Need to consult the WIS

[TJGladeRaider]

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I am in a bit of a pickel. I have a watch here that I think I put a gen crystal on, and I am pretty sure about that, but I would rather let it go with a gen by accident than tell someone it is a gen if I am mistaken about that. Back in the day, I put gen crystals on most of my MBWs and Clark replacements on some of the others.

Yes, I know, I am a LOUSY photographer.

Anyone able to offer me an opinion.

Bill

[Ronin]

Looks like a Clark or standard rep to me.

Here is the profile of a gen 'flat top' t-127

[freddy333]

Looks like a Clark or standard rep to me.

Ditto.

[TJGladeRaider]

Looks like a Clark or standard rep to me.

Here is the profile of a gen 'flat top' t-127

That's a beautiful thing but I have a gen Rolex 127 here that has a bevel at the top of the crystal. This came sealed from a known source - it looks just like the one on that Sub. Did they make more than one profile for that crystal?

It isn't a Clark - I have some of those too.

Thanks for taking the time to snap those pics - I wish my pics were so good!

Bill

[TJGladeRaider]

That's a beautiful thing but I have a gen Rolex 127 here that has a bevel at the top of the crystal. This came sealed from a known source - it looks just like the one on that Sub. Did they make more than one profile for that crystal?

It isn't a Clark - I have some of those too.

Thanks for taking the time to snap those pics - I wish my pics were so good!

Bill

That thread may be the answer. According to that, there were two gen Rolex versions of the 127, the beveled service crystal and the non-beveled one.

Bill

[JoJo35]

You're forgetting the original equipment 127 "dome". The flat top is a service crystal, and the beveled profile you show in your last pic is also similar if not identical to original equipment 127's. Some later service crystals had a different bevel profile as well (starting lower with less of an angle). That being said, the magnification of your cyclop (IMO) appears to be too weak to be genuine.

[TJGladeRaider]

You're forgetting the original equipment 127 "dome". The flat top is a service crystal, and the beveled profile you show in your last pic is also similar if not identical to original equipment 127's. Some later service crystals had a different bevel profile as well (starting lower with less of an angle). That being said, the magnification of your cyclop (IMO) appears to be too weak to be genuine.

Thanks for your thoughts.

It's amazing how much collective information is on this board.

That Red Sub sold straight away. Not knowing for sure, I didn't represent the crystal as being genuine, but I hope it turns out to be. On my MBWs, I always switched the crystals out since the originals weren't as nice as the Clarks that cost virtually nothing. I had several gen crystals I put on MBWs, and that one didn't look like a Clark, so I'm left with . . . just not sure. Sitting next to so many others, this one stands out.

There's something about the distortion free clarity of the gen - it's almost as if they are illuminated. Whatever one might say about Rolex, some of their stuff is just amazing.

Bill

[Dizzy]

I agree

Nothing beats a gen plexi. You have to see it to believe it.

[craigb]

take my hat off for that. starting to go off the current rolex models, think im going to convert to vintage