TeeJay

As above, a small jewelers is your best bet

I saw an amusing vid on youtube (or something similar) where a guy in the states was trying to reproduce one by rolling/folding the paper along the longest side, and folding that, and seemed confused why it wasn't really hurting when he slapped himself with it Nice to see such 'how to' guides available though

None were harmed I thought it was pretty good for a first attempt at one Certainly felt solid when I tested it on my thigh

Some people seem to be going out of their way to prove me right about their shortcomings, and generally piss me off today, so I figured I'd let that frustration out creatively... Note. These are NOT my new EDC items, just a themed picture to let off some steam

Any time, brother You always know when you've found 'the special watch'

This is the closest and best price I can find...

Just a quick update: The watch has kept perfect time while off the wrist, but the movement of say, raising the wrist to check the time, creates enough rotor spin to freeze the second hand, so although it's keeping accurate time off the wrist, I don't think it can be trusted to be worn...

Absolutely fantastic collection The work and the watches is first rate Likewise, a fine pair indeed

Maybe my standards really are low, I'd be quite happy wearing that as a watch

+1 The Yacht Master will 'dress down' easier than the Seamaster can 'dress up'... There is an excellent review comparing the Seamaster to a Submariner here. I know, the Submariner and Yacht Master are two different kettles of fish, but in a comparison I did a while back, I scored both Rolexes equally. The easiest thing I could say, is if you want smart, go with the Yacht Master, if you want functional/casual, go with the Seamaster. Personally, I'd be as inclined to buy a rep of the Seamaster rather than the genuine, but that's just me... Best of luck with your decision and purchase [Edit to add] Must learn to read to the end of a thread before hitting 'reply' For some reason, I was thinking of the black Seamaster, not the blue one

Fantastic acquisitions I think the orange dialled is the most eye-catching Strange that the tip of the second hand is unlumed, but I guess the contrast against the orange dial would be sufficient for dive use

Wow. Just, 'wow'

I've used superglue several times in dial repairs/modifications, and as long as you let the glue cure with the dial de-cased, you won't have an issue with the fumes fogging the crystal (which will happen if the glue isn't cured and the dial is re-cased)

Hmmmm As 'a watch', as mentioned, quite wearable, but I'd be very surprised if any of the parts are genuine. The case and bezel just look totally wrong, the insert doesn't have a pearl, and the hands are not the hands from the 1655, but something similar. Depending on the cost, I think I'd as soon buy cheap watches for parts, and custom-build something to my own specs, rather than buying someone else's custom Of course, as 'a watch', nothing wrong with, at least it doesn't say 'Rolex' on the dial, so it's not a fake Rolex

You're very welcome I have to admit, when I received my Daytona case/set gift, I liked it immediately, and once I'd buffed the polished center links to a brushed finish, I knew that it was going to be a project which could acquire 'beater status', but it was seeing the other vintage pics from Hike and others, showing the Daytonas on straps, which made me first try a brown strap, although I think black straps work best with the panda dial Of course, better to have the tropic strap so there's no worries about getting the watch wet I'm not sure if the Tropic was ever issued with a Daytona, but, it might have been an option if the customer asked for one I won't be getting rid of the 1655, as I want to keep it, even if just as a back up should my beater ever fail (which has been known to happen ) Aesthetically, I'm very pleased with the dial mods I performed, and I do rather like the overall design, although I can understand why Rolex phased out this style of dial for the Explorers and went with the Sub-style for the contemporary Explorer II's (which I think really should be Explorer IIIs ) I think the problem with the 1655 (for me, at least) is that while I like it from an aesthetic point of view, on the practical side, I'm very aware of the lack of timing bezel, and the hours markers can blend together when the watch is glanced at (although the very visible hands do help to compensate for that) so I think it's those 'practical lackings' which are preventing me from totally bonding with it as a watch, as I'm always aware of what's missing... I guess I really should try and appreciate it more for what it can do What with the movement of my 6200 project being unreliable, it's going to get quite a bit of wrist time from now on, so hopefully I'll come top appreciate it more

From the pictures you've posted, triangle appears to line up with the 12 marker on the dial, and the 45 appears to line up with the 9 parker on the dial, but maybe that's something to do with the angle of the camera... From what I understand, the top of the triangle is not supposed to be straight, but curved to follow the edge of the bezel insert... I would say if you're not happy, send it back, but to be honest, I don't think you will get any better than than in exchange...

Very nice I think that's the look I'm going to have to go for with my Daytona project... I love how it looks on a strap, but think a Tropic would mean not having to worry about getting it wet As for myself, I don't trust the movement in my 6200 project (although it does appear to be keeping accurate time) so I'm down to the 1655... Who knows, I might even get to like it...

Precisely what worries me

The evidence has shown that someone is more than twice as likely to get knifed in the UK, than shot in the US. Regardless of what 'evidence' there may or not be, the fact remains, that the quote I have referred to several times in this discussion, is absolutely spot-on accurate. Criminalizing weapons only serves to disarm the law-abiding, meaning it is easier for criminals to assault them, ergo, it is less safe for the law-abiding to not be allowed to wander the streets tooled up. I would not like to say, without comparing hard statistics. What I would offer as an alternative, is that I felt safer, staggering around the streets in Tokyo, past midnight, completely wankered, not really knowing where I was, than I have felt sober, walking home from town of an evening, in several years. As I have said before, 'yes'. Wether I would actually be safer, would be another matter, but, I would certainly feel safer knowing that 'Mr .9mm was protecting my righteous ass in the valley of darkness'... Well sadly, you don't. As I mentioned previously, it is, and likely always has been, easier for a criminal to illegally acquire a gun, than it is (or has been) for a shooting enthusiast to acquire one legally. If some smackhead wants or needs to get their hands on a piece, they will find a way to make it happen, and probably with little effort. I would rather live in a country that allowed me to carry a firearm, or allowed my wife to carry a gun/taser/can of mace, for protection, should he need arise, but sadly, I don't.

And that, raises two points: 1. Allowed to have equalizers at home, and allowed to use an equalizer on an intruder, might well be two different things in the eyes of the law (especially if said equalizer is not an 'everyday object' being utilized as a weapon... 2. Goes back to the quote with which I opened this discussion: Being disarmed by the law, makes it easier for criminals to prey on their victims. A person should be allowed to carry a weapon for protection if they feel it necessary. Carrying and using a weapon are two different things, as are offensive and defensive uses of a weapon. If someone lives in an area which is known to be unsafe, then statistically, they are 'in danger' anytime they leave the home, and accordingly, should be able to equip themselves to counter that potential threat without fear of the law doing them for carrying an 'offensive weapon'. I have to admit, in that kind of situation, I'd use a bokken rather than a blade... There might not be limbs flying, but the crackhead would still get taught a lesson in manners

Looking back through the thread, it was Narikaa who pointed out that it was the only example of where a person had to prove their innocence, and, looking at other quoted legislation, the law does appear to allow people to not only use force to defend themselves, but also to use a weapon to do so, including a pre-emptive strike. But. How does 'intent' come into all this? Someone gets jumped in the street, they grab a piece of fence-post and whack their attacker... Clear case of someone using violence and weapon to defend themselves, but, the weapon was clearly improvised on the spot, not carried with the intent to be used (offensively or defensively) However. Someone carrying a telescopic baton in their jacket, gets attacked and whacks the attacker, does not have the same defense that the baton was 'improvised on the spot', even if they were only carrying it for defensive means, and they'd probably get done for carrying an offensive weapon if subject to a stop and search... This leads back to the original topic of the roll of coins: Even if they are carried with absolutely no hostile intent at all, how would someone prove to a frustrated police officer that they are not carrying them with the intent to use as a weapon? This would be the issue with the cricket bat in the bedroom (of someone who does not play cricket) It would be obvious that the bat is stored by the bed as an equalizer, so would that then be construed as 'intent' should a burglar get a pasting? Of course, I think I'd rather take a hit from a bat than a steel dildo, but I know that the dildo would be much easier to 'explain away' as an equalizer if stored in the bedroom than the cricket bat would be. Should the need arise... Of course, that same person carrying a steel dildo in the street, would have a very hard time explaining to the police why they were carrying it outside of the house

But the impression given, for example, is that while it is legal to keep a cricket bat in the house, keeping a cricket bat in the bedroom as an equalizer, could land the owner in hot water if the crim squeals that they got smacked about with a bat. Keeping a cricket bat is entirely legal. Keeping a cricket bat in the bedroom, might indeed not be. According to posts earlier, this whole 'self-defense' issue appears to be the one aspect of English law where someone has to prove their innocence, not disprove their guilt. How can someone who doesn't play cricket justify keeping a cricket bat under their bed? I may well be wrong here, but I believe that this is the area of the law where people may fall foul (especially if they get in a good hit and happen to kill the burglar) This was why I mentioned the steel dildos earlier... They can at least be explained as 'bedroom accessories' if someone had to justify their presence. Trying to claim the same for a cricket bat, might not sit so easily with the law...

Top class workmanship

I think once your mental perception of the watch changes from 'luxury brand', to 'functional tool', it is a much more impressive watch Something which I think helps with that as well, is to 'back-track' a few decades, and go for the 1680 Submariner, as opposed to the contemporary. Regardless of if they've been aged or not, the 1680 definitely has that 'tool watch' look to it, where the contemporary Sub, with the white-gold surrounds for the lume markers, is definitely a move more into the 'prestige' range (but the bracelet is the same as when the watch was a tool, hence why it can be a letdown on first experience) Oiling or waxing the bracelet makes a huge difference in feel, and indeed, bracelets are much nicer once that's been done I know what you mean about the insert, but I think that's just part of the course, unless you want to start modifying and upgrading parts... (which is where the real fun begins )