Rolex Casebacks

[thewightstuff]

i know its a small detail and yet at the same time its for me at least, it sums up quite nicely why theres still so many flaws in these watches such as the sub and SD.

its such a disappointment to see that the rubber oring continues to be housed in the case and not in the caseback as per the original.

while it make no real difference, do you think they will ever change it?

is this just symptomatic of the lack of real attention to detail used when making these. i dont assume its too much of a stretch to think that regardless of genuine accuracy the sub is probably still the biggest selling model. perhaps this is holding it back from getting fully there by removing the necessity

[ubiquitous]

Most genuine Rolex cases have the O-ring in the case; ref 1665, 1655, 1675, 16800, 16660, 16610, 16520, etc. etc. all have the gasket set in a channel in the case. The ones that have the gasket on the caseback are the vintage Subs like 1680, 5513, 5512, 626X, etc and so on...

[frankt]

i know its a small detail and yet at the same time its for me at least, it sums up quite nicely why theres still so many flaws in these watches such as the sub and SD.

its such a disappointment to see that the rubber oring continues to be housed in the case and not in the caseback as per the original.

while it make no real difference, do you think they will ever change it?

Why does it matter??....By the time one has the caseback removed, the position of the gasket is of no import...It either seals the case or it doesn't!!

[cortopar]

Unless you're going to put a gen movement in there, by the time the caseback is off, the gasket placement is the least of the "accuracy" issues you have to contend with.

More important is whether it does it's job of sealing out water or not (and in most cases, it does).

As Ubi mentioned, 99% of the Rolex rep cases in circulation are correct. The only ones that aren't are non-MBW/WM vintage reps.

What's the beef?