SenorCandy
Guns, Watches, and Porsche 911s
- 19/7/18
- 14
- 6
- 3
-
Tired of adverts on RWI? - Subscribe by clicking HERE and PMing Trailboss for instructions and they will magically go away!
We see your vintage 1675, unleash hell
- Thread starter SuperTopGun
- Start date
Thanks!
It’s a Milk case build with Gen Dial, bezel insert and crown on low beat Swiss eta 2879 converted to GMT.
Is the bracelet raffles? This looks wonderful. I might need to make one myself!
- 5/4/24
- 98
- 123
- 33
Great page here - https://bulangandsons.eu/blogs/lifestyle/style-up-rolex-1675-gmt-master
Particularly this - the root beer bezel on a stainless steel 1675. - Very tempting to try this with my franken.
Particularly this - the root beer bezel on a stainless steel 1675. - Very tempting to try this with my franken.
I have an Italian jubilee bracelet coming for the Pepsi, and will get a CAC insert for it soon. I'm also thinking about getting a gen service dial for it as well. After that, and putting a gen ETA in there, it will be amazing.
I've been thinking about writing this for a while,
I imagine it has already been commented but I see differences between some cases
For example, the photos that @Zorro1869 put in my opinion the part of glass / edges under glass is spec gen
Instead I look at my 1675 and some others (viet) and I see that metallic circumference (I could not name it) that I point out in the photo, and in my opinion this bears no similarity to a gen. I attach photos to see if I explain myself and some top modder like @tripdog @pompompurin @kilowattore @drvintage shed light
Photo 1: 1675 gen with the glass and edges behind the glass without the metallic circumference
Photo 2: my 1675 with that circumference pointed out.
Why this “rehaut” is used is, in my opinion, meaningless.
I imagine it has already been commented but I see differences between some cases
For example, the photos that @Zorro1869 put in my opinion the part of glass / edges under glass is spec gen
Instead I look at my 1675 and some others (viet) and I see that metallic circumference (I could not name it) that I point out in the photo, and in my opinion this bears no similarity to a gen. I attach photos to see if I explain myself and some top modder like @tripdog @pompompurin @kilowattore @drvintage shed light
Photo 1: 1675 gen with the glass and edges behind the glass without the metallic circumference
Photo 2: my 1675 with that circumference pointed out.
Why this “rehaut” is used is, in my opinion, meaningless.
Last edited:
I've been thinking about writing this for a while,
I imagine it has already been commented but I see differences between some cases
For example, the photos that @Zorro1869 put in my opinion the part of glass / edges under glass is spec gen
Instead I look at my 1675 and some others (viet) and I see that metallic circumference (I could not name it) that I point out in the photo, and in my opinion this bears no similarity to a gen. I attach photos to see if I explain myself and some top modder like @tripdog @pompompurin @kilowattore @drvintage shed light
Photo 1: 1675 gen with the glass and edges behind the glass without the metallic circumference
Photo 2: my 1675 with that circumference pointed out.
Why this “rehaut” is used is, in my opinion, meaningless.
I think rounding (or softening) the crystal edge will hide it and eventually create the optical illusion of the hash marks going all the way to the insert.
You made an interesting observation, I'll put my theory to test next time I build one.
I think it cause on the angle you are looking at the watch. If it is from the top, you don't see the rehaut. The radius in the crystal refracts the light so that it deflects from the dial and shows the indices of the dial at that point.I've been thinking about writing this for a while,
I imagine it has already been commented but I see differences between some cases
For example, the photos that @Zorro1869 put in my opinion the part of glass / edges under glass is spec gen
Instead I look at my 1675 and some others (viet) and I see that metallic circumference (I could not name it) that I point out in the photo, and in my opinion this bears no similarity to a gen. I attach photos to see if I explain myself and some top modder like @tripdog @pompompurin @kilowattore @drvintage shed light
Photo 1: 1675 gen with the glass and edges behind the glass without the metallic circumference
Photo 2: my 1675 with that circumference pointed out.
Why this “rehaut” is used is, in my opinion, meaningless.
Here two images. The top is a gen crystal and the botton sternkreuz.
Good point but I see the rehaut at any angle, I have been having this “problem” for months. Gen crystal “improve” this but not solveI think it cause on the angle you are looking at the watch. If it is from the top, you don't see the rehaut. The radius in the crystal refracts the light so that it deflects from the dial and shows the indices of the dial at that point.
Here two images. The top is a gen crystal and the botton sternkreuz.
The 1675 is one of my favorite watches and since I saw a gen I noticed that.
For example maybe I'm confused but with the case Milk I don't see as much rehaut or is it more minimal? Another example are those of @yodog I don't see this rehaut either, it's a pity they do this because it detracts a lot of aesthetics.
I agree with your assessment and Matz'. I think it's the angle of the picture, but certain crystal shapes can minimize or amplify the angle where it's noticeable. Everything from the roundness of the crystal top, the circumference of the opening, and the bevel on the side. Very round sides can create some interesting distortions too... some love them, others hate them.
Is it the Raffles case where you are noticing the rehaut when looking straight on? If so, I'll have to go take another look at mine.
No, my 1675 is viet, and I see it in many viets, but not all.
I think maybe as @kilowattore points out the idea they had was to create that “optical illusion”....
If we look at a 1675 gen that illusion is created by the edge of the crystal.
I think maybe as @kilowattore points out the idea they had was to create that “optical illusion”....
If we look at a 1675 gen that illusion is created by the edge of the crystal.
I really am enjoying this watch in particular.