In my opinion they are not very different, for me there is not much difference on acrylic glass. I found the Clarks to be excellent as an alternative to the original for the sapphire on my Datejust.
I actually can't find anything
do you have a link or some more info about it maybe?Of course, I still see big differences on sapphire crystals and in any case in this case the Clarck is one of those that comes closest to the original with sensible prices. For the acrylic crystal that I showed you I don't see many differences from the Gen, magnification, distortion, height and space for hands are perfect. Spending all the money the sellers ask for a plastic crystal just because it is Rolex branded seems like a waste of money to me, I prefer to spend more on an original Eta movement like I did but these are personal opinions.There can be huge differences.
Clarity, sharpness of the cyclops and all the edges, is the shape close to gen, how the cyclops magnifies, not just how much but what happens when you tilt the watch, distortion of the crystal, is there enough space for the hands, is the crystal durable, is the construction watertight at the end?
There is a reason people buy the gen crystals for absurd amounts of money
I was not able to find a crystal that ticks all the boxes yet. But i have not tried many, mostly because it is impossible to find sufficient information about all the options out there.
I had one member that told me ofrei has a good one. But shipping for a 12 dollar crystal to Germany is 66 dollars…
As for the waterproof, I can tell you that the watertightness offered by a plastic crystal without a gasket, whether Gen or aftermarket, will never be like that of a sapphire glass with its Hytrel gasket. In fact, the original GMT 1675 was only guaranteed up to 50 m.
I am not sure if they still make them but the can be found with various combinations of "verlux", "1675", "116", "XS 302.450" and alike.I actually can't find anything
suministrosrevuelto.com
The prices seem very good!Never used this vendor, but they have them listed.
PLEX TP TROPIC O CYCLOP - Suministros revuelto Fornituras y herramientas de relojería
I also believe that the Raffles dial for 1675 diam. 27.3 is very well done
Got mine today.
i tried that but was not successful. I could not get the plexi to be clear and sharp at the end. Maybe i used the wrong tools.
Is there room to take some of the height of the rep crystals away from the bottom side, when installed this will move the stepped edge closer to the inner edge of the bezel insert and essentially hiding it? May increase the magnification level on the cyclops too?
Better not to sand the lower part because it will change the magnification even if only slightly but the main thing is that the space for the hands would be reduced
I'll tell you there is a difference in the edge profile, but compared to the Clarck, Raffles and Sternkreutz the magnification is correct, there are no distortions or aberrations, it mounts correctly and you pay 23 times less than the original! I wouldn't dwell too much on a difference of less than half a millimeter in bevel. I have seen photos of replicas where there were much worse differences from the original. As I repeat, the crystal can pass and the time you want to waste some money you buy the original but I prefer to spend it on a good movement, a Gen like bezel assembly or a Gen insert or a very high quality aftermarket and I assure you that the 20 and the 22 on the insert that do not follow the curvature of the glass like almost all aftermarket inserts, to my eye they are much worse, or not?Got mine today.
I have to say, the quality is really rather nice. Although while being a bit better that the clarks in that regard, this plexi has a wrong chamfer/edgeprofile as well...
Its a shame because the cyclops is very nice. Why is everyone getting this part wrong?
There must be someone that does it correctly
