gavidoc

Great work JMB. Love to know how you did your springbar holes.

Nice. Not a big fan of "yak [censored]" lume so I'd try to darken it up IMO. As for the caseback, later 9401's used a 9411 stamped caseback so you are ok in that regards.

nice.pebbles IIRC is also known as Alex on VRF. He was banned from there (no easy feat mind you) for selling aftermaket parts as real (particularly hand sets) and selling the same parts to different people. This was years ago and from my experience he has cleaned up his act. I purchased a snowflake dial from him and he sent me an email telling me that he came down with an illness and wasn't going to be able to ship it for a few weeks. I was ok with that as I was about to head out to China for 4 weeks and over that time period he didn't list anymore watch related items. When I returned, it still hadn't arrived. I asked him how he was doing and he had taken a turn for the worse and told me he'd refund my money but would hold the dial and let me know when he was up and running again. Couple of hours later, the refund came through and a few weeks later got an email from him about the dial. I had already gotten something else though. VRF is good but take what the "experts" there say with a grain of salt. Just pay close attention to the items he has for sale if decide to purchase from him.

Ubi is SO right about rare not meaning valuable. Take for example the Tudor Submariner Rose dial 7016 transitional piece. Of all the crownguard subs (rolex and Tudor) this has got to be the rarest one available. Why? Well for several reasons. 1. Only offered in the first quarter of 1968. 2. Only one stamped with the transitional reference number 7528 inside the caseback 3. Only sub to have a semi-pointed crownguard and flat lug case. Both Rolex and Tudors had pointed and square crownguard cases. Only the I.68 stamped Tudors had the semicrownguard case with the flat lugs. Here is an image to show what I'm talking about. The Rose 7016 is in the middle. Notice the flat lugs and the semipointed crownguard. Even with the rarity of this piece, a 1967 dated 7928 still sells for more on the collector's market then this watch. Yet if you compare the two, the cases are COMPLETELY different. Even the later 1968 cased 7016's have a different case. Even a II.68 stamped Tudor case is different like this one. Now this one was way overpolished but it looked like the more modern cases. Look at the crownguard. Just like the standard crownguard shape and notice how the lugs have more of a curve to them. It's crazy if you think about it. The rep makers caught on to the rarity of the rose 7016 quicker then the Gen collectors have.

Thanks for the props Ubi. I can't take credit at all for this. All my info was taken from info I have on the MWR archives and all the members of MWR deserve the credit. I also agree with you about the fact that there is NO following for these. If it was real, both the Tudor and Rolex versions would be the rarest military watches EVER that are marked Rolex or Tudor on the dial. More rare then the 5517 Sub, Marine Nationale Subs, and the Marine Nationale Tudors. One BIG reason these are known and have a following is that there is documentation to back up their authenticity. Rolex in Bexely and even MN documentation. These? Zilch.

This watch and the Tudor variant were discussed in detail on Military Watch Forum when it was announced by AQ. Concensus is that the originals were very well made custom watches. There was a guy in Japan who made custom cases and built his own watches. He actually documented on the web the creation of this watch with a gen Rolex movement and dial from a 5513 IIRC. IIRC, he had some people ask if they could also have some and he outsourced the cases to a factory who then made a limited amount for themselves to use on the replica market. That is where the "U.S. Marine" designation started to appear on both the Rolex and Tudor variants. Shortly after this he pulled his website. They still pop up from time to time. The original did not have anything on the caseback. It is all discussed in the MWR archive DVD's from about 6 years ago IIRC. The main issue with these watches and even the thought of them being prototypes of a potential US military watch is that there is NO US military specification that called a new diver watch that fit the requirements that these meet. Not to mention that even though Tudor Subs were used by US Navy Seals it was BEFORE TR-900's were. Not after. And they were unit purchases, not through a government contract. No Rolex or Tudor was never available through a gov. contract that met a specific military specification. During the time frame that these watches would have been created there were two different military specifications for dive watches. 1961 MIL-W-22176A spec which is where the Tornek-Rayville 900 comes from. 1971 MIL-W-57017 spec which is where the Benrus Type I and Type II comes from. These are the only 2 spec's as issued by the US navy at this time. Not to mention if these were "prototypes" they would not say US Marine on them and would have a number on the back instead such as the original Bulova test samples for the 22176A specification that have popped up and the couple of Type I's that are out there in collector's hands. Nor would they have had bracelets. Nylon straps were standard requirements The Rolex community might have questions as to whether or not they exist but the Military Watch Community has strong doubts to their authenticity on the information available which is more hten just the Rolex based information. On a side note: Here is a listing of all submersible dive watch specifications in the US Federal Supply Catalog including two entries for stock Tudor Subs which were cancelled. I got htis from MWR. 01-544-8874 SUUNTO SS005987800 WATCH, DIVER'S DIGITAL, BLUE FACE NPI 01-544-8873 SUUNTO SS005987500 WATCH, DIVER'S DIGITAL, ORANGE FACE NPI 01-068-1088 CANCELLED ROLEX T761000 ROLEX T94110030 WATCH, DIVER'S, 660 FEET 476.42 00-225-1741 CANCELLED MILITARY STANDARDS MILW50717TYPEIICLASSA BENRUS MILW50717TYPEIICLASSA WATCH, SUBMERSIBLE AND NAVIGATION TYPE II, CLASS A 82.52 00-595-5431 DISCONTINUED MILITARY STANDARDS MIL-W-50717 WATCH, SUBMERSIBLE & NAVIGATION TYPE II, CLASS B 268.52 01-101-6495 CANCELLED TIMEX 575-001001 WATCH, DIVER'S, ANALOG 559.00 01-469-9094 SEIKO SKX009K WATCH, DIVER'S NPI 01-544-0408 GSA SUPPLIER 6645-01-544-0408 WATCH, DIVERS, 300M CHRONOGRAPH 1415.27 20-001-9382 MARATHON WW194007 WATCH, DIVER'S (GSAR) 262.76 21-558-0133 SEIKO SKX173 SEIKO SKX173 MARATHON WW194006 MARATHON 194006 ROLEX 79090 ROLEX 9401/00 WATCH, DIVER'S 339.25

Simple check to see if a Tudor movement is a gen is to look on the dial side. It will be stamped with the Tudor mark on the mainplate..

Like I said, you gotta see it to believe it......I believe it now.

FYI. Gen Tudor 79090 parts

You can't buy just a gen insert. Only the assemblies. If you want, I have an extra bond bezel assembly I am going to list. It's used but in great condition. PM me if interested.

Guess it's one of those gotta see it to believe it things. I never thought a 2824 9411 existed till a few years ago. Only in the late ones during the rollout of the 76100's. Early 76100's and late 9411's were cross pollinated with their serial #'s, movements, and casebacks. Early 76100's had 9411 stamped casebacks and profile and 2824's. I owned an early 76100 about 4 years ago that had a 963XXX serial and it had the same caseback as the 9411. I've seen late serial 96XXX 9411's with 2824's with the silver datewheels. They also shared the same crystal which was the T147 IIRC though they are the same diamter as the T125, just not as tall I think. Can't remember. The important thing I didn't mention though was that the late 9411's I saw had the triangle dials like the 76100, not the snowflakes. I've seen 4 like that over the years and held a blue one in my hands at a brick and mortor in Charleston when I lived in South Carolina. I had bought my first snowflake from him. As for the topic at hand, to me, I agree with UBi that $700 for the Yuki parts seems to be good.

That is interesting. Was it finshed and all like a normal tudor 2784? A 934XXX is near the end of the 9411 timeline which makes it even odder. You can find 2824's in the later 9411's. Finding a 2783 powered 9411 is so far outside the realm of accepted norm that I know guys who would view originality with high degree of skepticism (unless it was documented to have only been serviced at RSC's) and wouldn't buy one or would negotiate a discount for it.

Ubi, what were the dates on them if you know and were they all original?

Building a blue dial 9411 is more cost prohibitive then the black brother. Main reason being, the blue dial and especially a vintage blue insert are nearly impossible to find in good condition. I built this: The only thing that wasn't a gen part was the actual case. To give you an idea, here is what the parts cost me (keep in mind that I have some friends who deal in vintage Rolex/Tudor parts so I was able to get some good rpices on mine). MBW Case: $0 (Eurotimez sent me an extra case as an apology when he had to replace a bent one I had paid for) Gen blue dial: Got it in trade but trade value was around $200 Hands: $150 Crown/Tube: $65 Vintage blue faded fat font Insert: $150 (well below market price as I sold it for almost $300 IIRC) Gen 2784 movement: $200 Gen T125 crystal: $80 Bezel Assembly: $550 Zig Relume: $60 iirc Total cost: $1455 I had so much invested in it that I wasn't able to sell the thing as a Gen doesn't cost much more then this. Also, I did all the case mods and installation myself which would have cost quite a bit if I had a watch tech do it for me. When you remove the Gen Bezel, I was still just under $1000 though I went all out. Keep in mind that this was also with getting a good deal on the hands, dial, crystal, and insert. I actually ended up parting the watch out and sold the gen parts on various fora (both Gen and Rep) for considerably more then I had in the watch itself. Gen parts sometimes can actually go more then what a watch sells for as a whole. I've torn apart a few Tudor Subs just to part them out for this very reason and typically if I can find one at a good price, can almost double my investment on the parts alone. That is something you need to consider if you go the gen parts route. If you want to go a lower cost route, do the 2783 movement and aftermarket parts though I will say that two things that Ubi states I disagree with (though am always looking for new information) for accuracy sake. 1. 2783's were not offered in 9411's from the factory that I have personally ever seen. 2. Silver date wheels were not found on 9411's as far as I'm aware of. They were on the 76100 though but when they went with the 79090 they went back to white/black.

I own a gen 2254.50 and a gen 42mm crystal. What I can tell you is that they are the same diameter. The PO crystal is thicker but I don't know by how much yet. I am having it installed on my 2254.50 as I modded it with a Gen PO bezel. What I can tell you is that a Gen PO bezel sits about .5mm higher then a Gen 2254.50 crystal but is flush with a PO crystal. To get that extra 300m of depth I'm betting that the crystal is thicker. I'll measure the PO crystal tonight to give you a thickness and after the swap can give you a SMP crystal thickness if you want it..

The ET cases are supposedly old style but they have new markings for serial # and caseback. IIRC, the watches DO say POLEX though. I have fitted gen crystals, case tubes, crystal retainers,bezels, dials, and ETA movements in these with no issues.

Thanks. I'll go check it out!

It's a put together. Not Watchco but still is. There is also a group out of Israel that put these together using New replacement Omega parts. As Ubi has stated, vintage movement but everything else is new. The newer cases Omega makes have a new case reference # which shows it as a replacement case and is listed in the Omega Databases as a legit reference...IIRC it is: ST 166.0324. So, by Omega standards, it is an authentic Omega but isn't assembled by Omega. I owned a date SM300 that was white but it was a Big Triangle dial. Only other one I ever saw was a few years ago on MWR and it was also a Big Triangle date. Never seen a small triangle date with a white date wheel. Screwdown crowns were added to the very last runs of the SM300 when it was shown that while the original non-screwdown crown was effective at keeping water out at depth, it failed when swimming at the surface.

Axel probably didn't like the idea that a top hat sold for so little so he thought he'd try a switcheroo. He's been known to do stuff like that in the past. Got in a lot of trouble on the vintage rolex forum. Don't think he can sell there anymore because of that stuff. As for which is older, I don't know Ubi, I've never heard that nor have I heard it discussed on the rolex forums. I have always heard that the top hat is older. I've had numerous vintage date subs over the years that had the top hat. A couple of Tudor 7021's, 3 9411's, a couple of 76100's and 1 1680. All had the original crystals and all were top hats. Why would Rolex go from beveled edge to top hat then return to beveled edge? They didn't do a switch like that with the T19's. Started Super Dome, went to High Dome then to Dome. What did the vintage guys tell you? Reason I ask is that the 7021 was around at the same time as the Red 1680's and it definately had a top hat crystal. A couple of the watches I owned (one of the 7021's and an early 76100) had the domed crystal effect but it was clear that they were originally Top Hats, not beveled.

Hey guys, Been a whlie since I owned a Pam rep. The only one I really like is the Mini-Fiddy as it fits my wrist so well. Only issue is that the only one that was available at the time (almost 2 years ago) had some serious issues with the quality. Noticeable problems I experienced with the three I owned were all the same: The threads in the lugs for the screwbars would strip if you looked at them. The screw holes for the crownguard screws would strip after you used the lever a bit. For the crownguard issue, on two of the watches I had, the screws litterally pulled right out of the case while I was tightening the lever. On the other one, I removed the screws ONCE so I could get some lint out of the crystal and clean the hands. When I went to put the crownguard back on, nada. All buggered up. This was to me an issue with the way the mini-fiddy case was designed. There is a lot more meat on the normally Fiddy where the crownguard screws go into the case so stripping isn't an issue but it was on the mini case. Ideally it would be great if they made a mini-fiddy case without the crownguard and with a screwdown crown but alas like the 6154 but in the smaller case. Never seen one of those. Your help is appreciated. Those of you who own newer Mini-Fiddy's, have you noticed if these glaring issues have been fixed? Or can you get a mini-6154 now?

I think I might stlil have an old mini-fiddy case that the crownguard screws stripped on. If I do I'll take some dimensions for you..

Correct PO Crown is: OME-069ST42184 Crown Tube (same as used on the 300m divers and GMT): OME-090ST1232

It is real. Wha tmakes you question it?

Keep in mind when sourcing an insert that you can find modern gen inserts for $100. That is the cost for them that most dealers charge, including the two I use. Gen inserts do pop up time to time and can had for around this cost.

Thanks Ubi. Sorry to detract from you thread. Your bezel insert looks really good. Did you know that a gen lume pearl will fit the MBW inserts? Figured you did but just in case you didn't..... Aeromatic, you can't go wrong. I've got some gen parts for sale for Tudor Subs. Shoot me a PM if interested.