Rolex GMT 2893 Custom Build

[Ado213]

Food for thought, if you could get the Dial with eta date window rather than the Rollie would this not be a easier fix?.

No DWO and you could use the stock H3 pinions?

Yes this would put the movement out of alignment with the crown tube, but that's an easy fix !

[kbh]

You would still need a taller canon pin set to get the GMT hand above the dial indices. Too bad Rolex doesn't use a short GMT hand, then your problem would be solved.

 

S suppose that's the reason that Rolex made their GMT movements with the shorter hour hand on the bottom.

[Ado213]

Hi KBh, you don't need a taller canon pinion set in the movement, got one here with H3 handstack and it's fine, had to take the H5 off that I had fitted it was just too high

[polexpete]

No, it's still a very tight fit. First problem is the extra gear that runs the GMT hand sits higher than the date wheel so you have the problem of the date date wheel overlay has to be very thin and installed very carefully. If it's too low it hangs on the GMT gearing and if it's too high it hangs on the bottom of the dial. And you can't raise the dial or you loose the necessary clearance for the GMT hand on the dial.

 

You can see here what I mean about it sitting on the gear:

 

I received the new GMT hand that I had ordered yesterday so I took mine apart again and spent a lot of time finessing the date wheel overlay and sanded down the back of the dial a bit and put it back together. This time I got it looking much better with the GMT hand running perfectly just a hair above the dial indices and the date wheel tight up to the dial back but still turning. The GMT hand looks pretty good now but I wouldn't recommend this unless you have a lot of patience. The sanding down of the dial I think made the biggest difference. Also it may make the date wheel overlay move easier even if it happens to brush the back of the dial.

 

Of course sanding down the back of the dial means removing the dial feet so then you need to glue the dial carefully onto the dial spacer and then when you get it all lined up and working you need to glue the dial spacer to the movement.

 

It ain't easy! I sure as h*ll wouldn't do it on someone else's watch.

 

 

Just been reading this interesting post. You can have the datewheel overlay run under the GMT gear by taking off the numbers and paint on the 2893 datewheel. This gives you enough clearance so you don't have to shave the dial.

 

Cheers

 

P.

[kbh]

Just been reading this interesting post. You can have the datewheel overlay run under the GMT gear by taking off the numbers and paint on the 2893 datewheel. This gives you enough clearance so you don't have to shave the dial.

 

Cheers

 

P.

Interesting theory. It doesn't seem logical that it would fit under the gear and still work. But I'm not going to take it apart again to check. lol

 

Has this actually been done? I'd love to see some pictures.

[Ado213]

Same here, but you know, it might just be doable, especially if you sanded the eta wheel a bit !.

On another note and if this fails, I have been offered a bulk purchase on 116710 or 16710 GMT dials with eta date windows and dial feet for the 2893-2. I have to buy in 10's it will take 2-3 months to get the first batch., just waiting for price confirmation. Anybody interested if so which would the majority prefer, 16710 or 116710?

[sneed12]

I sincerely, sincerely doubt that you'll find 10 people who want ETA date rep dials.

 

1) It's an instant tell 

2) the 2836 GMT movement has come a long way and I've not had problems with one of them in years

3) you'll have to source Rolex font ETA datewheels

[Ado213]

Well yes it's an instant tell but so is a bent GMT hand.

The 2836-2 GMT has had problems over the years, quite simply it not made as a GMT movement and the retrofit parts to allow it to become a GMT have come in many variations, some work fine, some work but not for long.

Apart from the the quest for CHS, the reasons for these variation in the retrofit parts is that they were problematic . There are many posts by members to substantiate this claim.

If I am not mistaken, Trevor is selling the 16710 with an eta date window already, I am presuming people are buying it?. If not then my idea of the bulk buy is dead in the water and you are correct in your prediction .

Just in

[Ado213]

Well bugger me with a broomstick , Polexpete, your absolutely correct!!!.

There is room under the GMT gear to get the DWO in, just tried it. Only slight problem is the hour bridge which presses down on the double corrector, it's proud of the eta datewheel forcing the DWO upwards at this point.

I think with a little careful trimming and re-shaping were in business !!

Sometimes you just miss the obvious, thanks for your input Polexpete, much appreciated !

[sneed12]

Well yes it's an instant tell but so is a bent GMT hand.

The 2836-2 GMT has had problems over the years, quite simply it not made as a GMT movement and the retrofit parts to allow it to become a GMT have come in many variations, some work fine, some work but not for long.

 

 

The 2892 is "not made as a GMT movement" either but slap some parts on it and it becomes a 2893. The 2893 and the 2836 with GMT module work in exactly the same way. The problem of the slipping GMT hand on the 2836 GMT is largely in the past, since most 2836's have the "jumping" GMT hand now and the spring setup in the 4th wheel doesn't allow the hand to slip.

 

 

Apart from the the quest for CHS, the reasons for these variation in the retrofit parts is that they were problematic . There are many posts by members to substantiate this claim.

If I am not mistaken, Trevor is selling the 16710 with an eta date window already, I am presuming people are buying it?. If not then my idea of the bulk buy is dead in the water and you are correct in your prediction .

Just in

 

Yes, there's a factory version of the 16710 with ETA date window now (and has been for years). You don't see a lot of them on the forums.

 

BTW, my CHS 16710 has been running flawlessly for 2+ years now. It's also an ETA 2836 based GMT movement.

 

[Ado213]

If the eta window is still selling it must be reasonably popular, I guess there are still folk out there that want to use an ETA I. Their watch.

Yes the GMT conversion is a jumper and it does function correctly. To be fair your particular GMT conversion is probably the best type to own.

i am not disrespecting your watch or your opinion, just putting another point of view forward. I just think the 2893-2 is a better movement and generally more reliable, but that's only my opinion, and I am also usually incorrect!!.

That said, it does look promising that a DWO can be fitted to a 2893-2 which may lead to an effective solution to those wishing to use a 2893-2 in their builds, many thanks to Polexpete again !

[kbh]

 

The 2892 is "not made as a GMT movement" either but slap some parts on it and it becomes a 2893. The 2893 and the 2836 with GMT module work in exactly the same way. The problem of the slipping GMT hand on the 2836 GMT is largely in the past, since most 2836's have the "jumping" GMT hand now and the spring setup in the 4th wheel doesn't allow the hand to slip.

 

That's totally false. The 2892-2 is made as a "tractor" especially for additional modules. That's watchmaker language for a movement specifically built for additional purposes.That's the main reason for it's thinness. It's also one of the most accurate movements ETA makes.

 

The 2892-2 movement is also configured to several other complications and is used by many other companies both because of its enormous popularity and also the fact that it is deemed accurate and reliable enough to be used as a base movement for many high-end manufacturers complications. The 2894-2 Chronograph movement is a module added to a 2892-2 and also sold as caliber P-17 TAG Heuer.

 

You'll have to pardon me for arguing the point but when ETA actually starts making 2836-2 GMT movements and not some Chinese factory is modding them, then you can start calling them equal.

[sneed12]

That's totally false. The 2892-2 is made as a "tractor" especially for additional modules. That's watchmaker language for a movement specifically built for additional purposes.That's the main reason for it's thinness. It's also one of the most accurate movements ETA makes.

 

The 2892 is not inherently any "better" in most respects than the 2834/2836 movements. The biggest difference is that it doesn't come in Standard grade, so most 2892s out there are better finished and better regulated than most 2824/2836 movements. But an Elabore 2824 compared to an Elabore 2892 is very comparable, and in some ways more robust. Both movements are available as COSC certified versions.

 

The 2892-2 movement is also configured to several other complications and is used by many other companies both because of its enormous popularity and also the fact that it is deemed accurate and reliable enough to be used as a base movement for many high-end manufacturers complications. The 2894-2 Chronograph movement is a module added to a 2892-2 and also sold as caliber P-17 TAG Heuer.

 

 

That's true. There's a ton of chrono modules that could be added to a 2892. But there's no reason that one couldn't design a DD chrono module to fit on top of a 2824. Dubois-Depraz simply didn't. 

 

You'll have to pardon me for arguing the point but when ETA actually starts making 2836-2 GMT movements and not some Chinese factory is modding them, then you can start calling them equal.

 

I didn't say they were equal. I said in terms of design, they work the same way. They're both GMT versions of non-GMT movements, built by bolting on some extra parts.

Edited May 3, 2014 by sneed12

[kbh]

 

The 2892 is not inherently any "better" in most respects than the 2834/2836 movements. The biggest difference is that it doesn't come in Standard grade, so most 2892s out there are better finished and better regulated than most 2824/2836 movements. But an Elabore 2824 compared to an Elabore 2892 is very comparable, and in some ways more robust. Both movements are available as COSC certified versions.

Most experts would disagree.

http://www.chronometrie.com/eta2892/eta2892.html

 

http://www.asthewatchturns.com/?page_id=112

 

If you read that you'll find that 99.9% of the movements used in reps and cheap watches are the least expensive. So why are you comparing anything to the "elabore" movements. My guess is that neither you nor I have ever seen one.

 

 

That's true. There's a ton of chrono modules that could be added to a 2892. But there's no reason that one couldn't design a DD chrono module to fit on top of a 2824. Dubois-Depraz simply didn't. 

 

That's exactly why the 2892-2 was made thinner. (and to a higher quality). You don't put an expensive chrono module on top of a turd.

 

Sure they could have if you wanted a watch as fat, or fatter than a DSSD.

 

 

I didn't say they were equal. I said in terms of design, they work the same way. They're both GMT versions of non-GMT movements, built by bolting on some extra parts.

 

At least we agree on something. I'd still take a GMT made in a Swiss factory over one cobbled together in a Chinese sweat shop.

[Ado213]

Update on 16710 dial with eta date window and dial feet, price is $15.00 each plus shipping. I may get flamed here so I'll tread as carefully as I can, this is the price my supplier has quoted me. I will gladly furnish the suppliers name so anybody wanting one can buy direct.

I have to get to 10, any takers ?

[polexpete]

Interesting theory. It doesn't seem logical that it would fit under the gear and still work. But I'm not going to take it apart again to check. lol

 

Has this actually been done? I'd love to see some pictures.

 

Here's a link ...

 

http://www.rwgforum.net/topic/150843-fs-gen-eta-2893-2-gmt-with-flat-3-dwo-and-gen-crown/?hl=%2Bdatewheel#entry1153413

 

 

I have just moved to Australia so don't have the pics on hand right now but here is a 2893-2 gmt movement i sold a while back with the date wheel under the GMT gear. I have a 1675 on my wrist with the same set up

 

Cheers

 

P.

[kbh]

Nice, thanks for the great idea.

 

And hope you're enjoying Australia. That's got to be quite a change from living in Shanghai.

[sneed12]

Most experts would disagree.

http://www.chronometrie.com/eta2892/eta2892.html

 

http://www.asthewatchturns.com/?page_id=112

 

The first link you posted does not contain any comparisons between the 2892 and 2824/2836, but its companion piece on the same website (http://www.chronometrie.com/eta2824/eta2824.html) says this:

 

"I don’t see any difference in accuracy between the two, provided that they are both fitted with the highest – chronometer – grade parts, carefully lubricated and adjusted to the best accuracy possible. Of course, very few fall into that category, so it’s no wonder that the 2824 has gotten a bad rap as the 2892’s poor cousin."

 

The second link says this:

• At the top grades, some people consider the 2824 to be more robust 
• It’s sometimes mistakenly implied that the 2892-A2 is a significantly newer design than the 2822
• At top levels, both can be made equally accurate

"Generally however, most high end makers will use 2892A2 or a derivative of the 2892 simply from market impressions that the 2892 is superior regardless of grade."

 

So the link you posted actually contradicts your assertion. A chronometer-grade 2824 is in pretty much every respect the equal of a 2892, with a more efficient winding system and better shockproofing. People "think" the 2892 is "superior" but there are few techincal reasons that really support this opinion. The design isn't significantly newer. The only main substantive difference is that it's thinner.

 

 

If you read that you'll find that 99.9% of the movements used in reps and cheap watches are the least expensive. So why are you comparing anything to the "elabore" movements. My guess is that neither you nor I have ever seen one.

 

I certainly have. It's not as though they're uncommon. They're simply uncommon in reps.

 

That's exactly why the 2892-2 was made thinner. (and to a higher quality). You don't put an expensive chrono module on top of a turd.

 

Sure they could have if you wanted a watch as fat, or fatter than a DSSD.

 

Calling the 2824 a "turd" is just ignorant. And I should have been more clear: most DD chrono modules are designed to sit on top of 2892s, but the 2824 has been used as a tractor as well in the past and there were DD chrono modules designed for that use as well. Heck, there's on one on eBay right now.

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/NOS-Dubois-Depraz-2020-flyback-chronograph-movement-based-on-a-2824-ETA-/111328789004?pt=Wristwatches&hash=item19ebb6820c

 

 

 

I don't understand why you're so emotionally attached to the idea that "2892 is better" and "2824 is a turd." 

Edited May 4, 2014 by sneed12

[Ado213]

You don't have to understand, just respect someone else's view as we respect yours

Now back to the dial , please !

[kbh]

 

I don't understand why you're so emotionally attached to the idea that "2892 is better" and "2824 is a turd."

2824/36 only becomes a turd when it's modified in China to become something that it wasn't designed for.

 

I'm not at all emotionally attached at all to the 2892. What we have been discussing is the use of a 2836-2 as a GMT movement as though it's the equivalent of a 2893-2, which it isn't, and never will be until ETA starts making them. Other than that you're taking the conversation way off track. This conversation was never about comparing "elabore, top grade, or chronometer" versions of the movements, comparing one of them to the other. We were discussing movements used in our replica watches and my opinion is that the 2892/3 in the base grade that we are getting is far superior to the "standard" grade 4 movements that we get  in the 2836/24 movements. And the cost differential apparently bears that out.

 

They're all fine movements. You have your favorite and I have mine.

 

 

Now back to the dial , please !

 

 

Sorry. I'm done now!

[sneed12]

You don't have to understand, just respect someone else's view as we respect yours

 

Unfortunately, and with full knowledge that it makes me look like an [censored] sometimes, I have difficulty allowing people to believe things that are false.

 

 

 

I'm not at all emotionally attached at all to the 2892. What we have been discussing is the use of a 2836-2 as a GMT movement as though it's the equivalent of a 2893-2, which it isn't,

 

Again, no. The statement I responded to is quoted below:

 

The 2836-2 GMT has had problems over the years, quite simply it not made as a GMT movement

 

You could argue that the 2892 was "not made as a GMT movement" either. Adding the GMT functionality to make it a 2893-2 is done by adding more parts to the top side of the dial. Those parts work in exactly the same way that the 2836 with GMT modification works. If ETA were to build a GMT movement based on the 2836-2, they'd probably do it exactly the same way that the Chinese factories have done it.

 

I at no time argued that the parts made in Chinese factories are likely to be at the same level of quality as those made in Swiss factories. I'm simply tired of people saying things like "the DG3804/2893-2/whatever is a TRUE GMT movement". They all work the exact same way, it's just a matter of how well it's done.

 

One of these days Seagull will start cloning the 2893-2 (they already clone the 2892). What will you say then?

 

And finally: I don't have a "favorite" movement. The 2824 and 2892 are simply different. I do have to admit the 2892 is prettier.

[Ado213]

You have to let go of this mate, were not all the same, and thank god were not, what an un interesting world it would be if we were !!.

We all have different opinions, I personally agree with KBH, however I do respect your point of view. No amount of arguing will ever change your mind and I trust that you will understand you won't change mine.

KBH is correct, this post is not about which movement is best, its about fitting a 2892-2 in a GMT case set.

Come on guys this isn't getting us anywhere, let's put our energy into something constructive !!.

[Ado213]

Looks like you were right Sneed, no takers on the custom dial, so this is dead in the water!.

[Ado213]

Well Polexpete came up with a great idea in fitting the DWO underneath the GMt gearing on the ETA 2893 movement. There was a slight problem as the DWO caught on the hour bridge, however with a little thought this was easily overcome.

 

I slipped out the stock ETA 2893-2 datewheel and replaced it with a 2836-2 datewheel. The 2836-2 datewheel is just that fraction higher than the 2893-2 and allows you to fit a DWO without rubbing on the hour bridge and yet still fitting under the GMT gearing, very nice indeed.

 

you still need the stock eta dial spacer on the movement but it works fine, with no interference with date change.

 

So there you have it guys, how to fit a DWO on an ETA 2893-2.