Maybe we can have a Cigar colored "Havana - GMT" as the general availability version of the white-faced "Key West - GMT", like the Nassau followed the Kingston?After much delay the final answer regarding the name is: "Key West - GMT"
Maybe we can have a Cigar colored "Havana - GMT" as the general availability version of the white-faced "Key West - GMT", like the Nassau followed the Kingston?After much delay the final answer regarding the name is: "Key West - GMT"
Great news, Bill! I'm in favor of keeping it as close as possible to the original. So my preference would be for a small GMT hand, and the hour markers positioned as you described. Here's a good picture of what I'm referring to.After much delay the final answer regarding the name is: "Key West - GMT"
I hope to start mocking up the two dial and hand choices next week. Basically we need to decide:
* Small GMT hand or big GMT Hand (i.e. similar to what Rolex uses now)
* Whether the hour markers are the dial are just like the Kingston or if we should move them closer to the center of the dial as on some early GMTs. I believe this was done so that the Arrow tip of the GMT hand would not fall on-top of the hour markers and get lost at night.
I like this suggestion, because one name represents the origin of the first Pan Am flight and the other represents the destination of the first Pan Am flight. It's like having a choice between sunrise and sunset. I'd choose both.Maybe we can have a Cigar colored "Havana - GMT" as the general availability version of the white-faced "Key West - GMT", like the Nassau followed the Kingston?
Charlie,Ok. One foot in front of the other. I'd want the dial to look as close to the original or, more specifically - as different from the current Rollie GMT - as possible.
We can address this issue after the design is done. To be honest though I think there may be enough demand for the watch with the black and white options that a brown dial may be moot.Maybe we can have a Cigar colored "Havana - GMT" as the general availability version of the white-faced "Key West - GMT", like the Nassau followed the Kingston?
I hope I understood your gist of the dial design. But the lower picture is exactly what I mean. the hour markers are set closer to the center of the dial than the 6538 or even the later version.![]()
More like this:
![]()
Excellent. Now that that's settled,… the hour markers are set closer to the center of the dial than the 6538 or even the later version.
Menno, IIRC a cyclops wasn't going to be an option. Aside from that, it would only be possible on a flat sapphire, not a domed one. Whether the saphhire is proud - i.e. elevated at the side - or not shouldn't have anything to do with it.About a proud sapphire: does it go well with the cyclop?
Yeah you're right about the non-cyclops part of the design. I forgot about that - must be the great combination of the red date and cyclops combined ;-)Menno, IIRC a cyclops wasn't going to be an option. Aside from that, it would only be possible on a flat sapphire, not a domed one. Whether the saphhire is proud - i.e. elevated at the side - or not shouldn't have anything to do with it.
I could be totally wrong, of course.
My b'year watch, but that's about it, tbh. But you're right: anything goes, design wise at this stage.Anything goes in a design thread, right? All ideas on the table.
I'd love something like this:
I've posted this picture before. It's an ultra rare version of the Rolex GMT.
The watch was 38mm, with 18k yellow gold, a white dial and a brown acrylic bezel. It was manufactured in 1958 and sold in Italy.
Cheers,
Packleader
Menno:My b'year watch, but that's about it, tbh. But you're right: anything goes, design wise at this stage.
Menno
Love the earlier pictures posted by 66cooper and now understand the original point about the marker location.Menno, IIRC a cyclops wasn't going to be an option. Aside from that, it would only be possible on a flat sapphire, not a domed one. Whether the saphhire is proud - i.e. elevated at the side - or not shouldn't have anything to do with it.
I could be totally wrong, of course.