sssurfer Posted March 19, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 19, 2006 (edited) we have never officially documented that OEM Pannies have a 2.0 mag. This is an interesting point. Indeed, we took that measurement on a pic from the OP website -- that could have been retouched. I just made a new masurement on that other 104 pic I already used. The magnified width seems 4.2 mm. If the date window is 2.5 mm wide, that actually would stand for about 1.7x magnification (1.68x, precisely): Please note that, even in case our new target is 1.7x, with glass we could reach 1.6 (which would be absolutely acceptable) only at the cost of a lens so extreme in its design as the ones we were considering for sapphire and SF11 a few days ago. We just verified that that design is unacceptable due to excessive circular distortion and (possibly) halos. We already calculated that RBJ's glass lens is at 1.3x, which gives reason of it being free of distortion and halo. If we want 1.7x, we still have to go to sapphire or SF11 same way as when we wanted 2x. BTW, 1.7x is the average magnification of the last values I posted a while ago, for date windows placed at 3 mm from the lens (1.6x) up to 3.5 mm (1.8x). Edited March 19, 2006 by sssurfer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finepics Posted March 19, 2006 Report Share Posted March 19, 2006 I still vote for sapphire as I am sure that is what the gens would use. As standard engineering principles are used in Manufacture of the gens then the use of like materials would surely be the choice. I will call my guy on Monday and tell him of our problems to see what he suggests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watchmeister Posted March 19, 2006 Report Share Posted March 19, 2006 Sapphire is the way. Sssurfer- I do have a real concern with that gen pic. I see gens all the time and I swear that is the smallest date I have seen in a gen. But I am no expert. Here are some pics from Gen 2893's (they are not great but they are what I have): 27A: 28A: Where it gets more confusing is that I believe the gen Power reserve actually has two lenses (one directly above the date wheel in addition to the cyclops) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archibald Posted March 19, 2006 Report Share Posted March 19, 2006 I still vote for sapphire as I am sure that is what the gens would use. As standard engineering principles are used in Manufacture of the gens then the use of like materials would surely be the choice. I will call my guy on Monday and tell him of our problems to see what he suggests. here's what I think is going on--we're about to shell out a healthy amount of dough, risk a fair amount of cred around here, and we finally have a wealth of options. So naturally the dark sides of our brains are coming up with all kinds of reqsons why this may be a mistake! Just a healthy dose of pullthhetriggeritis. Probably, we should just give my guy till 5pm monday and then move along to the next step of the plan we all agreed on. It may be prudent, though, for joe to supply a final and definitive measurement of the OEM date wheel and of the image produced by his cyclops. If that is not possible, I have another idea which I will PM you all about. BTW, I should add that Kruzer00 is excluded my cold-feet hypotheseis above. He has clearly been willing from the beginning to buy dozens of $100 lenses to be delivered directly to his hedge fund's headquartes @ Trump Towers, and I certainly would not want to lump him in w/ us rank-and-file cheapskates! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sssurfer Posted March 19, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 19, 2006 At the actual point I am confident that those companies that declared themselves able to make 'our' previous lenses would be even more able in making lenses with the new, relaxed specifics. Just, let us not relax our needs about low tolerances. Ok, let's collect prices from those companies -- both archibald and finepics, both sapphire and SF11 -- and then let's take our decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archibald Posted March 19, 2006 Report Share Posted March 19, 2006 (edited) Man, now that I see Kruzer's post, and did a quick trip to via paneristi's ref section, my mind is playing tricks on me. sssurfer: is it possible that the diatance from which a pic is taken can effect the apparent mag? some of these look VERY different from one another--I'll download them and look at them w/ the grid on in photoshop. Edited March 19, 2006 by archibald Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watchmeister Posted March 19, 2006 Report Share Posted March 19, 2006 Archibald- You're comment is funnier than you know. Alot of those hedge funds are my clients. I once calculated that there is approximately $500-750 million of hedge fund money within a 15 block radius of my office. Unfortunately, I missed that boat. :nopity: (great smiley). But you are right I will err on the side of expensive as every time I have tried to cheap out I end up redoing it. Also, on the original movement sapphire reps, give them what they deserve. Glass - nope. Flint glass - the problem of extreme temperatures is reminiscent of exactly what kills gens. Just ask Breitling owners. Sapphire on sapphire just makes sense to me. But that is not intelligent sense - just common sense. Of course this is coming from the least knowledgeable person on this thread. But then again that is what gives me the confidence (ignorance) to be an anchor order on every cockamamie idea (although this is not one). Hey boys - I love this place. Irrelevant I know but I am a happy guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Estaban Posted March 19, 2006 Report Share Posted March 19, 2006 I would just love a definitive answer on whether there is a larger diameter cyclops with better mag for my 029. I compared it to a gen the other day and it just doesn't cut it. Bring on the updated crowns please Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swdivad Posted March 19, 2006 Report Share Posted March 19, 2006 Here are photos of my gen, hope it helps... This is as close as I could get with my crappy macro lens: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watchmeister Posted March 19, 2006 Report Share Posted March 19, 2006 Swdivad- I think that will be helpful. Nice to see a new member joing the cyclops fray. After many days of discussion back and forth it is clear (as with many things) that the more we know the more confusing it gets. Estaban- Ye of little faith. We are going to end up with 5.9-6.0 mm Sapphire cyclops and I will bet we can meet or beat the gen magnification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watchmeister Posted March 19, 2006 Report Share Posted March 19, 2006 By the way, I also suspect you will have 2 or more choices on improved crowns. Folks are now getting their hands on CNC machinery and so we are only now beginning to see how much the rep aftermarket stuff can be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swdivad Posted March 19, 2006 Report Share Posted March 19, 2006 Swdivad- I think that will be helpful. Nice to see a new member joing the cyclops fray. After many days of discussion back and forth it is clear (as with many things) that the more we know the more confusing it gets. ...I'm not that new Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sssurfer Posted March 19, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 19, 2006 (edited) sssurfer: is it possible that the distance from which a pic is taken can effect the apparent mag? some of these look VERY different from one another. Hardly it can. Much more likely they actually are different magnifications. Or -- if you are talking about OP site pictures -- that they have been differently retouched. Irrelevant I know but I am a happy guy. One of the most relevant issues, IMHO. Sorry of being not able to get the meaning out of the remainder of your post, though Here are photos of my gen, hope it helps... Surely it helps! Thanks A LOT! I'm going to take measurements on them asap. (It would be even more helpful, should anyone provide info about the real, unmagnified size of gen date windows). Edited March 19, 2006 by sssurfer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watchmeister Posted March 19, 2006 Report Share Posted March 19, 2006 ssurfer- The remainder of my post is rambling. I think My point was that I have always been thinking we would end up with Sapphire and I like the idea of using sapphire cyclops on sapphire crystal. In my limited modding experience the least expensive way has often ended up costing me more because I have to redo it. In this case, if the sapphire is not too expensive (and that is what is on the gens) it should be good enough for us. swdivad- I was referring to joining this particular loop. Or did you have a different name in another forum life? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbj69 Posted March 19, 2006 Report Share Posted March 19, 2006 finepics, please have a look at my old post about anchor lenses on old RWG. I thought that halo was due to poorly polished edges -- but it could also be due to something else. Do you think it is due to lacking of edge thickness? It could be due be to that very domed shape. But, expecially: I grinded the Edmund's lens to about 1.4 mm. Edge chipped a bit while polishing. No problem (apart from $$$), as I just wanted to test the overall magnification of this lens. Results: higher magnification than expected. Too high. It seems that RBJ was right when he was wondering about excessive magnification. I thought a lot about it, and the only reason that I can identify is that the distance between the datewheel and the crystal is higher than we believed. Actually, that was the most critical datum to us -- and a one that we always lacked of. It seems that adding the facts that the datewheel is a little below the dial, and that the crystal has an o-ring that keeps it a little above what we judged by measuring the bezels, we have some fractions of mm more than expected between the datewheel and the crystal. And to an extreme lens like the one we designed, some fractions of mm is A LOT of space. RBJ, try to cancel your order with Edmund's. I already did the test. In conclusion: It seems than we can achieve better results with a longer focal length. I.e., with a less thick lens. Not so flat as the one from Anchor that RBJ already tested, but flatter than what we thought so far. This should also make it easier for the companies to manufacture it. I have to perform some new calculations, but weekend is family time. I hope to have some news for tomorrow. well i dont want to say it , but i told u so , lmao thats why i probably came across to u guys as an butthole, but i did it with the 5.9 and it was pretty good to my eye, and then u guys started talking about this and that so i just shut up , some people just have to try it themselves , which im glad u see now what i was saying about it was pretty strong , i sent them a message for cancellation , they probably already sent it , but maybe not i also said the same thing about genuine , i think i personally trust my genuine i own, it looks great and it is genuine , and i agree on that pic he was using i would not charge u much to grind your crystals down for u , the cost would be installation actually, grinding them will not be very costly , but if u want to try to get them made without grinding im all for that as well, so keep me informed , i pop in every now and then to check the progress of this thread , im at the other boards as well , take care joe if someone would email me if u want me to chime in quickly ok Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Estaban Posted March 19, 2006 Report Share Posted March 19, 2006 I'm just impatient. If I have to wait too much longer, I'll probably buy a gen Pam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watchmeister Posted March 19, 2006 Report Share Posted March 19, 2006 Don't do it. There's no fun in that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yellomen Posted March 19, 2006 Report Share Posted March 19, 2006 Really cool to see you guys are improving the lupe as well The hands with the little cap is a huge improvement so the recessed pin doesn't show anymore. There are even better crowns in the make which should be ready in the next few weeks.. This is extraordinairy :cheers: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sssurfer Posted March 19, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 19, 2006 I took some measurements and got some surprises. Here are to you for your judgement: It seems that cyclops diameter ranges from 5.9 to 7.5 mm, and magnified date windows from 3.6 x 2.4 mm to 4.1 x 3.1 mm. What do you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OI812 Posted March 19, 2006 Report Share Posted March 19, 2006 NO question Panerai uses different cyclops for different watches......and I'd swear I've seen the SAME models with different cyclops/magnifications........ Personally, I think if we can get something in the neighborhood of genuine and better date wheels that would suffice and would certainly GREATLY improve both the authentic "look" of the watch and functionallity of the date.......the date on my Arktos is basically worthless as I cannot read it unless the light is just perfect.....and I'm NOT that blind..... BTW, GREAT work on this project!! (THANKS) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sssurfer Posted March 19, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 19, 2006 (edited) Personally, I think if we can get something in the neighborhood of genuine and better date wheels that would suffice I feel as we are coming to the same position... and this is pretty soothing, IMO. And... OI812, we do not forget that this all was born under a thread of yours. Edited March 19, 2006 by sssurfer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OI812 Posted March 19, 2006 Report Share Posted March 19, 2006 (edited) I feel as we are coming to the same position... and this is pretty soothing, IMO. And... OI812, we do not forget that this all was born under a thread of yours. LOL.....yep, but, as I'm a blithering IDIOT when it comes to the VAST majority of the calculations necessary to figure out our dilemna, I feel bad about being nothing more than a bystander......hehehe..... Edited March 19, 2006 by OI812 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watchmeister Posted March 19, 2006 Report Share Posted March 19, 2006 As I suspected. Early Vendome (27,28,63. etc.) had smaller cyclops and perhaps higher magnification. The historicals and more modern have larger cyclops. IMHO 6mm looks much more clean as it is focused on the number and you are not staring at the date window (which of course does not match up exactly on the gens either). Stick with 6mm. It is all becoming clearer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OI812 Posted March 19, 2006 Report Share Posted March 19, 2006 As I suspected. Early Vendome (27,28,63. etc.) had smaller cyclops and perhaps higher magnification. The historicals and more modern have larger cyclops. IMHO 6mm looks much more clean as it is focused on the number and you are not staring at the date window (which of course does not match up exactly on the gens either). Stick with 6mm. It is all becoming clearer. I agree 100%.... ALL this over a piece of glass/crystal.....LOL......are we a bunch of RWIS's are what..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbj69 Posted March 19, 2006 Report Share Posted March 19, 2006 i say the cheapest route is the ones i experimented with , it is 5.9 gets great magnification and looks much more like my genuine one, and i stated before i thought they varied in genuine as well, so kruzer wheres my 5 bucks lmao i love u man, a bet is a bet though, lol 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