GMT-II Clean vs. Deep crystal which is better? [comparison]

[Endez]

Deep xtal are overrated. Maybe worth the change on previous version like v1 or before DD mouvement. Did the swap to deep xtal on my DJ41 VSF, but waist of money. Now stock reps are very good OOTB, if you want to change the xtal just add more money and put Gen xtal

 

[engbanna1]

Deep xtal are overrated. Maybe worth the change on previous version like v1 or before DD mouvement. Did the swap to deep xtal on my DJ41 VSF, but waist of money. Now stock reps are very good OOTB, if you want to change the xtal just add more money and put Gen xtal

Couldn’t agree more

 

[tdx18]

I have found this to be a personally quite difficult topic; I've grown to be really nitpicky about the visuals of the cyclops, much more so than the xtal itself. to me, it's almost two different topics or aspects of the very same topic.

Proper replication of the cyclops' characteristic are not easy and super hard to represent on pictures, as it is a really dynamic appearance dependent on a multitude of factors, like viewing angle, light exposure and angle of light source etc.

I did have a VR3186 based batman and found the xtal back then to be quite alright. No complaints about clarity or cloudiness. Totally different story towards the cyclops: mushy, cloudy, lacking black hole effect, weird viewing angles. Still it was possible to procure singular photos that looked good, yet that doesn't represent the entirety of the visual appeal and the dynamics of the cyclops and xtal.

I've swapped a 116710LN to a Clarke's and found it to be overall similar to the above, but with a slightly better cyclops. In other words: with the Clarke's it was easier to get good looking photographs. but many angles were it didn't convince me.

I've then swapped another 116710BLNR to profs xtal and found that to be close to a revelation - ah, that is what it was supposed to look like. Huge difference in the integrated appeal and visuals to the cyclops, impressive black hole and clarity, overall very charming in almost any angle. Not the cheapest and, even more sad than that: the on top AR coating caught some scratches easily and are visible in the right angle.

Got hold of a two tone root beer (DD3285) a couple of weeks back and found the xtal to be improved considerably, way better than the LN's above. I'd put it above the improvement provided by the Clarke's and overall to be still quite far from profs cyclops.

Now I've fitted the earlier BLNR with a deep xtal and I think it's the best compromise so far out of the available options. Price seems fair and it's not too far from profs cyclops any more. Certainly not on that level yet, but I'm impressed especially how they've done with the cyclops.

I'd figure the xtal itself between cleans newest, Clarke, deep and profs is overall rather comparable. Striking differences exist on the execution of the cyclops in my opinion and I'm a cyclops focused guy, I guess.

My couple of cents

 

[Timewellspent]

Deep xtal are overrated. Maybe worth the change on previous version like v1 or before DD mouvement. Did the swap to deep xtal on my DJ41 VSF, but waist of money. Now stock reps are very good OOTB, if you want to change the xtal just add more money and put Gen xtal

I believe it has always been stated that deep crystal swap is for Clean fac upgrade,

Vsf and deep are not much of difference, however deep and gen compared to clean is a must upgrade from my experience

 

[Endez]

I believe it has always been stated that deep crystal swap is for Clean fac upgrade,

Vsf and deep are not much of difference, however deep and gen compared to clean is a must upgrade from my experience

Even on Clean, depend on the watch… but globally yes seems it added something on clean on nothing on VSF

 

[hirtegirte]

I believe it has always been stated that deep crystal swap is for Clean fac upgrade,

Vsf and deep are not much of difference, however deep and gen compared to clean is a must upgrade from my experience

I agree on the clean Daytonas. there the deep crystal makes a huge difference. but I am not so sure on the GMT Master II (as also shown in this thread here)

 

[Uhr70]

Thank you for the comparison. Not much of a difference, will stick with stock CF.

 

[KGZ]

I will share my personal experience with deep crystals.

I have tried them on a CF Daytona Panda and on a GMT Master (CF Batman VR3186 so an early version). The clarity is much better (much more noticeable on the Panda) but there are many tradeoffs.

On the Daytona, there are white/rainbowish reflections on the crystal edge that ended up bothering me enough to change the crystal. In addition, the crystal is noticeably not gen like. If you don't have a Daytona with a gen crystal, you will not notice. But sadly I have 2 other Daytonas with gen crystals installed so it bothered me enough to stop reaching for the Panda on my watch box. To be fair, you also notice the difference when comparing a stock CF crystal but it's more in terms of clarify (not obvious on a cursory glance) whereas the non gen-like aspect of the deep crystal is obvious on the first look when you have the gen one next to it.

On the GMT, the crystal height is indeed an issue. I could live with the overall aspect but not with the date overmag. I had to replace the gasket and while this ended up solving the issue, the hassle of having to do it lowers the interest of going with the deep crystal IMO. Also, the latest batch of crystals on the Clean GMTs is much better.

So to sum up, if I were to do it again, I'd have either kept the stock crystal or went straight for a gen replacement.

 

[Akilles]

Thanks for sharing. I changed my stock v3 pepsi crystal to deep mostly due to the lack of AR-coating om CF. As you say, the gasket needs to be replaced or sanded down (like I did) to get rid of the oversized DW and correct height.

Gen crystal will always be gen but price today for that is like the price of the actual rep-watch and it wont be great until a gen DW is added as well. Add that with modder/shipping cost I think it's not reasonable.

To sum up after owning reps with gen crystals and DW I think deep is the best compromise to date.

If you have VSF crystal I would not change it though, they are at the same level

 

[derjenigewelcher]

Thanks for sharing. I changed my stock v3 pepsi crystal to deep mostly due to the lack of AR-coating om CF. As you say, the gasket needs to be replaced or sanded down (like I did) to get rid of the oversized DW and correct height.

Gen crystal will always be gen but price today for that is like the price of the actual rep-watch and it wont be great until a gen DW is added as well. Add that with modder/shipping cost I think it's not reasonable.

To sum up after owning reps with gen crystals and DW I think deep is the best compromise to date.

If you have VSF crystal I would not change it though, they are at the same level

Exactly my thoughts. I managed to get a used gen xtal for 200usd including modder works, back in the days, but now 300
-350 plus work aint reasonable as you say.

 

[hollabizack12]

In my experience deep doesn't add enough to justify the price. Better to go gen or leave it as it is.

 

[Vdn87]

Hmm, not sure about the Clean GMT2 stock crystal. But I did replace three Clean Daytona crystals to Deep and the difference is significant.

Are the dimensions the same? Seems the deep are thicker