Guest zeleni kukuruz Posted April 12, 2012 Report Posted April 12, 2012 @woof You can't have one!!! Becuse you already have to many sexy girls in your stable
woof* Posted April 12, 2012 Report Posted April 12, 2012 (your right of course....but I still want/need one )
JoeyB Posted April 12, 2012 Report Posted April 12, 2012 Frank, Pardon my ignorance, but where are those measurements taken? When I measure the thickness of a case I get 5.1mm.
Star69 Posted April 12, 2012 Report Posted April 12, 2012 Frank, Pardon my ignorance, but where are those measurements taken? When I measure the thickness of a case I get 5.1mm. bottom to glass (w/o cyclop)
chiman12 Posted April 12, 2012 Author Report Posted April 12, 2012 Okay...let's focus on the gen 1675 should be thinner than a modern day sub argument... Based on my digital calipers total thickness, including case back and crystal... My gen 16610 13.1mm my rep 1675 converted from a rep 1:1 1655 is 13.13mm (with modifed flat case back) According to the Japanese Rolex encylopedia... The 1675 thickness ranges from 12-13mm 1655 thicnkess ranges from 13mm to 13.5mm 16610 gen thickness ranges from 12.5mm to 13.mm So the 1655 rep thickness is consistent and within the 1675 gen thickness. Take into consideration that I flattened out the rep 1655 case back to make it look like a 1675 case back, so you will lose about .5mm What does this mean...we are all barking up the wrong tree... The 1675 has the SAME thickness as a modern day sub and the assumption that a GMT should be consistently thinner than a modern day sub is incorrect...
Seacraft Posted April 13, 2012 Report Posted April 13, 2012 very entertaining boys i just took my 1675 out of the trash and i think RA is right about the case - If your trashcan is overflowing and needs a little expansion room - you can send that my way
JoeyB Posted April 13, 2012 Report Posted April 13, 2012 I may be wrong, but I think the contention is that the mid-case is thinner on the older GMT, not the entire caseback to crystal measurement. I thought, ever since reading freddy's comparison back on his phase one, that the mid-case was what we were talking about when discussing the thinner case.
Guest zeleni kukuruz Posted April 13, 2012 Report Posted April 13, 2012 Yes Joey your right. Just measure the mid-case. Do a measurement on the caseback + mid-case is wrong!!! Chi, measure your mid-case NOTHING more.
Star69 Posted April 13, 2012 Report Posted April 13, 2012 does is really matter ? how would you measure the middle case ? the thickness of the lugs ? you would need a NOS gen case to compare. and there are too many variants over the year to cover them all. the Josh case is good enough - at least for me. i don't see the problem in the case thickness - i see the problems in the CG area. cheers, Frank
Guest zeleni kukuruz Posted April 13, 2012 Report Posted April 13, 2012 Does it matter? For some yes for others no, for me yes! The fact stil remains the case is too thick it's simple as that. Cheers
chiman12 Posted April 13, 2012 Author Report Posted April 13, 2012 Continuing on with the GMT versus submariner thickness debate... Guys...what I'm trying to point out is that a gen 1675 (which I don't have a gen to compare to) is the same thickness (if not thicker) as a modern day sub and a little thicker due to the thickness of the movement. This means that the the overall case is thicker to accomodate the thicker gen GMT movement. Assuming that the case backs are pretty much dished the same to accommodate the rotor depth, then the mid-case would have to be a bit thicker to accomodate the slight thickness differential. Now comparing this to the 16750 and the 16570...the Japanese Rolex encyclopedia stats indicate that the thickness are on the average of 12mm. So it would only make sense that the 1675 mid-case is thicker than the 16750/16570, which confirms RA pic of his comparo to a gen 16570 From Rolex spec sheets...1575 (GMT) thickness= 6.47mm, 3035=6.35mm. BTW...The thickness of a mid-case 16610 about 4.7mm...my REP 1655 mid-case is 4.83mm...so consistent from MY point of view, because I don't have a gen 1675 to compare. In summary and according to what I have in front of me, the 1675 mid-case should technically be as thick if not thicker than any modern day sub and also any successor of the 1675 (except possibly 16760).
Guest zeleni kukuruz Posted April 13, 2012 Report Posted April 13, 2012 Chin mate, the 1675 is MUCH thinner then the modern Submariner ! I give up here !
chiman12 Posted April 13, 2012 Author Report Posted April 13, 2012 z....once again...there is no concrete evidence provided...and all there is heresay...I'm sick of discussing this too... once I buy a gen 1675 (which might be forever, because I am broke!)...we'll reconvene this discussion...or maybe not...over and out
Ephry73 Posted April 13, 2012 Report Posted April 13, 2012 Now, who has just the middle Case for a 1655 for sale?
Guest zeleni kukuruz Posted April 13, 2012 Report Posted April 13, 2012 http://clockmaker.com.au/rolex_case_size.html And Joshua has the 1655 the one that you have chin and that case is 12.5mm
JoeyB Posted April 13, 2012 Report Posted April 13, 2012 OK, so who has a genuine 1675 that can measure the mid-case for us? That would solve it all, and give modders the right number to go for. I know freddy has the mid-case measurement of the gen 6542.
Rolexaddict Posted April 13, 2012 Report Posted April 13, 2012 (edited) wait till monday, I will have a gen 16750 and measure with my palmer the case thickness and show you the difference between a gen 16750 case, which is the same case as the 1675 and the same case as the 1655 -talking gen stuff- Just to show the rep case tickness difference I have actually a Josh 1655 (1/1...) case stripped and ready for machining for a member, Also a big article in in progress, unfortunately, I do a lot of things at the same time and I am very busy right now In fact, I don't know why I insist, anyway the gen 1655/1675/16750 use the same case, any years of production, cases are slim, and the 1655 "1/1" is very far from the real stuff. Period. -for me- Edited April 13, 2012 by Rolexaddict
Guest zeleni kukuruz Posted April 13, 2012 Report Posted April 13, 2012 Phhuuu, thanks for doing this RA. This will clearly show what we are talking about.
rwgforumfan Posted April 13, 2012 Report Posted April 13, 2012 (edited) According to this chart, the correct gen crowns to use on the 1655 and 1675 are 24-600 and 24-530 respectively. http://www.esslinger...wn%20number.pdf Edited April 13, 2012 by rwgforumfan
chris9 Posted April 19, 2012 Report Posted April 19, 2012 Thinking about buying the Asian 2813 movement 1655 from Andrew, think it is the same watch as "Josh 1655". Just got into Vintage Rolex with a DRSD and looking to expand collection. Should I pay the difference for the Swiss ETA 2836? Your thoughts appreciated.
Star69 Posted April 19, 2012 Report Posted April 19, 2012 so after reading RAs other post - the (s)thickness is the same cheers, Frank
Guest zeleni kukuruz Posted April 19, 2012 Report Posted April 19, 2012 The you have to start all over and read again
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