pr0digy30 Posted July 24, 2011 Report Share Posted July 24, 2011 So I've sanded the bezel down a bit with some low grit sandpaper.... tried heating the bezel & freezing the case, tried silicone grease on both... and I still can't get the bezel to sit down fully (even after almost putting my full weight onto it in a crystal press). For those who have succeeded in putting a Clark on this case... did you have to take a lot off the bezel's inner diameter? I don't really want to sand the bottom edge of the crystal... I'll definitely slip up and score the area that will be visible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alligoat Posted July 24, 2011 Report Share Posted July 24, 2011 Are you talking about sanding down the inside of the retaining ring? That's a pretty common occurance with the DW Daytonas, especially when you're trying to fit a gen crystal. I'd personally keep sanding the metal retaining ring on the inside, just don't over sand. But as jmb and I say, plastic crystal do vary. Also, the 116s do have two sizes, one has OD 30.0mm and the other has OD of 30.2mm. You might check CousinUK, they have both. And of course, you're not dealing with gens, these are rep cases so who knows what you really have for dimensions. Invest in a good set of chinese calipers- $10 at Harbor Freight, maybe 15. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martyd3 Posted July 25, 2011 Report Share Posted July 25, 2011 You will need to sand down the inside of bezel a bit to get the new crystal to fit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pr0digy30 Posted July 25, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 25, 2011 Thanks for the advice... boring a pair of calipers tomorrow to find out how much more I need to go. Well not perhaps not much more, but let me know how much is actually coming off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolexaddict Posted July 25, 2011 Report Share Posted July 25, 2011 I would suggest to sand the outside bottom of the plexi, instead ruining a retaining ring or a bezel, as this part of the plexi is no visible, a plexi cost peanuts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martyd3 Posted July 25, 2011 Report Share Posted July 25, 2011 Unless it's a gen Rolex plexi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pr0digy30 Posted July 25, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 25, 2011 I would suggest to sand the outside bottom of the plexi, instead ruining a retaining ring or a bezel, as this part of the plexi is no visible, a plexi cost peanuts I've already started sanding down the bezel... though I don't think I've reduced it that much. As it stands now here are the measurements: Crystal on case: 30.40 mm OD Bezel: Now at 30.10 ID For a "drop on fit" 0.30mm needs to be removed from the bezel, but of course we don't want it that loose, it should take some pressure to put and stay on. Clark crystal is 0.6mm in width. So you'd basically have to remove 1/4 of the OD thickness at the bottom of the crystal... too thin in my opinion. I'd sooner have a properly fitted bezel rather than a too-thin crystal. Not that I plan on swimming with it... but you never know when one might fall into the drink. Maybe JMB can chime in on this on how much I need to go down on the bezel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tribal Posted July 25, 2011 Report Share Posted July 25, 2011 Same on Josh's 1680 But there is a other problem on his 1680. The diameter of the Glass is slightly larger than a Clark's one. There is also a plastic gasket between Glass and Retaining Ring. All in all a bad construction. MBW is way better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolexaddict Posted July 25, 2011 Report Share Posted July 25, 2011 Unless it's a gen Rolex plexi A gen Rolex plexi fitted on a cartel rep ? one of these surpassing replications models ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pr0digy30 Posted July 25, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 25, 2011 Same on Josh's 1680 But there is a other problem on his 1680. The diameter of the Glass is slightly larger than a Clark's one. There is also a plastic gasket between Glass and Retaining Ring. All in all a bad construction. MBW is way better. Probably need JMB to mill you a new retaining ring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alligoat Posted July 27, 2011 Report Share Posted July 27, 2011 I've already started sanding down the bezel... though I don't think I've reduced it that much. As it stands now here are the measurements: Crystal on case: 30.40 mm OD Bezel: Now at 30.10 ID You need to get another crystal- you're way out of spec on the OD. The CousinUK crystal w/ an OD of 30.2 would be very close to what you need. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freddy333 Posted July 27, 2011 Report Share Posted July 27, 2011 I would not sand or modify the crystal. You just need to remove more metal from the inside of the bezel. I have had to do this on all of my DW bezels (when I install a gen crystal, since the gens are thicker than the crystal DW supplies). I use a Dremel with a round grinding bit & it usually takes about 15 minutes of grinding, test-fitting (do this frequently because if you remove too much metal, you are screwed), grinding, test-fitting, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cib0rgman Posted July 27, 2011 Report Share Posted July 27, 2011 I've already started sanding down the bezel... though I don't think I've reduced it that much. As it stands now here are the measurements: Crystal on case: 30.40 mm OD Bezel: Now at 30.10 ID For a "drop on fit" 0.30mm needs to be removed from the bezel, but of course we don't want it that loose, it should take some pressure to put and stay on. Clark crystal is 0.6mm in width. So you'd basically have to remove 1/4 of the OD thickness at the bottom of the crystal... too thin in my opinion. I'd sooner have a properly fitted bezel rather than a too-thin crystal. Not that I plan on swimming with it... but you never know when one might fall into the drink. Maybe JMB can chime in on this on how much I need to go down on the bezel. I tried to do the same, got tired and also the plexy cracked, so I bought a Cousings plexi and is a straight fit.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolexaddict Posted July 27, 2011 Report Share Posted July 27, 2011 I agree, I would never touch a gen plexi. Gen plexies are made for gen watch cases. My philosophy is not to adapt a gen plexi on a rep watch, I consider this like to put a bandage on a wooden leg So, except if the gen plexi fits 1/1 with the rep material (a dream...) I will fit aftermarket plexies and remove material from them, WITH THE RIGHT TOOLS, to avoid cracks - I admit I have explosed more than 10 plexies before to find the right tools ans method (the learning curve) to fit an aftermarket plexi on a rep case and press the retaining ring tight without damages Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pr0digy30 Posted July 27, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 27, 2011 You need to get another crystal- you're way out of spec on the OD. The CousinUK crystal w/ an OD of 30.2 would be very close to what you need. The Clark has a similar size 30.0 when measured "naked", but it flares out on the case... so that accounts for the added diameter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmb Posted July 27, 2011 Report Share Posted July 27, 2011 I've found that .003" - .004" interference is about right. Don't off-hand know what that is in mm... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeyB Posted July 27, 2011 Report Share Posted July 27, 2011 It's a shame they don't have a Tropic crystal the same size and shape as a 25-116. Then we could install the no cyclops Tropic crystal, and install the cyclops after in any position we need for wherever the date window is. The sapphire crystal 25-295 is the same size and shape of the 25-295C and C2 , but with no crystal, so we can put the cyclops anywhere using that setup. Makes it more convenient for us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmb Posted July 27, 2011 Report Share Posted July 27, 2011 You've not see hard until you try putting a gen-spec crystal on a case that has one of them infernal bezels/paperclip spring arrangements. On the Snowflake I had to take put the crystal in the lathe to "machine" the bottom part so it would fit in the groove machined around the top of the rehaut. I'm really hating doing this again as I usually use up 2-3 crystals in the process... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pr0digy30 Posted July 27, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 27, 2011 (edited) I've found that .003" - .004" interference is about right. Don't off-hand know what that is in mm... About 0.09mm As an aside... I also purchased a 21J version of the same watch from Josh a few months back (the one I am trying to fit the crystal on is from 2010). I haven't popped the bezel off of the 21J to take measurements but the newer 21J watch has a different bezel in that the flat lip on the top of smaller (seems closer to gen) than the 1st version. Edited July 27, 2011 by pr0digy30 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmb Posted July 27, 2011 Report Share Posted July 27, 2011 My < 1 year old Cartel 5512 took a replacement crystal with no machining at all. If it wasn't for the stumpy CGs it would be a fantastic watch for the money - instead of just great... 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.