RWG Technical

I checked my spares, I have 2 ETA 2781's in stock, working but in need of servicing due to not knowing when they were last serviced. The hands are the same size as the 2836, and it appears to be dimensionally the same size as well, so I would guess that these can also be used instead of a 2846... RG

I am not 100% sure, they are the same size, and I am assuming the hands etc are the same as the 2836, 2846 etc... I'll have to check. RG

I have at least 2 ETA 2789's (not certain on the exact caliber) in my spares bins...gathering dust...didn't know they were hard to find... 2846's are easy to find, but due to the vintage, probably need to be serviced. As avitt pointed out, the 2846 is normally virtually silent when the rotor turns... RG

Fantastic review and post. I have printed this one off, too much reading and information to see on the computer alone... Thanks for this, excellent work. RG

Well I thought I was done with posting any further information, but as I was assembling the watch tonight, I noted a few other items that I thought would be of interest. Have a look at the balance assembly, do you see it??? Yes? No? How about now, do you see what I just noticed?? Then I had a good look at the case and ring and fit and finish, it's really nice, what do you think...the fit of the rotor to the case ring and the cover, couldn't be more spot on as far as I can see. Perfectly fit in the case, no gap between the case and the ring or the movement, and this area here, is machined and matches the side of the case EXACTLY all the way around...impressive at least to my eyes. As for posting on TZ, I am not sure if I am prepared to do this, it's not my watch after all, and I don't want to do something that the owner of the watch would not agree too. After all of this, I have certainly learned a lot, when the watch arrived it was "Ok, another vintage Rollie to restore and get running again...no big deal..." but it seems as if this one is probably the second most interesting vintage rollie I will ever have the priveladge to hold and see in person (the first being my 5508 of course). Thanks everyone. RG

The key area I inspect before I decide if I am going to press on the release during installation, is the shape of the stem where it sits into the keyless works. On the ETA 28XX series, the stem has a taper or ramp to it, which means it should press the set lever arm up and out of the way as it's inserted. The 7750 series has no ramp or taper, it's 90 degrees to the stem, and needs the set lever release pin pressed down to get it in place. Never ever force anything, and your unlikely to damage the movement. The 6497 is a screw down set lever, not a pin, you unscrew, remove, insert, re-screw... If the keyless works is popped out of place, it could be damaged as well, accessing it is via the dial side of the movement, dial and hands come off, and you have to disassemble a number of brigedes etc to get access... RG

I'll just touch on these points: My 5508 and my 6205 have no "watchmaker" notes engraved into the casebacks, weird I know, but they are clean as you can see in the pics. I am not trying to prove I am right, since I have nothing to gain. And I willingly posted all the pics of the area's that may help determin what this is, or isn't. I didn't show the back of the dial, because it's identical to the NDTrading one someone posted, it's identical which means aftermarket. As for the rest, for sure the movement is genuine Rolex, "M" seems to be authentic as well, the rest appears to be genuine, but I have no way of knowing...and I am not sure if these pics will prove it one way or the other. I have nothing to be careful about concerning this watch, it's not mine, what the owner does once he gets it back, is not my problem or concern. But I doubt if I will ever see one in the shop again soon But I have to say, that this dial of mine... Looks a lot like this dial on your genuine one... RG

If this is true, why did you wait until today, 3 days after I put up the original post, to show your pictures? I think that's a bit harsh, don't you? If I take the approach towards your pictures as you have towards my pictures, I will say this: All I see in these pictures is a case that looks similar to a rollie case, with a cover of some sort over the movement (is there a movement under the cover?? I can't tell), from the side view I see "6541" but I can't tell the quality of the engraving... I don't see any movement, I don't see the dial, nothing else that tells me that this is a genuine 6541, certainly based on those photo's alone, I have no idea what I am looking at. Lets use the same standard for everyone. Are you suggesting that your pics are of a Genuine 6541? RG

I can only share with you what has worked for me. I always remove the stem in the winding position, for a dozen of reasons including: in the winding position the clutch and lever are not under tension, the crown gear is held in place with the clutch gear, the stem lines up with the front and inner guides as it's inserted, etc... As for what you may be doing wrong with installation? Can't say for sure as I am not sitting next to you... On a 2836 type, you DON"T press the stem release pin, it's only used on release. Insert the crown and stem all the while TURNING it as you insert it, otherwise you may knock the clutch gear out of place, as you insert it, turn the crown in the winding direction and when you feel and see the movement winding (Rotor Removed of course, so as to not damage the cluck wheels) continue to turn the crown as you finish inserting the stem and it will lock in position. This works for me, on the 7750, you MUST press the release pin to have it go in. RG

Did you not see what I stated here in the preamble of my post: Of course I care for other opinions, but since we are trying to decide on the authenticity of the watch (or not) what good is an opinion, without any facts? Playing the "devil's advocate" means I am going to present evidence that supports and questions the points raised as to why the watch is not genuine. "...Good spirit of fun and interest..." is not what I consider a "Harsh tone". Points were made that the watch is fake for a number of reasons, therefore I have taken the OPPOSING point of view, and I presented arguments against these points. You had mentioned that anyone can "engrave" here... I took that to mean the case and caseback and movement could be engraved easily and correctly. You had no problem in making statements that question the origin of the watch, but as soon as I post pictures on these points that may prove otherwise, I'm the one with a "harsh" tone... This is why I said what I did in the introduction, so that no one would get offended. Make believe it's a court case, and I am the Defense lawyer arguing for my client...it's not meant as a personal attack against anyone who has commented either way, it's simply showing these items that were questioned and asking for evidence either way, prove it a fake, or prove it genuine, or maybe it can't be proved either way... Points were brought up, I have shown more detailed pictures, compared them to the only vintage Rollie's I have, and stated what I think based on that comparison. I am not angry or upset, or did it in any way meaning to be "Harsh"... RG

EDITED, so it doesn't sound "harsh"...please note I am playing the Devil's Advocate and presenting pics of the points raised, it's all in good FUN and not meant to OFFEND anyone or their opinion or anything else. Ok, I'm awake and here are the rest of the pictures I am willing to share. What I have tried to do, is focus on the points brought up as area's of contention, meaning that these items "could" be faked. I would like to add the following: other than POTR and myself, it doesn't seem as if anyone here has ever held, let alone seen a genuine vintage Miligauss. I searched for 2+ hours on the internet, and came up with nothing that would help me make an informed decision on this watch either way...nothing positive, or negative. Based on these facts, if you are prepared to state "It's a fake, anyone can engrave/stamp, whatever..." PLEASE support your "opinion" with facts. Otherwise your opinion is just that - an opinion with no facts - and why should I or anyone on RWG take your word and opinion as the truth over any other opinion? Simply because it's negative? Or because this is a "rare" watch and it's impossible to find it? Remember my 5508? Isn't that a "rare" watch...but I found one, and have it in my possession... So with that, I offer the following all in a good spirit of fun and interest, and playing the devil's advocate. Here are the main points I noted in these 79 posts, that could prove one way or the other the true nature of this watch. Point 1 "The letter "M" on the movement...anyone can engrave it..." Ok, so lets compare and look at the "M" in close detail, and compare it to the other letters we know are in fact engraved by Rolex on the bridges etc. Here is the "M" that identifies this movement as a Miligauss movement. Here is other lettering that we know is genuine Rolex, comparing the shape, patina, colour, depth, style, etc, I see no differences at all...do you? Dial side of movement engraving. Point 2 "Anyone can engrave the case (back)...that' easy to do" The caseback is NOT ENGRAVED, it's stamped, just like the genuine Rolex's. Does that in itself make it Genuine? Maybe not, but it does raise some questions. As for the comment, "the caseback is CLEAN, that proves it's a FAKE", I disagree, and I offer the following pictures. The 6205 belonged to my Uncle, a Navy Diver who used it for 30 years. The 5508 belonged to a hobby diver, who bought the watch new in 1962 and dove with it until 1984-85... Do these casebacks look "dirty" to you, or worn out or whatever??? No they are protected and inside the watchcase. Here is my GENUINE 6205 and 5508, compare these stampings to the Miligauss caseback. And now the STAMPED Miligauss. Engraved?? No look at the rounded edges of the metal near the numerals and letters... And of course lets not forget the outside view, looks worn out to me from years of use...don't see that on the NDTrading site, or Jewelleryandwatch cases... Point 3 "Movement and spacer and Faraday cage are fake..." Ok, so explain the following: fit, finish, and overall look, and note that the spacer ring goes on from the FRONT over the movement, is secured with movement screws, and then the dial seats on it and totally encloses the movement in the Faraday cage Stem location viewed through the ring into the keyless works. Point 4 "The LUGS" Here are various different views. Simply stating "It's a fake, look at the shape of the lugs..." means nothing, back it up with pics of a 6541 Miligauss from the same angles, so we can do our own comparison. Wear marks from years of end links rubbing the case. This can't be faked or happen overnight. Does that make it "real", no of course not, but it is an important point to note. Point 5 The ever popular between the legs picture...oops, I mean between the "lugs" of course... First up for comparison I offer a picture of my 1957 "6205 Brevet +" Rollie... that "5" sure looks the same... And now the Miligauss. Same? Different? Fake? If these markings are fake, how do you explain the caseback? If your prepared to say: "Caseback is genuine, Case is FAKE", then why are you not willing to accept that the dial has been replaced?? Of course no one would separate a dial from a watch, but people swap casebacks all the time...doesn't make sense does it? I think everyone agrees that the dial is questionable and bears an uncanny resemblance to the NDTrading one. Does that matter? My 5508 replacement bracelet was bought as a "Genuine" used one in the early '80's, bought in London UK no less... It was obviously not the correct one for the watch, so I send it to Ubi for analysis..."FAKE" is what he came back with. How could that be? Fake Rolex bracelets in the early '80's...maybe I guess, I don't know, but weird stuff can and does happen. That's it from me. I have nothing else to offer. And as stated before, I don't own the watch, and don't care either way what it is, or isn't. What I do know is what you see here, and how it all fits together and the finish of the parts. I look forward to the comments, and of course, your supporting data for your "Opinion" on the nature of the watch. If you can't present facts, then it's simply "your opinion" and considering that I am holding the watch in my hand, your opinion is no more valuable than mine is, because I have no supporting data either way that it's genuine, franken, or totally fake. What do I think? After looking at this and photographing the points I show above, here's my opinion, based on my supporting information I presented above. Caseback GENUINE Movement GENUINE Faraday cage GENUINE Hands GENUINE Case...not sure... but the engraving does look very similar to my 6205 Submariner... if it's fake, where did the caseback come from? Dial - Redial NDTrading Thanks for reading. RG

Well here is a quick update... It's almost 10 pm, I have to get some sleep. I have taken more pictures as requested, I am uploading them to photobucket so I can place them on the forum tomorrow. I would like to add the following thoughts: 1. Remember this watch of mine? The original bracelet kept popping open, so what did the owner do? He replaced the Rolex Bracelet with a Spidel spring bracelet, you remember those from the local Drugstore (Apotek)...and threw the original bracelet in the garbage... 2. How about this watch of mine? Remember it? The person I bought it from, lived in bum fack nowhere, so far in the woods he had to come out to hunt...but he owned this watch since 1962...the original Rolex bracelet was missing as well...so I asked him: "What happened to the original bracelet?" "It broke while I was diving.." "Did you try and replace it with another genuine Rolex one?" "Yes, but it was $600 in 1982 and that was too expensive for me..." "So you replaced it with this one, what did you do with the original bracelet...did you happen to keep it???" "NO, it was broken, so I threw it OUT...why would I keep a broken bracelet...???" :blink: :blink: My point? The fact that the dial is not genuine, means nothing to me. These examples show that people do really stupid things, or the place they take the watch for servicing rips them off...who knows, I certainly don't... See you tomorrow...and for the record, I couldn't care less about if this watch is a franken, partially genuine, or whatever. I don't mean that in a bad or derogatory way towards the owner, it's not my watch, I have done what I was asked to do, service it and get it running again...I did my part. In any case, whatever the pics show tomorrow, it added a bit of excitement for this week's posting and it's informative for everyone, especially me. Thanks again for the input. See you tomorrow. RG

There is nothing to harm if you turn the crown and it's not pulled out totally to the time setting position. Setting the quickset date is dangerous between 7pm and 2 am because you can damage the gears. There is no other danger. RG

The best movement is a Genuine ETA 7750 or 7753. There is no ETA running seconds at 6 model, it doesn't exist. If cost is no factor, then go with the ETA model. Or you can always upgrade your A7750 (12-9-6) to an ETA7750, just like I did on my Breitling that I posted a couple of days ago. The Asian 7750 models (all except the running seconds at 6 ones) are all fine, but all have the same lack of proper servicing as delivered. The majority of Asian 7750's have no problems and work fine as delivered, some don't and need to be serviced right away to get them to work correctly. Any movement will need to be serviced on a regular basis to make sure it keeps working as it should, and doesn't wear out. ETA or Asian, it doesn't matter, they all need to be serviced at some point. RG

Probably the best configuration for an Asian 7750, is the 7750 configuration, that being subdials at 12-9-6. Unlike the ETA 7750 series and modifications to move the subdials around (i.e. 7753 has 3-6-9 subdials) where the ETA maintains not only the same movement thickness, no matter the subdial layout, the ETA also maintains the datewheel just under the dial face, with no visible gap. The Asian 7753 (3-6-9 subdials) is thicker than the 7750 series, and has a gap on the datewheel. Functionally the only model that has had running issues, is the running seconds at 6 movement, but there seems to be some progress being made, as Francisco pointed out. The Asian 7750, or 7753 layout is not problematic on it's own due to any design features, the 7753 only moves the minute counter from 12 to 3 on the dial face, not a big deal, and nothing that affects the running or reliability. The biggest reason that the Asian 7750 has problems, is simply one of lack of correct servicing, dirty, over oiled, mainspring barrel packed with grease, not adjusted correctly etc, these can all be fixed and corrected during servicing. RG

Well if anything is SPOT ON, it's you... You must have been sitting behind me at the bench when I assembled this one. The spacer ring as I call it, is machined and much to my disapointment, has to be installed on the movement BEFORE the dial goes on. In other words, the spacer/Faraday cage slips over the movement from the front (perfectly I will add, and the notches for the clamps are there as well). Once it's in place, there is a section of the spacer ring that is about 2mm wide that the dial then mounts onto, so the spacer is connected to and rests against the back of the dial. The back cover has a slight notch machined into it, and it presses down over this spacer ring, and it fits perfectly as well. The whole movement with the cage attached, then slips perfectly into the case, everything lines up perfect, including the small hole for the stem. The cage assembly appears to be quite old. And if that wasn't enough...your serial number...well are you sure you weren't in my watch room with me The O'ring in the crown and tube were very old and worn, I replaced them both. Here's what I am going to do, tonight I will take some pics of the spacer ring with the dial removed etc...maybe that will help shed some light. I have to say there are some very insightful and knowledgeable folks on this forum, thanks for the great feedback and comments, it helps me improve my knowledge. I'll have to pass this information on to the owner of the watch. RG

Not really, the varnish (as RC Tritec likes to call it) is actually the binder that you mix with the powered lume and what makes it stick to the dial. RG

I am not really sure where I would place this one. Difficulty wise, it's very time consuming, and for anyone who has applied lume, hard to get it to flow in the narrow lines. Certainly doing a "dot" like on a Rollie etc is easy, since the lume is naturally shaped like a round dot. Time wise, this one took about an hour. I am very pleased with the end results, which is why I decided to post it for comments and feedback. As for "top works" I would say that the Cousteau and Slevin are certainly up there, and this one as well, if only due to the shape of the markers, and difficulty in luming them accurately. I like to think of them all as special in their own right, if only due to the fact they are all hand made, and therefore unique. I am using a new varnish from RC Tritec as well, and this helps me get some good results, the Slevin and this one were done with the new gloss varnish. I am still all for close up daylight side lighted pictures, I think it reveals the quality and is easier to appreciate. RG

Just got in from the gym...best I can offer is between the lugs says: "6541" "Brevet +" Time for a shower (me, not the miliwhatever it is) RG

Thank you so much. Checked the mail, not in today, probably later this week, will advise on email. RG

Let me clarify my original statement. The movement wasn't running (because it wasn't wound) and wouldn't "wind" meaning the click wheels were all gummed up and stuck together, not unusual or uncommon for an old automatic movement. Not wanting to force or break anything, I did NOT try to wind it, or see if it would run, with the crown or the Rotor. Better to play it safe and tear it down, clean it, and then see what I was up against. As it was, all it needed was a cleaning. After it was cleaned, I also said, "1/10th of a turn of the mainspring and it started to run..." It works perfect on the timer, and is withing a few seconds after 4 days of running. I don't believe for one minute that the movement is "worn down" or that it will crap out anytime soon. Why should it? It was dirty and gummed up, but not worn out or crap. The pics clearly show a nice clean movement with little brassing or wear. I won't be posting any pics of any serial numbers (thats' why the pictures are taken the way they are). All I know is what I shared in the first pics, the owner bought something and sent it to me for servicing and overhaul, beyond that, I don't know nothing... I just though it would be an interesting topic of discussion and information for everyone, especially for me, who is not well versed in these models. RG

Now that you mention it, I do remember the problems I had, not at all unlike the problems I had with this one, so I guess that fact alone doesn't discount the case origin... The retaining ring is not "L" shaped, more like a triangle I guess. Picture a rectangle with a grove cut in the middle of the outside edge, and at the top edge, cut off at a 45 deg angle, that's what this one looks like from the side. Probably on my home computer, but your much better at these comparisons than I am... RG

The T-16 did fit, but only after a bit of coaxing. It was just a hair too small for the case, and the compression ring had to be enlarged about 0.50 mm to fit over the crystal, so something was not correct. I am still a bit in shock over the un-availability of the T-16's, didn't know how rare these were. RG

Interesting. What confuses me, the dial, movement, stem etc all fit perfectly and line up, normally a rep case doesn't accept gen parts so easily. The case doesn't appear to be worked on or modified at all. The other part that is throwing me off, the caseback stampings, I have never seen a case back with the correct "IV 1958" type of markings. In any case, it's a neat watch, first time I have had one in the shop like this. @ nanuq Got it on the "R's" thanks... RG

The broaches I use look like acupuncture needles, they are 5 sided tapered drills... You need to buy a set of these, then you "drill" out the hands a bit at a time (0.05 mm is not a lot to cut off) until the hand fits the post. RG