Justasgood Posted October 18, 2008 Report Posted October 18, 2008 The dial, wether refinished or not is as good as I have seen. As for the crown, this is the old style Triplock without the external gasket. Based on my experiance, the construction and craftsmanship look gen. If it's not, it is as good as I have seen as well. You be the judge: Crown comparison Dial shots http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l127/fre...7016compare.jpg Comments always welcome.
freddy333 Posted October 18, 2008 Report Posted October 18, 2008 As for the crown, this is the old style Triplock without the external gasket. Based on my experiance, the construction and craftsmanship look gen. If it's not, it is as good as I have seen as well. I could be wrong, but the Triplocks without external tube gaskets were the earlier 24-700 to 24-702 series, which I believe all lack the 3 dots below the coronet Still, the thing that initially raised my suspicions is the shape of the coronet relief. The Tudor's looks slightly narrower with a wider spread at the top & there is less material between the top of the opening at the bottom of the coronet & where the spikes begin. If you look closely & compare to a known gen, the Tudor looks different. But, again, it is the best Triplock copy I have ever seen.
rolex001 Posted October 18, 2008 Report Posted October 18, 2008 The only crown without dots was the 700. The 702 was a Triplock crown already (still missing the outside tube gasket) but it already had the three dots. The threads were on the tube base versus on the top of the tube on modern 703's. The Triplock feature addresses the O-Ring in the crown and the two O-Rings inside the tube.
freddy333 Posted October 18, 2008 Report Posted October 18, 2008 The only crown without dots was the 700. The 702 was a Triplock crown already (still missing the outside tube gasket) but it already had the three dots. The threads were on the tube base versus on the top of the tube on modern 703's. The Triplock feature addresses the O-Ring in the crown and the two O-Rings inside the tube. That sounds correct. So, do you think the crown (& tube) is gen? Still, the relief looks different (check my comparison pics here) & I would also say that the Tudor crown lacks the spring tension (relating to the internal spring inside the crown) that I normally feel with a gen Triplock. It 'springs' like an aftermarket crown.
PAMman Posted October 18, 2008 Report Posted October 18, 2008 Mine is en-route from US to UK and I'm really looking forward to this one, in spite of the fact that I have no knowledge or interest in Rolex generally. I wouldn't recognise a 'Tropic' if it bit me so I am going to need a lot of help and assistance here. What do I need to do to improve or upgrade mine, particularly in relation to the 'crystal, its retention ring, bezel insert' etc? I just want to get it close to a gen in terms of bezel and crystal fit, getting rid of glue and stuff that shouldn't be there. What do these need in order that all the bits go together the way they should?
Justasgood Posted October 18, 2008 Author Report Posted October 18, 2008 Mine is en-route from US to UK and I'm really looking forward to this one, in spite of the fact that I have no knowledge or interest in Rolex generally. I wouldn't recognise a 'Tropic' if it bit me so I am going to need a lot of help and assistance here. What do I need to do to improve or upgrade mine, particularly in relation to the 'crystal, its retention ring, bezel insert' etc? I just want to get it close to a gen in terms of bezel and crystal fit, getting rid of glue and stuff that shouldn't be there. What do these need in order that all the bits go together the way they should? Well, unlike Chris', mine had no glue on the crystal. So it depends on the luck of the draw. A gen T-19 crystal and Gen Crown/tube is all you really need. Of course, a period corect bracelet goes a long way as well. Snaps some pics and post what you get. It's kinda interesting to see all the iterations from this source.
Justasgood Posted October 18, 2008 Author Report Posted October 18, 2008 The only crown without dots was the 700. The 702 was a Triplock crown already (still missing the outside tube gasket) but it already had the three dots. The threads were on the tube base versus on the top of the tube on modern 703's. The Triplock feature addresses the O-Ring in the crown and the two O-Rings inside the tube. Correct...
Justasgood Posted October 18, 2008 Author Report Posted October 18, 2008 That sounds correct. So, do you think the crown (& tube) is gen? Still, the relief looks different (check my comparison pics here) & I would also say that the Tudor crown lacks the spring tension (relating to the internal spring inside the crown) that I normally feel with a gen Triplock. It 'springs' like an aftermarket crown. I don't believe the tube is Gen and again, if the crown is aftermarket, I'd buy a bunch if I could.
rolex001 Posted October 19, 2008 Report Posted October 19, 2008 Please, usncrew the crown and make a photo of the tube. The crown shpae looks strange, that's right!
Justasgood Posted October 19, 2008 Author Report Posted October 19, 2008 Please, usncrew the crown and make a photo of the tube. The crown shpae looks strange, that's right! here you go......correct build but I believe the tube is not Gen. No internal splines at it's base visible.
rolex001 Posted October 19, 2008 Report Posted October 19, 2008 I have a guaranteed gen 702 tube here which also has no mounting splines on the inside - looks like an older style. The crwon looks fake though, the typcial 702 base marks are missing - yours looks smooth, gen crowns look very rough at the base. I can do a pic of a gen soon...
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