Dan71 Posted February 27, 2018 Report Share Posted February 27, 2018 Hi I was checking the 1665 jkf and seem to me that the bevel / chamfers are not correct . pic from supermirror I read that the gen bevel/chamfers was less noticeable than the 5513 and 1680, but on the jkf they are totally absent..Seem the jkf have a case of the latter modern rlx . Below a nos gen 1665 bevel (pic from forum Orologi&passioni) Maybe I’m wrong but if you can give me your opinion . Tks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUK Posted February 27, 2018 Report Share Posted February 27, 2018 Yes... the case should be reshaped.Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan71 Posted February 27, 2018 Author Report Share Posted February 27, 2018 Is a pity that it haven’t already the correct bevel..the old mbw and maybe the old puretime have these bevel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanuq Posted February 27, 2018 Report Share Posted February 27, 2018 The gen bevels are pretty mild. Here's a comparison between a gen and an old MBW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan71 Posted February 27, 2018 Author Report Share Posted February 27, 2018 Nanuq , a nos like this is a good example of correct bevel? (See link and pic below)Do you think that is possible replicate with manual tools at home these littlebevel ? https://oredelmondo.org/products/rolex-ref-1665-nos-sea-dweller-double-red-line-mid-70s-sold-in-japan-full-set Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanuq Posted February 27, 2018 Report Share Posted February 27, 2018 The bevels in your photos are more pronounced than others I've seen. In some genuine watches the bevels are almost non-existent. A couple of the lugs on mine are worn to look almost as big as your pictures, but other lugs are much smaller. Look at my first picture, left lug vs. right lug. The left one hits things more often than the right so it's worn more. The right lug bevel is very small. Sure it's possible to create bevels like those with hand tools. I'd recommend a good set of diamond jeweler's files. Remember, these were the hard working tool watches so luscious shaped bevels weren't that important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan71 Posted February 27, 2018 Author Report Share Posted February 27, 2018 Ok well note you are a guru ;-) but despite that I’m not full convinced because if I looking for on chrono24 almost all the 1665 have bevel like my pics above .. Diamond jeweler file :/ isn’t enough a nail file ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperDanX Posted February 27, 2018 Report Share Posted February 27, 2018 (edited) 36 minutes ago, Dan71 said: Ok well note you are a guru ;-) but despite that I’m not full convinced because if I looking for on chrono24 almost all the 1665 have bevel like my pics above .. Diamond jeweler file :/ isn’t enough a nail file ? No nail files files are no good! Edited February 27, 2018 by SuperDanX Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ceejay Posted February 27, 2018 Report Share Posted February 27, 2018 For this type of work I use Micromesh in various grades, 1.2k through to 12k, stuck (contact adhesive) to flat and formed pieces of wood. Small sheets of Micromesh in graduated bundles are available on eBay...brilliant stuff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan71 Posted February 27, 2018 Author Report Share Posted February 27, 2018 Tks for the info.Wood? What tipe of wood item do you make ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tribal Posted March 1, 2018 Report Share Posted March 1, 2018 Hi I was checking the 1665 jkf and seem to me that the bevel / chamfers are not correct . pic from supermirror I read that the gen bevel/chamfers was less noticeable than the 5513 and 1680, but on the jkf they are totally absent..Seem the jkf have a case of the latter modern rlx . Below a nos gen 1665 bevel (pic from forum Orologi&passioni) Maybe I’m wrong but if you can give me your opinion . Tks So this a old MBW for comparison.Gesendet von meinem MI 4S mit Tapatalk 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
automatico Posted March 1, 2018 Report Share Posted March 1, 2018 You can go to a search site, (Bing for example), type in 'rolex 1665' and look at dozens of examples with lug bevels of all types and find all kinds of variations. Lug bevels are hard to do by hand because after you work 2 or 3 hours on one and finally get it right...you still have 3 more to go, and they all need to be the same. Something I have noticed is when bevels are filed/ground/polished on lugs, the lugs often end up looking too thin from the top side and there is no fix for that. Bevels also make the spring bar holes appear to be closer to the top edge of the lug and this can look pretty bad sometimes. The bevel shape and condition also needs to match the overall condition of the watch. It looks like the JKF 1665 has plenty of metal to work with compared to many others. Lug tops are much like crown guards, you have to be very careful or you will mess the case up...and with lug tops you have 4 chances to screw up, not just one. I have tried making/improving bevels on numerous cases and some turned out Ok and some did not. Exercising restraint seems to be the way to go. When using sandpaper to form bevels, a flexible backing on the sandpaper can result in rounded edges on the bevels that do not look right and are not easy to fix. "The bevels in your photos are more pronounced than others I've seen. In some genuine watches the bevels are almost non-existent." I've noticed this too. If there is this much variation in genuine examples, I would say a replica can get away with just about anything within reason. Anyway, that's a good excuse to leave the CG alone on my MBK cases. Some of the most consistent bevels on my cases are on the old 5513/1680 cases from 'Paul' at Abay. The cases have flaws of course but this detail was fairly well done back then (early 2000s). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanuq Posted March 1, 2018 Report Share Posted March 1, 2018 Ahhhhh you touched on CGs. There's where all the case sets get it wrong... a gen 1665 has very unique crown guards and the ones we get aftermarket are always modeled after a 1680. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tribal Posted March 1, 2018 Report Share Posted March 1, 2018 Nanuq , a nos like this is a good example of correct bevel? (See link and pic below)Do you think that is possible replicate with manual tools at home these littlebevel ? https://oredelmondo.org/products/rolex-ref-1665-nos-sea-dweller-double-red-line-mid-70s-sold-in-japan-full-set There are a lot of variations for the bezel and also for the CG's. I think it's also a question of taste. This is mine.Gesendet von meinem MI 4S mit Tapatalk 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan71 Posted March 1, 2018 Author Report Share Posted March 1, 2018 Nanuq do you have some example of gen nos 1665 CG ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan71 Posted March 1, 2018 Author Report Share Posted March 1, 2018 Maybe like this ?https://awadwatches.com/product/vintage-rolex-1665-sea-dweller-mk-dial-full-set-1980-box-papers/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now