HauteHippie

The only thing that concerns me about the Silix PO is the bezel teeth. If you look at the picture on silix-prime showing the bezel from the side, it looks like the teeth are very "soft" at the edge; i.e rounded over instead of coming to a distinct edge like they should. Since the gen bezel doesn't fit, I think we'd want the best possible rep bezel, even if it means buying the UPO. What do you guys think? Here's a gen pic for reference to show how the teeth should look on the edge of the bezel:

That is indeed curious.... Try to find one like that on Ebay or Paneristi, though. I can't.

Definitely the best of both worlds, here. The hands fit as they should without risking damage to them.

J series (latest version) has the L SWISS MADE L lower. See my pics in the "229" thread...

Lello, I think the angle in that photo is deceptive. The print shouldn't be quite as close to the 6 as seen below. Neither the open or closed 6 version of the gen has the L SWISS MADE L print so close: GEN OPEN 6 GEN CLOSED 6 (J Series) REP

Well now, this is very interesting. I had no idea he was copying my cyclops. He seems to copy a lot things I do, now doesn't he... In any event my cyclops is not appropriate for 27,28,29,63 models. It's the larger diameter version meant for newer PAM models.

Does anyone we know actually have one of these en route? Would be great to see more pics of the dial before the new stock becomes available in two weeks.

Right.

Or he uses a slow set epoxy.

The original watchmeister watchmen rules. I wouldn't want anything else on my 63.

Yea, that was the first thing I noticed too... What happened to the lever?

Ah, OK. So the dab of epoxy does the job for the subdial hands.... Excellent!!

Can't hurt to have the info in more than one thread. So, it would appear as though swiss retrofits of non-Dayona 28.8k Asian 7750s are troublesome, no?

California's storms seem to have subsided and the external AR status website is back online, now that power has resumed. My 18 minute 1300VA UPS didn't cut it.

Data posted in ajoesmith's 7750 group buy thread indicated the holes are slightly larger. You could easily broach the holes if they were smaller, but it looks like the holes were 0.03 mm larger as memory serves.

Hi, The Zigmeister, interesting and unfortunately not surprising post. Quick question on the 28.8k Asian to Swiss 7750 retrofits you've done... I was led to believe an issue with that was the subdial hands had holes slightly larger than the genuine 7750 posts. So assuming this is true, then to do the retrofit are you adding glue to make up for the extra space? Thanks!

Nice one!

Agreed, WATCHMEISTER 30: Yea, a little bolder under the cyclops. But pretty darn close.

I still contend that when you see a crisply printed date disc on an early 1680 today it is a replacement, not an original. I had many conversations with Ubi at the time he produced the wheels and he was very sure of what he was doing and of the results. And I have seen pictures of early original 1680 wheels as well, and they are very similar. This is not the best example by a long shot, but I can't seem to find better ones right now. Notice, though, how the 3 is not of uniform, consistent thickness and also a little bolder than the 0. Also notice a general lack of crispness, but again nothing compared to other examples I wish I had handy...

Maybe it's just me, but I don't agree with the pixelation assessments. It's not pixelation, and it was done that way intentionally. It was designed to emulate the (poor) printing technology of the time. The numbers on older 1665 and 1680s were uncrisp and fuzzy. Sure, RSCs did do datewheel swaps to newer versions during regular service. But the look of the original is what Ubi was after and acheived. Look around the net for pics. I've seen gen 1680s with fuzzy date fonts that look very very close to my rep with Ubi wheel. And no two will be exactly alike (on the gen) because the print bleeds differently. Anyhow, that's how I like it and think it should look...

I bet a The Zigmeister superlume job could fix those markers.

Hmm, good eye... It looks to me like only 12 and 6 are lumed with C3 along with the 3 and 9 stick markers. The other numbers look like white paint. I wonder if The Zigmeister would entertain fattening up the painted numbers a bit.... That might be too much to ask, even of The Zigmeister. EDIT: Check the pics scoobs1971 posted... Now the painted numbers look right to me.

Did it not come with a cyclops? It would be nice if you had a set of calipers and could measure the hole diameter precisely. I'd be willing to make he measurement if you don't have calipers, and then return the crystal to you. But the A series cyclopes are definitely smaller than the later series. The common belief is 6mm on those, and anywhere from 6.8 to a little over 7 mm on the newer models.

Of the three new PAMs Trusty is showing, I think the 164 is the best and very good overall. The dial is great. Even the A's are improved, although probably not quite perfect. The date font looks reasonable. The magnifier is improved, although probably still a little undersized (nothing I can't fix with a chieftang cyclops). The crown and CG really aren't bad. The crown thickness looks good but perhaps the number of teeth is off (too few). The 104 is good also, but the L SWISS MADE L is just too close to the 6 o'clock marker on the dial and looks too weird. Anyhow, what do you think? Rep: Gen:

archibald is as knowledgeable as they come in all thing Franck Muller. I think it is C3, but let's see what he says.