dieselpower Posted December 13, 2007 Report Share Posted December 13, 2007 Has anyone noticed that the seconds hand on the rep 1665's is too long? I am awaiting the arrival of my DRSD and have been scrutinising photos from doubleredseadweller.com and I noticed this discrepancy. Here is a photo of a gen DRSD: Notice the length of the second hand. It falls just short of minute index on the dial. Here is a photo of my MBW: As you can see the second hand extends well into the index markers. The same is true of the cheaper sub based DRSD's. So, does anyone know where to get good sea dweller hands where the second hand is correct? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanuq Posted December 13, 2007 Report Share Posted December 13, 2007 My old (10 years) MBW looks to be the same as a gen 1665. GEN MBW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alligoat Posted December 13, 2007 Report Share Posted December 13, 2007 Just take a pair of tin snips and shorten it! HA, just kidding, but isn't it ironic! All this time I've read one of the big tells on a rep is the seconds hand being too short- this is the first case of one being too long. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freddy333 Posted December 13, 2007 Report Share Posted December 13, 2007 Has anyone noticed that the seconds hand on the rep 1665's is too long? I am awaiting the arrival of my DRSD and have been scrutinising photos from doubleredseadweller.com and I noticed this discrepancy. Here is a photo of a gen DRSD: Notice the length of the second hand. It falls just short of minute index on the dial. My 1665 has a set of Clark's hands, which has more accurate minute & hour hands. But the second hand is a bit too long. I noticed this when I was fitting the hands. I think the original MBW second hand was the correct length, but there was something about Clark's that I liked better, so I decided to live with the mm extra length (and slightly shorter tail) (Picture taken on a slow flatbed scanner, which is why the second hand appears bent) By the way, that 1665 from doubleredseadweller that you used to compare second hands is one of the watches I used as a model for my watch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingkitesurf Posted December 13, 2007 Report Share Posted December 13, 2007 Mine are fine... The Mercedes hand needs to be a bit convex to... The clarcks hands can be bend on a pen tip.. so I did... Convex now. Nightcolor and thats it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freddy333 Posted December 13, 2007 Report Share Posted December 13, 2007 The Mercedes hand needs to be a bit convex to... The clarcks hands can be bend on a pen tip.. so I did... Convex now. Strange. My original MBW hour hand was convex and it looked wrong as soon as I received the watch. Both of the gen 1665s I have handled as well every gen I have seen on TZ over the years (I have several gigs worth of TZ pictures archived on my hard drive) has flat Mercedes hands. This was one of the main reasons I swapped the MBW hands out for the Clarks. I am looking through Dowling's book now and, while I do see a couple of red Subs that might (based on the light reflections) be curved, all of the Seadwellers (1665s) appear to have very flat hands. Nanaq - You have a gen Double Red. What say you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanuq Posted December 13, 2007 Report Share Posted December 13, 2007 I happen to be wearing it today, and the hands are as flat as a pool table in Kansas. 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.