In fact your crystal remains quite high compared to the insert. Perhaps this is also why the difference in the bevel is highlighted more. On mine it's barely noticeable, maybe it's the bezel assembly? Where did you buy it?
-
Tired of adverts on RWI? - Subscribe by clicking HERE and PMing Trailboss for instructions and they will magically go away!
NEW! 1675 GMT case set offering from Raffles.
- Thread starter 369mafia
- Start date
As i wrote earlier, yes that is an issue with my bezel assembly and insert, but nevertheless the plexi still is not gen spec at that chamfer/the chamfer is not pronounced enough.
I have seen correct crystals on many builds here on RWI. That can’t all have been gen crystals.
I have seen correct crystals on many builds here on RWI. That can’t all have been gen crystals.
I repeat, however, I have seen worse things on many builds here on RWI which overshadow this "Problem". The crystals are not made by many factories, here those of Raffles, Sternkreutz, Clarck, Sabaec (which is a retailer) and Gen are used as well as several of Asian origin, they are very close to perfection but everything that is Gen is unfortunately still different .
If you are looking for the perfect crystal the only solution is Gen.
With a cost starting from 250 Euros and upwards you will solve the problem.
I've found that the Raffles 27.3mm GMTs are not as robust as others I have ordered from him. The pad printing flaked off pretty easily, so I would recommend treating them as very fragile or coating them with a non-glossy clear coat. Again, I'm just referring to 1675 dials. I haven't had issues with other raffles dials.
With that said, I heard many Vietnamese dials are not very robust either, I did have a bi-vintage with printing that smeared off from accidental moisture.
I do get your point. And the one from sabaec is very good. The best i held in hand so far. Thanks again for the hint there.
Unfortunately this particular part of the watch bothers me and i would be very glad to find a solution for it. Gen crystal is not really an option for me. Too expensive for what it is and that would be missing the fun of trying to get as close as possible to gen by not using gen parts.
Maybe someone else knows something
Unfortunately this particular part of the watch bothers me and i would be very glad to find a solution for it. Gen crystal is not really an option for me. Too expensive for what it is and that would be missing the fun of trying to get as close as possible to gen by not using gen parts.
Maybe someone else knows something
Please let me know if you get one. I'm curious how they compare and if they are something usually in stock. I just have too many crystals to justify another overseas purchase.
This crystal looks pretty good, but it's still a couple hundred.
www.classicwatchrepair.com
Rolex GMT-Master 1675 Domed Plexi Crystal — Classic Watch Repair
Tropic-116 For Ref : 1675 GMT Master 1655 Explorer II 16750 GMT Master &nbs
www.classicwatchrepair.com
Yeah, Michaels stuff is very good. I did contemplate getting a superdome for my 5513 in the past. I have to say though, those prices are just too high for my taste coupled with a raffles case or normal rep build.This crystal looks pretty good, but it's still a couple hundred.
Rolex GMT-Master 1675 Domed Plexi Crystal — Classic Watch Repair
Tropic-116 For Ref : 1675 GMT Master 1655 Explorer II 16750 GMT Master &nbs
I think this makes more sense for a Gen watch/serious franken/high end builds since gen crystals get rarer and rarer and some too old to be safe to wear.
This is the Sternkreuz 300.158 sitting inside a Vietnam bezel assembly. Not bad in terms of replicating the gen bevel edge at all from what I can tell.
That's the closest I've seen, beautiful combo.This is the Sternkreuz 300.158 sitting inside a Vietnam bezel assembly. Not bad in terms of replicating the gen bevel edge at all from what I can tell.
Agreed, feel I may be able to shave off a quarter of a mm from the bottom of the crystal to line the bevel with the insert edge so long as it doesn’t interfere with hands movement or magnification to such and extent it makes it not worth doing.
Haven’t got my dial yet to know for sure but it’s specified as a Rolex 116 replacement crystal from cousins. This is the xs300.158 I have also got a 302.450 also listed as a 116 replacement.
The crystal is the same size as my gen 116710ln and although I know one is acrylic and one is sapphire, it’s clear the cyclops is in the exact same position.
I'm just curious if the crystals you are comparing are similar models. Unfortunately, many types of 116 crystals exist between companies, so it occurred to me that you might be looking for more of a "superdome" style crystal that is higher with a more pronounced bevel. For instance, the GS #PA 462-17F and 462-18F are both sold as 116 crystals, but the 17F seems to have a sharper bevel and is listed as a 6542 cyclops.
Anyone have comparisons of the those two or confirmation both fit without issue?
Be careful because the diameter of the acrylic crystal for 1675 is not the same as the 116710, the latter is slightly larger in diameter and consequently the date window could be in the incorrect position, you have to try with the dial and case assembled
I am no expert here so what i have been looking at is this Sternkreuz from cousinsuk:
Rolex 116 (Ø300mm), Sternkreuz XS300.158
C19225
This clarks:
Crystal Ref. # 25-116 116 for Rolex "CLARK" crystals
and this one from the Ebay seller sabaec:
25-116 Rolex Crystal
https://www.ebay.de/itm/164143046857
Now the Sternkreuz is the only one with the correct bevel. However, as you can see in comparison, the cyclops is situated too far towards the center of the crystal. (And not as sharp and crisp as it is on the other crystals btw. Maybe the pressed XS302.450 version is better?)
Strangely the schematics on cousinsuk states that the span from the middle of this cyclops too the center of the crystal is 9,8mm.
In comparison to the Sternkreuz XS302.450 where the span is 8,7mm. So this one is even further towards the center and even more misplaced?
I sense that there might be a mistake? maybe its not nearer to the center but the other way around so maybe correct?
Has someone with a gen spec dial tried the Sternkreuz XS302.450?
so what i have been looking at is this Sternkreuz from cousinsuk:Rolex 116 (Ø300mm), Sternkreuz XS300.158
C19225
This clarks:
Crystal Ref. # 25-116 116 for Rolex "CLARK" crystals
and this one from the Ebay seller sabaec:
25-116 Rolex Crystal
https://www.ebay.de/itm/164143046857
Now the Sternkreuz is the only one with the correct bevel. However, as you can see in comparison, the cyclops is situated too far towards the center of the crystal. (And not as sharp and crisp as it is on the other crystals btw. Maybe the pressed XS302.450 version is better?)
Strangely the schematics on cousinsuk states that the span from the middle of this cyclops too the center of the crystal is 9,8mm.
In comparison to the Sternkreuz XS302.450 where the span is 8,7mm. So this one is even further towards the center and even more misplaced?
I sense that there might be a mistake? maybe its not nearer to the center but the other way around so maybe correct?
Has someone with a gen spec dial tried the Sternkreuz XS302.450?
If you have both, could you please compare the position of the cyclops? Is the 302.450 more to the center of the crystal in comparison or the other way around?