dylan Posted August 28, 2008 Report Share Posted August 28, 2008 ok... so what do i need... lets say i have a 2893-2 mvmt...do i simply source a 2836 modified PAM 063/029 and then swap mvmts? what else? lello dw? some sort of cyclops mod? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HauteHippie Posted August 28, 2008 Report Share Posted August 28, 2008 ok... so what do i need... lets say i have a 2893-2 mvmt...do i simply source a 2836 modified PAM 063/029 and then swap mvmts? what else? lello dw? some sort of cyclops mod? If this is your plan, I'd go for a 63 over a 29. The 2836 29 bezel font looks quite inaccurate to me. As long as the 63 dial is reasonable on the 2836 version, then you're good to go. Lello DW, The Zigmeister lume, chief cyclops, and you've got a great watch. Also take a good look at the hands, especially the GMT hand length and size. My old school 63 has a slightly short GMT hand, but the triangle tip is sized correctly. I've seen DSN hands, for example, where the triangle tip is far too large. Not sure how it looks on the 2836 version. Also recommended, of course, would be an improved CG and a gen crown. Anyhow, good luck. Should be a fun project. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dylan Posted August 28, 2008 Author Report Share Posted August 28, 2008 Thanks CT! Well...it'll definitely take some time to source all the parts.. So I guess the recipe is: -lello dw -T-crown (0.9mm) -chief cyclops -The Zigmeister lume -ETA 2893 mvmt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dylan Posted August 30, 2008 Author Report Share Posted August 30, 2008 Alright....I think I got a good base watch for this project. Old school ETA 2893-2 PAM 063 So I'm thinking I need... 1. chief's cyclop 2. superlume 3. lello dw 4. T-crown? Here's some pics...please any feedback/advice would be greatly appreciated! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HauteHippie Posted August 30, 2008 Report Share Posted August 30, 2008 Old school 063... go with that one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dylan Posted August 30, 2008 Author Report Share Posted August 30, 2008 does it look like i need a DW change? i've been comparing pics with bwhitesox's ziggified 063, and my font doesn't look half bad... CHIEFIE i need a cyclops! i'll send you a PM! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HauteHippie Posted August 30, 2008 Report Share Posted August 30, 2008 does it look like i need a DW change? i've been comparing pics with bwhitesox's ziggified 063, and my font doesn't look half bad... CHIEFIE i need a cyclops! i'll send you a PM! Yes, the ETA font is inaccurate. It needs a new DW. And don't forget the CG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dylan Posted August 30, 2008 Author Report Share Posted August 30, 2008 CG...hmmm...which one would be proper? the one on it now looks quite crappy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watchmeister Posted August 30, 2008 Report Share Posted August 30, 2008 D- Very nice looking watch. The only issue you can't currently resolve on a 63 is the caseback. 63 was a C series while the 23 and 29 were B series. The recipe above is a great recipe. I can't remember why but I seem to remember the hand lengths may be off as well. But I can never remember what goes with what. Here is a 63 with most of the mods mentioned above (more primitive watchmaster cylops though). This one has gen hands but I am not sure they are the right size as they could be from a 29B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dylan Posted August 30, 2008 Author Report Share Posted August 30, 2008 @W: thanks for the pic! someone told me if you find an old school one with 2893...then no need to get a gmt hand from DSN... and chief is absolutely right...I SOOO need a dw change...the ETA font is waaaay too thin... the only thing that is going to hold up the finished project is a lello dw....i believe he's not printing anymore until sometime in Sept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watchmeister Posted August 30, 2008 Report Share Posted August 30, 2008 Agreed. The datewheel has got to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ravishingrick Posted August 30, 2008 Report Share Posted August 30, 2008 All though i like the 63 over the 29, the gen 63 in LNIB condition sells between 4K an 5K US$ on the second hand market. Why would you build a 1200$ rep of a ~4500$ watch? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmt Posted August 30, 2008 Report Share Posted August 30, 2008 If this is your plan, I'd go for a 63 over a 29. The 2836 29 bezel font looks quite inaccurate to me. As long as the 63 dial is reasonable on the 2836 version, then you're good to go. Lello DW, The Zigmeister lume, chief cyclops, and you've got a great watch. Also take a good look at the hands, especially the GMT hand length and size. My old school 63 has a slightly short GMT hand, but the triangle tip is sized correctly. I've seen DSN hands, for example, where the triangle tip is far too large. Not sure how it looks on the 2836 version. Also recommended, of course, would be an improved CG and a gen crown. Anyhow, good luck. Should be a fun project. I'd say what is REQUIRED is: 2893-2 Hands that fit a 2893-2...the 2836 hands will not fit a new cyclops (chief) Lume NICE: Lello DW-- actually really required, but they don't always fit and work right according to The Zigmeister better CG (though honestly the rep cg on mine isn't terrible... not good but not terrible) Gen crown-- but only if you are truly anal... it's not that big a deal IMHO HAVE FUN! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocketeer Posted August 31, 2008 Report Share Posted August 31, 2008 I'd say what is REQUIRED is: 2893-2 Hands that fit a 2893-2...the 2836 hands will not fit a new cyclops (chief) Hi I'm curious why you say that the hands won't fit? The 2836 and 2893 both take the standard 28xx sizes of 150,90,25 for the regular hands, so surely it's just a question of how the '36 was modded for swapping the day wheel drive to the 24hr hand and whether that is compatible with the 180 size on the'93. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bwhitesox Posted August 31, 2008 Report Share Posted August 31, 2008 It's just the 2836 GMT handsize that is different and will not fit onto the 2893-2 movement. Daves watch posted above is already a 2893-2 so no need to worry about any of the hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dylan Posted August 31, 2008 Author Report Share Posted August 31, 2008 thanks guys for all your comments! yep...indeed my base watch will be an old school based 2893-2. in terms of cost I'm where I want to be... -cyclop: check -superlume: check -T-crown: check -crown guard: no clue -lello dw: no clue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peyups Posted August 31, 2008 Report Share Posted August 31, 2008 I think the GMT hand is too long.. It shouldn't cover the numbers. D- Very nice looking watch. The only issue you can't currently resolve on a 63 is the caseback. 63 was a C series while the 23 and 29 were B series. The recipe above is a great recipe. I can't remember why but I seem to remember the hand lengths may be off as well. But I can never remember what goes with what. Here is a 63 with most of the mods mentioned above (more primitive watchmaster cylops though). This one has gen hands but I am not sure they are the right size as they could be from a 29B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watchmeister Posted August 31, 2008 Report Share Posted August 31, 2008 Agreed on the hands. Here are a couple of gen pics: I waa told that if you send in your gen for servicing these are the hands you get back for any of the 2893 GMT's but I have no idea whether that is true. The other mystery is how well the 63 rep dial lays out against the gen. Someone who had looked fairly closely at both had mentioned that this particular rep dial is pretty far off in terms of layout and that would impact the visual layout of hands against the dial. I did ask Ziggy to measure out the difference between the gen lume hands and a set of t hands and other than the placement of the dot on the seconds hand the overall length differences were miniscule. That is what causes me to believe that the issue is as much the dial as the hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fat.tail.event Posted September 8, 2008 Report Share Posted September 8, 2008 I waa told that if you send in your gen for servicing these are the hands you get back for any of the 2893 GMT's but I have no idea whether that is true. The other mystery is how well the 63 rep dial lays out against the gen. Someone who had looked fairly closely at both had mentioned that this particular rep dial is pretty far off in terms of layout and that would impact the visual layout of hands against the dial. I did ask The Zigmeister to measure out the difference between the gen lume hands and a set of t hands and other than the placement of the dot on the seconds hand the overall length differences were miniscule. That is what causes me to believe that the issue is as much the dial as the hands. Noting the black seconds hand in these pics....I wonder if Richemont is replacing the seconds hand with a black version upon servicing because of the oxidation going on with the sliver ones. Personally, I would be [censored] if they did that without my authorization. Anyhow, my gen 63 seconds hand has slight oxidation going on (as far as I can tell from paneristi conversations, its hit or miss on this odd trait occurring), and I actually appreciate it...kind of like a unique T-lume-like experience, or my auto is even more 'alive' the way I see it. Just for reference/knowledge....This oxidation is so slight. Imagine the tiniest of random black specks dotting the hand. I have photographed the watch maybe 10-15 times and from different angles and the oxidation is hard to detect..., have to view it at the perfect angle, very very close up etc. to really capture it. My 63 was last serviced in spring '06 and it was not replaced even though the oxidation was beginning at that point. 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