siesta181 Posted October 30, 2010 Report Share Posted October 30, 2010 Picked up the latest ExpII to accompany my recently completed Tudor 7032 project. I must say the build on these new ExpII are excellent. I believe that if you just change the crystal and you are set. But then again I am a Rollie noob so what do I know but I like what I see.. Have a good weekend Cheers S181 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuan Posted October 30, 2010 Report Share Posted October 30, 2010 Very nice. Love the duo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StormTooper4 Posted October 30, 2010 Report Share Posted October 30, 2010 a pair of stunners Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krpster Posted October 30, 2010 Report Share Posted October 30, 2010 Nice pair.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
modelizer Posted October 30, 2010 Report Share Posted October 30, 2010 Great looking duo! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toadtorrent Posted October 30, 2010 Report Share Posted October 30, 2010 That is a great looking duo. Did you get the ETA or the A21j?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siesta181 Posted October 30, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 30, 2010 Got the ETA version. AT least that's what I paid for. Anyways, am working towards implanting a 2893 in this. Gen plexi, higher hand wheels (hopefully the higher wheels will eradicate the hand clearance issues....) But I am enjoying this for what it is right now.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sneed12 Posted October 30, 2010 Report Share Posted October 30, 2010 I just put together an a21j version yesterday... the gen of this watch (the McQueen I mean) has a non-independent GMT hand and a low-beat movement, if I remember correctly. Going 21j for low-beat and ETA or clone for high-beat is the one thing that I'm fairly anal about with Rolex reps... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siesta181 Posted October 30, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 30, 2010 I know that a 2893 in a McQueen is inaccurate. But I sleep better with a "real" GMT movement in this coz I really like this watch. A GMT function is always useful... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeJay Posted October 31, 2010 Report Share Posted October 31, 2010 Absolutely fantastic pair, they look great together Nice idea to put a 2893 in the 1655, as you say, it's not accurate to the original specs, but it is providing proper GMT function, so that's an improvement over the original specifications Can't wait to refit mine to look like Oliver Shepard's , it might actually see some wrist time then Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siesta181 Posted October 31, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 31, 2010 You are absolutely right TJ. The McQueen is an absolute nightmare when it comes to telling time at a glance.... but the unique dial is what attracted me to it in the first place Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeJay Posted October 31, 2010 Report Share Posted October 31, 2010 You are absolutely right TJ. The McQueen is an absolute nightmare when it comes to telling time at a glance.... but the unique dial is what attracted me to it in the first place I know exactly what you mean there, the dial looks sooooo good in photos, I thought "I'll get me one of those... " But trying to read the time quickly... That's just I know Rolex took design feedback from divers when the Sea-Dwellers and Submariner lines were being updated, I wonder if they took feedback from Shepard, which led to the 1655 becoming the modern Explorer II we have today (which otherwise should be dubbed Explorer III ) Yours really do make a handsome pair, wear them well Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sneed12 Posted November 1, 2010 Report Share Posted November 1, 2010 I don't understand the comments about the dial being illegible, honestly... Who looks at the dial when telling time? There are watches out there with no dial markers at all, as long as the hands are visible telling the time is fairly simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toadtorrent Posted November 2, 2010 Report Share Posted November 2, 2010 I know that a 2893 in a McQueen is inaccurate. But I sleep better with a "real" GMT movement in this coz I really like this watch. A GMT function is always useful... I hear you on this one!! I also think about putting one in a GMT IIc...but wrong handstack...would I care?? Not likely... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeJay Posted November 2, 2010 Report Share Posted November 2, 2010 I don't understand the comments about the dial being illegible, honestly... Who looks at the dial when telling time? There are watches out there with no dial markers at all, as long as the hands are visible telling the time is fairly simple. I'm guessing you've never worn a 1655... Dials with no markers are fine, but the 1655 dial is a nightmare to read, because the eye picks up on the additional 24hour markings instead of the main ones. For example, the eye sees the first marker past 30, and thinks 35, but it's not, it's actually 32.5, and then the mind re-calculates, and it gets a bit rather than simply looking at a glance and easily reading the time. You may well be one of the lucky people who can wear the watch and tolerate the dial. The effect is impossible to tell from photos, only possible to experience while wearing the watch, but is incredibly pronounced. Lets put it another way... If the dial format for the 1655 is perfectly acceptable, why do you think Rolex discontinued to use the dial, and proceded to built the next generation of Explorer II's with GMT/Submariner-style dials and continue that style to this day? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toadtorrent Posted November 2, 2010 Report Share Posted November 2, 2010 Because they had to make way for THIS beauty: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
modelizer Posted November 2, 2010 Report Share Posted November 2, 2010 Because they had to make way for THIS beauty: Dang! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coolfire Posted November 2, 2010 Report Share Posted November 2, 2010 Ah dang it! Who the heck looks at their watches to actually tell the time?? I know I don't. lol I like what I see too, J! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeJay Posted November 2, 2010 Report Share Posted November 2, 2010 Because they had to make way for THIS beauty: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sneed12 Posted November 2, 2010 Report Share Posted November 2, 2010 I'm guessing you've never worn a 1655... I'm wearing a rep of one right now, actually Dials with no markers are fine, but the 1655 dial is a nightmare to read, because the eye picks up on the additional 24hour markings instead of the main ones. I never seem to have that problem. To each his own I guess Lets put it another way... If the dial format for the 1655 is perfectly acceptable, why do you think Rolex discontinued to use the dial, and proceded to built the next generation of Explorer II's with GMT/Submariner-style dials and continue that style to this day? So that us vintage watch nuts would start paying 10k+ for these things (or build or own)! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member X Posted November 2, 2010 Report Share Posted November 2, 2010 n00b question ahoy... ... but are these from Silix? Or all the dealers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeJay Posted November 2, 2010 Report Share Posted November 2, 2010 I'm wearing a rep of one right now, actually I never seem to have that problem. To each his own I guess As you say, to each his own So that us vintage watch nuts would start paying 10k+ for these things (or build or own)! That's one theory, but I don't buy it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeJay Posted November 2, 2010 Report Share Posted November 2, 2010 n00b question ahoy... ... but are these from Silix? Or all the dealers? Not sure about the specific version, but I'm sure any dealer will be selling a 1655 (of some description ) 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.