Watchmeister Posted June 11, 2006 Report Share Posted June 11, 2006 The original sequence of manufacturing improvements was 1st generation: wrong case size and crown/cg, mineral glass, no swan neck; 2nd generation: proper sized case and crown/cg, mineral glass, no swan neck; 3rd generation: proper case and cg/crown, swan neck and mineral; 4rth generation: proper case and cg/crown, swan neck and sapphire; and 5th generation: same as #4 but wrong Cotes de geneve bridges. After that came chinese movements and other lesser versions. You want 4rth generation. Mine is fourth generation sapphire from Andrew. It is pretty hard not to scratch a crystal that big in relatively short order. In my case, it passed the water droplet test and I accidentally scraped the hell of it on the pavement with no effect. On a mineral I would have had a major scratch. I purchased it months ago. It is not AR coated though. Could be time... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugwash Posted June 11, 2006 Report Share Posted June 11, 2006 4rth generation: proper case and cg/crown, swan neck and sapphire; and 5th generation: same as #4 but wrong Cotes de geneve bridges. After that came chinese movements and other lesser versions. You want 4rth generation. Which gen was the one with the working swan's neck? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwai02 Posted June 11, 2006 Report Share Posted June 11, 2006 4rth generation: proper case and cg/crown, swan neck and sapphire; I have a 4th gen, and my crystal just broke. I just received it from a local watchsmith. He serviced the movement and installed the cannon pinion/hour wheel for me. He didn't cut the hour hand. So I have to remove the crystal and cut the hour hand myself. :yucky: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watchmeister Posted June 11, 2006 Report Share Posted June 11, 2006 cwai- You raise an interesting point. I know sapphire is pretty much impervious to scratches as it is next to diamonds on the hardness scale. Can they break? I have always wondered that as all of our crystals are obviously synthetic and so I have wondered whether there can be structural flaws or are you saying that you're crystal was in fact mineral. Pug- I wasn't aware that any of the swan neck's on the 1950 are currently working unless you actually screw it in. Mine appears to be adjusted but it may just be cosmetic. I did have Ziggy service it when he put in the new cannon pinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJGladeRaider Posted June 11, 2006 Report Share Posted June 11, 2006 didnt eddie say the opposite, that teh 581 version was more correct etc. i dont know why anyone is saying they are sapphire, thats complete [censored] no matter what, as we have seen with the 212. they all have mineral crystal, not syn sapphire Wow, am I glad you are here. Not just everyone would proclaim that all the dealers advertising sapphire crystals on these watches are lying, and all the buyers who say they have verified theirs are fools. Since the only way anyone could actually be able to make such a statement would be to have bought a sample of them all, and nobody but a fookwit idiot would make such a statement unable to support it, I must commend you on your incredible investment on our behalf. Naturally, this bunch of slimedog thieves we deal with will try to impugn your credibility and suggest that you are such a fookwit idiot so please post pictures -- I am sure I speak for many of us when I tell you that I am standing by to be amazed. As I am beginning to have a modest little collection of my own, perhaps you could give me a few pointers so I too could be able to tell whether my other crystals are sapphire - absent your guidance and inspiration, I actually believed that Joshua had been honest with me on my Fiddy and the rest of this junk, and the way a drop of water beads up on front and back, like on a freshly waxed car, plumb confused me. I guess I'll just have to send them all back. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finepics Posted June 11, 2006 Report Share Posted June 11, 2006 I wasn't aware that any of the swan neck's on the 1950 are currently working unless you actually screw it in. Mine appears to be adjusted but it may just be cosmetic. I did have The Zigmeister service it when he put in the new cannon pinion. All the swan necks are working - it's just that they need bending to contact the regulatuer arm - it is after all only a spring to hold things in place. The problem is that because the reguleur arm is the standard narrow tapered type the swan neck doesn't touch it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watchmeister Posted June 11, 2006 Report Share Posted June 11, 2006 So it's all in the sword. I have heard that before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slay Posted June 11, 2006 Report Share Posted June 11, 2006 i have the feeling my crystal has more distortion as other crystals... at least from the pics! the one AMG posted looks way better than mine IMO. mine doesnt seem to be doomed all the way, its a little doomed and then starts to flatten... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polynomial Posted June 11, 2006 Report Share Posted June 11, 2006 I have a 4th gen, and my crystal just broke. I just received it from a local watchsmith. He serviced the movement and installed the cannon pinion/hour wheel for me. He didn't cut the hour hand. So I have to remove the crystal and cut the hour hand myself. :yucky: As far as I remember the folks that broke the Fiddy crystal in the last severl months or so and posted the reports all had 4th gen; that makes sense as common glass is less fragile and more scrachable, but it should be clear that Fiddy crystals in reps are all crap for one reason or another Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomasng Posted June 11, 2006 Report Share Posted June 11, 2006 As far as I remember the folks that broke the Fiddy crystal in the last severl months or so and posted the reports all had 4th gen; that makes sense as common glass is less fragile and more scrachable, but it should be clear that Fiddy crystals in reps are all crap for one reason or another I believe it has to do with the way the crystal is seated, that it's under constant pressure and very prone to random shattering, unfortunately. Fortunately we have Davidsen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bignasty Posted June 11, 2006 Report Share Posted June 11, 2006 (edited) cwai- You raise an interesting point. I know sapphire is pretty much impervious to scratches as it is next to diamonds on the hardness scale. Can they break? I have always wondered that as all of our crystals are obviously synthetic and so I have wondered whether there can be structural flaws or are you saying that you're crystal was in fact mineral. Sapphire is harder to scratch than mineral but it will scratch w/ diamonds or certain hardened steels and such. If you take a hardened steel razor blade accross the front it may still scratch. I knew a guy who did this showing off the "scratch RESISTANT" crystal, key word = resistant! Made him look like a dumb!@ss. Sapphire also shatters easier than mineral or plexi, so if you bump it up too hard against another suface it may very well shatter. Also @ Polynomial The crystals shattering is a common problem with sapphire and mineral versions. This comes from the crystal not being seated properly as Admin said. The crystal gets torqued in its seat and eventually just breaks under the pressure. Many members have stated that they woke up and looked at the watch to find it broken in their cases! Bottom line. When you get it test it or take your dealer's word. If it scratches down the road, chances are it is mineral and take it up with your dealer. If they are a good dealer they'll take care of you. Perhaps a hefty discount on your next purchase. You can use the discount funds you saved to buy an AR coated SAPPHIRE from Davidsen! Cheers JOn Edited June 11, 2006 by Bignasty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jos Nana Posted June 12, 2006 Author Report Share Posted June 12, 2006 (edited) To begin, there are 2 different makers... Maker of the 0117 case offers watches with options... Mineral or Sapphire crystal.. This is the only maker that is able to supply sapphire AR coated for the 1950. Maker of the watch with the 0581 case ONLY uses mineral crystal on his watches.. The 0581 case is not as refine as the 0117 case as well. 0581 can be disassembled conventionally... i.e. bottom up... The 0117 can only be disassembled top down... instead of accessing from the caseback, the bezel must be popped. This is the same for genuine 1950 as well. It seems that a group of dealers may be swapping out the top sapphire crystal and swapping out the 3 main wheel screws from blue to ss... Bottom line is that it is still using 0581 case. Why are they using the 581 case instead of the 117 case.. My deduction is due to costs and also availability of the 117 case to them. Some may argue, the caseback does not relate to the overall watchcase.. In the rep industry.... the case, caseback, crystal is consider as 1 single spare part...this is known as the case set. I do have a couple of cases of Crystal breaking and I send out a complete case set to my clients .. those who has received this from me can verify this fact. Hope the above clarify the doubts.. Joshua Edited June 12, 2006 by Jos Nana Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir-Lancelot Posted June 12, 2006 Report Share Posted June 12, 2006 Everyone says to get davidsenjpn's crystal. Has anyone actually done this? Does it fit correctly? Is it an easy fix? pictures????? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chronus Posted June 12, 2006 Report Share Posted June 12, 2006 I' d rather some honesty and get a cheaper price for a mineral crystal, that way I can factor in a davidsen AR coated sapphire crystal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slay Posted June 12, 2006 Report Share Posted June 12, 2006 To begin, there are 2 different makers... Maker of the 0117 case offers watches with options... Mineral or Sapphire crystal.. This is the only maker that is able to supply sapphire AR coated for the 1950. Maker of the watch with the 0581 case ONLY uses mineral crystal on his watches.. The 0581 case is not as refine as the 0117 case as well. 0581 can be disassembled conventionally... i.e. bottom up... The 0117 can only be disassembled top down... instead of accessing from the caseback, the bezel must be popped. This is the same for genuine 1950 as well. It seems that a group of dealers may be swapping out the top sapphire crystal and swapping out the 3 main wheel screws from blue to ss... Bottom line is that it is still using 0581 case. Why are they using the 581 case instead of the 117 case.. My deduction is due to costs and also availability of the 117 case to them. Some may argue, the caseback does not relate to the overall watchcase.. In the rep industry.... the case, caseback, crystal is consider as 1 single spare part...this is known as the case set. I do have a couple of cases of Crystal breaking and I send out a complete case set to my clients .. those who has received this from me can verify this fact. Hope the above clarify the doubts.. Joshua that is not correct, I have a 0117 and the movement comes out from the BACK. I dont have to pop the crystal off in order to remove the movement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chronus Posted June 12, 2006 Report Share Posted June 12, 2006 Hmmm smoke and mirrors here... who's telling the truth? Seems like Joshua/Andrew are for the 117 case, and EL for the 581? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ///AMG Posted June 12, 2006 Report Share Posted June 12, 2006 (edited) that is not correct, I have a 0117 and the movement comes out from the BACK. I dont have to pop the crystal off in order to remove the movement. The plot thickens , which dealer to believe ??? who to trust ? one claims the 581 has a better case and the other says 117 at one time I have had both in my hand, there appears to be no difference, oh well ....... Edited June 12, 2006 by ///AMG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rangers158 Posted June 12, 2006 Report Share Posted June 12, 2006 Hmmm smoke and mirrors here... who's telling the truth? Seems like Joshua/Andrew are for the 117 case, and EL for the 581? I just got Andrew's latest Pam 127 an its 581 also. It appears that the front is sapphire and back is mineral glass. No AR though (Advertised as no AR) Anyway its a nice watch. Lume is also quite good. Might be superlume. So who is telling the truth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ///AMG Posted June 12, 2006 Report Share Posted June 12, 2006 Hmmm smoke and mirrors here... who's telling the truth? Seems like Joshua/Andrew are for the 117 case, and EL for the 581? Andrew now carries the 581 and on his web site he claims it to be the best .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fitch Posted June 12, 2006 Report Share Posted June 12, 2006 i just received EL's new fiddy and although it is a very nice watch, it's not as advertised. i did some testing and the front seems saphire but the back is absolutely mineral. i'm actually more worried about the shape of the saphire, it seems to me that it is not a complete dome based on the fact that the numerals are not as distorted as they should be and the angle in the dome isn't very fluid. i must say that i have never compared it to the real mccoy but when i compare it with josh's pics i see a big differences; it seems the numerals are more distorted and the dome in the crystal seems more fluent. I contacted EL about this but still haven't heard back from him. . could any of you who has josh's ultimate fiddy post a pic of the side view of the crystal? that way i can check if there is a difference in the shape of the dome. the dial in EL's version has some small flaws and it isn't alligned 100% accurate as well, hopefully this can be resolved as well. I am not sure it there is a difference in the shape of the case itself. the movement is beautifull and the ar coating on the front crystal is also seems very nice. i hope EL will get in touch soon and hopefully explain this which i am sure he will do since he has a good rep! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ///AMG Posted June 12, 2006 Report Share Posted June 12, 2006 (edited) @fitch you got the 581 ? you have a pic of the side profile ? Edited June 12, 2006 by ///AMG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fitch Posted June 12, 2006 Report Share Posted June 12, 2006 jep, here ya go! i really hope i am wrong and i hope that this is the way the crystal should look but i am just not sure at this moment... i hope the pics help in deciding if the crystal on EL's fiddy is correct or not.. please post some pics for comparison guys; especially of josh's ultimate version! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ///AMG Posted June 12, 2006 Report Share Posted June 12, 2006 here is a gen, yours looks alright http://img79.imageshack.us/img79/794/217toscanaweb4jn.md.jpg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nebakanezzar Posted June 12, 2006 Report Share Posted June 12, 2006 i just received EL's new fiddy and although it is a very nice watch, it's not as advertised. i did some testing and the front seems saphire but the back is absolutely mineral. i'm actually more worried about the shape of the saphire, it seems to me that it is not a complete dome based on the fact that the numerals are not as distorted as they should be and the angle in the dome isn't very fluid. i must say that i have never compared it to the real mccoy but when i compare it with josh's pics i see a big differences; it seems the numerals are more distorted and the dome in the crystal seems more fluent. I contacted EL about this but still haven't heard back from him. . could any of you who has josh's ultimate fiddy post a pic of the side view of the crystal? that way i can check if there is a difference in the shape of the dome. the dial in EL's version has some small flaws and it isn't alligned 100% accurate as well, hopefully this can be resolved as well. I am not sure it there is a difference in the shape of the case itself. the movement is beautifull and the ar coating on the front crystal is also seems very nice. i hope EL will get in touch soon and hopefully explain this which i am sure he will do since he has a good rep! the AR coating on the crystal helps to remove the distortion...that is why a non ar crystal will have more distortion...the dome is also correct, it is suposed to be a semi-dome (flatter on the top). I have never scene a gen in person, but from everything I have read, the gen is the same like the AR coated one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fitch Posted June 12, 2006 Report Share Posted June 12, 2006 if that's the case then i'm happy.. although i would like to see some more side profile pics but i haven't been able to find them.. but if it is the correct crystal then that's one less issue to worry about. the things that remain are the mineral crystal on the back, the minte hand that is a bit too pointy, the dial not being properly aligned and the flaw on the dial. most of these things can be fixed, but i didn't expect this from EL's "ultimate" fiddy... i can't wait to hear from him... 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.