My latest arrival! A Submariner with a difference...
Discussion
I posted this over on TZ, and I'm as happy as a pig in s
t over it, so I thought I'd share! 
Wabi'd up!
Plexiglass and matte bezel goodness. I can't see the latter being original though...
Loving the plexi and it looks superb without the cyclops!
As you can tell, I'm quite happy with it!
t over it, so I thought I'd share! Wabi'd up!
Plexiglass and matte bezel goodness. I can't see the latter being original though...
Loving the plexi and it looks superb without the cyclops!
As you can tell, I'm quite happy with it!
LukeBird said:
It was the lack of cyclops that drew me to it initially! It looks far, far better without IMO.
Agreed! I've never been a fan of watches that incorporate a cyclops viewing window ... That is a rather tasty looking what you have there Luke! Excellent choice! 
Although I bet you'll become paranoid of brick walls and sharp edges, what with the plexiglass n' all 
Blimey, you mentioned something about a Tudor in your email, but the 'pictures' you claimed you sent hadn't arrived, so didn't know what you'd got.
That is brilliant - one thing about the Rolex Sub I've never liked is the cyclops, and preferred the 16600 SD because of it. But the SD is a pretty thick watch and rides quite high on the wrist. Still good though.
I didn't know that Tudor made Subs like that - apart from the crystal (and, presumably, movement - though any decent level ETA in there will be getting on for as reliable as the old Rolex movement) it's pretty much identical to the Rolex version. Presumably has the same case, and same waterproof depth rating?
Don't worry about bricks / walls etc. with regard to the plexiglass - get some Polywatch and keep it in top nick yourself
However the case lugs look *seriously* smashed about - that is going to need a LOT of TLC to get back to decent shape, hopefully the bracelet is in better shape than the lugs (though Sub bracelets are very easy to acquire in all variants). Do you want to borrow my Dremel and polishing wheels or are you going to get a jeweller to do it?
The only other concern I'd have is that to cause that amount of damage to the lugs, the watch will have taken some pretty hefty knocks. I'm assuming that because it's a Tudor, it's using an ETA movement, either 2836-2 or 2892-2 (the only reason for the 2892 would be if the watch needed a thin movement, since the 2836 is thicker, but equally the 2836 is a stronger and more reliable movement. All the top-end Rolex Sub fakes use the ETA 2836), and you can get an entire replacement movement for a couple of hundred quid (or much less if you buy one from Sea-Gull or Liaoning) if the worst happens.
Having seen plenty of Sub-a-likes with ETA 2836 movements in them, my experience is that they tend to work perfectly. As in faultlessly Apart from one thing - the bearings on the automatic winding rotor. This needs proper lubrication (and reasonably frequent) to work perfectly - if you let the oil dry out or don't oil it properly, then the ball bearings wear a track in the bearing housing and whilst the auto rotor continues to work fine, play develops and the rotor begins to rattle when shaken from side to side. It still works fine in terms of winding the movement, but sounds a bit 'loose' inside...
I'd love to see how Tudor have implemented the ETA movement in the Sub case - as far as I can tell, the Tudor Sub case is identical with the Rolex Sub case, down to the caseback and the special tool needed to open it. I've got a tool if you fancy opening it up to show me mate
That is brilliant - one thing about the Rolex Sub I've never liked is the cyclops, and preferred the 16600 SD because of it. But the SD is a pretty thick watch and rides quite high on the wrist. Still good though.
I didn't know that Tudor made Subs like that - apart from the crystal (and, presumably, movement - though any decent level ETA in there will be getting on for as reliable as the old Rolex movement) it's pretty much identical to the Rolex version. Presumably has the same case, and same waterproof depth rating?
Don't worry about bricks / walls etc. with regard to the plexiglass - get some Polywatch and keep it in top nick yourself
However the case lugs look *seriously* smashed about - that is going to need a LOT of TLC to get back to decent shape, hopefully the bracelet is in better shape than the lugs (though Sub bracelets are very easy to acquire in all variants). Do you want to borrow my Dremel and polishing wheels or are you going to get a jeweller to do it?
The only other concern I'd have is that to cause that amount of damage to the lugs, the watch will have taken some pretty hefty knocks. I'm assuming that because it's a Tudor, it's using an ETA movement, either 2836-2 or 2892-2 (the only reason for the 2892 would be if the watch needed a thin movement, since the 2836 is thicker, but equally the 2836 is a stronger and more reliable movement. All the top-end Rolex Sub fakes use the ETA 2836), and you can get an entire replacement movement for a couple of hundred quid (or much less if you buy one from Sea-Gull or Liaoning) if the worst happens.
Having seen plenty of Sub-a-likes with ETA 2836 movements in them, my experience is that they tend to work perfectly. As in faultlessly
Apart from one thing - the bearings on the automatic winding rotor. This needs proper lubrication (and reasonably frequent) to work perfectly - if you let the oil dry out or don't oil it properly, then the ball bearings wear a track in the bearing housing and whilst the auto rotor continues to work fine, play develops and the rotor begins to rattle when shaken from side to side. It still works fine in terms of winding the movement, but sounds a bit 'loose' inside...I'd love to see how Tudor have implemented the ETA movement in the Sub case - as far as I can tell, the Tudor Sub case is identical with the Rolex Sub case, down to the caseback and the special tool needed to open it. I've got a tool if you fancy opening it up to show me mate
Ikemi said:
Agreed! I've never been a fan of watches that incorporate a cyclops viewing window ... That is a rather tasty looking what you have there Luke! Excellent choice! Although I bet you'll become paranoid of brick walls and sharp edges, what with the plexiglass n' all
Hmmm maybe; it'll be cycled with my other daily-wearers so it won't get too much 'action' but I'll certainly be careful! Although I bet you'll become paranoid of brick walls and sharp edges, what with the plexiglass n' all CF it is indeed identical externally to a Rolex Sub, it has the same triplock crown (which has the Rolex crown on) and the caseback is also Rolex signed.
This is quite an old one (early 70s I think, but there seems to be some discrepancy over the serial numbers....) so it was rated to 200m/660ft the same as the Rolex Sub of the time. It certainly has had a tough life, but I quite liked that! If it bothered me, I could always keep an eye out for a Sub case on eBay. The bracelet is in much better condition though, I presume it's a later replacement. It doesn't appear to be correct for the model, but it is a Tudor Oyster bracelet.
All in all I'm a happy chappy.
As I said on 'the other place' Luke, that's a shrewd choice, very nice watch indeed, that and Andy's old Seamaster would make a lovely pair.
I need a cyclops, or rather my wife, who's taken to wearing my Explorer II, does - old age old boy!
Classic though, one to watch for the future I reckon, well done.
Here's a bit about them from their military issue angle: http://forumamontres.forumactif.com/revues-videos-...
I need a cyclops, or rather my wife, who's taken to wearing my Explorer II, does - old age old boy!
Classic though, one to watch for the future I reckon, well done.
Here's a bit about them from their military issue angle: http://forumamontres.forumactif.com/revues-videos-...
Edited by andy_s on Tuesday 20th April 08:49
andy_s said:
that and Andy's old Seamaster would make a lovely pair.
I need a cyclops, or rather my wife, who's taken to wearing my Explorer II, does - old age old boy!
Classic though, one to watch for the future I reckon, well done.
I need to delve properly into that website, I've had a quick scan read of a few sections. I need a cyclops, or rather my wife, who's taken to wearing my Explorer II, does - old age old boy!
Classic though, one to watch for the future I reckon, well done.
That and Andy's SM300 would make a nice pairing, it is a lovely watch the SM300.
Fortunately I'm only a yoof so a cyclops is not needed yet! It's funny to have a watch that's (assuming what I reckon age-wise is true, it certainly appears to be) 15 or so years older than I am!
jdw1234 said:
Can someone explain something to me?...
It is made by Rolex, looks like a Rolex, has the same case etc. as a Rolex, but is badged as Tudor.
Is this like Rolls Royce / Bentley in the 70s /80s or is there more to it?
I think, in a nutshell, Wilsdorf (sp?) founded Rolex, then some time later founded Tudor, a more accessible (price-wise) version of the Rolex line. Everything was made by Rolex but the Tudors used an ETA movement instead of an in-house one, hence dropping the price and differentiating the two, whilst retaining some quality points (like the triplock crown, oyster case etc). It is made by Rolex, looks like a Rolex, has the same case etc. as a Rolex, but is badged as Tudor.
Is this like Rolls Royce / Bentley in the 70s /80s or is there more to it?
I think in the 90's there was a parting of the ways in some respects (perhaps Rolex not making the Tudor watches completely) but that's from memory - I could be wrong on that.
jdw1234 said:
Can someone explain something to me?...
It is made by Rolex, looks like a Rolex, has the same case etc. as a Rolex, but is badged as Tudor.
Is this like Rolls Royce / Bentley in the 70s /80s or is there more to it?
Andy is correct. It is made by Rolex, looks like a Rolex, has the same case etc. as a Rolex, but is badged as Tudor.
Is this like Rolls Royce / Bentley in the 70s /80s or is there more to it?
Rolex case, Rolex bracelet with a 'Tudor' clasp etc. etc. just with a bought in movement and finally made by Rolex. My Submariner uses an ETA movement whereas a Rolex Submariner uses an in-house Rolex developed movement.
Andy's last point, is also something I'm not quite sure on. Tudor are definitely more differentiated now, but I'm not sure when that happened.
Gassing Station | Watches | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff