TeeJay

Classic beauty

Give it about a year until the honeymoon effect wears off, then they black bays will be all over the sale forums, the price is way too dear to justify having it tied up in the watch, just a hunch but I'd say there will be quite a few flippers. It still is a lovely watch, I'm not sure it will be same lust for the watch with many after 3 months in of daily wear compared to the frenzy the lovely brochure pics and Basel launch created. This all depends of course on how restrictive the supply is, it does looks pretty restrictive at the moment!

I think you've hit the nail on the head perfectly there, as I would also have to apply that time limit to the Tudor Heritage: I love mine, I wouldn't get rid of it, but as soon as I got my new 16610, it was immediately superceded by it, and I now rarely wear it at all, where the 16610 (although I have plans to convert it to a 16800) I've had about three months or so, and have a hard time keeping it off my wrist, and still think "That looks like a bitching watch..." when I catch sight of it while walking So I think the Black Bay, Pelagos and Heritage probably all suffer the same issue of longevity, although I could see the Black Bay being the most enduring, especially for someone with only one watch, rather than options to switch to For me, my only concern about the Black Bay is the amount of burgundy in the design. Don't get me wrong, I love red, but I do wonder how versatile the watch would be in terms of wardrobe compatability due to that redness (In the 70s, it would have fitted in perfectly) compared to a black insert

Good one!

As above, I feel that sums up my thoughts on the Pelagos perfectly: I like it, but really know that I shouldn't

Fantastic :tu:

Fortunately he caught it as it slipped off. He couldn't believe it though. He went on to me about how it's the best dive watch in the world and blah blah blah. He was quite pissed off about it actually.

I'm not surprized, I'd be pissed off if the same thing happened to me I've just heard so many horror stories of the glidlock clasps failing (mostly down to welding failures on the folding section which connects to the links from the 6 o clock half of the bracelet) I really wouldn't ever want to wear one as I know I wouldn't ever trust it. Not really a fan of the DSSD at all, but I am quite keen on the fantasy Deep GMT, and if cash allowed, I would get one, but immediately swap the bracelet for a Tropic-style strap

My first rep (my first expensive watch) was a 16610 Submariner from a site called EuroFakes, and cost me about $800. When I owned it, I did not know as much about watches as I do now, and never opened the case to view the movement, although the person who bought it from me, confirmed that it did have 'a Swiss movement'. With regards the other details though, I was never able to find a single distinguishing difference from reference photos of the real McCoy. It had the circular 'press here' mark on the inside of the diver's extension, and not only was between the lugs etched, but so were the inside edges of the SELs. Now, I'm not claiming that this was some kind of Swiss uber-rep, but, I suspect it's the kind of thing that this other guy is talking about. I agree totally about the comments about the dealers though, they all have the same stock, and people are too scared to think outside the box for fear of being scammed. Was I scared about being scammed when I sent EuroFakes my money? Well, I'd be lying if I said I didn't have any concerns at all, but no more so than with any other transaction, and I think it was three days till I got a nice FedEx guy knock on the door with a watch which, to this day, I haven't owned anything as 'perfect' as a rep can get, even though back then (and even now) I didn't care about 1:1 perfection, I was just simply never able to spot any differences I don't think this is a bet you can win, it would be better to back down with grace than get rolled for 10K...

That's why I never wear any bracelet when diving, only a diver on rubber strap. Plus I only wear a lower end one and never an expensive gen. My orange monster has never failed me yet!

I've not done any scuba in this lifetime, but would like to I suspect I would also go with the rubber strap option as well

I encountered this on a model number search, and wifey was rather impressed, so we were wondering if anyone had any leads on any similar reps?

http://www.christies.com/LotFinder/lot_details.aspx?intObjectID=5166930

Have to agree with you on the glide lock clasp. A friend of mine has a gen Deep Sea and it fell off his wrist during a dive because sand got into it. Sand!! I mean, come on!!! It's a dive watch for gods sake (an expensive one) and it can't handle a little sand? And now we have this newer, fancier clasp system?

I'll take a flip lock clasp any day of the week over any of the new mechanisms.

Sand?!? That's crazy Was the watch retrieved, or lost to the depths?

Design complaints aside, you have to give it props as the first all titanium dive watch by Tudor, or Rolex for that matter. Plus the progressive engineering that went into the dive extension clasp is pretty good too.

The use of Ti is good, but I'm not convinced about the clasp, I've seen too many instances of the glidelock clasp failing that I wouldn't wear one myself for fear of it failing (although I can appreciate the engineering that went into them )

Oh, I get it. You just hate Seikos!

I think more than anything, it's the consumerist aspect of the watch which I also object to. There was nothing wrong with the Snowflake, or the 7032, or the 16610, yet Tudex Co feel the need to keep releasing new versions just to get more revinue (I know, I know, that's the point of business ) But it's a bit like Gilette competing against themselves with each new razor released, which at the end of the day, is still just a razor and probably just as good as the original, and I think with the Pelagos, had they felt the need to re-issue the Snowflake, they could've kept the designs a little more 'in house', as with the Black Bay, which is just a shuffle of existing design elements, but still an attractive watch in its own right

I don't quite agree with you regarding the Pelagos, but I'll give you props for a funny analogy.

It's not that I don't like it, more a case of I feel like I shouldn't

Strange, but I find that it's the BB that is more accurately described as a homage watch to Tudor Subs of the 50s and 60s. I think the Pelagos has far more new features (the aforementioned clasp, the titanium construction, ceramic/luminescent bezel, HEV), and makes a better case of being viewed as an all-new design.

I do see your point, M, I just feel, as mentioned above, that there're too many similarities to other watches, like Seiko etc, for it to really stand on its own as a new design, and too many innovations for it to be considered a 're-issue', like the Heritage was for the 7032. It's not that I don't like it, it just doesn't quite sit right for me, hense my other comment

Fantastic collection, amigo

Wooow woof, this is very intressting! I dident know about this one so THANK you for showing me mate. Well of i go to order one then! Price is amazing, wso most do drugs becuse the prices he takes are a focking joke, he charges 35$ just to ship the shit, he is crazy! Im very happy that there is a new actour out there, Thanks again!

No drugs, the guy's just an asshole

I like it, but... The redesign is unnecessary... The Black Bay is a unique watch in its own right, sure it is a fusion of other watches, but it is still a unique combination, the Pelagos is no more than a homage watch with an over-engineered clasp The Pelagos is a bit like seeing your sister in a bathing suit, thinking "Nice ass...", and then remembering it's your sister

Gonna be hard to get that dial right

Matte varnish should handle it easily enough

Well I can honestly say "yes". When I call my times in or log it and glance down at my watch, I look at the GMT and Minute hand. Much easier for a simpleton like me than going "11pm plus . . where are we. . .5 hours. . .so that's - oh wait, no. . .0400? yeah" In my head.

And, BTW, I have my 1675 with a DG3804 set up like a true 1675. My GMT hand is "fixed" and I rotate my bezel for the timezone.

That's how I do it too, why else have a rotating bezel

I think that if function trumps accuracy, I would go with the larger 1675-style hand & lume it with Nightcolor. It will be alot more functional in the dark that way.

From what you've said about the visibility of the GMT hand, I think you might be right and to have function take precedence Thinking about it, I could always go all red on the 1675 GMT hand, just to have all the Rolex Rareness in the one piece I'm planning on preparing a 5500 Explorer dial decal so it has a gilt appearance, with the Explorer text blacked out, but Precision in red, so an all red GMT hand might be a nice coordinating detail

That is exactly how I work as well. I would never even consider beginning a project like these, until/unless I have already mentally built the watch in my head. And this includes establishing what parts I need & exactly how I am going to modify them. Of course, as was the case when fitting the bezel during construction of my Phase I '42, there are always at least 1 or 2 things that come out of left field. But, hopefully, even these can eventually be solved with help from other members .

Absolutely, there's always someone with the experience to resolve most issues (although of course, some of that left field interference is part of the fun of building anything ) Once I resolved the bracelet issue which has always plagued this case (finally resolved by taking a warding file to the end links, then compressing the sides with pliars once fitted so the profiles matched the lugs ) I knew that I really could do something in the 6542 era with the case, so wanted to try and be as period-accurate as possible with the parts, even if not necessarily 100% true to 6542 specs. The GMT hand was the one piece I was mentally wrestling with, for the aforementioned visibility concern, and my desire to have the older-style hand was rather conflicting with my assumptions of its night visibility, and that was when I remembered how the DJ dial reflection actually solved this issue, but having looked at additional reference images, I suspect that the hand (even if it was SuperLumed) is a little too far from the rehaut to create a reflection... I think I might have to mull this one over some more or even just flip a coin to decide, as if I follow logic and function over form, then I would be going with the larger hand for the increased visibility, but this is one instance when I am actually leaning more towards sentimentality and form, so more than a tad conflicted Thanks again for your feedback and insights

I have no idea, and haven't read a word about that. Mine, both the acrylic (bakelite, Perspex) and Lexan are painted using gloss paint, if that helps any. But the shine is produced by the material.

Indeed it's a help, as I want to capture that same depth of color/lustre, but using something in the black spectrum (possibly charcoal grey, rather than jet black) which might be able to shift from light to dark, in the same way as the blue on the other inserts shifts depending on the ambient lighting

Just an assistance in daylight. I use a lume that is in keeping with the age of the watch, and not strong or long lasting. Some say the near 60 year old lume would not glow at all, others have said it will.

But if you need to see it at night, I'd suggest a modern super lume. It will only be seen at night and not take away from the look you want, and regardless if small arrow or large, it will glow.

Thanks I was planning on using Revell Night Color on both the dial and the insert as I've found that has a reasonable glow and duration, but with a creamy daylight color which has a suitably vintage appearance

I was surprised to find that I can see the small arrow hand easier than the large arrow hand. The reflection in the crystal and the longer shaft on the small arrow may be the reason, or the larger arrow 'blending in' with the hour markers, I'm not sure.

Does that crystal reflection also include the glow at night, or is it more of an assistance for daytime visibility?

The DG3804B that I have come across are the 2.0mm GMT pinion. Rafflestime has both large and small arrow for that movement.

It would be good if the smaller hand would be useable simply to boost the overall aesthetic of my plan (and I do think that the small hand would look more in keeping than a larger hand) my prime concern, is the visibility

Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...........

Not to be too obvious here, but if it's dark do you really need your 24-hour hand? Think about it for a minute.....

(caveat: unless your 24h hand is individually adjustable from the hours hand that is!!)

I would be using it for second timezone reading, rather than day/night indicator My overall vision for the project: Rolex watchsmith was supposed to be building a 6542, but got bored and decided to do it a bit differently for a chuckle (Explorer-style 3-6-9 dial and monochromatic insert) I want it to look like a GMTIIC built using the parts available at the time*, but equally need the GMT hand to be night-readable, hense my dillema on which hand would be best suited for my needs, given that strict adherence to formal 6542 specs is not crucial to the project

*a prequel, for want of a better term

As a sub question, am I right in thinking that the original inserts didn't use matte paint, but a gloss finish beneath the bakelite?

Very likely. Poor visibility was the reason Rolex enlarged the pointer mid-way into the 1675 series & have continued to use them.

I can tell you from experience that the small GMT hand is often difficult to see when glancing at your watch.

I have to admit, most of the 6542s I've found in my research have featured the small GMT hand, as equally, most have had the bakelite inserts, but, I've seen a few which had been refit with the later metal inserts, and then I saw the listed one with the large hand, and wondered if that had been a matter of a customer request rather than an RSC tech simply swapping in a new hand for the sake of it on a service. Does that difficulty in seeing the hand extend to daylight hours as well as night viewing? If the hand is hard to see in general, I might have to sacrifice 'historical plausibility' for practical visibility...

The small GMT hand does reflect in the bevel of the crystal. It makes it easier for my tired old eyes to see it than the 16710 with the larger arrow and sapphire crystal.

Thanks for the additional info Although my project is only 6542-inspired, I'm caught in the dillema of wanting the aesthetics of the build to be 'historically plausible', against pure functionality (and for me, luminous visibility is as much a functional requirement as water resistance ) Of course, it all might become a moot point depending on the size of the GMT pinion of the asian movement (when I actually buy one) I guess I'm just trying to 'mentally build the watch' so I have all the details worked out for when I can begin the actual build (Step One has been achieved: Fitting a DJ Oyster bracelet with hollow end links to my vintage Silix case, which had previously accepted only one other non-stock bracelet )

The inner flange (rehaut) on older Rolex watches has a brushed finish specifically to cut down on reflections

Thanks for clarifying I was trying to visualize the visibility of the GMT hand in the dark due to the small size of the head, when I recalled how the case of a DateJust would reflect the dial markers and create the illusion of a larger glowing marker, and I wondered if the same principle might apply to the 6542 GMT hand, but what you've said makes perfect sense, as I'm sure I've read that the 6542 inserts were created to reduce reflection as well I've seen a 6542 on Google with the larger GMT hand, and wonder if that might have been swapped in to improve night readability... Thanks again

Does the glow from the GMT hand reflect off the rehaut to create a larger 'glowing area', like with the DateJust dial?