Comments:
But the most surprising is to see a 100 meters dial in a 7924.
Best,
Nicolas
GMT is 6542.
Best,
Nicolas
On 7922 case backs, you see that they are stamped 6536, then 7922. Double marking. Jeff showed some pics of that.
Best,
Nicolas
Correction, Jeff!
Best,
Nicolas
Why is this Tudor 7924 so special?
Here is one photo I took on a Tudor Big Crown, Ref 7924, I will review a bit later.
But let's see if you have " eagle eye ", right now.
What is the detail which makes it so special, even if we can consider that any 7924 is special?
Here is the photo:
Best, Nicolas
Best, Nicolas
I have no idea what is so special, other than.....
It is truly a fantastic looking Big Crown Submariner!
That is superb!
As for making it special, is it a MN or other early military issue?
Cheers Tony
Very intrigued! It seems to me that the spacing...
between the marker at six and the "self-winding" is greater than on the 7922 which seems to be the dial on this watch. The line spacing of the text is also narrower. That's my observation. Anyhow the dial is absolutely beautiful.
Cheers
Francois from Down Under
Cheers
Francois from Down Under
I see! So it is no a 7924 with a 7922 dial? Although..
I thought that only the 7922 came with either 100m or 200m. Well Nicolas, I still have a long way to go.
Cheers
Francois from Down Under
Being a Padawan in Rolex/ Tudor .. I'll try with a well meant guess .. ;)
.. Thought to see 3 things:
1/ Chapter ring (?)
2/ the 100 m (as mentioned by some, it appears)
3/ the big Crown (?)
But I know, it's an abyss..
so going back to homework, I guess too..
Thanks, Nico - for the little Sunday riddle
Best, hs
1/ Chapter ring (?)
2/ the 100 m (as mentioned by some, it appears)
3/ the big Crown (?)
But I know, it's an abyss..
so going back to homework, I guess too..
Thanks, Nico - for the little Sunday riddle
Best, hs
Yes, YES, and yes. You got it all.
But the most surprising is to see a 100 meters dial in a 7924.
Best,
Nicolas
Three Qs be allowed for 7924/22 : what were the Rolex subs at that time ?..
-- eg a Rolex 6200 (or 6245 - no, the latter is a GMT - ??)
2/
.. we're they ( in part) producing together ?
( dials, cases ?)
3/ When did they develop, build and market it completely
separated?
-- I'll stop here, maybe these Tudors would deserve
a post/ review ,their relationship with Rolex and
maybe even their role for the collector
Just some 0,02 cents
& some titbits of food for thoughts
Best, hs
2/
.. we're they ( in part) producing together ?
( dials, cases ?)
3/ When did they develop, build and market it completely
separated?
-- I'll stop here, maybe these Tudors would deserve
a post/ review ,their relationship with Rolex and
maybe even their role for the collector
Just some 0,02 cents
& some titbits of food for thoughts
Best, hs
6200 / 6204 / 6205 / 6536 / 5508 / 6538 / 5510. Then, in the Tudors: 7922 / 23 / 24.
GMT is 6542.
Best,
Nicolas
And the reason being.....
Nicolas...i don't know the answer for the Tudor, but the big crown was developed essentially because Rolex innovation moved the max depth rating to 200m in the mid-1950s, and this greater depth rating required a bigger case (and crown LoL)..... so what is surprising is to see the use of a bigger case (needed for 200m) with a 100m depth rating instead..... is the case on the Tudor the same style as the one on the 6200?
Same Rolex case for the 7922 / 24, not the same case back for the 7924.
On 7922 case backs, you see that they are stamped 6536, then 7922. Double marking. Jeff showed some pics of that.
Best,
Nicolas
Ok...,
Then yes, that is a weird feature. I still have information coming in on the 6200 development, so interesting to see this 100m/200m issue on the Tudor. It is certainly a key factor for the discussion on 6204/6200
Yes, yes, the middle cases are different...
The 7922 BC case is identical to the Rolex 6538 case and by the way it uses a 6538 caseback that is "overwritten".
The 7924 case and caseback are both different and specific to Tudor.
I was always underb the impression that only the case back was different. Thanks for the
Correction, Jeff!
Best,
Nicolas