cd_god
Is a Permanent Fixture
Finna set up a HOOD next door to your richie phuk suburban mansion
Posts: 12,304 
|
Post by cd_god on Aug 5, 2014 20:08:51 GMT -8
The original Tale of 2 Noah's post. www.network54.com/Forum/78440/thread/1236312775/My+new+Sei-Master+GMT++%28or+a+tale+of+2+Noahs%29I still feel cheated that I had to pay R & D setup fees for the custom dial I wanted and then Noah Fuller sold the rest of the batch to the public and then Noah R leaked the secret to the first hacking 6117 / hacking 6309 GMT MOD and a week later all of the copycats came out of the woodwork (but I guess since he did all of the parts compatibility research and modifications and I was only the bank he can do with his discovery what he wants) While not all of my MODS were the first and I borrowed my blue Soxa PO bezel insert diver form Russtmurray (I think) I did hav to buy a broken 300M tune to make the first 6309 Tuna MOD which is still copied to this day. I went with the Doxa hands vs Samurai  All I ask is give credit where credit is due and give props name drop once in a while (design wise me and build wise the master watchmaker who Googles himself like a schoolgirl and doesn't want me to mention his name  ) I once mentioned that Loy had jacked us and even had a 6309 that ran counter clock wise. A week later I got to see how Noah R had built one with no tips or hints but said it wasn't stable reliability wise (which of course Loy could care less about based on the crap he churns out) I miss my 1 of 4 (o1 of only 2 sold to the public) OG Scubapro Repro dials that Shawn Taylor had Ramon make way way way back in the day. Now they are a dime a dozen thanks to the Philippines puppy mills.     I did steal the smooth bezel idea from Noah Fullers customer creations photo page  Soldered not glued  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2014 8:21:34 GMT -8
Just a small note: since the 6117 does not have an independently settable 24hr hand; it is not a GMT watch, just a 24hr one. The only way it can be a GMT display is if the 24hr hand is set to the correct offset for where you live(but that is permanent). |
|
cobrajet25
Needs a Life!
"Underweared curmudgeon!"
Posts: 3,357
|
Post by cobrajet25 on Aug 6, 2014 18:37:05 GMT -8
Just a small note: since the 6117 does not have an independently settable 24hr hand; it is not a GMT watch, just a 24hr one. The only way it can be a GMT display is if the 24hr hand is set to the correct offset for where you live(but that is permanent). On most GMT watches, the 24-hour bezel is fixed, and the GMT hand is settable. On Seiko GMTs, the 24-hour bezel is settable and the GMT hand is fixed. Both are GMTs, they just operate differently. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2014 19:05:48 GMT -8
Just a small note: since the 6117 does not have an independently settable 24hr hand; it is not a GMT watch, just a 24hr one. The only way it can be a GMT display is if the 24hr hand is set to the correct offset for where you live(but that is permanent). On most GMT watches, the 24-hour bezel is fixed, and the GMT hand is settable. On Seiko GMTs, the 24-hour bezel is settable and the GMT hand is fixed. Both are GMTs, they just operate differently. Fixed hands make it a 24 hour display or a pseudo(wannabe) GMT. Adjustable hands make it a true GMT. The bezel is irrelevant to the definition of a true GMT watch. |
|
cobrajet25
Needs a Life!
"Underweared curmudgeon!"
Posts: 3,357
|
Post by cobrajet25 on Aug 6, 2014 20:06:33 GMT -8
On most GMT watches, the 24-hour bezel is fixed, and the GMT hand is settable. On Seiko GMTs, the 24-hour bezel is settable and the GMT hand is fixed. Both are GMTs, they just operate differently. Fixed hands make it a 24 hour display or a pseudo(wannabe) GMT. Adjustable hands make it a true GMT. The bezel is irrelevant to the definition of a true GMT watch. Says who? Rolex?? :rofl:
|
|
|
|
Post by estrickland on Aug 6, 2014 23:36:33 GMT -8
Fixed hands make it a 24 hour display or a pseudo(wannabe) GMT. Adjustable hands make it a true GMT. The bezel is irrelevant to the definition of a true GMT watch. Says who? Rolex?? :rofl:
Rolex GMT watches had fixed 2nd timezone hands from the 1954 introduction of the 6542, through the 1675 and 16750, until the 1983 introduction of the cal. 3085 movement in the 16760 (aka 'fat lady') premiered the independent hand (at the cost of removing quickset date from the 16750). Wannabe or not, I wouldn't kick a nice one out of the box:  |
|
cobrajet25
Needs a Life!
"Underweared curmudgeon!"
Posts: 3,357
|
Post by cobrajet25 on Aug 7, 2014 0:50:06 GMT -8
Rolex GMT watches had fixed 2nd timezone hands from the 1954 introduction of the 6542, through the 1675 and 16750, until the 1983 introduction of the cal. 3085 movement in the 16760 (aka 'fat lady') premiered the independent hand (at the cost of removing quickset date from the 16750). Wannabe or not, I wouldn't kick a nice one out of the box: Very interesting! So I guess both Seiko and mighty Rolex were making "wannabe GMT" watches in the '60s and '70s?  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2014 3:07:07 GMT -8
Here's mine!  And that's the reason I'd never own a Rolex! £50GBP down the rubber dub dub (pub for you non cockney speaking tykes). Took it to a mate who owns a real one. He couldn't tell the difference side by side. Took it to a guy who repairs nothing but Rolexs and has done for the past 50 years. He couldn't tell it was fake until he opened the case. He said oh it's got a ETA movement! that will probably give you less trouble than a real one! and it keeps perfect time and I mean perfect. Been diving with it in my pocket past 150m and it's still ticking away happily. Even the crystal is a sapphire with the correct hologram. Every bloke down my high street has a Rolex on his wrist now... in my humble they are not worth a wank due to the fakes... shame but that's the way it goes with all this stuff. That said the one estrickland just posted is rather tasty looking! |
|
|
|
Post by Groundhog66 on Aug 7, 2014 6:16:21 GMT -8
Here's mine! And that's the reason I'd never own a Rolex! £50GBP down the rubber dub dub (pub for you non cockney speaking tykes). Took it to a mate who owns a real one. He couldn't tell the difference side by side. Took it to a guy who repairs nothing but Rolexs and has done for the past 50 years. He couldn't tell it was fake until he opened the case. He said oh it's got a ETA movement! that will probably give you less trouble than a real one! and it keeps perfect time and I mean perfect. Been diving with it in my pocket past 150m and it's still ticking away happily. Even the crystal is a sapphire with the correct hologram. Every bloke down my high street has a Rolex on his wrist now... in my humble they are not worth a wank due to the fakes... shame but that's the way it goes with all this stuff. That said the one estrickland just posted is rather tasty looking! I'd own one of those, it would be good for Halloween. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2014 8:53:09 GMT -8
Rolex GMT watches had fixed 2nd timezone hands from the 1954 introduction of the 6542, through the 1675 and 16750, until the 1983 introduction of the cal. 3085 movement in the 16760 (aka 'fat lady') premiered the independent hand (at the cost of removing quickset date from the 16750). Wannabe or not, I wouldn't kick a nice one out of the box: Very interesting! So I guess both Seiko and mighty Rolex were making "wannabe GMT" watches in the '60s and '70s? Correct. In Rolex case it was a cost cutting issue since back then their profit margins were not as ludicrously astronomical as today. A movement with a fixed 24 hour hand is not a true GMT movement. It's all about definitions. If we insist on using the terminology incorrectly then there is nothing to stop us calling a simple three hander a chronograph since we can simply observe the sweep hand and mentally mark it's positions...same thing as adding a rotating bezel to fake the GMT bit  |
|
cd_god
Is a Permanent Fixture
Finna set up a HOOD next door to your richie phuk suburban mansion
Posts: 12,304
|
Post by cd_god on Aug 7, 2014 20:54:34 GMT -8
Very interesting! So I guess both Seiko and mighty Rolex were making "wannabe GMT" watches in the '60s and '70s? Correct. In Rolex case it was a cost cutting issue since back then their profit margins were not as ludicrously astronomical as today. A movement with a fixed 24 hour hand is not a true GMT movement. It's all about definitions. If we insist on using the terminology incorrectly then there is nothing to stop us calling a simple three hander a chronograph since we can simply observe the sweep hand and mentally mark it's positions...same thing as adding a rotating bezel to fake the GMT bit God owns 51% stock options in Rolex. So therefore if Rolex says it it is Gospel  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2014 21:04:06 GMT -8
Correct. In Rolex case it was a cost cutting issue since back then their profit margins were not as ludicrously astronomical as today. A movement with a fixed 24 hour hand is not a true GMT movement. It's all about definitions. If we insist on using the terminology incorrectly then there is nothing to stop us calling a simple three hander a chronograph since we can simply observe the sweep hand and mentally mark it's positions...same thing as adding a rotating bezel to fake the GMT bit God owns 51% stock options in Rolex. So therefore if Rolex says it it is Gospel I suppose it's like when an umpire calls a strike even though the ball was outside the strike zone. So if you defer to authority it doesn't matter what the official definition of a word or term is  |
|
cobrajet25
Needs a Life!
"Underweared curmudgeon!"
Posts: 3,357
|
Post by cobrajet25 on Aug 8, 2014 1:10:10 GMT -8
A movement with a fixed 24 hour hand is not a true modern GMT movement. FIFY.  If Rolex didn't invent the GMT watch in cooperation with Pan Am Airlines in 1954, as the history books say, then who did? Seiko was making 5619s as early as 1972.  It fits your lone criteria for a GMT watch. Did anyone have a GMT movement with an independently settable GMT hand prior to '72, or did Seiko invent the GMT also? All a settable GMT hand gives you is the ability to track a second timezone. To me, a GMT watch is any watch with an auxiliary hour hand that allows the user to keep track of a second time zone. The particulars of how it functions and how "GMT tech" has progressed over the decades are less important than it getting the job done. I agree that a modern, state-of-the-art GMT watch should have a settable GMT hand, but the lack of one in a 50-year-old GMT watch does not disqualify it. It's like saying '57 Chevy doesn't qualify as a car because it does not have airbags. To each his own!  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2014 8:08:05 GMT -8
A movement with a fixed 24 hour hand is not a true modern GMT movement. FIFY. If Rolex didn't invent the GMT watch in cooperation with Pan Am Airlines in 1954, as the history books say, then who did? Seiko was making 5619s as early as 1972. It fits your lone criteria for a GMT watch. Did anyone have a GMT movement with an independently settable GMT hand prior to '72, or did Seiko invent the GMT also? All a settable GMT hand gives you is the ability to track a second timezone. To me, a GMT watch is any watch with an auxiliary hour hand that allows the user to keep track of a second time zone. The particulars of how it functions and how "GMT tech" has progressed over the decades are less important than it getting the job done. I agree that a modern, state-of-the-art GMT watch should have a settable GMT hand, but the lack of one in a 50-year-old GMT watch does not disqualify it. It's like saying '57 Chevy doesn't qualify as a car because it does not have airbags. To each his own! Change the definition to fit your point of view. It really makes no difference to me other than being confused when the word or term is used inappropriately.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2014 8:58:44 GMT -8
So here we will have it all in one place. Since there are going to be non Japanese watches in this thread, I figured the thread should live here. I have had two ture GMT movement watches...  This is Alpha's rendition of the classic. Alpha put the Shanghai B calibre movement in these watches. This calibre has an idependently settable GMT hand, is automatic and has a quick set date function. I donated this watch to a tear down over on WUS were you can see the process in the reference section.  This is the newer version. The main difference is the updated Shanghai B movement. You might notice some small cosmetic differences. I passed this watch on to our friend Captain Serdal. |
|
trandy
Needs a Life!
Posts: 3,274
|
Post by trandy on Aug 8, 2014 10:16:21 GMT -8
I just realized I have never owned a GMT watch. Great excuse to go shopping I suppose...."Hey! I've never had one of those!" LOL |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2014 12:18:04 GMT -8
I just realized I have never owned a GMT watch. Great excuse to go shopping I suppose...."Hey! I've never had one of those!" LOL I am a happy enabler  |
|
cobrajet25
Needs a Life!
"Underweared curmudgeon!"
Posts: 3,357
|
Post by cobrajet25 on Aug 9, 2014 4:08:37 GMT -8
FIFY. If Rolex didn't invent the GMT watch in cooperation with Pan Am Airlines in 1954, as the history books say, then who did? Seiko was making 5619s as early as 1972. It fits your lone criteria for a GMT watch. Did anyone have a GMT movement with an independently settable GMT hand prior to '72, or did Seiko invent the GMT also? All a settable GMT hand gives you is the ability to track a second timezone. To me, a GMT watch is any watch with an auxiliary hour hand that allows the user to keep track of a second time zone. The particulars of how it functions and how "GMT tech" has progressed over the decades are less important than it getting the job done. I agree that a modern, state-of-the-art GMT watch should have a settable GMT hand, but the lack of one in a 50-year-old GMT watch does not disqualify it. It's like saying '57 Chevy doesn't qualify as a car because it does not have airbags. To each his own! Change the definition to fit your point of view. It really makes no difference to me other than being confused when the word or term is used inappropriately. I am not changing anything. What I am doing is pointing out the somewhat obvious fact that the industry has changed the definition of what a GMT watch is over the past 60 years, whether you and the Internet like it or not. Just like the computer industry has redefined what a computer is and the auto industry has redefined what a car is. But that does not make an Apple IIe or a '69 Camaro a "wannabe". An archaic watch containing archaic technology and operating in an archaic way is to be expected. It is not a function of quality, or a design deficiency, it is a function of age. It would have been state-of-the-art when it was made. Since we were originally talking about a watch that is over 40 years old, I stand by what I said. Is a 6117 somewhat obsolete as a GMT watch? Sure. But is it a "wannabe"? No. I love this kind of arcane discussion, Pete, and I hope you do too! Cheers! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2014 8:35:30 GMT -8
I love this kind of arcane discussion, Pete, and I hope you do too! Cheers! If I didn't enjoy it, I wouldn't be part of it I guess we could confuse the issue by calling these watches by the proper terms...UTC watches  |
|
|
|
Post by igniferroque on Aug 9, 2014 9:24:03 GMT -8
I guess we could confuse the issue by calling these watches by the proper terms...UTC watches UTC was started in 1972. See how that fits in the timeline with the watches. |
|
)
If Rolex didn't invent the GMT watch in cooperation with Pan Am Airlines in 1954, as the history books say, then who did? Seiko was making 5619s as early as 1972.
