Forums Latest Members

Thoughts on this Polerouter Sub ?

  1. clemenry Feb 22, 2015

    Posts
    13
    Likes
    6
    Hi - I'm new to the forum, I do frequent another watch forum but first post here and looking for a little advice.

    Been thinking about a Polerouter Sub for a while and finally got around to,posting a WTB on various forums, had a few offers but so far this looks like the pick of the bunch, original bracelet is a big plus in my opinion.

    Would appreciate the opinions of some of the more knowledgeable guys in the forum, I've done some research but I'm relatively green when it comes to UG and with all the variations it's quite confusing...

    Here are the pics;

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    Any opinions would be much appreciated

    R
     
    Edited Feb 22, 2015
  2. Tony C. Ωf Jury member Feb 22, 2015

    Posts
    7,347
    Likes
    24,035
    Looks correct to me, but Lou's would be the opinion to seek.
     
  3. LarryG not KennyG, not OG, just LarryG Feb 22, 2015

    Posts
    990
    Likes
    3,835
    Ditto.
     
  4. woodwkr2 Feb 22, 2015

    Posts
    1,366
    Likes
    819
    Nice one. Even comes with the correct, original crystal. Hopefully those spots on the dial turn out to just be defects in the crystal that can be polished out.
     
  5. clemenry Feb 22, 2015

    Posts
    13
    Likes
    6
    Thanks for all the comments and opinions guys, general consceious seems to be that it's a good one, which is the feeling I got but just wanted to make sure.
     
  6. jordn Wants to be called Frank for some odd reason Feb 22, 2015

    Posts
    713
    Likes
    2,011
    I'm actually a little suspicious of the crystal. The trapezoid magnifier should match the shape of the date window (the angles looks wider) and there is a defect on the long side. This alone wouldn't deter me from buying this watch though. All the spots look like double dots. Guessing that's caused by parallax(?) Would that mean the damage is on the crystal or dial? anyone remember high school physics? The watch looks good otherwise with minimal polishing, if any. imagejpg4_zps8140cf2d.jpg
     
  7. Diabolik Feb 22, 2015

    Posts
    1,371
    Likes
    2,657
    sorry to but in folks but what you see in the date window is the raised magnifier and not an imperfection and it is the original crystal. Here is a side and top view. just wanted to clear that one up!

    IMG_4007.JPG IMG_4008.JPG IMG_4010.JPG
     
  8. jordn Wants to be called Frank for some odd reason Feb 22, 2015

    Posts
    713
    Likes
    2,011
    This is the same watch? If it is, then I stand corrected. Everything looks correct.

    * the macros are slightly better, but both sets of pictures are pretty poorly shot. hard to tell what's what
     
    Edited Feb 22, 2015
  9. Diabolik Feb 22, 2015

    Posts
    1,371
    Likes
    2,657
    i' have the shakes ... difficult to hold steady at such high mags ...
     
  10. woodwkr2 Feb 22, 2015

    Posts
    1,366
    Likes
    819
    I think they're two different watches.

    Regarding your points about the trapezoidal magnifier booger, I think what you're seeing is just distortion due to the angle the photo was shot at. Regardless, these magnifiers are quite unusual and may even be specific to UG. They're also not available as generic or aftermarket glass, so if you spot one, it's likely an original crystal until proven otherwise.

    If you want to refresh my understanding of parallax, we'd all be better for it. Based on the OP's pictures, it appears that there are some scuffs in the crystal, as well as some white spots on the dial itself. If I were betting, I'd bet that a good cleaning and crystal polish during service would take care of things. But it's a blurry picture so... we shall see.
     
    HeuerLoon likes this.
  11. clemenry Feb 22, 2015

    Posts
    13
    Likes
    6
    Can I ask what makes you think they are different watches?

    Granted the photos aren't great but there is a slight degrading of the lume on the 4 marker which you can just make out in both sets of pictures.

    I'm hoping to view the watch prior to purchase so this will clear up any confusion
     
  12. woodwkr2 Feb 22, 2015

    Posts
    1,366
    Likes
    819
    Clearly you and the seller have "inside info". None of this dynamic was laid clear in previous posts.
     
  13. Diabolik Feb 22, 2015

    Posts
    1,371
    Likes
    2,657
    Folks,

    I should have said but wanted to ensure comments were impartial. It is the same watch. I recommended that the buyer post on the ug forum for an opinion if he was unsure.

    Apologies ...
     
    ELV web likes this.
  14. jordn Wants to be called Frank for some odd reason Feb 22, 2015

    Posts
    713
    Likes
    2,011
    I definitely defer to you @woodwkr2 when it comes to UG parts, but at least from the first set of pictures, the magnifier looked very odd to me. I just looked at my Polerouter from many different points of view, and the trapezoid lines don't match on certain angles. Sorry :oops:, not the first time I've been wrong, and certainly not the last. I was being lazy, and I was going off of pictures from a previous thread.
    img4504o.jpg x60810-14928648fe99c79961b13374a6a7ba86.jpg.pagespeed.ic.l-91SWg6LA.jpg x60811-998f9d731da0a16a892059437eaee8b9.jpg.pagespeed.ic.TXSSNgxjuu.jpg

    The watches in the two sets of pictures look to be identical, but it's a little confusing because each picture has its own distinct constellation of dots on the dial. I'm guessing the "defect" I saw in the magnifier is the scratch next to it.

    I am the last person to teach anyone about the finer points of parallax, but my understanding of it is the apparent displacement of an object caused by different angles of view (or the curvature of the crystal in this case). I just thought someone who understands this better than I do might be able to suss out whether the dots are on the dial or the crystal by how much they are being displaced in comparison to the displacement of the minute markers.
    imagejpg4_zps8140cf2d.jpg
     
    Edited Feb 22, 2015
  15. woodwkr2 Feb 22, 2015

    Posts
    1,366
    Likes
    819
    It's also possible that the crystal isn't precisely aligned over the date window. This too would be something that could be easily adjusted with a routine servicing. I continue to have no problem surmising that the crystal is an original UG crystal.

    Your parallax discussion is interesting and I'd have to dust off my college physics to contribute anything here. It'd make for a pretty sweet app though--if you could create an algorithm to analyze a random ebay pic and then 'correct' it to give some indication about whether the flaws were from reflection, crystal or dial.
     
  16. woodwkr2 Feb 22, 2015

    Posts
    1,366
    Likes
    819
    And that speaks volumes to the type of seller you're potentially dealing with @clemenry.
     
  17. clemenry Feb 22, 2015

    Posts
    13
    Likes
    6
    Thanks for all the comments guys it's much appreciated, as stated above the seller suggested it maybe a good idea to seek the opinions of knowledgeable UG enthusiasts on here to give a little extra piece of mind.
     
  18. Tony C. Ωf Jury member Feb 23, 2015

    Posts
    7,347
    Likes
    24,035
    Parallax is a very tricky issue even with normal crystals on dress watches. With the thicker crystals often used on dive watches, the going is even more treacherous. I'm not offering any opinion on this particular watch, but anytime a watch is photographed at an angle there are likely to be parallax distortions that will cloud judgments.
     
  19. micampe Feb 23, 2015

    Posts
    1,626
    Likes
    6,171
    Parallax is unrelated to the crystal. Parallax is the apparent change in position of an object in relation to other objects when viewed from different points of view.

    The distortions caused by the glass are due to refraction, which happens when light travels through different mediums (air and crystal in this case) and changes direction.
     
  20. Tony C. Ωf Jury member Feb 23, 2015

    Posts
    7,347
    Likes
    24,035
    Good distinction – thanks. However the basic point, which is that viewing through crystals at angles is treacherous, still stands,