Reminds me of the jackalope:
![]()
Enjoy,
gatorcpa
P.S. My vote goes to Omlex. Sounds like a brand that could actually exist.
Enjoy,
gatorcpa
P.S. My vote goes to Omlex. Sounds like a brand that could actually exist.
-
Take part in a short activity and share your valuable opinion on new design concepts for AVSForum! >>> Click Here
Project Omlex
Some time ago, during a particularly vicious Omega V Rolex thread I made a threat. Naturally, no one took it seriously. Well, now you can all see the full horror you have brought upon yourselves...
Project Omlex (or was it Romega?)
Here's the theory. The golden age of watches is either about now or at some point in the sixties before quartz appeared. At that point, my opinion (and it is mere opinion) is that Omega had the edge on Rolex for the movements, while Rolex definitely had the best general purpose case by far: the Oyster.
So, why not get the very best of both worlds? The classic Rolex case mated with the very best that Omega had to offer? What's not to like?
Now this project has taken a while to get to this stage and may take another six months to actually complete (assuming that all my measurements concerning fit are correct and my dial feet trick works) but I have reached an important milestone:
Back
![]()
front (with the back on)
![]()
side
![]()
For the obsessively eagle eyed among you, that's a classic Rolex Oyster precision case, which should have a movement like this:
![]()
being violated by an equally classic Omega 601 movement as usually seen in watches like the one on the left:
![]()
Initially I decided that I was going to go for one of two movements, either a 7xx auto movement or a 6xx manual movement simply because they are two of my favourite movements. This way I could go manual or auto depending on the case that turned up. Well, I got a 6694 and I'm going manual. The case is from 1960 and the movement is from 1970, spanning the heart of the Golden Age beautifully. Perversely, (hell, what about this project isn't perverse) I'm putting a non date 601 into a date 6694 (with a new crystal) as I'm going for the classic (and easier to line up) non date approach. Hopefully, I should be able to persuade one of these
http://www.mkiiwatches.com/ProductDetail.jsp?LISTID=B70000-1122415052
onto the movement and into the case with a little bit of... subtlety, for that classic 'Explorer' look. However, I have to confess that, looking at the lovely Omega movement sans dial, there is a temptation to keep it that 'spaceview' way as it both looks great and makes it quite clear that this watch is not powered by a Rolex movement.
However the bottom line is that this is the ultimate act of horological transgression, summed up rather nicely by this little cartoon:
http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/161181
So, it is with genuine fear that I ask for opinions...
Project Omlex (or was it Romega?)
Here's the theory. The golden age of watches is either about now or at some point in the sixties before quartz appeared. At that point, my opinion (and it is mere opinion) is that Omega had the edge on Rolex for the movements, while Rolex definitely had the best general purpose case by far: the Oyster.
So, why not get the very best of both worlds? The classic Rolex case mated with the very best that Omega had to offer? What's not to like?
Now this project has taken a while to get to this stage and may take another six months to actually complete (assuming that all my measurements concerning fit are correct and my dial feet trick works) but I have reached an important milestone:
Back
front (with the back on)
side
For the obsessively eagle eyed among you, that's a classic Rolex Oyster precision case, which should have a movement like this:
being violated by an equally classic Omega 601 movement as usually seen in watches like the one on the left:
Initially I decided that I was going to go for one of two movements, either a 7xx auto movement or a 6xx manual movement simply because they are two of my favourite movements. This way I could go manual or auto depending on the case that turned up. Well, I got a 6694 and I'm going manual. The case is from 1960 and the movement is from 1970, spanning the heart of the Golden Age beautifully. Perversely, (hell, what about this project isn't perverse) I'm putting a non date 601 into a date 6694 (with a new crystal) as I'm going for the classic (and easier to line up) non date approach. Hopefully, I should be able to persuade one of these
http://www.mkiiwatches.com/ProductDetail.jsp?LISTID=B70000-1122415052
onto the movement and into the case with a little bit of... subtlety, for that classic 'Explorer' look. However, I have to confess that, looking at the lovely Omega movement sans dial, there is a temptation to keep it that 'spaceview' way as it both looks great and makes it quite clear that this watch is not powered by a Rolex movement.
However the bottom line is that this is the ultimate act of horological transgression, summed up rather nicely by this little cartoon:
http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/161181
So, it is with genuine fear that I ask for opinions...
5
1 - 20 of 39 Posts
That's neat, more guts than I've got to attempt to take apart two vintage watches of entirely different make and fuse them together into a superwatch :-d
I do have a question though... Obviously with the oyster case you had to keep the Rolex crown on there, did you remove the original stem from it and replace it with the Omega one and file it down to length, or...?
I'd put that dial on it though. Keeping it "spaceview" is cool but it isn't really the pretty side of the movement you'd be able to see... And are you going to keep the cyclops so the the 3on the Explorer style dial would be really big? :-d
Though you could just take the original Omega dial and assuming it had an applied logo, just pry it off and put a Rolex coronet on there and keep the Omega text...
![]()
I do have a question though... Obviously with the oyster case you had to keep the Rolex crown on there, did you remove the original stem from it and replace it with the Omega one and file it down to length, or...?
I'd put that dial on it though. Keeping it "spaceview" is cool but it isn't really the pretty side of the movement you'd be able to see... And are you going to keep the cyclops so the the 3on the Explorer style dial would be really big? :-d
Though you could just take the original Omega dial and assuming it had an applied logo, just pry it off and put a Rolex coronet on there and keep the Omega text...
Thanks for all the positive things said here guys, I have to expect I was half expecting to be told that this was a direct violation of everything that is holy.
TG: As it happens I did build a bitsa years ago. In this case it was a BSA B25 Gold star SS which had a massively overtuned and deeply unreliable engine into which I 'slotted' (this is a euphamism for a process that was less than fun) a Triumph T90 engine which was much more reliable and vibrated far less so technically a Tribsa.
I did have a lovely Norton Model 50 at one time which had the classic featherbed frame but it was such a nice demure bike with such impecccable road manners.
Oh, and the sauce, it was chocolate and nut as I recall:
![]()
SD: Don't worry, I am tempted to use a JLC dial from an ultrathin but I am almost definitely going down the route I have mentioned. My JLC Masterquartz project turned out pretty well that way:
![]()
HC: Don't worry I didn't, I try not to break anything that isn't already broken. I am a pack rat and collect broken bits from everywhere. Sadly, all the idiots who are scrapping gold watches for the gold ensure that there are plenty of lovely old movements around if you know where to look.
Alex...
Everyone else who has encouraged or entered into the spirit, thanks everso. Now, isn't anyone going to get upset about this?
TG: As it happens I did build a bitsa years ago. In this case it was a BSA B25 Gold star SS which had a massively overtuned and deeply unreliable engine into which I 'slotted' (this is a euphamism for a process that was less than fun) a Triumph T90 engine which was much more reliable and vibrated far less so technically a Tribsa.
I did have a lovely Norton Model 50 at one time which had the classic featherbed frame but it was such a nice demure bike with such impecccable road manners.
Oh, and the sauce, it was chocolate and nut as I recall:
SD: Don't worry, I am tempted to use a JLC dial from an ultrathin but I am almost definitely going down the route I have mentioned. My JLC Masterquartz project turned out pretty well that way:
HC: Don't worry I didn't, I try not to break anything that isn't already broken. I am a pack rat and collect broken bits from everywhere. Sadly, all the idiots who are scrapping gold watches for the gold ensure that there are plenty of lovely old movements around if you know where to look.
Alex...
Everyone else who has encouraged or entered into the spirit, thanks everso. Now, isn't anyone going to get upset about this?
2
But it is ok for a Timex to be a Sea-Gull?
Only after you get one complete, and you yell "IT'S ALIVE!". Keep it up!
I was thinking of a similar joke but you two beat me to the punch.
IT IS! But it's more fun watching you do it and foot the bill. ;-)
What were you saying about sacrilege?Oh, and the sauce, it was chocolate and nut as I recall:
![]()
:-d well yes because most chinese made watches are powered by seagull. But this case is specific, a vintage rolex should be let as stock and not have its movement exchanged. The only case when you should do this is when the movement is completely rusted or unrepairable.But it is ok for a Timex to be a Sea-Gull?
Mixing up Triumphs and Beezers. That's normal.
Rolex mixed with Omega?
It breaks all taboos. LOL
Seems a bit pointless to me but I know you like doing barmy stuff and anything that keeps you off the streets.
1 - 20 of 39 Posts
