SportsterRider

Amazing!! You are a true craftsman, Zig!

Agreed. I've got 7.25 inch wrists and I find the UPO very comfortable. The only problem I've had with the size is that it make my other watches feel so tiny when I go from the PO to something like my SSD (never mind the DJ - that thing feels like a lady's watch after the UPO!). But, that's what makes the world go 'round, right?

Agree with Pugs - SFSO (or SOSF?)! A lot of folks see this one as THE "Super" rep, and it's been described as being good to 100m (or was that 1000?), so let's see what it'll do!

Bravo! Well done! This kind of input is what makes this board so great. It's interesting that your bracelet is so bad (and installed incorrectly). On my SSD, the bracelet is excellent and I doubt anyone would be able to distinguish it from a genuine, but I did go over it a bit to loosen it up. A lot of folks like to 'oil' the bracelet to give it a better feel. I use a fine polishing compound instead. Basically, I just remove the bracelet and saturate it in the polishing compound (and this is a VERY mild polish). I then work the bracelet and apply pressure to each link to force the polish into every nook and cranny. After about 10-15 minutes of doing this, I wash the bracelet and re-install. Even out of the box, mine was very good. After treatment, it's as good as you're likely to get. Now that I think of it, this polish might work well to remove the spots on your piece. Meguiars Polish Thanks again for the review!

I'd be interested in this as well. I've suspected that some (all?) replica's aren't really 316 as I've had a couple spot like this (though, not as extreme). My SMP Chrono spotted like that on the crown, and the clasp on my Yachtmaster did this as well. I've also noticed that some replica's just look 'better' than others, and I've wondered if it was due to the difference in the steel itself. Keep us posted if you can get something done.

When I did my CG's, I just removed the crown/stem and the outer seal. I used a Dremel, on low speed, with a small/thin sanding wheel to work the CG's. It came out okay and looks way better than it did. I could probably work 'em a little more, but they're so close that I don't want to risk taking too much material and ruining it. It was tricky, but obviously doable. I had to be careful not to nick the bezel and also not to allow the sanding wheel to drop too low and cut into the lower part of the CG. The sanding wheel was thin enough that it didn't contact the case tube, but it would have touched the seal, which is why I removed it.

Thanks, By-Tor. Much appreciated!Ya, I'm not sure what the deal is with the rehaut. More and more I'm leaning towards the crystal (and/or crystal gasket) as being the culprit here. In person, it looks fantastic. But again, in different light and at different angles, it either looks less like the genuine, or EXACTLY like the genuine. It can't be both, so the only thing I can think of is the crystal distorting it at certain angles. Trusty (Andrew).

There has been a lot of buzz recently about the new Super Sea Dweller that most of the dealers are offering (Andrew, Josh, Paul, etc), enough so that I bought one. Mine arrived Tuesday and I figured I'd post my impressions while trying to be as objective as I can. One of the sticking points with this piece is whether or not it qualifies as a "Super Rep". Since there isn't any definitive definition of what constitutes a Super Rep, most of the time it's left to general consensus. In the case of this Super Sea Dweller, the consensus seems to be split. Many folks feel it qualifies as one, others do not. So let's look at some of the high level points that any rep looking for this title would need. 1) I think we can all agree that in order to get the title of 'Super', a rep has to be dimensionally correct. With Rollie reps, there seems to be a lot of discrepancy in this department. Take the Noob/So-Called Perfect (or more generically, Sub reps with the case number F520117). Many see this as the best out-of-the-box Sub replica you can buy. While I would tend to agree with that, there are some glaring shortcomings with this watch relating to size. In the case of the Noob, the case is smaller than a genuine Sub in these area's: If you've handled a genuine Sub, or owned one, you know as soon as you put this watch on that something is off. It just doesn't feel "right" and wears much smaller than a genuine. Turns out, this is due to the fact that it IS smaller. With the Super Sea Dweller, this isn't a problem. The case dimensions are 100% correct. 2) Being able to take genuine parts is also a pretty basic capability of a Super rep (and closely related to the first point above). But again, there isn't a consensus on how many or what kinds of parts a rep needs to take in order to qualify. Does it have to be able to take a crystal? A bezel? Bezel insert? Crown? Bracelet? All of the above? I don't know, but I do know that there isn't a replica made that can take every single genuine part without modification. The UPO will take a crystal, but not the crown/tube or bezel assembly of a genuine. MBW's will take many genuine parts, but some of those parts don't fit without modification. So, does the Super Sea Dweller hit any of these points? I believe it does in some areas, and doesn't, or hasn't been proven to, in others. Take a look at the crown: It's been shown that this crown is almost identical to a genuine part. This has always been an area where there was little consistency with Rolex sport watch reps. There either too fat, or too thin, or they don't have the correct amount of notches, or the coronet and triple dots were totally wrong. Along with that, the case tube is also another area where most all Rollie sport model reps are wrong. Ya, most of them had three seals like a genuine, but they were dimensionally incorrect. This new Sea Dweller, for the first time in any modern style Rollie rep, has a correct case tube as well. It'll even accept a genuine crown without the need for an aftermarket solution. I apologize for the lousy picture: Crown guards. Man, this is the one thing that NO Rollie replica gets right out of the box. The Noob is probably the best, but even that model isn't correct. The Super Sea Dweller is no different here, and in this instance certainly fails to live up to the "Super" moniker. I did some quick shaving to mine and, for me anyway, got 'em pretty close. Most Rollie replica's get the caseback correct, or close enough. The Super Sea Dweller caseback is as good as any replica, and perhaps the best yet on a replica sport model Rolex. I don't see where you could really fault it. Another area where Rolex replicas fall short is the rehaut. Funny thing is, before I found this board I had no idea what a rehaut was, 'nor did I ever pay attention to it. And keep in mind, I'm not new to this dance. I've been collecting watches for the better part of 30+ years, and replica's for over 20. Now that I know about it, I agree that it's an integral part of the overall effort to duplicate a watch correctly. So, does the Super Sea Dweller get this correct? I don't know. At certain angles, it looks 100% like a genuine. At others, not so much. Here are a couple shots (which also show the excellent dial - a dial that is every bit as good as the Noob dial): I'm of the opinion that the rehaut is correct. I think the crystal is distorting it due to the cut of the crystal, or perhaps the finishing? Maybe it's the crystal gasket? I don't know and until someone pops the crystal out of the case, we won't know for sure. The only think I CAN tell you is that in person, it looks very good. There are one or two folks on the various boards that have a genuine to compare to and have themselves said that in person, it's damn close. It'll be up to you to decide. When I owned my So-Called Perfect Sub (Sub case number F520117), one of the things that they really got right was the bracelet. But the end links always bothered me. While dimensionally correct, they weren't finished very well. The raised center part of the link's edges were rounded and just looked, well, wrong. The Super Sea Dwellers bracelet and end links are superb. I've seen recent posts where folks are having issues with screws sticking, or being stripped, and divers extensions popping open (my guess is that a simple 'adjustment' to the extension would fix this) but I've had none of these problems. Frankly, this is the nicest bracelet I've ever had on a Rollie rep, and is every bit as well made as my UPO bracelet. It just has that "feel" of a genuine, if you know what I mean. Here's a shot of the end link: I don't have any lume shots because the lume is typical of other Rollie reps. It sucks. I've learned that this isn't just a replica issue. Check out this site SD Vs PO for an example of a genuine SD not glowing very brightly. So, the million dollar question - Is the Super Sea Dweller a "Super Rep"? I don't know. That'll have to be left up to the general consensus. But I believe it IS a "Super" Sea Dweller, for sure. It is, without a doubt, the best modern SD rep, and maybe the best modern Rollie rep to date. When you consider the case, He valve, crown, case tube, bracelet, etc, it's head and shoulders above any other modern SD to date, and IMO, better than any modern Rollie sport watch rep. I know this wasn't up to some of the veteran members reviews, but I hope it was enjoyable nonetheless.

I'm not sure that either of those things could be seen from a distance. I guess it depends on what you call a distance? Sitting across a table (or a bar), it's going to be difficult to see, clearly, that the CG's are incorrect, or that the pearl is wrong. Now if you're right beside someone, then it's likely you'd be able to see that these details are wrong. But at that distance, you can also see the incorrect logo on a UPO dial, but a UPO is considered by many to be a Super Rep. In any event, I get your point. Not sure if I agree, but I see where you're coming from.

I assume you're referring to the CG's?

Ahh. Okay. I was under the impression that the He valve on the SD deployed automatically when a pressure delta in the case exists (whereas with the SMP, you have to unscrew the crown on the He valve in order for it to function). I didn't know you had to press the valve manually. Thanks for all the great info!

I usually don't get any comments on my watches. But the 111H gets comments all the time and generally from people who don't wear watches at all. A friend of mine, who I've known for 6 years now, commented on my PAM right after I got it. He never wears a watch and has never one commented on any of my other pieces, so I was surprised when he said how nice my watch was.

I've also got a SSD coming (from Trusty) and USPS is giving me the same message. I've also never seen it before, but the update directly before that is the typical 'foreign international dispatch'. It could be just new wording from USPS? As folks have said before, it's best to just wait it out. I've had stuff from Guangzhou get here (east coast) in as little as 5 days, and as long as 14 days. Until you get into a 30 day wait, it falls into the 'normal' category and is nothing to worry about.

Are you saying that you sealed up the He valve yourself? Was it ever tested before it was altered? I ask because the He valve is being advertised as 'functional' and I was curious to see if it actually worked like a real He valve.

To actually answer the OP's question; yes, they are the same.

Like you, I wonder why they bother with the ETA markings? Are these destined to find their way into legit watches? Is it just to 'fool' replica buyers? As a rep buyer, I don't need the ETA markings, ya know? I'm just happy to see that they've duplicated this movement as this, one would think, be FAR cheaper than a 'real' ETA, and assuming a complete teardown shows good quality, should provide similar performance to a gen ETA. Thanks for the great teardown and photo's!!

I disagree. I think the crystal/rehaut profile looks fantastic. The CG's while not perfect, are only a minor amount of work away from being as good as any. The pearl is so easy to change that I don't even think about that on any Rollie rep. I borrowed these pics from sixpm over at RepGeek. Is it 1:1? Obviously not. But in the areas that you can't change, it's as close as you are likely to get without buying a gen. The case is almost perfect, the bezel is almost perfect (and constructed the same way as a gen), perfect He valve, it uses the correct size case tube/crown and the end links look better than any Rollie rep to date.

Will the insert itself fit the rep bezel (with the understanding that the pearl post on the rep bezel would need to be ground down), or is that also a different diameter?

I thought this topic was about pricing, not about your rant concerning A&J? We all see your signature. We get it, TJ.

Check out E-Bay item 260175206564. Not bad, but it can be had cheaper from Trusty!

You have my sincerest condolences.

Love that strap! One of these days, I'll get around to replacing the pedestrian strap that came with my 111h. Nice. SR

Up until recently, it was just the watch and a crucifix around my neck. Now that I'm married, I also wear a gold wedding band. I was never much for jewelry. I always saw wristwatches as "mens jewelery" and the only real option for men (ya, lots of guys wear gold bracelets (well, used to in the 80's), or earings, but those things never worked for me). But, I will say that a well placed and artistically done tattoo can be considered jewelry for men. Again, it's all personal taste. I may wear my Mason's ring from time to time, but usually only for Mason and/or Shriner functions. SR

I'm done sparring with TJ, folks. I made the points I was attempting to make and have grown tired of talking in circles with him. Sooo.. That being said, I'd like to comment on the collection that World Traveler has. Nice! The Seiko that I'd LOVE to get my hands on is any model utilizing the Spring Drive. That has to be one of the coolest recent innovations in horology to come about by any brand. httx://www.seikospringdrive.com/ Anyone here ever look into these? Thoughts? SR

So I'm pathetic because I contribute to the forum, not just in posts, but also by helping how I can financially? Riight... This is actually a good point. As I continue this circular conversation with you, I remember why I stopped interacting with you the last time I got involved with a post of yours. Not really, TJ. You seem to be getting a little worked up, however. And why not? You post that you are so tired of re-typing stuff that can be looked up, right? So you're the only one that can pull that excuse? Gimme a break. Never said "loads". You have a bad habit of doing that, TJ. I remember that from the last time you and I 'talked'. The words are right there for you to see. No need to make up your own, or to exaggerate. And once again, here you are making up your own reality. I never said we had 'forum dealers' selling unbranded watches (although, I suspect that you could probably get 'em from them if you ask). You can't even keep your stories straight within the same topic. Again with the making up of words. Never said this, TJ. I probably will later. Right now, you are my entertainment until the hockey game starts. Oh, but you are. Big time. Lurkers rarely post. I don't have thousands, but I do have 150. Hardly a lurker. You, however, are a tool. All one has to do is read any of your posts to get that sense. But, as you mentioned above, I supposed I could ignore you. I participate, TJ. Both with conversation, and as a RWG supporter. And I don't start fights (and actually, I don't really consider our little exchange a fight either. Fights are much more interesting than this), either. But if this is all you've got left as a reply, I feel bad for ya. Not fishing. And TJ, how many times do I have to say that you HAVE made your thoughts very clear here. No need for further clarification as I've got a good handle on it. SR