Jump to content
When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission.

By-Tor

Diamond Member
  • Posts

    10,472
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

Posts posted by By-Tor

  1. I remember a famous review from Ziggy in which there was a deep insight in the 2836-2 Swiss ETA modified for correct hand stack (previous version GMT II), in which the reliability of such a modified movement was hardly questioned. Many members choose the incorrect hand stack for this reason (including By-Tor, which is the absolute expert of this watch IMO). I can tell you my experience: I own a correct hand stack GMT II previous version, which never had problems, run smoothly and changed date correctly at 12:00 PM. I heard of other members having had problems with the same watch.

    One more thing:

    don't you think the Anniversary is a little too ... "flashy"? I sincerely prefer the previous version of this watch.

    Here is Ziggy's review of this movement.

    I've owned 4 correct hand stacks, and one is a bit wobbly. Nothing serious though. Just don't use the independently adjustable hour hand too much (and wear out the transfer gear) and it'll be ok.

  2. I think this is a fantastic idea.

    This mght even push me to finally get another 16610. I gave up with them almost a year ago. It's like smoking... you never really "give up", you're just having a "break".

    PS: I think the issue with the Noob datewheel is due to a bit too high and thin numbers, and not cyclops magnification. Not a huge issue to me... I think I want one of these. :D

  3. But, come on, a good old SD is classier, isn't it.

    Yes. No contest there.

    Not to mention the Sub, which is just a huge step backwards, design wise. The only nice looking new watch Rolex has produced is the ceramic GMT, and even that has no spirit or feeling left from the original GMT. It's completely new watch.

    I'm just terrified to think how they're going to screw up the Explorer II next, and Daytona. The YMII is probably in the top-5 most awful looking luxury watches ever produced.

    The bigger Day-Date might be an improvement, but I prefer the sports models anyway.

    Deep Sea? Not interested. I already have the SteelFish SuperOcean, which represents the perfect bulky diver watch design in my collection.

  4. BK can source it. A new member (Looseends) also got one from Andrew. So it looks like it's in production again, which is good news.

    It was unavailable for a long, long time. PT tried to get more of these when he sold them out, but couldn't. It was only available with a bad "Explorer II dial" where the ROLEX and coronet were way undersized. This version was also available with correct hand stack.

    zz.jpg

    This was sold as "TW version" when it originally surfaced. TTK sells this watch under "MBK", but in reality it comes from the same factory as the Noobmariner, Noob Yacht-Master, seconds at '6 Daytona and the best Explorer II.

    I have reviewed all said watches in my section. There's more info.

  5. Congrats, that's the famous "Noob" GMT that you have there. One of the best Rolex reps ever (after mods). The rehaut, rehaut thickness and profile are pretty much perfect. I remember when you got this one from PT. Great score!

    PS: There are still some small details that I fixed on my GMTs: Crown (change to genuine), bezel (get one with better teeth from BK) and thinner GMT hand. Not absolutely necessary of course, but they still improve the visuals. :)

  6. Am I the only one who's bothered with the engraving? It's not just the wrong and too dark font, but ROLEXROLEXROLEX should start exactly at '3 and 9' and it's way out of place on the rep. Why did they screw up something like that on a watch that's otherwise so well done? Especially when the engraving is at least symmetrically correct on almost all cheapie rep versions of this watch.

    Yeah, I've heard the engraving is not that noticeable, but I still think it's a serious flaw.

×
×
  • Create New...
Please Sign In or Sign Up