of anything posted on ebay or by a dealer is interesting to say the least though this is not really the place for this.

well my 6152 project might finally be nearing its end, certainly its more in sight than its been so far so thought id stick up a quick couple of pics while the small things niggle and eat away. 616 movement inside is beautiful though and original hands are one of my prouder points. not sure the rest of the watch will come together enough to do them justice. been struggling with the dial in respect of the varnish in the markers in relation to the hands. may start again with that though its getting there now and curing nicely as the days pass. case is a 1950 standard with glass replaced by a big thick plexi and alot of work done, though my thoughts are that this is all rev1, i may pick up another for parts and do things differently. not the best of pics, conditions were poor, patience with thin and good snaps arent my strongest even when all the factors are right.

my own thoughts are that the opposite holds true and that ugly people are more likely to have their watch noticed as people quickly scan for any other reason to interact with them. it follows that dress, shoes and wrist would follow if appearance in terms of both physical and facial werent strong enough. psychologists would back me up im sure given its basic rules of social interaction and relations to alpha dominance. needless to say no one has ever noticed my watch and i dont even need to wear shoes actually my experience is that most people dont really care about watches at all in the tiniest piece let alone on other peoples wrists much to my perpetual frustration. any interaction they have had has often been limited to choosing one for themselves or close relation when needed and it begins and ends with this until a requirement for a replacement appears. i collect sneakers and spend my life looking at peoples feet while no one else even carries a remote interest save for the very odd occasion you meet another. while the benefit of the internet in providing areas for minority interest to collectively interact is huge, it also has a draw back in that it provides a disproportionate realisation of the size or impact of the interest in the wider global community or in the "real world" so to speak. watches are no different and pale against things like sports or cars with a far wider reaching appeal within society unfortunately. wouldnt it be great if bars were full of people debating the merits of panerai and the modern brand versus its historical context though any such event would be highly anomolous to say the least. sadly theres not even relief in watch dealers where even the staff arent interested in anything other than getting through the day in most cases. i want to buy a submariner......great. do you want to see my 5512.......no, zzzzzzz

sure does now i know you are reffering to the 6 and 9 markers on the SD. i'll take the pics down then

that extract from the D&H book is nonsense. twinlock only on the 5512 and until 1958?, early prototype triplock even though the tube for this crown was still twinlock!!!!! what was used on the watches inbetween then? twinlock was standard until replaced by triplock 701 in 1971. this had an extra shoulder on the tube to seal inside the now deeper crown but no external oring on the tube. the 701 was upgraded to 702 with the change being a tool fitting inside the crown tube and the crown having a slightly smaller stem shoulder to allow it to pass through. this was then replaced by the 703 we all see today and saw the intorduction of the external oring.

heres some better pics of the same watch. the maxi dials are shown by the lume dots being both bigger and almost touching, or touching the minute marks. also worth pointing out is the black print of the comex writing on the logo itself. the reps tend to leave this open just exposing the dial rather than printing the black on. your comex looks nice but suffers the same as all the 551x reps in that its the 1680 case shape. its too thick and stubby compared to the 551x case.

freddy, looked at your stamping post and the pic of the antiquorum watch. is this photo what you are using as your comments ref the hour markers being too small on the rep dials? from that photo it looks like a maxi dial and as such atypical of the submariner dial style rather than typical of it or something unique to the comex. you see these occasionally on standard 5513 subs and while they dont command a premium ala the rail dials on the SDs etc they are of interest when they pop up. i didnt quite follow your thoughts ref the markers but certainly do if you were going with the assertion that this type was what all comex should have.

a 5514 dial for $500. you are right that you will never see one of these at the risk of repeating myself, what i was saying was that the standard 5513 dial (ie without the comex logo) was used on many of the 5514 issued to divers. the comex logo was more often printed on watches for good customers though they were not uncommon underwater too. this opens up the possibility that you could get a gen 5513 dial (no wg surrounds though) and use it in your 5514. a 5513 dial can be had for around $500 and upwards and would get you round your issue with accuracy. (FYI brief 551x model history. 5512 non date, SCOC submariner, 5513 non date non SCOC submariner, 5513 non date non SCOC military issue sub. T dial and fixed lugs, with or without sword hands, 5514 non date non SCOC submariner, comex issue, HEV on case side, issue number of caseback, 5517 non date non SCOC military issue submariner, T dial, sword hands, fixed lugs 5517 engraving) tbh im not sure id spot the markers really on the dials you are showing. the crown, font, spacing, text location and swiss t<25 would all give it away to me way before before this and before the general look of the dial face gave it away too. unless markers were way off im not sure id really notice inconsistencies here. ive not seen a good rep dial for the 551x models and its made worse by having the pleasure of looking at either a gen 5512 or 5513 daily. one point is that you say you want a watch that will pass as gen if you wear it out and then want to throw your hat in with a 5514 comex logo'd watch. the problem with this is that my experience is that most people dont care about what watches others have unless they are actually WIS themselves. if they then are therefor into watches the will probably know its only one of the most faked about on top of being the most faked brand about. as a result anyone with a tiny knowledge of rolex will A: assume its fake and B: give it huge scrutiny if they do spot it, something it will quickly fall down on. if you want to pass under the radar of scrutiny a datejust or less conspicuous model rolex will give you a better advantage. unfortunately rolex ownership means that the expectation is that its always assumed fake

damn it....my chance for binary glory snatched way from me in a flash

five five oh eight five five one two five five one three one six six five and yet one six eighty for some freakish reason

sounds to me like you are at a level where unfortuantely only a gen will do the job. sadly theres rather a large gulf between the best of the rep dials and the real deal in terms of accuracy on the vintage. why this is i dont know but theres always too many things off that jump right out at you. even the one in the link above is poor and immediately obvious IMHO. one option for your 5514 would be to get a non comex regular 5513 dial. you can pick one up for $500 or so dollars. not all 5514 were issued with comox logos so you will be fine with a non logo'd dial so long as it doesnt have WG surrounds. if the $500 is too much i guess you are at a crossroads sadly as to what to do. the imperfections bother you but the level you need to spend to get it right is wrong. im not sure if this comes along in every enthusiasts life but its a tricky one when it does thats for sure. the swiss < t25 is a big shouting give away for me on the 1665 dial above

that was a really enjoyable read. thanks for taking the time to post something you are clearly very interested in.

"somebody" would go to rolex for a replacement 44xxxxx serialed case. it used to be that you could have picked up a spare 5513 case from the watch parts dealers. they had them around and left over from the parting process however the rise in the 5513 has meant this route is all but gone as the 5513s are re-assembled leaving rolex the only source. ive no idea if a 15xx would fit into these ebay cases. they are advertised as being for such so may well do. the rise of vintage parts prices and the serious restriction of new parts has made the job of building a franken out of gen parts as expensive as buying a gen in the first place these days.

sorry but its just not doing it for me on many levels im afraid though its a step ahead of what else is around for sure. crystal profile seems more 39 than 19 though "polishing" could possibly explain it away. not a big fan of your redial either though id take a redial over a rep dial i guess... after the insert was fixed just before a service, twinlock safely replaced with a modern crown for the visit

those dials arent especially good IMHO, theres a lot obviously wrong with them tbh. if you are going to the trouble. stick out $500 or so for a gen dial, you wont regret it. as for the cases, same issue as the MBWs have in that the shape is wrong for these models and is infact the 1680 shape. the 551x range didnt use the same case as the 1680 which is fatter in profile. its pretty easily spotted if you are reasonably well acquainted with the gens and a common mistake on the vintage watches where they somehow assume (or for easiness sake) that all cases were the same across all the models.

been working away on my 6152 project and am needing to fabricate a spacer ring for the movement but am a little stumped as to what to use as the basis for this. what is everyone else using for the starting point of their spacers? im ok with the metal work but getting something close-ish in size to begin with would be a bonus for sure.

timezone should turn up some from reasonabley respectable sources. id say you are looking around the $1k mark for sure. anything for much less and you are looking at the potential for expensive headaches id say. as euno said too, you will need to get it fully serviced, its about $250..ish for this.

tourby, im not sure if we are at some sort of cross purpose due to language or just hard headedness, in the interest of politeness i am going to assume the former and explain myself one last time. the blued baton hands with the divider across the middle appear on most of the 3646 watches and also on many cortebert pocket watches from the same era and later (though the bulk for sure have fusee type hands). ive missed out on a few recently, mainly due to not pursuing aggressively at the moment as i only want the hands themselves. i have also seen some similar era pocket watches with the bronze/gold hands seen in the panerai models and a cortebert movement/case though these are far fewer for sure. as it seems that all the 616 and then 618 movement based watches originally used hands supplied from the manufacturer (in this case cortebert via rolex and not made specially by panerai) as did the angelus based models too. it follows then that its perfectly possible to get hands in the same style and for the same fitment by hunting around old pocket watches for them, especially since ive personally seen several suitable watches for sale and have only been looking for a relatively short time. what you are saying regarding most modern hommage watches using the units/eta 6497 hands as the basis for the fitment to the 616 and 618 movement is certainly correct but this was not what i was asking. i too have some 6497 hands modded as a temporary fix however the above still holds regarding the originals.

ive seen them for sure on complete watches offered up for sale, the blued baton hands are fairly common and the gold panerai style hands are there too though much less frequently. you can also get them on the angelus clocks. the hands used in the original panerais were just the same hands used with the movements in the manufacturers own products

im sure ive seen some 616 and 618 with the same hands as were used in the panerais. ive definately seen plenty of cortebert pocket watches with the baton style hands (the blued hands with the divider across the middle) and these would be nice for in my watch. you are correct though in that i should have been more prescriptive. standard french style pocket watch hands wouldnt be much use for sure

as per topic really. after mangling the hands i had for my 616 install was just wondering if anyone had any original hands to fit this movement i could persuade them to part with.

All the 551x models have the wrong case incl mbw. They are based on the 1680 which is a different shape. Subtle but easily enough spotted. The T on the dial and the swiss text are usually easy tells for non gen dials on the 5517 but for the initiated the caseback markings will give you away early too. They seem to know all the runs. Build a milsub 5513 would b my plan. Same soldered bars but gives you some freedom with hands and markings

There are three crown/tube combinations. 1 twinlock and 2 triplocks. The first triplock had no outer o ring but 2 rings in the tube and one inside the crown. This was introduced in 72. I have the release docs if anyone is interested. There is a possible rev to this model which say a crown tool spline added inside however this is unconfirmed. This triplock was then superceded by the modern version with outer oring. Inside seals remained the same making this in essence quadruple lock. No dots on twinlock crowns, three dots on crowns since

Its a rep case for sure,there are alot of these about just now and the few ive seen have been poor quality and somewhat incorrect. Everything with it is rep with the only possible exception being the tube and crown. Theres differing opinions re the tube. Mine is that its not gen but a remake. Ive not seen the crowns so cannot comment on them. Fyi the tube on this is early triplock, introduced 1972 and as such the crown should have three dots. Ive no idea how a gen movement would fit in this though it is advertised as being for this fit.