jimcon11

Nice build! Tudor is my favorite watch brand and I prefer smaller watches so I can see myself building something very similar in the future. Was the gen case pricey? I'd probably go for a rose dial if anyone makes them. The hands are a bit different but it's a good look, have you thought about aging the lume on them to match the dial?

I am drawn to what I call the Strategic Air Command look, i.e. 50s space-age designs, and the early Rolex sport watches fit right into this category, as do things like the Leica M cameras, Fender Stratocaster guitars, etc. Of course 50s cars are huge, just watch American Graffiti, but I haven't taken the plunge into owning one yet. I think nostalgia is a bit of a disease, or at least it can have a detrimental effect on one's moral well-being. I definitely find myself at times disparaging contemporary trends and people, and withdrawing into my own mental world of nostalgic objects, media, and values. I'd compare nostalgia to believing in an afterlife; in both cases the mind flees reality toward a fantastic ideal realm, probably due to anguish or dissatisfaction with present conditions. I see correlations between the development of capitalism, proliferation of technology, decline of mental health, increase of social isolation, and rise in popular nostalgia. With that said, I think a watch is a good comforting dose of nostalgia; it's a small object serving a simple but vital purpose, it's unobtrusive but never out of sight, and it's packed with cultural information, i.e. can be considered as a piece of history, jewelry, a tool, a work of art, an icon of pop culture, a scientific achievement.. and probably in many other aspects. Most accessories are just what that word implies, something non-vital and only fit for certain occasions, but a watch you really love can practically never leave your wrist and really become a part of your identity. I think to some extent wearing a vintage watch can communicate the idea that you long for some better world than what we currently have. One startling discovery I had recently is that the trend in bringing vintage-inspired products to market has now even reached firearms. Companies are now making reproduction assault rifles with the same veracity of the best rep watch makers. From a design standpoint, I find them absolutely cool and beautiful. From a social standpoint, I find it terrifying that there is a community out there as obsessed with the minute details of now easily-acquired deadly weapons as we are with watches ...

Looks really nice and I also enjoyed reading the original paperwork. Thanks for sharing this one.

Good God those gilt waffle dials are beautiful, best of luck aging yours to look as good as the ones in that link. Does anyone know if the Vietnamese builders have made any early Submariner or Turnograph waffle dials as well?

How much do you plan to wear it? Do you want something worth $4-6k on your wrist most of the time, liable to be damaged, lost, or stolen? Would the stress of keeping it safe overpower the satisfaction that it's an original? The great thing about good reps is they can be built to the same ruggedness and durability as gen, and can be worn hard, as intended, without the feeling that you're tearing up a piece of history. On the other hand, if you intend it more as a family heirloom to pass on to your son, then nothing beats the real thing. I think it's hard to perceive something as valuable and meaningful when it might also be considered "fake" to many people. I love the really early Tudor subs, 7922, 7923, 7924, 7928, so my decision here would obviously be to build a rep, as gen-like as possible.

Not a Rolex, not a wristie

The GS PA462-19M looks like this Not sure if it's quite as flat as the one you posted, but I can tell you that it's flatter and less obtrusive than the PA462-20A. It is also slightly wider in its inner diameter; it's the only crystal I've found that will fit on gen spec 6538 cases (made for the unavailable Tropic 17).

For what it's worth, I'm into vintage Submariners, and the best builds I've seen have not been made by either of those people.

Adrian at Athaya is out of office until October.. anyone have a spare pearl?

Wow, really nice. Damn, I don't think there are any tells whatsoever on this one. So say you needed to get those hands today.. what would you do? Bite the bullet and surf network54?

This is the route I went as well. You will probably need a movement ring for your new case. You can either buy the Yuki one for whatever they charge or modify the Silix one if you already have it. Its outer diameter needs to be decreased quite a bit, and slots need to be cut for the stem and movement tabs. These movements can be scavenged from out-of-vogue 50s and 60s dress watches fairly cheaply. One thing to be aware of is the hand height. The movement you get might have fairly short hand posts if it was in a small thin watch, but you will need to be able to clear the lume plots on your dial. I had this issue and it was hell getting it resolved.

I just checked again now and, oddly enough, it's working fine. Maybe it was something on my end cross-platform and my tablet needed a restart. Thanks for the help.

Thanks, I appreciate it!

Thanks for the suggestion, but unfortunately it's doing the same thing no matter what theme I choose.

I went to send a private message today and I noticed that I am no longer able to. The To and Subject fields are fine but the Message field is greyed out. I tried tapping all around it and can't find any way to enter text. I'm on an Android tablet, I tried chrome and Firefox in Mobile and desktop mode, all with same issue. Here's a screenshot I haven't had a chance to try on an actual computer yet, but this seems like a pretty major bug since a lot of people use mobile computers now. Hope it can be fixed.

Yeah I think you're right, it just seems strange to me that there is such a consensus on size. I guess the reality is that the rep market will always be dependent on the gen market, and gen vintage Rolexes are in demand more because they are a status symbol for people who are trying to make a statement (thus needing a mid-large sized watch) than because people appreciate design, history, aesthetics.

Any idea how to proceed with a Turn-o-graph? I was thinking of starting with a 1016 case, although it seems like the lug shape is just different on those. The Turn-o-graph looks like a really thin Submariner, and I think it uses 20mm strap width, so maybe a Vietnam small crown case shaved about 1.5mm on each side, with the lug ends shortened proportionally. Then it would need bevels recut. Dial would probably need to be decal printed. It seems like the hardest part would be getting a 35mm bezel, and I'm sure the gen Turn-o-graph bezel goes for a couple thousand. Might have to have that part custom made or something. The unique insert is the one part that seems to be cheaply available for reps, oddly enough.

Some observations I've made lately that may interest you guys: While working on my recent Submariner build, I began to wonder about certain design elements, where they came from, and what they say about the watch's purpose. For instance, the finishing of the case. The brushed metal top surface suggests an attempt to eliminate reflection, and this is done on most military equipment. But if Rolex was serious about eliminating reflection, why are the sides polished, and why is the dial gloss-coated? Similarly, the "sword and dagger" dial markers seem intended for high visibility in adverse conditions, yet the dial is famously gold printed, an unnecessary excess for a utility watch. It's almost like a field aesthetic rather than field practicality was the intent. I'm not too knowledgeable in horology, but I realized that I couldn't think of a single earlier watch with a gilt dial, sword and dagger markers, brushed top surfaces, or even the Mercedes style hands. And the only rotating bezel watch I could think of is the Longines Weems, where the bezel's purpose is simply to be a second chapter ring for the seconds hand, allowing pilots to synchronize time to the second without a hacking movement. Where did these features come from?? I delved a bit into the history of the Submariner to try to find answers. What I found instead is immaculate conception. As far as casual internet history goes, no one has any idea where the Submariner came from. The usual narrative is, diving became big in the early 50s thanks to SCUBA and Jacques Cousteau, so Rolex, the pioneer of water-resistant watches, simply made their first purpose-built dive watch in 1953. True, sure, but not a satisfying explanation for why the Submariner is the way it is. The 6202 Turn-o-graph is cited as the proto-Sub, but that watch appears to be simply a smaller Submariner with a different bezel insert, begging the question of its origin. Likewise, a Sub-Aqua branded watch was produced, but only differing from the Submariner in name. Oddly enough, it appears that Rolex experimented a lot more with branding on the dial than any other aspect of the watch. So if the 6200, 6202, 6204 all came out fully formed in '53, I was left wondering what the heck Rolex came out with in '52, '51, '50, etc. I still have much more to learn, but what I've found is that the Submariner, foremost and interestingly enough, has nothing to do with previous dive watches like the Rolex-made Panerai, Blancpain, or the Longines watch made for British frogmen in WW2. The Submariner appears to have no naval design provenance whatsoever, even though it is documented that several navies, notably the British, tested and issued big crowns from the mid-50's on. As best I can tell, the Submariner is a conglomerate of features experimented with on luxury civilian watches, Rolex Oyster and Oyster Perpetual, "bubble back" watches, designed in the early 1940s. Perhaps this is already obvious to Rolex enthusiasts here, but it was quite surprising for me, as I became interested in Rolex by the avenue of pure military watches. Anyway, here are a few examples: "Army" 3139 You can see the precedent is already set for the gilt dial, sword and dagger markers, and Mercedes hands on a "tool watch". These features originated on other, much more Art Deco-looking Oysters of the 1930s, and it seems that form has always trumped function even in Rolex's most utilitarian designs. It's telling that this watch is simply branded "Army", a stylistic statement, instead of carrying actual acceptance markings like most military watches--I severely doubt these were ever issued. The quotes are theirs, not mine, as if even Rolex didn't take the idea of a purpose built army watch seriously. "Speedking" 4220 Quite a beautiful watch, shares the general "tonneau" shape and brushed top surface of the Submariner. I'm not sure if that rivet bracelet is original, but that would be interesting. 3725 This steampunk monstrosity is the only pre-Submariner watch (by anyone) I've seen with dot markers, and, along with many of the bubble backs, has a weird indiced bezel that I don't think has any function. Nothing to do with the Submariner, but damn what a beauty, couldn't help but post it. Seriously, if you've never looked into these watches, head here now just for the images. There are a dizzying amount of variations in the 30s-40s Oysters, and as far as I can tell, every Submariner design element, save the rotating bezel, is present in these watches. Yet, as popular as the Submariner is, there seems to be very little information about or interest in these precursors. Apparently bubble back collecting was big in the 80s and has gone quiet since. Still, nice examples sell for several thousand dollars, about the cost of a contemporary Submariner. All this leads me to some questions for the vets here. Being fairly new to the replica world, I wonder why there seems to be zero interest in any pre-1953 Rolex reps. I would love to wear something like the "Army" or Speedking above, but I'm not likely to spend 5 grand on a radioactive watch with a likely unserviceable movement. I'm surprised that at least the Vietnam builders don't make some of these cases, dials, and hands, which you could almost mix and match to your liking and still be true to history. They look really cool. So, is anyone aware of attempts that have been made to replicate pre-'53 Rolexes? Maybe there is info out there and parts sources that I've overlooked. Even a Turn-o-graph build would interest me a lot if it were possible. Do you guys think that as the bravado element of having a huge, clunky-looking ego watch is wearing thin, and smaller sizes and vintage styling are coming back in vogue, that there might be rep building possibilites for these Submariner forefathers in the future?

The case I got was not perfect but it was easier for me to make it perfect than try to return it and take a chance on another or pay double somewhere else. The dial I got was exactly as pictured, if there are imperfections they are microscopic. She is straightforward and honest, I believe someone posted her WhatsApp in the thread already.

Well damn, that's significantly less than what I've paid. And lower than the prices listed on her site. Are you sure she wants you sharing this?

Nice collection, I'd say the 5513 Tripdog build is my favorite of the bunch.

As Yllekp said, there are many details even the Vietnam builders often get wrong that the "experts" pick up on, usually pertaining to the dial. It seems to me that the gen collectors are a bit more knowledgeable about these things since they are the ones dropping six figures on a small piece of metal and they can't afford to be wrong even once. With that said, I don't see the line between gen and rep being nearly as clear as most of the gen forum users pretend it to be. It's obvious that the gen collectors feel their exclusivity threatened by the high quality reps and posture as though the difference is night and day. For instance, have a look at the Rolex passion report, where this man claims to identify about 50 details in any rep dial, neatly marked with red dots, proving the watch is *FAKE!!* The problem is that there is some degree of variance in the gen watches and dials; no one at Rolex knew these watches would ever be collected or scrutinized to this degree. This writer, supposedly a notable expert, often contradicts himself as to what details are right or wrong, which, along with his atrocious English and extremely belabored writing style, certainly makes for an interesting psychological study.