1680 red mk II thoughts?

[GGGMT]

Originally Posted by springer

One thing is for sure...these "what do you think" threads are entertaining subject matter to start the day off!!! Keep 'em coming.

This! Particularly when the posters seek input and then feel the need to rebut it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[oysterquartz17000]

Its like we are trying to talk them off a ledge but they really want to jump anyway.

[subx]

Originally Posted by oysterquartz17000

Its like we are trying to talk them off a ledge but they really want to jump anyway.

this :)

[zapokee]

Originally Posted by Kingface66

People too often make the mistake in thinking that some bad or aggressive polishing is the reason for a thin lug or two. These watches were cut by hand to begin with. Therefore they’re ALL going to be ever so slightly different from the next one, and the one before (which, to me, is why they’re so much more special and beautiful than today’s computer software-designed cases and dials, which all look identical).

This is a scan from a Rolex catalogue from 1970. Look at the lug thickness. Particularly, the top right and how much thinner it is. If someone posted this exact watch today on the forum, 75% of the comments would claim it was over-polished and should be avoided.
But this is what they looked like BRAND NEW!

Excellent knowledge and evidence. The bottom right lug is also visibly thinner, and the crown guards are uneven.

Thanks for posting this - this is what the forum is for.

Don't even start me on the erroneous "The springbar is protruding so it must be overpolished" judgment...