crystalcranium Posted July 8, 2007 Report Share Posted July 8, 2007 Hi all Love my new MBW 1665 from TTK and it's ready to go out for Ziggy mods. I have been studying pics of 1665s on the antiquorium website and i can't figure out what vintage this MBW Great White is supposed to mimic. From the caseback engraving, it looks like a late 1970s to early 1980s SD...but the bezel pearl, which is without a surrounding ring, seems to be an early 1970s design. I'm sending it out for a vintage luming, new case tube/original crown, new flatter T-39 crystal (is this correct or did all 1665 come with a superdome?) and a lug hole drilling/springbar replacement. There are many aftermarket bezels advertised as replacements for the 1665 but I dont know which one is accurate. I'd hate to invest in lots of original and OEM parts only to have a watch that looks nothing like the vintage it's supposed to mimic. PMWF has aluminum 1665 inserts for around $50...but they have the ringed pearl...which might in fact be accurate. Any opinions Sub nuts out there...Steph, freddie, aligoat....????? help Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watchmeister Posted July 8, 2007 Report Share Posted July 8, 2007 I am no Rolex expert so take it for what it is worth. The Great white would have been in the 1977-1980 timeframe. Double reds were '71-'77. I think it would have had a flat tropic 39. I think you are right to say the bezel pearl would have a surround but also many bezels lost their pearl and were simply replaced with just the pearl. See Ubi - I'm learning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tribal Posted July 8, 2007 Report Share Posted July 8, 2007 The 1665 needs a Insert with Acrylic pearl ! Thats the only solution for a Vintage Rolex.... No ringed pearl or wahtever.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watchmeister Posted July 8, 2007 Report Share Posted July 8, 2007 You may well be right. I am with you on the acrylic pearls but I do think there is a surround. My starting reference point has always been this: http://doubleredseadweller.com/rail_white_sd.htm Then again, the more I look at the pics the less convinced I am there is a surround. However, red subs of roughly the same period definitely had bezels around the bezel pearls. So I stick with bezel on pearl on bezel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crystalcranium Posted July 8, 2007 Author Report Share Posted July 8, 2007 The 1665 needs a Insert with Acrylic pearl ! Thats the only solution for a Vintage Rolex.... No ringed pearl or wahtever.. So then the un-ringed, flush with the bezel pearl that comes with the MBW is more accurate than the ringed pearl aftermarket bezels being sold for the 1665? Should I have Ziggy just dab it with yellowed, aged tritium mimicking, super lume and leave it at that? In some threads, Ubi says a bezel replacement is a must leaving me to believe the stock MBW insert on the Great White is pretty inaccurate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watchmeister Posted July 8, 2007 Report Share Posted July 8, 2007 Yup. Now just start begging Ubi. He makes fabulous inserts once in a blue moon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alligoat Posted July 8, 2007 Report Share Posted July 8, 2007 It would be great to know what Ubi's formula is for making a bezel w/ the acrylic pearl. The PMWF insert isn't bad, I guess, and I believe if you could get the vintage acrylic pearls from watchesandparts over in Hong Kong that show up on ebay every so often, but aren't cheap for a pair ($60+ or -), you could make your own insert. I've also noticed that this guy has a vintage insert alone, that appears to have the acrylic pearl for around $60. Don't know if it's any good. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...p;rd=1&rd=1 But I'm with tribal on this, you need an insert with the acrylic pearl, no metal surround. As for the T-39, I'm not really sure what is correct, but a domed crystal from Helfands (or is it Clark's?) wouldn't look bad and who's going to know! Chances of running into delgado or one of the other WIS from TZ are slim and none in my mind! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rag9fx Posted July 8, 2007 Report Share Posted July 8, 2007 I personally think that mbw inserts aren't that great... it would be one of the first things i would replace.... i would get a classic watch parts insert (which imho has a better pearl than the MBW ) and is also a very accurate ... but would replace the pearl on that with a gen if you can source them ... there is guy on a e-bay that sells them from time to time... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugwash Posted July 8, 2007 Report Share Posted July 8, 2007 You may well be right. I am with you on the acrylic pearls but I do think there is a surround. My starting reference point has always been this: Ah, that's an optical illusion. What you're seeing is the clear acrylic around the luminous dot reflecting the lighting, making it look like there's a metal bezel around the pearl. There isn't. Look at this one: It looks identical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephane Posted July 8, 2007 Report Share Posted July 8, 2007 I will allways take advices in these matters. There are so many pictures of gen, or supposed so, with so many differences including dials. Again, even RSC are swapping "bad" parts to replace originals. So, I follow RWG experts opinions like Ubi, Tribal, RepAsutria, Pug, BT...and so many others great members. For sure, on vintage Rolex, the inserts and pearls aren't looking like the MBW right out of the box... Cheers Stephane Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crystalcranium Posted July 8, 2007 Author Report Share Posted July 8, 2007 It would be great to know what Ubi's formula is for making a bezel w/ the acrylic pearl. The PMWF insert isn't bad, I guess, and I believe if you could get the vintage acrylic pearls from watchesandparts over in Hong Kong that show up on ebay every so often, but aren't cheap for a pair ($60+ or -), you could make your own insert. I've also noticed that this guy has a vintage insert alone, that appears to have the acrylic pearl for around $60. Don't know if it's any good. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...p;rd=1&rd=1 But I'm with tribal on this, you need an insert with the acrylic pearl, no metal surround. As for the T-39, I'm not really sure what is correct, but a domed crystal from Helfands (or is it Clark's?) wouldn't look bad and who's going to know! Chances of running into delgado or one of the other WIS from TZ are slim and none in my mind! I saw this in my web searches and I think I'll go for it. He sells really cheap 1665 inserts but claims a higher quality and more original design on this one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watchmeister Posted July 8, 2007 Report Share Posted July 8, 2007 Pug - Now I see your point. I guess it is an optical illision. I take it that it is actually the gap beween the top of the domed pearl and the insert itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Padge Posted July 8, 2007 Report Share Posted July 8, 2007 Some of the links in this thread: http://www.rwg.cc/members/index.php?showto...=vintage+insert Might prove useful. Cheers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugwash Posted July 8, 2007 Report Share Posted July 8, 2007 Now I see your point. I guess it is an optical illision. I take it that it is actually the gap beween the top of the domed pearl and the insert itself. There is a very thick layer of clear acrylic over the lume. That's what you're seeing. You can see it here: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freddy333 Posted July 8, 2007 Report Share Posted July 8, 2007 The PMWF insert is what I used, but I replaced its crummy pearl with Ofrei's $10 Illumines Dot (bezel insert pearl). Click the following link and look for this entry near the bottom of the page Illumines Dot for Bezel Insert $10.00 Illumines Dot The gen crystal is always best, but it is expensive and may not be as reliable due to its age (the Plexiglas material will likely have lost some of its elasticity over the years). Clark's T39 superdome is reasonably priced and, although it slightly refracts images that pass through it, looks (from the outside) almost exactly like the gen lens In general, I would recommend that you hone in on one or two gen watches of the same vintage and design (some differences may only be apparent to you after alot of study and examination) and use those as your model. I would recommend doubleredseadweller.com as the place to begin since it explains many of the basic model and range variations. After that, Antiquorum is a good place to continue your 'studies'. There are many tutorials written by RWG members that will help to guide you through most of what you need to know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cib0rgman Posted July 8, 2007 Report Share Posted July 8, 2007 It would be great to know what Ubi's formula is for making a bezel w/ the acrylic pearl. The PMWF insert isn't bad, I guess, and I believe if you could get the vintage acrylic pearls from watchesandparts over in Hong Kong that show up on ebay every so often, but aren't cheap for a pair ($60+ or -), you could make your own insert. I've also noticed that this guy has a vintage insert alone, that appears to have the acrylic pearl for around $60. Don't know if it's any good. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...p;rd=1&rd=1 But I'm with tribal on this, you need an insert with the acrylic pearl, no metal surround. As for the T-39, I'm not really sure what is correct, but a domed crystal from Helfands (or is it Clark's?) wouldn't look bad and who's going to know! Chances of running into delgado or one of the other WIS from TZ are slim and none in my mind! I bought one of those from that guy the inseret is good snap in just like genuine but the pearl still is poor quality very close to genuine. check out the inseert here is a picture of my 1680 with genuine dial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freddy333 Posted July 8, 2007 Report Share Posted July 8, 2007 here is a picture of my 1680 with genuine dial. Are you sure that is a gen dial? Your pearl looks odd too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tribal Posted July 8, 2007 Report Share Posted July 8, 2007 You may well be right. I am with you on the acrylic pearls but I do think there is a surround. My starting reference point has always been this: http://doubleredseadweller.com/rail_white_sd.htm Then again, the more I look at the pics the less convinced I am there is a surround. However, red subs of roughly the same period definitely had bezels around the bezel pearls. So I stick with bezel on pearl on bezel. And again, thats all acrylic pearls with no surrounding... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watchmeister Posted July 8, 2007 Report Share Posted July 8, 2007 Tribal- It takes me a while but I do eventually get it. Needless to say I went downstairs to look at Falco's 5513 and lo and behold - no bezel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbell6 Posted July 9, 2007 Report Share Posted July 9, 2007 Hi all Love my new MBW 1665 from TTK and it's ready to go out for The Zigmeister mods. I have been studying pics of 1665s on the antiquorium website and i can't figure out what vintage this MBW Great White is supposed to mimic. From the caseback engraving, it looks like a late 1970s to early 1980s SD...but the bezel pearl, which is without a surrounding ring, seems to be an early 1970s design. I'm generally hesitant to add anything to these discussions since I'm a newcomer and am probably way behind on the knowledge curve. Therefore, take my comments for what they are worth (probably very little). The "Vintage Rolex Sports Models" book show the engraving on the MBW to be accurate for the early Double Red Sea Dwellers starting in 1967. The all white print is dated to years after 1974 and the early ones are marked at the bottom of the dial with "T Swiss T < 24" rather than the "Swiss - T < 25" that is on the MBW. Therefore, based on this reasoning, I'm guessing that our MBW's represent an early DRSD case that went in for service sometime after the mid 70's and received a replacement dial. Therefore, there appear to be quite a few options when selecting parts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest avitt Posted July 9, 2007 Report Share Posted July 9, 2007 Therefore, based on this reasoning, I'm guessing that our MBW's represent an early DRSD case that went in for service sometime after the mid 70's and received a replacement dial. That's the most logical explanation for the attributes exhibited by the MBW whites. This is also supported by the fact that they all sport DRSD style case backs. 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.