Jump to content
When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission.
  • Current Donation Goals

GMT II Ceramic Insert question.....


Justasgood

Recommended Posts

Which inset looks closer to Gen:

005-1.jpg

Top or bottom?

Left or right:

006-1.jpg

Wristie to start the week:

011.jpg

And a few more:

007-1.jpg

002.jpg

003.jpg

004.jpg

010.jpg

001-1.jpg

Thanks to PT for helping me out. As you recall, I dropped my watch and the bezel became an issue.

PT responded to my request and I was able to secure a Case set that had been butchered by someone. The case back was caved in and the Cyclops was chipped as if a removal went all wrong.

Well, it turns out that this insert is thicker than the shiny Metal one original to my watch. Also, the crystal was thicker. So, I finished the removal of the cyclops, swapped movement and case backs and viola........New and improved GMT II Ceramic CHS.

Thoughts appreciated,

Kurt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's looking awesome :) Congrats on being able to source the parts to fix things :) Of course, it's also nice to see another Rolex sans-cyclops :tu: If you don't mind me asking, do you have any plans for the other bezel insert?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which inset looks closer to Gen:

005-1.jpg

Top or bottom?

Top looks best to me. But, like I keep saying, these GMTIICs are so good out-of-the-box that I would need to see a gen in the same picture (same size, same location, same camera angle & same lighting) to be able to correctly tell the gen insert from the rep.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thick or thin font on your rep doesn't make a huge deal of difference as the gen lies somewhere in between.

However the colour of the markers is a biggish tell - silvery grey on the rep, silvery white on the gen.

Must look at what shades of white metallic enamel paint are available, then armed with a small brush, paint remover and a lint-free cloth, rectify that flaw. Probably best effect will be on the thin insert, as the whiter colour will optically 'enlarge' the font. Unfortunately I have the early limited CHS version which means thick font, but willing to give it a go anyway. And swapping out the DW for a gen as overlay (another big difference IMO)

Still that pesky cyclops to deal with though <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's looking awesome :) Congrats on being able to source the parts to fix things :) Of course, it's also nice to see another Rolex sans-cyclops :tu: If you don't mind me asking, do you have any plans for the other bezel insert?

TJ,

Thanks for the comments. I have no use for the old insert. It isn't in the best condition but if you would like it, PM me your address.

Kurt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Top looks best to me. But, like I keep saying, these GMTIICs are so good out-of-the-box that I would need to see a gen in the same picture (same size, same location, same camera angle & same lighting) to be able to correctly tell the gen insert from the rep.

I agree. While the color is off, I think the shape and crispness look far better on the new insert. I gotta say, i am not sure that the insert isn't ceramic. I know the old one is metal, but the newer one is thicker with a different grain and a more china like sound when it is hit on the table.

Has anyone confirmed that these are ceramic?

The thinner font is better :thumbsupsmileyanim:

Thanks,

it seems we have a consensus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thick or thin font on your rep doesn't make a huge deal of difference as the gen lies somewhere in between.

However the colour of the markers is a biggish tell - silvery grey on the rep, silvery white on the gen.

Must look at what shades of white metallic enamel paint are available, then armed with a small brush, paint remover and a lint-free cloth, rectify that flaw. Probably best effect will be on the thin insert, as the whiter colour will optically 'enlarge' the font. Unfortunately I have the early limited CHS version which means thick font, but willing to give it a go anyway. And swapping out the DW for a gen as overlay (another big difference IMO)

Still that pesky cyclops to deal with though <_<

Good points..........kinda glad I am color blind :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Top looks best to me. But, like I keep saying, these GMTIICs are so good out-of-the-box that I would need to see a gen in the same picture (same size, same location, same camera angle & same lighting) to be able to correctly tell the gen insert from the rep.

Agree.

The 4 is much better.

most important issue is not the size of the font to me, but the color which is way off on my rep.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What color should it be? I am color blind so noticing these things is very difficult for me.

However the colour of the markers is a biggish tell - silvery grey on the rep, silvery white on the gen.

Must look at what shades of white metallic enamel paint are available...

Probably best effect will be on the thin insert, as the whiter colour will optically 'enlarge' the font.

;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...
Please Sign In or Sign Up