So I have a few vintage watches that have the semi quickset date, by which I mean you can turn the time backwards to 9 and then forwards to 3 back and forth to advance the date wheel. My question is whether this is safe to do. I know that the original manuals sometimes recommend it, but is there potential for damage to the movement in these older watches?
What about excessive wear to the cannon pinion?
Well, the only other option (besides letting the watch sit until the date catches up) is to forward the hands through 24 hours for each day the date is off - that's what I have to do with my vintage Sub with the Cal. 1575 - it's a terrible design. That will cause much more "wear" to the cannon pinion than cycling back to 9 pm, and then back past midnight.
The calibre 1575 was for the expendable explorer II and the great gmt master. You have a calibre 1570. I know, they are nearly identical.
Well, the only other option (besides letting the watch sit until the date catches up) is to forward the hands through 24 hours for each day the date is off - that's what I have to do with my vintage Sub with the Cal. 1575 - it's a terrible design. That will cause much more "wear" to the cannon pinion than cycling back to 9 pm, and then back past midnight.
No, it’s a 1575. Rolex made these with 1570 on the movement, but the 1570 is a no date movement, and date movements end in “5”...
The GMT Master used the 1565, and the Explorer 2 the 1560 (date and no date respectively).
Aegler doesn't agree. Neither do I.
On the other hand, do you have any good book references about vintage rolex watches for the american market?
I am not surprised...and no I don't have a book, as I don't need one. I have Rolex technical guides for these calibers that show exactly what they are. Here's the front page of the 1565 GMT guide...
Here's the 1570 - you claim this is in my 1680 but it has a date, and clearly the 1570 doesn't have a calendar function:
The 1575 does have a date - this is what is in my 1680 Sub:
And yes, there is a 1575 GMT, but that is not in the watch I own of course:
So regardless of what you believe, the Sub date of the era absolutely used the 1575.
Aaaah, a copy of a copy 🤦 I believe you don't have the aegler's papers.
My question was completely honest. So relax.
Just as I expected, you are very fact resistant, and make claims without evidence. I'm not sure there's anything "honest" about anything that you post here...
Patience and knowledge, dear archer.
You can clear this up really easily by showing some proof...but we all know you won't.
We all? Sounds familiar to me.
