That’s not bad, it definitely is a better fit then BP on a viet case
Overall, solid work. The crown guards on the OC case are quite different, but as far as I know, there were differences between the gen cases (I'm not a GMT expert). But there's too much "meat" there – it can easily be sanded to fit.
Today I took advantage of the rainy weather and removed the movement from my (gen) 16710 and compared the OC 16710 case with a 1991 gen case (N-serial). The gen comes from the family – 100% gen, but probably polished over the past few decades.
Overall, solid work. The crown guards on the OC case are quite different, but as far as I know, there were differences between the gen cases (I'm not a GMT expert). But there's too much "meat" there – it can easily be sanded to fit.
![]()
![]()
![]()
The lugs are a dream, the side profile is amazing – no difference is noticeable without a magnifying glass – great profile. Small machining marks in the OC case, not visible with the strap fitted.
![]()
![]()
Which is unfortunately a problem when using a gen caseback – it doesn't fit. The threading is excellent, but the OC case has a small thickening directly in front of the movement retaining ring (the eccentric ring through which the movement retaining screws run). The case cover doesn't screw in deep enough and protrudes visibly.
![]()
![]()
In my case, this isn't an insurmountable problem, as the first thread on the Gen cover I want to use is defective. I'll sharpen it on the lathe, then it should screw in completely.
Overall, a great job - I like it a lot. I'll use it for a 1:1 copy of my own watch (everything Gen, except for the OC mid-case and the Chinese movement).
To get a perfect GCs shape is very difficult, the problem is the production is not following the drawings for 100%..You're right. But that's not just a "problem" with the OC case. I compared many cases to my Gen Submariner Date (Ref 16610T) and that's similar there.
How often has your Gen be polished? Asking just for interest.
How often has your Gen be polished? Asking just for interest.
Yes - The easiest way would be to shorten the original caseback thread slightly. The change is minimal, and it could still be used normally. Machining the inner case is too complicated for me on my large latheThe thread comment interesting! Is there an advantage to using a gen caseback vs the OC one in your opinion?
Thank you so much!!Another question was how far the crown rest extends below the bezel. Due to the lack of crystal, I had to center the bezel freehand, but on the OC case, it protrudes slightly below the bezel. Again, too much isn't a problem- some material can be removed.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
The watch has been polished at least minimum twice—once well over 10 years ago during officially service, and once about a year ago by myself (very gently, removing only minimal hairline scratches) when I converted it from Luminova back to Tritium.
Yes - The easiest way would be to shorten the original caseback thread slightly. The change is minimal, and it could still be used normally. Machining the inner case is too complicated for me on my large lathe
A brilliant project by @drvintage - Should be supported
The cnc shop made too much Radius on the corners so the surface / teeth are is much shorter as these should be, so the Rolex case opener have not enough friction to get the case back close.Not meaning to be obtuse, but the blue ball is easier to use than a case back opener right? So is this a material weakness?