asciwhite Posted September 24, 2010 Report Share Posted September 24, 2010 Thanks a million ChiMan12 Now I can Order... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiman12 Posted September 25, 2010 Author Report Share Posted September 25, 2010 WOW thats pretty cool. I like the idea of a low beat GMT. Pretty cool stuff! I have to admit that a couple of other members paved the way on this low beat mod....in particular freddy333 and the work he did on his 6542... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Star69 Posted September 25, 2010 Report Share Posted September 25, 2010 Josh told me there is no 1675 planned .... so - i got the 1655 and some parts cant wait to see the first finished 1655 - 1675 transformer cheers, Frank Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grifter Posted September 25, 2010 Report Share Posted September 25, 2010 WOW this is a great thread! I'm almost done with mods on my Josh 1655 and once I'm done I'm doing this 1675 for sure! Can't wait to see more!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pr0digy30 Posted September 26, 2010 Report Share Posted September 26, 2010 (edited) Thanks to Chi's little tutorial.. I'm running a 2846 in my 1655 now, with the 24H locked. The hand alignments are not dead on, but pretty close. Only thing is the 2846 I put in doesn't have a hack lever. Do all Gen 1655's hack or are they a mixed bag? Edited September 26, 2010 by pr0digy30 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toadtorrent Posted September 26, 2010 Report Share Posted September 26, 2010 @ toad...the 2836 beats at 28.8K while the 2846 ticks away at 21.6k...the 2846 is closer to a true gen beat rate 19.8k. You really don't need to swap to a 2846, it really is for aesthetics...they are exactly the same size... You're a noobie with over 5000 posts?? Audit!!!! DOH!! I gathered that shortly after after posting that...but wasn't 100% sure. Hey...I'm a noob when it comes to movement history and the nuances of the variations. I'll be the first to admit I'm not expert on any of this vintage stuff...interested? ABSOLUTELY? Knowledgeable? For sure...I know how to spell Polex. Very interesting stuff to read...that's for sure!!! When did the handstack change from the "ICHS" to "CHS" order?? Would the old order apply to a 6542? Would the 1655 case be appropriate for that or am I WAAAAAAY off on this one??? I just want to get to have something that REMOTELY resembles any of Freddy's duos...from a pilot's view (i.e. 35,000' away) and have a 2893-2 looking for love ( know...wrong beat). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiman12 Posted September 27, 2010 Author Report Share Posted September 27, 2010 Thanks to Chi's little tutorial.. I'm running a 2846 in my 1655 now, with the 24H locked. The hand alignments are not dead on, but pretty close. Only thing is the 2846 I put in doesn't have a hack lever. Do all Gen 1655's hack or are they a mixed bag? Hey A! I believe Rolex introduced the hack function in 1971 (experts correct me if I'm wrong). So any 1655 from 1971 onwards would have the hack function. So the early "T Swiss T" dial with the straight second hand might not have a hack function. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiman12 Posted September 27, 2010 Author Report Share Posted September 27, 2010 DOH!! I gathered that shortly after after posting that...but wasn't 100% sure. Hey...I'm a noob when it comes to movement history and the nuances of the variations. I'll be the first to admit I'm not expert on any of this vintage stuff...interested? ABSOLUTELY? Knowledgeable? For sure...I know how to spell Polex. Very interesting stuff to read...that's for sure!!! When did the handstack change from the "ICHS" to "CHS" order?? Would the old order apply to a 6542? Would the 1655 case be appropriate for that or am I WAAAAAAY off on this one??? I just want to get to have something that REMOTELY resembles any of Freddy's duos...from a pilot's view (i.e. 35,000' away) and have a 2893-2 looking for love ( know...wrong beat). Ah T! I'm just harassing a Canadian brother. A 6542 is definitely an undertaking, Freddy333 is the king this build and should be the one to go to. Can you even get a good bezel anymore? I know that Yuki's supplier discontinued the bezel... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rwgforumfan Posted April 11, 2012 Report Share Posted April 11, 2012 (edited) Is it a must to replace rep crown with gen crown and tube on a 1655 Exp II build or the rep crown is perfectly acceptable? Edited April 11, 2012 by rwgforumfan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolexaddict Posted April 11, 2012 Report Share Posted April 11, 2012 (edited) Is it a must to replace rep crown with gen crown and tube on a 1655 Exp II build or the rep crown is perfectly acceptable? Some precisions, then I will answer your question : Its true and verified that the 1675 and 16750 both use the same case than the 1655. But in the rep world, the 1/1 1655 Explorer is not at all 1/1. The only 1/1 is you can use a gen plexi and an aftermarket bezel assembly to convert in a 1675. That's all. The 1655 rep case is to thick : check and compare with a gen 1655 and a gen 1675 the case profile and thickness. The 1655 rep case has a wider inside space between the lugholes. That means a 5.3mm crown will look to small. Thats why I recommand to use a 6mm 16570 crown in the rep, for cosmetic reasons. Answer to yout question : Yes, your 1655 will look better with a gen 6mm crown as it is thinner than the rep crown and it will completely change the visual effect Edited April 11, 2012 by Rolexaddict Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archierocks Posted April 11, 2012 Report Share Posted April 11, 2012 Some precisions, then I will answer your question : Its true and verified that the 1675 and 16750 both use the same case than the 1655. But in the rep world, the 1/1 1655 Explorer is not at all 1/1. The only 1/1 is you can use a gen plexi and an aftermarket bezel assembly to convert in a 1675. That's all. The 1655 rep case is to thick : check and compare with a gen 1655 and a gen 1675 the case profile and thickness. The 1655 rep case has a wider inside space between the lugholes. That means a 5.3mm crown will look to small. Thats why I recommand to use a 6mm 16570 crown in the rep, for cosmetic reasons. Answer to yout question : Yes, your 1655 will look better with a gen 6mm crown as it is thinner than the rep crown and it will completely change the visual effect brilliant post RA cheers i was just wondering this exact question lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiman12 Posted April 11, 2012 Author Report Share Posted April 11, 2012 Wow! I like it when an old thread becomes active again! Acutally to correct RA...the 1675 came in many thickness throughout the year of its production (just like the 1016), so the rep case may not be too thick. The Japanese Rolex handbooks are great at documenting case thickness and sizes. But RA is correct in stating that 5.3mm crown will look small on a 1655 without modified the CG's to PCG's (crown gapping is less apparent). But the main problem is the 5.3mm tube, it is smaller in diameter than a 6mm tube. You can never make a 5.3mm crown fit, unless it is on a rep tube that can fit a 5.3mm crown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolexaddict Posted April 11, 2012 Report Share Posted April 11, 2012 Wow! I like it when an old thread becomes active again! Acutally to correct RA...the 1675 came in many thickness throughout the year of its production (just like the 1016), so the rep case may not be too thick. The Japanese Rolex handbooks are great at documenting case thickness and sizes. yes and no, 1675 cases have same specs from A to Z 16750 are identic, just later, the transition case, (fat lady) which was thicker Actualy I work on gen watches, I have made mold from lot of gen cases, ASAP I will post photo comparisons from gen 1675/16750/1655/16570. General message : This is a recurrent problem with reps : cases are to fat, please compare with gen stuff in your hand, not only by looking pictures, Submariners 5512, 5513, 5514, GMT master 6542, 1675, 16750, Explorer 1655 have VERY SLIM CASES IN THE REAL WORLD, yes, VERY SLIM, put a gen and a rep together, the rep has the double of thickness ! Exception for the 1680 and the 1665 which both have fat cases Now, I have found the way to machine the 1675 case bottoms, I am able to restitute at 90% the exact case profile and CG profile thickness, the only thing I did not yet find a way, is the use of a 5.3mm crown Member tabularasa is the first one who got the new slim machined case asap a post with talking photos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiman12 Posted April 11, 2012 Author Report Share Posted April 11, 2012 I really don't know where you are getting your rep cases, because I DEFINITELY know from first hand that a 1675 or 16570 rep case is not double the thickness of a gen case and the most there is 1-2 mm and at the most 3mm variations in thickness for gen cases and this is due slight variations based on the year of production. This is documented in the Japanese handbooks, in other words, they measure the thickness of the mid-case. So once again it is incorrect to claim that ALL 1675 cases are the same A to Z. I would actually like to see your molds that you claim you've collected throughout the years as then you would have molds to make the perfect 1675 case.... As for machining the rep 1655 case backs to match the flat spot on the 1675...that is a simple procedure, because if you look carefully at the rep 1655 case backs, there is a slight flat spot of which the factories probably rounded to make it look like a rounded 1655 case back. All you really need to do is sand that flat spot back down and make it visable again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiman12 Posted April 11, 2012 Author Report Share Posted April 11, 2012 More evidence that the Josh 1:1 1655 or rep case is not too thick and in fact maybe too thin... My "oh my god super-de-duper ultra hyper chiman is broke because of it" franken 1655 on top and 1675 constructed from Josh 1655 1:1 on bottom...the rep case thickness looks pretty good to me...maybe a little thin... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rwgforumfan Posted April 12, 2012 Report Share Posted April 12, 2012 The 1655 rep case has a wider inside space between the lugholes. That means a 5.3mm crown will look to small. Thats why I recommand to use a 6mm 16570 crown in the rep, for cosmetic reasons. Answer to yout question : Yes, your 1655 will look better with a gen 6mm crown as it is thinner than the rep crown and it will completely change the visual effect So just any gen DJ 6mm crown and tube will do? Any thoughts on the rep folded bracelet? Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolexaddict Posted April 12, 2012 Report Share Posted April 12, 2012 (edited) So just any gen DJ 6mm crown and tube will do? Any thoughts on the rep folded bracelet? Thanks! Not the DJ crown, it is 6mm but a little longer, you need a 16570 crown and tube (Explo II) More evidence that the Josh 1:1 1655 or rep case is not too thick and in fact maybe too thin... My "oh my god super-de-duper ultra hyper chiman is broke because of it" franken 1655 on top and 1675 constructed from Josh 1655 1:1 on bottom...the rep case thickness looks pretty good to me...maybe a little thin... O.K, I don't want to start a pissing contest or create a gurus war (I am not in the guru club, I just avoid to take myself to much serious) I work on gen stuff for collectors shops and privates. I don't compare with Japanese or American literature or web photos, I compare with physical gen watches in front of my eyes and in my hands. Also if some have to drive 10 miles to find a gas station or a fast food, I need 10 minutes walking from my home to find many vintage watch shops I will show you an exemple, proving the 1655 "1/1" is not 1/1, its to thick. Gen 1655 and gen 1675/16750 use the same case. A very slim case. In fact, he Josh 1655 has probably been built using an 16570 rep case as template. This 1655 is more close than the 16570 Explorer case. Rolex used same cases for both Explorer 16570 and 16710 GMT Master II. It would be interesting to build a 16570 with a Josh 1655 with a saphire conversion. However, the Josh 1655 case remains actually the best background to convert into a 1675 I have found the way to remove metal from the case botton and CG bottom area to get the similar slim 1675 case profile. I had several 1675/16750 at home last month and took lot of photos comparisons -article in progress- For now, I compared the 1655 I call now the 0,5/1 with a gen 16570 to show the 1655 is even a little thicker than a 16570 with is a fat case ! Here, I opened the gen, just to check if its no a fake I put my name also, so no blabla, its my photos Now, profiles comparisons : 16570 on top Here, profile differences, shorter CG on the rep and to much material bottom any questions ? Edited April 12, 2012 by Rolexaddict Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rwgforumfan Posted April 12, 2012 Report Share Posted April 12, 2012 Not the DJ crown, it is 6mm but a little longer, you need a 16570 crown and tube (Explo II) Are these the correct parts? 24-600 crown 24-602 tube Where can I get them cheaper? The new ones on fleabay cost an arm and a leg. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiman12 Posted April 12, 2012 Author Report Share Posted April 12, 2012 This is not a pissing contest, but a debate...you claimed that the 1655 1:1 rep case is too thick, I claim not...so far all you have been doing is comparing by physical appearance...just as I have... RA...the 1655 you are sourcing is not the rep 1:1...take a look at my actual pics of rep case (on the bottom), compare the position of the lug holes to yours...mine are further out and wider...yours are further in and smaller. How do I know that mine is the 1:1? I was one of the first few members to source the 1:1 1655 rep right away to convert it into a 1675. By making evidential claim in my thread...you are claiming to be a 1675 guru...so have you even measured the thickness of the both mid-cases or not??? Yes...your reputation as a claimed 1675 expert is on the line here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolexaddict Posted April 12, 2012 Report Share Posted April 12, 2012 Are these the correct parts? 24-600 crown 24-602 tube Where can I get them cheaper? The new ones on fleabay cost an arm and a leg. Thanks! you need a tube 24-5330-00 and a crown 24-603 By making evidential claim in my thread...you are claiming to be a 1675 guru...so have you even measured the thickness of the both mid-cases or not??? Yes...your reputation as a claimed 1675 expert is on the line here... Sorry for having violated you thread, next time I will stay away What is on the line now here ? I am affraid now, I never claimed to be a 1675 expert, I am expert of nothing, this is people here who have invented that, I am not affraid for my reputation you should keep more retreat, Also I have nothing to prouve or to defend, just to confirm the 1/1 1655 in not 1/1 and 1675 have all slim cases the 1655 on the photos is the one from Josh, its the same watch since 2 years and a half, I had dozens, all were indentical The only right thing, I made the mistake to claim in you thread, I appologize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest zeleni kukuruz Posted April 12, 2012 Report Share Posted April 12, 2012 Oohhh soooo much reading! But i like to read about the 1675 becuse thats my grail rolex vintage sports watch! And RA is right here for what its worth (he usely is when it comes to vintage rolex watches) and much other stuff to, this guy has many intressts! It's the same case for sure!!! I also have this case on my Cornino the so called 1:1 case from joshua, but the case was reworked by RA. The 1675 1:1 from our trusted dealers are all fat cases they are the same thicknes like the subs. I think the thicknes of them are 14mm or 14.5mm but this is what i think! Mine is on top i like them (girls) tal and slim! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest zeleni kukuruz Posted April 12, 2012 Report Share Posted April 12, 2012 Are these the correct parts? 24-600 crown 24-602 tube Where can I get them cheaper? The new ones on fleabay cost an arm and a leg. Thanks! Maybe RA has a sett for you? Sometimes i think that maybe RA is supporting Rolex with crowns and tubes and plexi ect ect Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest zeleni kukuruz Posted April 12, 2012 Report Share Posted April 12, 2012 Dubbel post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Star69 Posted April 12, 2012 Report Share Posted April 12, 2012 very entertaining boys i just took my 1675 out of the trash and i think RA is right about the case - there are a few more case variants in the GMT line - here is the case thickness of a few watches: (ass to top without mag) - GMT Master (16750) Plexi - 1,30 cm - GMT Master II (16760) - 1,28 cm - GMT Master (16700) - 1,18 cm - GMT Master II (16710) - 1,20 cm - GMT Master (1675) Plexi - 1,30 cm - GMT Master (1675 thin case) Plexi - 1,27 cm - GMT Master (6542) Plexi - 1,27 cm - Submariner Date (16610) - 1,28 cm cheers, Frank Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woof* Posted April 12, 2012 Report Share Posted April 12, 2012 Oohhh soooo much reading! But i like to read about the 1675 becuse thats my grail rolex vintage sports watch! And RA is right here for what its worth (he usely is when it comes to vintage rolex watches) and much other stuff to, this guy has many intressts! It's the same case for sure!!! I also have this case on my Cornino the so called 1:1 case from joshua, but the case was reworked by RA. The 1675 1:1 from our trusted dealers are all fat cases they are the same thicknes like the subs. I think the thicknes of them are 14mm or 14.5mm but this is what i think! Mine is on top i like them (girls) tal and slim! I want one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now