TeeJay

Lots of beautifull watches here! Once again!!!

Back to a transitional today: 16800

Very nice I hope your holiday to Italy went well

Thanks, TJ.

I used to wear gold all the time. Now I have this one, which I wear 1-2 times a month, my TT YM, which I wear weekly, and a RG 183, which I'm hit-and-miss with. The gold reps tarnish quickly here and require regular upkeep--I'm too lazy for that!

Any time I've never been a fan of gold, and after my wrist broke out in a rash after wearing a school-friend's dad's Rolex (thinking back, it would have been a DayDate Presidential) I've avoided the metal wherever possible That said, just because I don't wear it, I can still appreciate things made in it

He hasn't been on the forum much lately, which could account for the lack of contact, but I'm sure everything will be taken care of, R is one of the few people I would class as a 'brother from another mother', I'm sure there's no sinister intent on his part and everything will be taken care of

I just came across this one, and thought it looked quite nice (probably quite inaccurate though ) What do folks think?

Decided to wear gold today:

This watch always starts up with just a gentle shake.

Not something I could wear myself, but a fine piece Good to see you posting, Doc

Today's another 'combat shorts and wife-beater' day for me. Same watch as usual, but in deference to the heat, I've put it on the stripy NATO for a little extra comfort

Probably an incredibly stupid newbie question: but do all quartz movements tick once per second or are there also "sweeping" quartz movements?

As far as I know, the only sweeping quartz movements are in wall clocks, rather than watches... I'd be happy to be corrected on that though

So, I could possibly belive this?

"Movement: Swiss Eta Quartz Chronograph Movement"

I just assumed it was marketing BS.

Personally speaking, I'd ignore it as marketing BS (although it might be accurate) but, the movement would still be likely to keep good time If I was to get another chrono-featuring watch, I would rather get it with a quartz movement, even if it's inaccurate to the original, than run the risk of a time-bomb auto movement

So +/1 how many mins/secs a day would you guess it was?

Certainly not minutes... It's been nearly a year since I actually wore it, but if I recall, it would stay synched to the radio-controlled clock in the study for at least a few weeks

Ok, first let me say I have searched extensively. I've searched here, the other acceptable forums and of course google.

I know the noobmariner is considered the best rep bracelet. Though it needed serious work out of the box... I've oiled (three in one brand, quick drying silicon) filed, polished, buffed and tightened but it still rattles like a street fake. Seriously, I have $10 no name gens that don't rattle at all.

Everyone says this is great rep bracelet but mine feels weak, flimsy and above all; makes a rattling noise at the slightest move. Are there any tips from the experienced peeps here?

Also By-Tor's review describes the bezel as "smooth". Mine is like this: youtube vid (bezel at 2.11).

Again, I've searched and searched but can't find a definitive answer. I know the bezel is hard to remove but is there anything I can do about these things?

Thanks for reading and hopefully helping a n00b, any advice is much appreciated.

Dan.

I used to have a real beef about the flimsiness of the Oyster clasp, thinking that it had no place on such a costly, prestige watch (from the gen perspective, of course) until it was pointed out to me, that the Sub was never originally designed as a prestige piece, but intended as a functional tool watch: A stripped down for weight racing car, rather than a luxury sedan. Once I got my head round that, I found myself, not exactly appreciating the clasp more, as there are examples of better engineered clasps (Omega, UN etc) but it certainly doesn't bother me like it used to, so hopefully that might be of help to you in that regard With regards the rattling... I've found that oiling the bracelet improves the tactile quality of the bracelet, but not done a lot for any rattling... At the end of the day, the links move about and hit on each other, so they're going to make noise, just like pocket change does. I think the trick is to wear the bracelet at just the right tension so they don't rattle so much when on the wrist

A while back, I had a watch which was supposed to be a PAM 187, (wildly inaccurate to the original) which had a quartz movement. I found it to be a very reliable time-keeper

Thanks for a thoroughly awesome read Fine words, and incredible camera work

I have no experience with this strap, but it looks (from the image) like you could take the correct width strap and have a go at it with a utility knife and trim the center portion to size. I would take less than 5 minutes. And the only tool required would be a fresh blade in the utility knife. (Leather slices extraordinarily easily.)

+1

Quicker and easier to custom-cut a regular strap than try and seek a purpose built one Best of luck

Alright i am over being politically correct. I am calling a spade a spade and i don't care what you or the other grand standers on this thread think or say.

Plain and simple this rep is a POS and my point on the 100 dollar comment was that i would not buy it for 100 dollars as for around the same money I'm sure you could of got a decent rep.

Load your cannons ladies and fire away.

"PS, for Mr. Danzeman22, I do regret that my watch is not up to your standard. I know that with your profound knowledge and insights on rep market you could easily find source for 7750 Daytona for way less than 100US$...perhaps you could suggest me where to buy? I got mine for 105$ and still shame on myself even today! "

Likewise.

No one here other than you even cares that the watch is a POS. James is happy with it, so that's all that matters. Those who might be less than impressed with the watch, have had the good grace to keep that opinion to themselves. If posts like this, and your comment to Yodap the other day are going to be your level of contribution here, you're going to find yourself unpopular very quickly, as you seem to be completely missing the point about the community and members here...

Peace

I would if I could, but I'm all out of Omega bits myself Best of luck with your search

You did a good job and all. But why would you want to make it look like you don't care about your watch?

Better than trying to pass off a vintage rep as a 'safe queen'

The GMT hand is spot on in the old CHS version. Even the new WHS ones have much thinner and better hands... but yeah, generally reps have too thick 24h hands.

Ahh, that's good to know, at least I wasn't imagining things (in that the hands were thinner than I am used to seeing )

So is it my imagination that the hands (particularly the GMT hand) appear thinner than on reps?

My last buy... its this a good Explorer II White Dial Replica???

I don't know much about the model, but the hands seem somewhat thinner than normal... That said, as long as you like it, that's all that matters

I have moved on in all honesty...... You have your opinion i have mine, there is no way we will bridge the gap..... Build a bridge...

That's the spirit

O my lord you ignorant man.

I will not argue with you because it is pointless, but i will make a few statements to correct you.

I was specifically talking about other long standing contributors to this forum.... members who have invested in V72 6263 that pay true homage to the gen 6263(namely freddy)... Nothing about me at all...

I think you will find people dropping the big dollars on reps also have very valuable gen collections, and enjoy the hobby far beyond the "brand".

I would also suggest the only person that thinks they have "significance" in this debate is you. Taking a stance on the basis of "$100" which was clearly a flippant and sarcastic remark is undeniably laughable.

Cheers

D

Members like Freddy, Ubi etc who do build amazing watches, do not belittle the watches people have purchased which are less than perfect. I can appreciate that your posts might have been intended to provide reference material, but your first post, would have been very easy to take as being solely critical. As mentioned before, yes, some people enjoy building flawless watches. Some people just enjoy buying what they can buy. At the end of the day, a watch is just a watch, and people appreciate them for their own personal reasons. As above, even a bad rep, can be thoroughly enjoyed by it's owner.

Not even worth a dignified response..... But i will say this..... So let me get this straight you are buying a replica "brand" watch for it to have glaring faults and not really resemble its real life counterpart?? Moronic to say the least. Furthermore you are backhanding most of the significant posters on this site for which i think you should be ashamed......

And if you read on past the thread you would see the point i was getting at.....

I don't think anyone is saying that at all, and you're somewhat missing the point. It's not only just a case of obtaining a 100% impossible to tell from the gen replication (although some do enjoy building them) but a case of enjoying each watch based on it's own merits as a watch. Also, don't forget that the majority of the general public don't know (or care to know) the first thing about watches, and probably couldn't tell the difference between a Sub and a GMT unless it was pointed out and explained to them. Heck, a business advisor I know who has a pretty poor Explorer II copy, when I showed him how I'd rebuilt and aged my sub, asked 'why does it (the bezel) rotate?'! When I explained that it was because the Submariner is a divers watch, and the rotating bezel is a timing aid, he then said he'd 'be scared to take a Rolex under water' !! :bangin: Most people 'out in the wild' aren't going to notice a person's watch, and, if on the offchance they do notice it, the chances of them knowing the tells of that specific rep are pretty slim. Unless someone's actually trying to build a specific model 100%, many flaws just aren't worth caring about As before, James obviously likes the watch, which, at the end if the day, is all that really matters in this hobby, not 1:1 perfection

Absolutely fantastic

Thanks TJ!

You're right, 100% naturally occuring vintage. This happens to be an all original pointed crown guard 5513 with a gilt underline dial

You're very welcome, it's a fantastic piece, a perfect balance between 'well used' and 'abused', in that it's clearly had a few knocks, but the case and lugs are still pretty clear Out of curiosity, do you recall what put the scuff on the insert at the 30 position?

McQueen owned and wore two Rolex models, bought as new. The 5512 he bought in 1967 and wore it exclusively (as a personal piece) until be bought the 1655 around '72 +-, then that became his daily beater. But he did wear the 5512 in the movie The Hunter in '80, as shown in the center photo of 'metaljesus' 's post pics. He also wore the Monaco in the film Bullitt. I could have sworn I saw him wear the 1655 on the screen as well, but considering his filmography between the time of his death and the purchase of the Explorer that would had to have been either 'Towering Inferno' or 'The Getaway'. Serious continuity faux pas if he wore them in Papillion or Tom Horn I'm thinking the latter, The Getaway, or I am just making the case up in my head. Likely.

Anyhoo, his 5512 was sold at auction (perhaps circa '04? Hmmmm) for 234K usd it was only in 'fair' condition T'J, the bezel/case pretty beat up and was 'pearl delete'. It would be a good vintage project for you, unfortunately his No-Date had a rare vintage bracelet. The hollow mid-links were replete with twin screw screwed on on side plates. Not sure, but perhaps that feature was exclusive to another global market aside the US. My gen 6263 (of the same era) has a similar build aside the side plates are rivetted. According to Bob 'Nanuq' that is a characteristic of a UK market released piece.

Here, this should get you <started>. 850SGD, so what, 350GBP? Cheap!

Ahh, thanks for the input That's interesting to know that he did actually own a 1655 himself, I guess the photos available thus far, are pre 72, which would certainly make sense, given how photos of contemporary actors are often still widely seen years after they were taken... I think the 5512 would be a fairly easy vintage project, it certainly wouldn't require too much abuse. It's funny the prices a celebrity's name will attract on an item, if I recall, people were offering to buy OJ Simpson's rep Sub for the cost of the gen (just because it was his watch) but the attorneys wouldn't make the sales due to copyright issues

With regards the bracelet links, I read that he did visit the UK at one point, maybe he picked it up during the visit?

Some information here at this site: http://www.hodinkee.com/blog/2008/7/21/steve-mcqueen-rolex-explorer-ii-1655.html

"

Steve McQueen Rolex Explorer II 1655

We all know that Tag Heuer makes a Steve McQueen version of their Monaco sport watch. It's a great looking watch, and McQueen wore the original version during the filming of the 1971 movie "Le Mans". That's all well and good but the real Steve McQueen, the man, not the man he played in the movies, wore a Rolex.

He wore a Rolex Explorer II model 1655 with an orange 24hour hand, to be exact. That particular model is now known as the "Steve McQueen Rolex" and they are extremely collectible and extremely rare. And it is for those reasons that we are featuring one for sale here on Hodinkee.com today. This one is 40mm, has a fixed bezel, and was extensively recondition in 2004 and now has a new box and Rolex documentation.

This watch is a dream watch for just about every member of the Hodinkee team, and if any of you out there have the means to buy this, we highly recommend you do so immediately. This watch will only increase in value as time goes on. Click here for the details."

Can't say I know much about the subs though. Probably just enjoyed watches

Indeed, I came across that site, and that was what started to get me really confused, as the photos coming up on Google weren't tying up with what the site was saying