HauteHippie

LOL! I'll second that!!

Absolutely! Not only is debt counted in GDP, but it's counted twice! The initial borrowed "income" is counted and then when it is used to consume goods it is counted again! And let's not even get in to how artificially low the inflation numbers are kept which have many benefits for the man, not the least of which is a propping up of GDP... And to expand upon your final excellent point, we can't PRINT our way out of this mess. But unfortunately, that's the last tool in the bag and one which Helicopter Ben is not shy about using. And so if there still is any doubt by anyone that this "deflation problem" is anything more than a massive head fake, then look no further than the St Louis Fed's graph of the monetary base: The obscenely troubling spike on the right hasn't entered circulation yet.... yet. So things still look deflationary. But it will. And then.... whoa Nelly.

But calling them 'wrong' assumes that they actually believed their own propaganda.

ZIRP has arrived here in the US of A... Another first as this situation continues to go from bad to worse. Bonds and money are now essentially interchangeable and the Fed can not manipulate interest rates any further. The dollar free fall has begun, and gold has shot up by ~$100/oz in a little over a week. Someone feel free to chime in with a glass half full perspective because I just can't see one. All I see is very serious trouble ahead... Oh, and BTW, anyone following the previous Economy thread might have read about the Fed's pondering over the issuance of its own bonds. I can now see why: it'll be a tool for them to soak up all the excess liquidity when the [censored] *really* hits the fan. (See last paragraph below) --- http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/17/business...y/17fed.html?hp WASHINGTON

Perhaps. But longer term, the Euro will have its own severe problems to overcome.

Yea, that's a given... Removing AR (cleanly) can be painful enough on some of these crystals... Removing PVD, well, that's a different ball game.

Awesome... So this must mean I can send you my PAM 28 with rep PVD for removal and recoating?

Don't worry, the dollar is now getting weaker by the day. The dollar index has gone from over 86 to 81 in about a week. And while I tend not to speculate, it is my strong suspicion that this is its last hurrah... Once it breaks below 80, it's not coming back. We'll see.

Glad you're happy! The BP, I think because of its overall size, is one of those that absolutely screams for AR. Somehow it just looks cheap and junky without the AR and then looks like a million bucks with it! The pics look great, but even they don't tell the story.

I might try to work a deal with the lab if the problem is on their end... Have them redo the cyclopes and do an AR on the crystals too... I dunno if it'll fly or even if it's their problem or not. But, generally, yea it's a start over at this point given the results. I could take a donor cyclops to try stripping the AR and evaluate what happens during the AR removal process.... If it's already attached to a crystal, that'd actually make life easier by giving me something larger to grab on to.

Indeed, it does look very different... That's why there must be a coating on the outer surface of the cyclops. There is no way to prevent reflections on that suface unless that surface has an AR coating. Single AR and Double AR is a night and day difference....

I have two bets: 1. double AR on cyclops + single AR on entire inner surface. The amount of effort and tooling involved to create a mask that would allow coating of the cyclops area of the inner surface of the crystal would be ridiculous to undertake, in my somewhat educated opinion. Especially considering there is no practical benefit compared to just coating the entire inner surface. 2. There is something going wrong at my AR lab causing these magnifiers not to be coated properly. Some will recall that I had to have them build custom tooling just for the 6mm PAM cyclopes, and they're using these same fixtures for the Rolex magnifiers. Anyhow, as I said previously, I'm going to take this up with the lab... Pictures speak a thousand words, so I will send a couple of freddy's pics and photoshop away the Rolex logos or something. I'm sure they'll wonder why the coated and uncoated lenses look identical side by side.... Lastly... I do have one unclaimed coated magnifier here... If it goes unclaimed for much longer, then I'm going to run a dremel over it and just verify that in fact there are at least a few layers of AR being removed! Because, honestly, I'm starting to lean towards #2 above more so than #1. We will see.........

It now looks to me like Rolex is coating the *entire* underside of the GMT IIc crystal along with the cyclops. You don't/can't reject reflections off the top surface of the cyclops without coating it. It is just that simple. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. I am also going to take this up with my AR guy... Freddy, or anyone, if you've got a side by side pic of a coated and uncoated cyclops on a non-Rolex-rep watch face please post it. I'd like the proprietor of the AR lab to have a look and see what he thinks. I'm going to have to wonder, also, at this point if there is some problem with the fixturing of these tiny lenses that is somehow effecting the application of the AR. We'll see.

Yep.... Fully Ziggified dial. ETA 7750 transplant. Chieftang AR. It's my favorite piece... Very comfy on the wrist too. I didn't like the 3717 either... bought this thing used on a whim and instantly loved it once I saw it in the flesh, so it got the full treatment and is a keeper!

chefcook's account would lead me to believe that the crystal he obtained had not been AR coated... As b16a2 says, check for a purple ring around the perimeter of the crystal (barely visible) under florescent lighting.... The single AR on my 196 is really only ever visible in my work bathroom, for whatever reason... but they use those compact florescent can light bulbs in there... As for AR impregnated into the crystal.... No. Creative thinking though!

Monday through ??? Back to my goto wrist wear...

I think this is the missing piece of the puzzle right here to be honest. I think we need to coat the GMT IIc crystals on the inner surface as well. Maybe then we'll achieve the proper look with the coated cyclops... But knowing what single sided AR looks like, I highly doubt the GMT IIc cyclopes is coated (only) on the underside. That's not the look I see on the gen.

No, that's not what Rolex is doing. The external surface is probably all they're coating. I'd still like to see a shot of yours, like that gen shot, where there is indirect glare on the crystal.

freddy, Yours was double coated, on the domed side and on the flat side. After having a long discussion with sssurfer, it was decided that a good quality sapphire glue would work fine on an AR coated surface. So there you go.... -Chief

It's really hard to tell. When I look at these things fresh from the AR lab, even I wonder.... After you get it installed shoot a pic with some indirect glare (not directly reflecting your light tubes) like that first gen pic and let's see how it looks... Be careful during the install, and remember the AR is on the domed surface.

Ditto here. Great stuff, T!!

Great advice from Freddy... As far as cameras, I can tell you as someone who dislikes point shoot pics most of the time, that the Canon G10 at low ISO settings is really a very impressive machine.... So I'll second or third or whatever we're up to the G10 recommendation.

Yea, you can't compare color over the internet.... But that gen dial is very different regardless. Look at the gentle curves around the subdials that are nowhere to be found on the rep, for instance.