TeeJay

I love the Snowflake with the black dial and blue insert, it reminds me of a French Navy Snowflake I first saw when I first started getting into reps. I still have Snowflake build in the works, but I'm now seriously considering going with the blue insert as well

Having read the above posts, I would go for the second dial for this reason: If both dials are Luminova, having a Tritium rating is a bit silly Both look nice, and I do like the texture on Dial One, but given the choice, I would go for Dial Two Best of luck with your project

Sorry for the delay, but thankyou for the link Even though I had a bad experience with Silix in the past, at this pricepoint, I may just have to let bygones be bygones, and pull the trigger when cash allows

I was just wondering if anyone might be able to confirm the correct numeral forms for a circa 1981 16800? I've been doing some research and found some answers, but was hoping someone may be able to confirm/deny my findings What I have seen (and fortunately have on my 16610) is: Round-topped 3s, flat topped 4s, open backed 6s and 9s (on all single and double digits) Is this correct for circa 1981?

Likewise, as a child, I saw that Bond never took his watch off, so have just always followed that example Sometimes if I'm in a hurry in the morning I find it's useful to keep my watch on in the shower so I can keep track of time rather than just enjoying the soak and then running late With regards the topic condensing, I would hope that a recent generation DSSD HEV would be at the very least water resistant, even if not functional, so I'll put my guess on a breach on the crystal gasket. I recently had a similar issue, I suspect the crystal on my 16610 had a bead of epoxy in addition to the gasket, which me removing the crystal to re-align it must have broken, as it began condensing in a similar manner I replaced the rear gasket, but also ran a bead of superglue round the crystal gasket just to go 'belt and braces' on it, and that immediately solved the issue

I don't mean to put the boot in here after KB's post, but I must agree with previous posters, that without naming the TD here publiclly, this is not a truly useful post, just an interesting read on you dodging the bullet... I'm not going to PM for the information, because it's irrelevant to me, but I feel that the information is very relevant to other members here who do use TDs, and at the end of the day, this forum exists to protect buyers from dealer lies, not to give dealers 'fish in a barrel' buyers who don't know any better

That's a real beauty Might you be able to post a link to the sales page? I tried looking on the site, but the only a21j 1665 listed on the site, te sales photos are of something more like a 16610 than a 1655 Would absolutely love a 1665 like that at a budget price point

I don't think you quite got the point I was making. 18 months - 2 years ago, there was only one Trusted Dealer (since burned out) who provided QC pics. Until then, people simply went on the sales pictures and emails to dealers. I wouldn't say that people were ever 'happy' about sending stuff back if there was an issue, but it was accepted as part of the risk of the game, and people accepted that status quo. The 16610 I got a few weeks back, I admit, had I seen QC pics (and not planned on converting the watch anyway) then if I was being anal on details, I could've always requested another piece, but the dealer I use doesn't supply them, and I've never asked for them. I guess what I'm saying, is that people who have been collecting for a while, are used to taking chances on purchasses, rather than having to have their hand held through the process, so can find people who do need that reassurance to be a bit needy/whiny/unrealistic in their expectations... There is nothing complex about the transactions, it's just like buying anything else online: Select/click/pay... If it doesn't work, sure, there's the hassle of a return, but chances of getting something DOA is slim, so no real risk, especially when going with Trusted Dealers

Because until all this QC pic bullshit started, people paid their money, got what they were given, and it was either occasionally DOA (and the dealer would replace it) or in the majority of instances, absolutely fine. Personally, I don't know, and equally don't care, what the watches I receive measure at on timeographs. As long as they run with reasonable (in or near COSC standard) accuracy, that's all that really matters to me, and when people want babying over what should be a simple transaction, it's a bit disheartening to see

Depends how you define 'bang for the buck'... Do you literally want the best price and not concerned about accuracy of details, or do you want something which could probably be handled by someone, and them not be able to spot any errors in spelling on the bracelet clasp? If it's the former, I got a rather nice submariner for £32 shipped from a site called CQOut. Admitedly, the etchings on the bracelet clasp are incorrectly spelled, and it has Maxi dial and hands, but it keeps good time and is waterproof... If you want the latter, and all correct spellings, the stuff which has been listed above is the way to go

Fantastic piece

Welcome back, F Still the 1655 here

Many thanks, guys, I'm glad people enjoyed reading my musings

Thanks for the kind words, amigos

Double post

Who cares... :tu: At the end of the day, I'm not looking to discuss the pros and cons of the various dealers offerings, but would instead, rather pay homage to the Submariner itself. IMHO, I would say it is the ideal watch: Easy to read, comfortable to wear, durable and tough, but still elegant and appealing. Maybe not as elegant as the DateJust, of course, but still certainly capable of being worn on a day to day basis without looking hellishly out of place. Try wearing a Yacht-Master with T-shirt and Bermuda shorts, or a DateJust with sweatpants and a hood and it's simply going to look like overkill... Of course, the Submariner comes in several different flavors and different vintages: There is a Submariner for all tastes, wether that might be two tone, solid gold, bling-tastic, or abused and worn. In its sixty year path, I would liken the development and evolution of the Submariner design to the trajectory of a projectile, especially how it reaches an apex, then drops off... I would say that the 16610 was that apex point: maximum water resistance of the various Submariners, Luminova material on hands and dial markers, saphire crystal to weather the little dings that life throws at such a time-piece, and an overall aesthetic which is emulated by countless watch manufacturers the world over. But after the 16610, it all starts to go downhill... First came the 16610 LV... Maxi dial and hands, so increased visibility, but, I have to admit, more cluttering of the dial also, I'm starting to truly appreciate the slender elegance of the traditionally sized sub handset... But Rolex didn't stop there... If the 5512 and 1680 Submariners were watches worn by rugged Men of Action, the 16800 and 16610 Submariners were equally worn by Desk Drivers and Estate Agents as status symbols, rather than the functional time-piece of an outdoors sportsman. With the most recent release of the 116610, Rolex are moving further away from a simple, functional watch, and further into the realm of jewellery... Does the increased case size actually serve any purpose or house a larger dial, such as the variance between the 42mm and 45mm Omega Planet Ocean? No... Does the rehaut engraving actually serve a purpose of anti-counterfeiting? Not really, it just adds an unnecessary detail... Does the cerachrome bezel insert perform better in extreme conditions than the old annodized steel bezel inserts? Well, it won't scratch if knocked against something: It'll just crack and shatter instead... A worn metal insert can add character to a watch, display proudly battle scars that show it has been used as intended, rather than being Rapunzelled in a safe its entire life. A damaged cerachrome bezel insert will just look precisely that: Damaged... Then there's the overly engineered glidelock clasp: A feat of engineering which allows for the most precice micro-adjustment and custom fits, and which has been reported to suffer welding failures in the same strategic point... No, I think it is safe to say, that the 116610 is not the watch once worn by such masculine individuals as Steve McQueen or Jacques Cousteau, but something better suited to a nightclub owner... And yet the Submariner was not always a piece of expensive jewellery, the 5512 is certainly a perfect ballance between function and aesthetics, with the 16800 evolving the technological aspects, ie increased depth rated case and saphire crystal, yet still maintaining the same primarily functional aesthetics as its predecessors. To be honest, maybe the 16610 was not the apex of the evolution, but maybe the beginning of the decline, what with the unnecessary use of white gold surrounds to the dial markers, and the redesigned bracelet with solid end links, both purely aesthetic considerations, not functional ones... Yet even amidst all this, this diversity in selection still makes the Submariner a watch for all takers, or rather, there is a Submariner for all tastes: Does the buyer want a 'birth year watch', or a particular variation which appeals to them the most, or do they simply want what would have been purchassed had they gone into an AD yesterday and dropped the cash on a gen, thus simply buying the latest edition which was being carried? Whatever the indiviual's answer, there will be a specific Submariner which is best suited for them. I think it is interesting that the Submariner is the watch people ask about most frequently when first getting into replica watches, I would guess because it is such an iconic piece. I would also liken it to a gateway drug, opening the way for more diverse pieces, different brands, and yet remaining a reassuring constant: A watch which can be strapped on every morning and never fail to look good, a watch which can be worn without worrying if it is going to get wet, or if it is worn in a dark room: The hands and dial will still be visible, and a watch which can be efficiently and quickly used for timing various activities. The Submariner is a watch which takes all these challenges and tasks in its stride. That's not to say that the Submariner can do it all: Want to look like a playboy? Buy a Yacht-Master... Need to track the timezone in another country for business? Buy a GMT Master... Need to live on the ocean floor for weeks on end? Buy a Sea Dweller, or even a Deep Sea Sea Dweller, if you plan on accompanying James Cameron to the Titanic... But if you don't plan on doing or need to do those things, then the Submariner will not let you down

That's a beauty Had you considered a vintage pearl? It'll look a treat when you can put it on a jubilee

My first was a 16610 Submariner, I then moved on to Omega and Panerai before selling the collection to pay for my wedding. The only rep I was left with was a customized Rolex GMT/Submariner hybrid, and when I started rebuilding my collection, I just stuck with Rolex and Tudor. I have several projects planned, including another custom GMT, but for the main, my collection has come full circle back to the 16610, and I don't even look at other brands anymore

Fantastic build

Really sorry to hear about your dad, condolences to you and your family

Not a BK, but I've seldom had issues with reps and water Even my budget 16610 was fine, until I unscrewed the back and must've crimped the gasket I'm sure you'll have no issues

I've stripped the case again, thoroughly dried everything, re-seated the crystal again, and replaced the rear gasket, and so far, the issue seems resolved Maybe the rear gasket got damaged while originally removing the caseback

At the moment, I have two options: replace the gasket, or use epoxy and seal it. Neither if which are issues. However, the thing which I don't understand, is why the watch does not fog when it is immersed in hot water, only cold, and equally, why it can fog if I go outside into colder weather... This is why I want to know if the fogging could be environmental/due to the temperature of the crystal, rather than the obvious answer that there us a mechanical failure allowing a leak. I seem to remember a member some time back mentioning their watch fogging up when going into a shopping mall from a hot and humid outdoors...

Something I forgot to mention, is the fogging on the interior of the crystal is not permanant, it 'de clouds' in a matter of moments as the watch dries (and presumeably the crystal temperature equalizes...) It's not huffing up and staying fogged till wiped clear, if that might shed more light on it

Thanks for the feedback, I can always try replacing the crystal gasket, but the thing which has me confused, is it was waterproof before the crystal was removed, and it has been pressed down very securely with a vice, so I'm confused as to why the gasket has 'stopped working'