Finepics Posted March 19, 2006 Report Share Posted March 19, 2006 The numbers will also differ in size with different movts. I have got a beautiful photo of the new in house Panerai movt all stripped down and the parts laid out (this is in the new fantastic Panerai catalogue which is a huge book of black and white photos some of which show the case and CG in various stages of manufacture) and the datewheel has massive numbers on it. They are certainly a different version of the Swiss 721 font as the date wheel is wider than a 2893. It is the width of the wheel that dictates the date window size. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watchmeister Posted March 19, 2006 Report Share Posted March 19, 2006 RBJ- Apologies. I forgot. Five dollars with "note" to be shipped out tomorrow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sssurfer Posted March 20, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 20, 2006 I also vote for diameter = 6 mm. 5.9 up to 6.2 should not be distinguishable from 6 to the naked eye. And 6 mm will provide higher magnification (but please note, also higher circular distortion as well) than larger diameters. This is because, given fixed thickness and edge thickness, a larger diameter stands for a larger Radius Of Curvature (see picture), and hence lower magnification and distortion. But please also consider that, when enlarging the diameter, distortion decreases more than magnification. Actually, it is possible that OP relied upon larger diameters on most recent models exactly because they were worried from high distortion. That said, do we all agree on 6 mm rather than higher values as cyclops diameter? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbj69 Posted March 20, 2006 Report Share Posted March 20, 2006 RBJ- Apologies. I forgot. Five dollars with "note" to be shipped out tomorrow. LMAO, NO PROBLEM also surfferer, i beleive u saw the 5.9 i did and it was pretty clear in the window to the eye that is Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sssurfer Posted March 20, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 20, 2006 surfferer, i beleive u saw the 5.9 i did and it was pretty clear in the window to the eye that is Yes RBJ, surely the lens you did already makes for a noticeable improvement on current rep cyclops. We are trying to verify if an even better tradeoff between magnification and distortion is possible because we are perfectionists... we simply can't keep out from that. As it will require sapphire or flint glass, it is going to cost sensibly more (if any). So, at least, 'your' lens is sure to hold as a welcome option to anyone not willing to spend lots of bucks. One should also consider that, that lens being a surplus item, we don't know how many of them they have in stock. Better we collect all infos and options before making any choice... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watchmeister Posted March 20, 2006 Report Share Posted March 20, 2006 6.0mm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panerailord Posted March 20, 2006 Report Share Posted March 20, 2006 6.0mm i think is the better solution Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archibald Posted March 20, 2006 Report Share Posted March 20, 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 The very cheapest route is to order custom glass lenses at the highest mag possible @ 1.3mm CT which cost 8 bucks and nobody has to pay to have them milled down. But the trouble is, they don't magnify as much as genuine, as sssurfers latest pics and measurements prove once and for all. Joe, you're right: a bet is a bet, so unless you can prove that the total cost of "your" lenses will be less than $8 plus shipping, I think I have Kruzer's pp address if you need it. I vote 6mm sapphire. Mon is my day off, so I'll have all day to track down the sapphire guys. If the price ain't right, or there is otherwise a prob getting the promises from email to contract, I vote we move forward w/ finepics lenses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finepics Posted March 20, 2006 Report Share Posted March 20, 2006 Just had the reply from the UK company. Prices are the same as is the lead time. "Mark This is almost the same as we quoted before. We can change the parameters a small amount without any change in our quote at this stage. Here is a quote to the latest specification: Item No 26-9556 Plano-convex Lens Material Sapphire Focal Length 8.0mm ROC 6.2mm +/-2% Diameter 6.0 +0/-0.1 mm Centre Thickness 1.17 +0/-0.1 mm Uncoated Prices excl VAT Qty50-£15 each Qty100-£11 each Delivery 8 weeks Packing and shipping £7.50 Terms Cash or Credit Card prior to shipment." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbj69 Posted March 20, 2006 Report Share Posted March 20, 2006 The very cheapest route is to order custom glass lenses at the highest mag possible @ 1.3mm CT which cost 8 bucks and nobody has to pay to have them milled down. But the trouble is, they don't magnify as much as genuine, as sssurfers latest pics and measurements prove once and for all. Joe, you're right: a bet is a bet, so unless you can prove that the total cost of "your" lenses will be less than $8 plus shipping, I think I have Kruzer's pp address if you need it. I vote 6mm sapphire. Mon is my day off, so I'll have all day to track down the sapphire guys. If the price ain't right, or there is otherwise a prob getting the promises from email to contract, I vote we move forward w/ finepics lenses. pay attention my d.c. friend (archi)the bet was getting it to fit by milling the 5.9 oh and also be a improvment and it was, lol nothing about keeping under 8 bucks was mentioned in the bet lol kruzer and i have spoke , its all in fun anyway u will see soon as i revieve the 5 bucks ok back to the subject at hand, i totally agree , if u can find us some that r as good or as better as the one i milled , especially for 8 bucks, put me in , its not that fun milling them actually lol but very doable for sure, lol so archibald hurry up and find us some 8 dollar alternatives , actually for about the same as i have i would pay 40 bucks without having to mill it , so there we have now boys get back to work lol cracking the whip down on you guys now , its been too long with only one decent result , im tired of looking at my ugly cyclops and now i have a submersible on the wath taht will need one as well so go go go go , lmao Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finepics Posted March 20, 2006 Report Share Posted March 20, 2006 I cannot see what the big deal is about paying $30-$40 or so for this. It's the same price as a cheap Bob strap and will last the life of the watch - what's the problem apart from the 8 week lead time for my people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbj69 Posted March 20, 2006 Report Share Posted March 20, 2006 hmmm i just said i would pay 40 bucks for them, but the problem with yours is they will not be all the same some will be good ones and some would be bad ones, and if i invested in 10 of them for 400 bucks and only get half of them ok then i lost 200 bucks and im not willing to do that, thats all i was saying when we were discussing it over at rwg, u know the 50 or 100 cyclops order , if u can get me 10 good ones for 30 or 40 bucks im in ok , so go go go go lol let quit talking about it and get er done , lol im in a good mood today cant u tell lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finepics Posted March 20, 2006 Report Share Posted March 20, 2006 Sorry Joe, mis read slightly. Come on Archie - where is your new figure!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sssurfer Posted March 20, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 20, 2006 (edited) Material Sapphire Focal Length 8.0mm ROC 6.2mm +/-2% Diameter 6.0 +0/-0.1 mm Centre Thickness 1.17 +0/-0.1 mm All those tolerances are absolutely acceptable. Details: ROC -2%: no perceptible differences, except when the date window is at 3.5 mm or more from the lens, and even in this case just magnification = 1.7x instead of 1.8x. ROC +2%: no perceptible differences. Diameter -0.1 mm: ok, this means 5.9 mm, so I suppose we can use them on those models with gen cyclops 5.9 mm... provided we are able to distinghuish them. CT -0.1 mm: no perceptible differences. It seems that we can relax on our concerns about tolerances, we are not going to risk a significant percentual of garbage lenses. This is due both to lower tolerances (0.1 mm, not 0.25 anymore) and to less critical lens. To me, it's ok to give finepics a go should not archibald's company reply in reasonable time. Folks, I know we all are quite tired. Hold on, we are almost on our goal... ...hopefully. Edited March 20, 2006 by sssurfer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yellomen Posted March 20, 2006 Report Share Posted March 20, 2006 Hi guys... i am not as technical as you are and i don't understand most of what you are talking about.. Just that there will be a better lupe available for the pannie automatic modells. Will one of you guys be offerering this lupe here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OI812 Posted March 20, 2006 Report Share Posted March 20, 2006 All those tolerances are absolutely acceptable. Details: ROC -2%: no perceptible differences, except when the date window is at 3.5 mm or more from the lens, and even in this case just magnification = 1.7x instead of 1.8x. ROC +2%: no perceptible differences. Diameter -0.1 mm: ok, this means 5.9 mm, so I suppose we can use them on those models with gen cyclops 5.9 mm... provided we are able to distinghuish them. CT -0.1 mm: no perceptible differences. It seems that we can relax on our concerns about tolerances, we are not going to risk a significant percentual of garbage lenses. This is due both to lower tolerances (0.1 mm, not 0.25 anymore) and to less critical lens. To me, it's ok to give finepics a go should not archibald's company reply in reasonable time. Folks, I know we all are quite tired. Hold on, we are almost on our goal... ...hopefully. Just don't forget I'm IN for 3 or 4 @ up to 30 bucks per.......but I do LUV the idea of 8 bucks per...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sssurfer Posted March 20, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 20, 2006 (edited) Will one of you guys be offerering this lupe here? Just don't forget I'm IN for 3 or 4 @ up to 30 bucks per.......but I do LUV the idea of 8 bucks per...... All you, be sure we are going to post public advices as soon as we shall be done in selecting the lens and the company. But 8 USD are just about glass lenses. We are actually sure that with glass one cannot achieve any better magnification than about 1.3-1.4x -- which is what RBJ obtained. In theory one could go up to 1.6x, but at cost of unacceptable circular distortion, white halos, and so on, that make it unpracticable. While 1.3-1.4x already is quite an improvement on rep magnification (currently 1.1-1.2x), if we use a sapphire lens we can go up to 1.7x (1.6x in the worst case, 1.8x in the best case), and we feel it is worth. Edited March 20, 2006 by sssurfer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yellomen Posted March 20, 2006 Report Share Posted March 20, 2006 i wouldn't mind paying $30,- for a really good lupe with 1.7x magnification Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sssurfer Posted March 20, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 20, 2006 (edited) i wouldn't mind paying $30,- for a really good lupe with 1.7x magnification We all think the same way too. Archie, finepics, at this point my only concern is about the lacking of a prototype. True, this lens is not so extreme like the previous one... but we already verified how theory and reality can differ. Devil lurks in the detail. Edited February 17, 2007 by sssurfer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archibald Posted March 20, 2006 Report Share Posted March 20, 2006 (edited) Sorry Joe, mis read slightly. Come on Archie - where is your new figure!! Left a message and sent 2 emails. The last one: "B--- my friend, I'm dying over here. Got a bunch of watch addicts breathing down my neck. Please, please, please give me your best price while I still have a sphincter. Seriously, I need your best price by 9:00 PM EST, 6:00 your tme, or we're going to have to go with a company out of the UK who's in @ 35 USD and will deliver in 4 weeks [Oops: all's fair in love and reps]. SF11 is still an option, but I'll need a prototype first since the SF11 lenses we've experimented with show excessive distortion around the edges. If you believe that your SF11 lenses will perform identically regardless of the material, not having a prototype would not be a deal breaker provided our agreement explicity states the lenses can be be returned for a full refund if we believe there is excessive distortion, even if the dimesions fall within the perameters you provided in your quote. Best, J____" His reply: "J____, I'm working as hard as possibly [sic]. You will have your price by tonight or tomorrow noon at the latest time." ON EDIT: Since we know that our price is going to be between 35 bucks (finepics or my company if they match the price) and 42 bucks (our agreed upon limit of finepics + 25%), I think we should start a separate thread to guage interest so we can order the right amount--we may need 100, since I bet just among us we'll take 25. Kruzer's in for 7 and my watchsmith and I are in for 10 between us. Edited March 20, 2006 by archibald Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finepics Posted March 20, 2006 Report Share Posted March 20, 2006 I'll happily go along with that. I will be in for 5 for myself and possibly more for customers. In my email to my company I did mention the US company offering to take back out of spec ones but I think the new design means the tolerances can be a lot finer as there is no sharp edge to maintain so less % of out of spec. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archibald Posted March 20, 2006 Report Share Posted March 20, 2006 (edited) I'll happily go along with that. I will be in for 5 for myself and possibly more for customers. In my email to my company I did mention the US company offering to take back out of spec ones but I think the new design means the tolerances can be a lot finer as there is no sharp edge to maintain so less % of out of spec. Fantastic. sssurfer, Kruzer00, what say you? Edited March 20, 2006 by archibald Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archibald Posted March 20, 2006 Report Share Posted March 20, 2006 I cannot see what the big deal is about paying $30-$40 or so for this. It's the same price as a cheap Bob strap and will last the life of the watch - what's the problem apart from the 8 week lead time for my people. Not to mention that it fixes a flaw that is far more visible, IMO, than many of the flaws we pay more to fix. Also, unlike crown guards, lume, etc this mod is easily transferable from watch to watch even if you have about 10 thumbs like i do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watchmeister Posted March 20, 2006 Report Share Posted March 20, 2006 Aye! Seven times that is. Now what are we getting? - just kidding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finepics Posted March 20, 2006 Report Share Posted March 20, 2006 I just need to remind you if we go with my people that there is this 8 week wait. It might be that they give an outside figure and deliver earlier (makes them look good). Are we beginning to think along the 100 quantity here. Any volunteers to start a new thread and take some numbers. The only problem I can see here is that all members know the retail price, and no-one will profit from this, so there is no room for error if we don't get a 100 orders. If we order and only sell 50 someones got to pay for that difference so how should we handle this. 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.