gplracer Posted July 3, 2010 Report Share Posted July 3, 2010 (edited) What do you think? Explorer II Edited July 3, 2010 by gplracer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mactower Posted July 3, 2010 Report Share Posted July 3, 2010 I like the look of it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmb Posted July 3, 2010 Report Share Posted July 3, 2010 It always cracks me up when they say, "Exactly similar to genuine..." Doesn't that mean "the same thing only different"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freddy333 Posted July 3, 2010 Report Share Posted July 3, 2010 Tweak the case & replace the dial (with white markers) & you might have something there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cskent69 Posted July 3, 2010 Report Share Posted July 3, 2010 I don't know. The bezel number font is wrong and the Orange hand is too thick..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chad Posted July 4, 2010 Report Share Posted July 4, 2010 i asked josh why the markers are basically neon orange. He said his gen that they "dissected" was like that. Sure it was buddy........ Never ceases to amaze. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lhooq Posted July 4, 2010 Report Share Posted July 4, 2010 Is it me or does the date wheel look yellowish? Still, I'm tempted to get the budget Asian version, just to get a closer look! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gtanak Posted July 4, 2010 Report Share Posted July 4, 2010 Maybe they need to strip the factories of those yellow lights and switch to white LED energy savers... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmg Posted July 4, 2010 Report Share Posted July 4, 2010 The dial is still wrong but did you notice the folded bracelet though.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stilty Posted July 4, 2010 Report Share Posted July 4, 2010 not even close Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lhooq Posted July 4, 2010 Report Share Posted July 4, 2010 The dial is still wrong but did you notice the folded bracelet though.... Nice catch! Now I'm really thinking about getting the cheapo version. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
watcher Posted July 4, 2010 Report Share Posted July 4, 2010 Interesting comparing with my gen but the dial is horrible. The rehaut is too thick, bezel numbers are too large, folded bracelet was on series 1 only which means the seconds hand should be straight but these do vary a lot on gens too!. DW should be a nice silver colour. 24hour hand too red to name but a few flaws that would need addressing. Biggest problem though is the crown position being too low in the guards. It's workable but no way have they bought a gen watch for this !! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FxrAndy Posted July 4, 2010 Report Share Posted July 4, 2010 What is it they dont get? Why should all vintage watches be yellow or orange, many gens are still white but hardly any are like this we ask for good lume on new watches but then we get what looks like good lume on a vintage the old crap lume would be better on this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pr0digy30 Posted July 4, 2010 Report Share Posted July 4, 2010 (edited) It's too bad the ETA version is a 2836... IIRC the gen beats at 19.8 kbph. The 21J would be a closer match, but not sure about a 2813 that supposedly does GMT. As the 2836 and 2846 are almost identical movements, wonder if a GMT module could be placed on the 2846 thus giving you a better movement (over the 21J) and a closer to gen beat. Edited July 4, 2010 by pr0digy30 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
watcher Posted July 4, 2010 Report Share Posted July 4, 2010 The exp 1655 is not a GMT watch and should not have an adjustable hand! The orange hand was there purely to show whether you were in am or PM when caving. This was not a popular watch when new and is surprise as to why it realizes so much money now! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freddy333 Posted July 4, 2010 Report Share Posted July 4, 2010 As the 2836 and 2846 are almost identical movements, wonder if a GMT module could be placed on the 2846 thus giving you a better movement (over the 21J) and a closer to gen beat. Yes. My Phase I 6542 (at right) is 2846-powered (the GMT gearing was transplanted from 1 of Josh's 2836-powered 1675s) (My Phase II 6542 (at left) is gen-powered) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiman12 Posted July 4, 2010 Report Share Posted July 4, 2010 Am I wrong? But didn't all small (square) hour indices almost touch the rehaut on the 1655? Because every picture I've seen of a gen 1655 had this trait. In addition, I think the "T SWISS T" is a little small in scale. I'm wondering if the factory actually picked a franken by mistake to use in the replication process!?!?!!? Here is a scan from my Japanese Rolex Encyclopedia...notice the small square hour indices touching the rehaut... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gplracer Posted July 4, 2010 Author Report Share Posted July 4, 2010 What was the original bracelet used on this watch and what is the width of the band at the shoulders? I need a folded bracelet for my 6263. The cheap version of this could be an alternative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeJay Posted July 5, 2010 Report Share Posted July 5, 2010 The exp 1655 is not a GMT watch and should not have an adjustable hand! The orange hand was there purely to show whether you were in am or PM when caving. This was not a popular watch when new and is surprise as to why it realizes so much money now! They're Cult Watches now, for the simple reason that Steve McQueen owned one While they photograph nicely, personally, I find it a horrible watch to wear, the dial is too cluttered. The only reason I have kept mine, is because I am really pleased with the luming job I did on it. If it wasn't for that reason, it would be gone, and I would have gotten something else as a spare... But hey, to each his own Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiman12 Posted July 5, 2010 Report Share Posted July 5, 2010 They're Cult Watches now, for the simple reason that Steve McQueen owned one Did Steve McQueen actually own one? I knew that he owned a sub (5512) and wore a Heuer Monaco, but I thought him owning a 1655 was an urban Rolex myth? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeJay Posted July 5, 2010 Report Share Posted July 5, 2010 Did Steve McQueen actually own one? I knew that he owned a sub (5512) and wore a Heuer Monaco, but I thought him owning a 1655 was an urban Rolex myth? Indeed, a poor choice of words on my part, it might simply be that he endorsed the watch somehow, rather than directly owning one, indeed, all the photos available show him wearing a 5512 or a Monaco, so who knows... Irrespective of his personal possession of the watch, I'm sure that it is the connection of his name to the watch, which has resulted in its Cult Status, rather than any intrinsic quality to the design itself... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mastergod Posted July 5, 2010 Report Share Posted July 5, 2010 (edited) Indeed, a poor choice of words on my part, it might simply be that he endorsed the watch somehow, rather than directly owning one, indeed, all the photos available show him wearing a 5512 or a Monaco, so who knows... Irrespective of his personal possession of the watch, I'm sure that it is the connection of his name to the watch, which has resulted in its Cult Status, rather than any intrinsic quality to the design itself... Agree to alla-this, and also agree that McQueen's role in building this watch as a cult object is likely exaggerated. LOL! The oilskin-enthusiasts have the same argument about whether McQueen's wore Belstaff or Barbour. You know you´re a Legend when people argue about what you wore and when! However! IMO, the 1655 is an interesting and important watch with a magnificent sports-design & beautiful colour-scheme that surely deserves a top position within the historic Rolex sports family. 2 pesetas MG Edited July 5, 2010 by mastergod Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeJay Posted July 5, 2010 Report Share Posted July 5, 2010 Agree to alla-this, and also agree that McQueen's role in building this watch as a cult object is likely exaggerated. LOL! The oilskin-enthusiasts have the same argument about whether McQueen's wore Belstaff or Barbour. You know you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lhooq Posted July 6, 2010 Report Share Posted July 6, 2010 Indeed, a poor choice of words on my part, it might simply be that he endorsed the watch somehow, rather than directly owning one, indeed, all the photos available show him wearing a 5512 or a Monaco, so who knows... That's the weird thing about this myth: There's no evidence whatsoever of there being any link between McQueen and the 1655, not through ownership, endorsement, or even being in the same photo as someone else wearing one. However, I have it on good authority that a number of people have watched one or more Steve McQueen movies while wearing Orange Hand Explorers. FACT! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmg Posted July 6, 2010 Report Share Posted July 6, 2010 What was the original bracelet used on this watch and what is the width of the band at the shoulders? I need a folded bracelet for my 6263. The cheap version of this could be an alternative. Howdy sir, an original would have been a 7206 riveted followed by 7836 and 20mm between the lugs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.