TeeJay Posted May 2, 2009 Report Share Posted May 2, 2009 I've finally decided on all the variables and details, and have come to a final plan for my upcoming project watch Originally, I had intended to use a no-date dial, but, having gotten used to the feature on my Yacht-Master, I figure it's more useful to have one, rather than to not The art's a bit crude, but it'll give an idea of what I have in mind Recipe: GMTII C case (Case, bezel, insert etc) DSSD Bracelet (will mod lugs to accept the 21mm bracelet) LV Sub dial (planning on performing 'matte' dial mod, and tinting 'Submariner' text green) 5517 Hour hand (I'll probably use the second hand as well, to keep a uniform look to the hands) Hopeful outcome... What do folks think? Should I green light the project? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chefcook Posted May 2, 2009 Report Share Posted May 2, 2009 No need for a Sub LV dial IMO, the GMT IIc has a maxidial as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeJay Posted May 2, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 2, 2009 No need for a Sub LV dial IMO, the GMT IIc has a maxidial as well. That's true, but then it would be a GMT II, not a Sub, and, as folks're so keen to point out, the GMT isn't a diver's watch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demsey Posted May 3, 2009 Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 It's insane. Do it. Off the cuff recommendation as per the DSSD bracelet; continue the SD theme and render the crystal cyclops delete=more utilitarian. It's obvious, self indulgent overkill. Like the SD depth rating. Rolex marketing dept would approve. I like this idea of the true divers' Rolex GMT. When you raised the point earlier, can't remember either you or I: "As if Jacques-Yves never crossed an international dateline?............" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
creation88 Posted May 3, 2009 Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 You might struggle with the DSSD bracelet on the GMTII case. The DSSD is a much thicker watch so, even if you widen the lugs to 21mm, the holes won't line up. You'd be better off brushing the centre links on the GMTII bracelet and just changing the clasp over to the DSSD one, which should fit without modification. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeJay Posted May 3, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 It's insane. Do it. Off the cuff recommendation as per the DSSD bracelet; continue the SD theme and render the crystal cyclops delete=more utilitarian. It's obvious, self indulgent overkill. Like the SD depth rating. Rolex marketing dept would approve. I like this idea of the true divers' Rolex GMT. When you raised the point earlier, can't remember either you or I: "As if Jacques-Yves never crossed an international dateline?............" Thanks, I'm glad you like it, and it was yourself who mentioned the point about Jacques-Yves As I said then, to me, it just makes sense to have a diving watch available which has that GMT capabilty I don't think I could tolerate having the cyclops in place, I really don't like how they spoil the line of the crystal. I even removed the cyclops from my Yacht-Master I'm going for as utilitarian as possible in terms of functionality, which is why I want to use the 5517 hand set I guess what I'm planning is something like an Escalade: Looks pretty slick, but still has the muscle to back it up when the time comes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeJay Posted May 3, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 You might struggle with the DSSD bracelet on the GMTII case. The DSSD is a much thicker watch so, even if you widen the lugs to 21mm, the holes won't line up. You'd be better off brushing the centre links on the GMTII bracelet and just changing the clasp over to the DSSD one, which should fit without modification. That's an interesting suggestion, thanks I have to admit, I had wondered if the holes would line up, and I'd planned on using some tracing paper to measure up. Do you think that the DSSD clasp would fit onto the GMTIIC bracelet though? I've had some trouble in the past trying to swap clasps between bracelets, so I was just wondering if they would indeed be compatible? If the worst comes to the worst, I'd just have to install the bracelet from the LV Sub, so as to get the extension Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest asim Posted May 3, 2009 Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 lol that's very different bro. i respect that. if it can all be modified the way you wanted it to, you might as well. that's the beauty of our reps, we can have fun with them. if you had a gen, you would barely even take off the bracelet or strap:P good on ya!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeJay Posted May 3, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 lol that's very different bro. i respect that. if it can all be modified the way you wanted it to, you might as well. that's the beauty of our reps, we can have fun with them. if you had a gen, you would barely even take off the bracelet or strap good on ya!! Thanks, bro It's funny you should say that, but I recon that if someone had the megabux, and the collection, I recon they'd start 'getting creative' with the watches too Look at the Daytona which was modified to have no crown guards and the all-over brushed finish... Customization FTW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest asim Posted May 4, 2009 Report Share Posted May 4, 2009 Thanks, bro It's funny you should say that, but I recon that if someone had the megabux, and the collection, I recon they'd start 'getting creative' with the watches too Look at the Daytona which was modified to have no crown guards and the all-over brushed finish... Customization FTW lol whatt? are you serious? haha how crazy is that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docblackrock Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 I'm all for customisation, but I think the concept is off and illustrated outcome looks terrible. A horrible pastiche of various elements, neither of which works together. The 5517 sword hand is the rotten cherry on an already stale cake. Sorry, but you DID ask.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeJay Posted May 8, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 8, 2009 I'm all for customisation, but I think the concept is off and illustrated outcome looks terrible. A horrible pastiche of various elements, neither of which works together. The 5517 sword hand is the rotten cherry on an already stale cake. Sorry, but you DID ask.... Indeed I did ask Please can you expand on why you think it doesn't work as a concept? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docblackrock Posted May 8, 2009 Report Share Posted May 8, 2009 Indeed I did ask Please can you expand on why you think it doesn't work as a concept? Ok then I'll try, but please don't hate me for voicing my honest opinion... As a concept, you're dressing up a hard core 'dive' case with a downgraded (SD to Sub) dial, with movement functionality of a 'pilot' watch, to which the dial has been rather obviously colour-matched. Add to that you're using mostly modern components and then throwing that vintage 5517 hand (why the singular anyway?) into the mix. It's not a homage or a throwback, something you could explain with any degree of insight. It's really neither one thing or another, just an inbred bastard chimaera of a watch, the likes of which you'd only play around, bored one afternoon, using crappy Asian parts like the famous UbiMariner. As an execution, well it just shows the dodgy concept for what it is. Looks a real mess to be honest, nothing complementary going on (as opposed to me being less than complimentary ) and does not enhance any feature or present the collective parts in anything approaching a cohesive manner. A project like this should add up to greater than the sum of its constituent parts. This does the opposite. There, have I been cruel and nasty enough for you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeJay Posted May 8, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 8, 2009 Ok then I'll try, but please don't hate me for voicing my honest opinion... As a concept, you're dressing up a hard core 'dive' case with a downgraded (SD to Sub) dial, with movement functionality of a 'pilot' watch, to which the dial has been rather obviously colour-matched. Add to that you're using mostly modern components and then throwing that vintage 5517 hand (why the singular anyway?) into the mix. It's not a homage or a throwback, something you could explain with any degree of insight. It's really neither one thing or another, just an inbred bastard chimaera of a watch, the likes of which you'd only play around, bored one afternoon, using crappy Asian parts like the famous UbiMariner. As an execution, well it just shows the dodgy concept for what it is. Looks a real mess to be honest, nothing complementary going on (as opposed to me being less than complimentary ) and does not enhance any feature or present the collective parts in anything approaching a cohesive manner. A project like this should add up to greater than the sum of its constituent parts. This does the opposite. There, have I been cruel and nasty enough for you? Thanks for the feedback, and no, not at all cruel or nasty, I appreciate the honesty, but I think you're missing the points of the project: Functionality, and my own personal amusement Yes, it will be an inbred bastard chimaera of a watch. That is the whole point of doing it As you say, no, it's not an homage or throwback, but that was never my intention for the project. My intention, as above, is functionality. A Sub (or SD) is nice enough, but adding GMT function gives it another use, and an opportunity Rolex has always missed. Same goes for Rolex's reluctance to put a 'Diver's extension' on the Exp or GMT ranges, and why? Because it's not a 'dive watch'? Like a pilot would never have to wear a watch over a flightsuit... Like a caver would never want to wear a watch over their gloves or jacket... If they were to just call it 'an extension', then the logic for leaving it off particular models "because it's not a diver's watch..." becomes laughable in it's lack of flexibility to real world applications As for the 5517 hand(s), again, the aim is functionality. Larger hands, for improved visability. If I find that the 5517 minute hand is more visable than a Maxi-Dial minute hand, then I'll be using that as well, and the second hand as well. Maxi-Dial, is obviously for visibility, and something which the GMTIIC has anyway, but, I just want to swap it out so it is branded as a Submariner rather than a GMT II, for no reason other than personal preference, in so much as I want this to be a diver's watch, rather than a pilot's watch I decided not to use an SD case, for several reasons, mainly, I'm concerned about the functionality of the HE Valve. If it doesn't work, I don't want a 'dummy valve' on the side, and, if it were to be 'functional', I would want it to actually be functional, rather than one which needs the insides filled with marine-grade epoxy That's why I decided to keep it as a Sub rather than an SD (although I did consider using an SD case) Another issue, was if an SD case, would accept a GMTIIC Bezel assembly (or just the insert) I don't mind buying a watch to canibalize it for a few parts, but, I don't want to buy one which might potentially not work anyway, and then have to try and sell it on just to make up the cash loss, and wind up using the existing case anyway. I totally get where you're coming from: In terms of a dive watch, the SD is the Daddy. My concern, as above, is actual functionality of said components, and their compatibility with the GMTIIC bezel assembly (key feature of the watch) On the subject of the execution of the art, I never claimed that it was 'Brand Quality' merchandising, just a knock up to give an impression of what I had in mind As for color-matching, all I actually did to the dial, was clone out watermarks over the dial, quickly fill the Submariner text green, and obviously add the different hands. It wasn't done to be perfect, just a representation of the idea Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeJay Posted May 8, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 8, 2009 lol whatt? are you serious? haha how crazy is that Totally serious, bro. Check out the kinds of customized supercars people have... If someone decides they want to modify their car, they're not thinking about what it actually cost them to buy, but simply that they want to modify their car Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docblackrock Posted May 8, 2009 Report Share Posted May 8, 2009 Thanks for the feedback, and no, not at all cruel or nasty, I appreciate the honesty, but I think you're missing the points of the project: Functionality, and my own personal amusement Yes, it will be an inbred bastard chimaera of a watch. That is the whole point of doing it As you say, no, it's not an homage or throwback, but that was never my intention for the project. My intention, as above, is functionality. A Sub (or SD) is nice enough, but adding GMT function gives it another use, and an opportunity Rolex has always missed. Same goes for Rolex's reluctance to put a 'Diver's extension' on the Exp or GMT ranges, and why? Because it's not a 'dive watch'? Like a pilot would never have to wear a watch over a flightsuit... Like a caver would never want to wear a watch over their gloves or jacket... If they were to just call it 'an extension', then the logic for leaving it off particular models "because it's not a diver's watch..." becomes laughable in it's lack of flexibility to real world applications As for the 5517 hand(s), again, the aim is functionality. Larger hands, for improved visability. If I find that the 5517 minute hand is more visable than a Maxi-Dial minute hand, then I'll be using that as well, and the second hand as well. Maxi-Dial, is obviously for visibility, and something which the GMTIIC has anyway, but, I just want to swap it out so it is branded as a Submariner rather than a GMT II, for no reason other than personal preference, in so much as I want this to be a diver's watch, rather than a pilot's watch I decided not to use an SD case, for several reasons, mainly, I'm concerned about the functionality of the HE Valve. If it doesn't work, I don't want a 'dummy valve' on the side, and, if it were to be 'functional', I would want it to actually be functional, rather than one which needs the insides filled with marine-grade epoxy That's why I decided to keep it as a Sub rather than an SD (although I did consider using an SD case) Another issue, was if an SD case, would accept a GMTIIC Bezel assembly (or just the insert) I don't mind buying a watch to canibalize it for a few parts, but, I don't want to buy one which might potentially not work anyway, and then have to try and sell it on just to make up the cash loss, and wind up using the existing case anyway. I totally get where you're coming from: In terms of a dive watch, the SD is the Daddy. My concern, as above, is actual functionality of said components, and their compatibility with the GMTIIC bezel assembly (key feature of the watch) On the subject of the execution of the art, I never claimed that it was 'Brand Quality' merchandising, just a knock up to give an impression of what I had in mind As for color-matching, all I actually did to the dial, was clone out watermarks over the dial, quickly fill the Submariner text green, and obviously add the different hands. It wasn't done to be perfect, just a representation of the idea Well fair enough, but I'm still not getting it. Just looks like a dog's dinner crossed with a curly-ginger-haired stepchild to me. Won't win you any design points either. Aesthetically lame I'm afraid. A watch only its crazed mother could love. A highly polished turd. I'll stop now perhaps.... Good luck, I look forward (*cough*) to seeing the outcome in all its Riberyesque and Teveztastical glory Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeJay Posted May 8, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 8, 2009 Well fair enough, but I'm still not getting it. Just looks like a dog's dinner crossed with a curly-ginger-haired stepchild to me. Won't win you any design points either. Aesthetically lame I'm afraid. A watch only its crazed mother could love. A highly polished turd. I'll stop now perhaps.... Good luck, I look forward (*cough*) to seeing the outcome in all its Riberyesque and Teveztastical glory Again, can you expand on that feedback? What precisely do you think is wrong with the idea of taking the strongest elements from several watches and combining them? Would that not be combining the strengths of those parts and making something stronger, rather than looking like a dog's dinner? In all honesty, the dial will be virtually identical (other than model name) to the stock dial, so why make an issue about the presentation of the dial in the concept art? The different hands, while admittedly a different aesthetic to the 'Mercedes Hand', will be providing better visibility, so a case of function making up for any lack of form... (and as mentioned, my plan is for maximum functionality) An SD is not criticized for not having a cyclops... Constructive criticism I can deal with, afterall, it's the best way of addressing weaknesses which I didn't consider myself, but thus far, you seem to be utterly hung up on the appearance of a quick photoshop mock up, rather than the actual purposes of the project watch Don't focus so much on the photoshop work, which I initially stated as being rough, but the concepts behind it Thanks again for your feedback Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demsey Posted May 8, 2009 Report Share Posted May 8, 2009 adding GMT function gives it another use, and an opportunity Rolex has always missed. Same goes for Rolex's reluctance to put a 'Diver's extension' on the Exp or GMT ranges, and why? Because it's not a 'dive watch'? Like a pilot would never have to wear a watch over a flightsuit... Like a caver would never want to wear a watch over their gloves or jacket... If they were to just call it 'an extension', then the logic for leaving it off particular models "because it's not a diver's watch..." becomes laughable in it's lack of flexibility to real world applications That's what I'm talking about. I have personally removed and draped a watch over a flight yoke (because of over wear) to time instrument approaches, which is a much more foolish idea surely than equipping a flight watch with an extension. That goes too with the Daytona. What practical use is the timepiece under a fire suit? Towit, what practical use is a wristwatch anyway to a latterday Le Mans genre driver? That's what radios are for, but, for the sake of the intrinsic, the history and the preparedness; you just wear one. I would wager there is great desparity to 'pilots' v 'traveling businessmen' here that wear GMT Rolex models. If I were a commercial dive engineer, good at what I do, and in global demand I would scour the market for a reliable dive piece with GMT function. That would mean a Panerai. You may say; "What market share is that of globally active dive engineers?" I dunno, greater than that of average sportsmen diving to the 4000ft range of a SD. But, they sell a bucket to them to that target. A Sea Dweller with a GMT function? I will only hope I resist the genuine article long enough for Rolex to get off the stick and offer just that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeJay Posted May 8, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 8, 2009 That's what I'm talking about. I have personally removed and draped a watch over a flight yoke (because of over wear) to time instrument approaches, which is a much more foolish idea surely than equipping a flight watch with an extension. That goes too with the Daytona. What practical use is the timepiece under a fire suit? Towit, what practical use is a wristwatch anyway to a latterday Le Mans genre driver? That's what radios are for, but, for the sake of the intrinsic, the history and the preparedness; you just wear one. I would wager there is great desparity to 'pilots' v 'traveling businessmen' here that wear GMT Rolex models. If I were a commercial dive engineer, good at what I do, and in global demand I would scour the market for a reliable dive piece with GMT function. That would mean a Panerai. You may say; "What market share is that of globally active dive engineers?" I dunno, greater than that of average sportsmen diving to the 4000ft range of a SD. But, they sell a bucket to them to that target. A Sea Dweller with a GMT function? I will only hope I resist the genuine article long enough for Rolex to get off the stick and offer just that. I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees the impracticality of Rolex's policy with their divers (ONLY!!!) extensions There are many situations where a person might need to wear their watch over a sleeve, and an extension is the easiest way (in a braceleted watch) to meet that requirement. And, as you day, a difference between the needs of a pilot to a traveling businessman. Businessmen wearing their watches over their shirt cuffs might as well get "I'm hung like a hamster!!!" tattooed on their foreheads. There's just no need for them to be wearing their watches like that. What're they timing? How long the meeting has to run? How long they can last while banging the office bike over the photocopier? How long till the next smoking break? No. Just no need for that... But, activity wise, say kayaking, flying, diving, driving, etc, it's awkward (and in some cases potentially fatal) to have to use the other hand to uncover the watch to be able to read it... Much easier to just wear the watch over the sleeve/glove... Suunto appreciate this need, and they sell an 'extension section' to be strapped onto the watch's existing strap, so it can be worn over a ski-jacket... Wakey wakey Rolex... As you say about a globally active dive engineer. Have you seen the movie 'Romper Stomper'? One character's dad was a commercial diver who's work took him all over the world, so someone like that, would certainly benefit from being able to easily track their home timezone... It just makes sense to me... 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.