-
Tired of adverts on RWI? - Subscribe by clicking HERE and PMing Trailboss for instructions and they will magically go away!
New Tudor Vintage Submariner
- Thread starter ViewsFromTheRWI
- Start date
.
ShiroTenshi
Mythical Poster
- 7/12/11
- 6,794
- 249
- 63
I'd also be curious to read a review if anyone buys one of these. Really classic look. I kinda like the plexi. True to the originals. I would be curious about water resistance. I'm guessing it would be easy enough to swap in a sapphire crystal?
I love the look of that watch and I'm not as concerned with it looking like the real thing as much as I'm interested in it surviving a few days in the mountains. Don't get me wrong, I love the plexi, I just think I'd wear it more with a sapphire crystal. I guess I'm a little hard on my watches.
Hugop
I'm Pretty Popular
- 13/4/09
- 1,687
- 62
- 48
Ok, here is the route I went with the Vintage. Even though the case is marked 7928 it has features of the modern post 1970 case. The case back is completely wrong for the vintage 7928 but is much closer to the 9411/9401 case back. Since it looks more modern styled I decided to install my gen 94010 dial and ETA Tudor movement in it.
Modifications are as follows:
Drill lugs for fat spring bars
Reshape crown guards
Refinish and polish case
Install gen dome plexi
Install MBW bezel and retainer
Age insert and remove pearl
Replace dial/hands/movement
Add Tudor style NATO strap
Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk
Modifications are as follows:
Drill lugs for fat spring bars
Reshape crown guards
Refinish and polish case
Install gen dome plexi
Install MBW bezel and retainer
Age insert and remove pearl
Replace dial/hands/movement
Add Tudor style NATO strap
Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk
As to water resistance issues related to acrylic? None. In fact in the store where I worked there was general agreement that acrylic is really a better choice for people who use their Rolex as tools versus jewelry.
Scratches to acrylic can be buffed out very easily where you will likely never get a scratch out of sapphire. Also, acrylic will survive an impact that will shatter sapphire. Further, when used on a diving watch, the acrylic crystal will actually compress into the watch under pressure - tightening the seal. A rigid and relatively brittle sapphire won't. Lastly, sapphire is usually heavier than acrylic - adding to the overall weight of the piece.
Rolex transitioned away from acrylic not because it was less functional - it was just a marketing choice. Rolex and other mechanical brands were under a lot of pressure at the time from quartz brands that were heavily pushing how thin their watches were. Remember Rolex "Oysterquartz"?. Oysterquartz was their way of trying to stay relevant. Sapphire was also just seen as more "modern" watch solution. Oysterquartz was eventually killed - but sapphire lived on.
Toward the end, gen shops were swapping out acrylic crystals for sapphire because those were the ones that would sell first - not the "old fashioned" domed ones. Part of that, I guess, was Rolex being discovered by the high end jewelry customer - not just the true sports watch (tool) customer. The jewelry customer cared more about it looking new and pretty than how it might stand up to a sharp impact underwater.
Scratches to acrylic can be buffed out very easily where you will likely never get a scratch out of sapphire. Also, acrylic will survive an impact that will shatter sapphire. Further, when used on a diving watch, the acrylic crystal will actually compress into the watch under pressure - tightening the seal. A rigid and relatively brittle sapphire won't. Lastly, sapphire is usually heavier than acrylic - adding to the overall weight of the piece.
Rolex transitioned away from acrylic not because it was less functional - it was just a marketing choice. Rolex and other mechanical brands were under a lot of pressure at the time from quartz brands that were heavily pushing how thin their watches were. Remember Rolex "Oysterquartz"?. Oysterquartz was their way of trying to stay relevant. Sapphire was also just seen as more "modern" watch solution. Oysterquartz was eventually killed - but sapphire lived on.
Toward the end, gen shops were swapping out acrylic crystals for sapphire because those were the ones that would sell first - not the "old fashioned" domed ones. Part of that, I guess, was Rolex being discovered by the high end jewelry customer - not just the true sports watch (tool) customer. The jewelry customer cared more about it looking new and pretty than how it might stand up to a sharp impact underwater.
Mine is arriving today. Same version as Hugop. Looking forward to receiving and see what's doing. I'm more curious about this model than anything and it seems to be a good base watch to try my hand at mods, etc. More to come.
marrickville
Active Member
seems like the only plus to this new version is the caseback?
everything else needs to be replaced....I would wait for the next release
everything else needs to be replaced....I would wait for the next release
Hugop
I'm Pretty Popular
- 13/4/09
- 1,687
- 62
- 48
Caseback is wrong as well. It does not have the trough around the tooled flange for the removal tool. It is also the normal size for a submariner. The Tudor tool is smaller in diameter than the rolex case back.
This is how it should look
This is how it is on the JKF
