RobbieG Posted January 20, 2007 Report Share Posted January 20, 2007 (edited) New from Precious Time. An extremely cooperative and helpful guy as well as a great UK dealer. This piece speaks for itself. So far my favorite of the Rolex reps and the best in overall fit and finish by far. This is the older model with the inaccurate hand stack, but this watch is MUCH more visually accurate than the newer models with the correct hand stack. The dial, case, CG's , and bracelet are pretty much spot on. Also of note is the date mag. Finally, a Rolex rep that is not OVER magnified like 99% of the others. The bezel insert is a milled OEM insert from Palpatine. Box is from Andrew and the papers and tags are from Ebay. Highly recommended. Enjoy... Edited January 20, 2007 by RobbieG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youpmelone Posted January 20, 2007 Report Share Posted January 20, 2007 Am comparing your pics with a gen in hand. The hands, the crown on the crown, and the crown on the clasp, look a bit off. The rest looks spot on! Congrats!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobbieG Posted January 20, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 20, 2007 Am comparing your pics with a gen in hand. The hands, the crown on the crown, and the crown on the clasp, look a bit off. The rest looks spot on! Congrats!! Of course they are you silly goose - it is a $200 rep. They will never be perfect, but on the wrist and without a gen to compare to it is tough to know this watch. I own three genuine Rolexes though and this one is good enough for me... Congrats on your first gen aquisition. Nice piece. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youpmelone Posted January 20, 2007 Report Share Posted January 20, 2007 Of course they are you silly goose - it is a $200 rep. They will never be perfect, but on the wrist and without a gen to compare to it is tough to know this watch. I own three genuine Rolexes though and this one is good enough for me... Congrats on your first gen aquisition. Nice piece. Silly goose :-)) I think you missed the "bit", as I said the spot on I meant....SPOT ON :--)), Great looking watch, and three gens.. any openings at your office? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobbieG Posted January 20, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 20, 2007 Silly goose :-)) I think you missed the "bit", as I said the spot on I meant....SPOT ON :--)), Great looking watch, and three gens.. any openings at your office? I am always hiring new geese at my company ... Just messin' with ya. Seriously, nice GMT. That is one gen I don't have. I like it with the all black insert. You don't see as many of those around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bklm1234 Posted January 21, 2007 Report Share Posted January 21, 2007 (edited) There could be 2 versions of the incorrect hand-stack GMT. One version I'm familiar with is the one By-Tor has. It has fatter CGs than yours. In my opinion, those CGs, though slightly oversized, have more of the essense of those on the gen. Compare By-Tor's and yours CGs. His are more squarish and yours are more triangular. By-Tor's: Yours: And then By-Tor's date window is too far right and the mag is a little over. His crown has shorter teeth but a bigger bulge. By-Tor's (one on the right, left is gen): Yours date window seems correctly positioned, rectangle rather than taller and more squarish on By-Tor's, and mag not too much like you said. If you can, take some square-on pics of the date window, that'll be good. Don't shoot too close else it won't give the actual view. I suspect it's the same watch as the correct hand stack version other than the movement. I have the correct hand stack explorer II. Yours look very much like mine (above, before modding). I sanded the inside of the CGs and changed the crown to the one like By-Tor's already. If your watch was really the same as the correct hand stack version other than the movement, you were better off buying the correct hand version, my friend. Or it could very well be a second incorrect hand-stack version too. I don't know. Anyway, if you shave the inside of the CGs to make the crown unobstructed, it'll look stunning. -bm Edited January 21, 2007 by bklm1234 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobbieG Posted January 21, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 21, 2007 Thanks for the tip on the CG's - I never noticed that. I doubt I will mod them though. On the wrist they look fine. I noticed another thing - my dial fonts seen crisper than BT's and his has that too big square date window that has been showing up a lot. Too much space above the date font. Mine is narrower and has a lower magnification more like the gen. PT says mine is from the same maker as BT's. Those makers are always making an improvement and and un-improvement simultaneously. Gotta love this goofy hobby of ours. All in all I am very happy with my watch visually. Other than the stack and the CG's I'm not sure what could really improve on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobbieG Posted January 21, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 21, 2007 Thanks for the tip on the CG's - I never noticed that. I doubt I will mod them though. On the wrist they look fine. I noticed another thing - my dial fonts seen crisper than BT's and his has that too big square date window that has been showing up a lot. Too much space above the date font. Mine is narrower and has a lower magnification more like the gen. PT says mine is from the same maker as BT's. Those makers are always making an improvement and and un-improvement simultaneously. Gotta love this goofy hobby of ours. All in all I am very happy with my watch visually. Other than the stack and the CG's I'm not sure what could really improve on it. Also, the correct hand stack version dials that I have seen are just terrible. For my money dials and date windows are far more important than CG's. CG's are not a huge knock for me personally. If I had perfect CG's and a bad date window/dial I couldn't even look at the watch let alone wear it. Just my opinion. Everyone has their own issues. I know guys who lose their mind over rehaut and will take that over dial flaws any day - and so on. To each their own... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
By-Tor Posted January 21, 2007 Report Share Posted January 21, 2007 Excellent choice, very nice rep. This is head and shoulders above the other version that has correct hand stack. The cg's are a small downgrade (wouldn't bother me though, they're not THAT much off) but the crystal height and cyclops positioning seems to be better on your watch. However I improved the crystal height on mine when I sanded the insert very thin. All in all this is very nice rep, very difficult to tell from the gen if you don't know exactly what you're looking for. The dial looks same to me. It has always been almost exact on this rep model, so why change anything? Here's a better and closer shot of my dial print: Congrats!!! GMT is pretty much the only Rolex I still wear. PS: How was the original insert? Did the numbers "cut" off from the diameter (especially 8 and 6)? Could you post pics of the original insert? Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bklm1234 Posted January 21, 2007 Report Share Posted January 21, 2007 By-Tor, is your bezel insert recessed in the bezel because you sanded it very thin? -bm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
By-Tor Posted January 21, 2007 Report Share Posted January 21, 2007 By-Tor, is your bezel insert recessed in the bezel because you sanded it very thin? -bm The edge of the insert is just slightly under the bezel edge. It's not noticeable, but you can "feel" it when you try it with your finger. But I sanded the "inner edge" of the insert more, not the outer edge. I got quite satisfactory results. But it's still not quite as high as on Robbie's watch which looks excellent. But it's not easy to tell the difference unless you take huge, zoomed pics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobbieG Posted January 21, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 21, 2007 Excellent choice, very nice rep. This is head and shoulders above the other version that has correct hand stack. The cg's are a small downgrade (wouldn't bother me though, they're not THAT much off) but the crystal height and cyclops positioning seems to be better on your watch. However I improved the crystal height on mine when I sanded the insert very thin. All in all this is very nice rep, very difficult to tell from the gen if you don't know exactly what you're looking for. The dial looks same to me. It has always been almost exact on this rep model, so why change anything? Here's a better and closer shot of my dial print: Congrats!!! GMT is pretty much the only Rolex I still wear. PS: How was the original insert? Did the numbers "cut" off from the diameter (especially 8 and 6)? Could you post pics of the original insert? Thanks. Yeah looks like your dial print is crisp and the same as mine. I would agree that the crystal height, cyclops and date window are improved. My watch came with a pepsi insert as it was all PT had around at the time. I'll snap some pics and send them to you tomorrow. I never really looked at it as I always intended to have Palp make me one like yours in blk/red. Stay tuned... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4MOTION Posted January 21, 2007 Report Share Posted January 21, 2007 nice piece what about lume? I feel my gmt had a poor lume. i´m waiting for the black/red insert bezel best wishes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobbieG Posted January 21, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 21, 2007 nice piece what about lume? I feel my gmt had a poor lume. i´m waiting for the black/red insert bezel best wishes Yeah lume is weak although that never bothered my on the Rollies like it does on PAM's/Omegas. I suppose I will re-lume it if I decide to do the CG's but I wouldn't ship it off just for that... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
e30m3 Posted March 11, 2007 Report Share Posted March 11, 2007 Has no one noticed that the dot between the 8 and 10 is too low? Or did I miss something? I usually do... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
By-Tor Posted March 11, 2007 Report Share Posted March 11, 2007 Has no one noticed that the dot between the 8 and 10 is too low? Or did I miss something? I usually do... No... that's a typical flaw for this aftermarket insert. That particular Pepsi insert which is available through Ebay (with 8-10 dot too low) also has too dark and matte colors (red and blue). I bought new (better) ones for my watch long time ago. 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.