ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

george..k · 11 May 2011, 01:54 AM

Is it possible to replace the puny Twinlock crown of my 16710 with a Triplock crown? Has anybody done this?

mrbill2mrbill2 · 11 May 2011, 02:03 AM

If it can be done Rolex won't service it.

padi56 · 11 May 2011, 03:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by george..k

Is it possible to replace the puny Twinlock crown of my 16710 with a Triplock crown? Has anybody done this?

No and its far from puny as there are quite a few million 16710 in this world today. And expect most will be stil around in 20-40 years time, same could be said with the rest of the Rolex line up with twin lock crowns

george..k · 11 May 2011, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by padi56

No and its far from puny as there are quite a few million 16710 in this world today. And expect most will be stil around in 20-40 years time, same could be said with the rest of the Rolex line up with twin lock crowns

If the crown wasn't small, Rolex would't have responded with a Triplock crown on the latest incarnation of the GMT II. In 20-40 years, the crown will still be puny.

rob · 11 May 2011, 09:12 AM

To answer you original question is: you probably can, but it might look strange. It's sorta like the older (80-86) sedans that some put the 22" rims on. Yeah the car goes but it looks dumb, and the rims raise the car to where it sorta looks like and SUV. The GMT II is a classic design with everything in proportion. If you take the triple lock crown and place it on the non maxi case GMT it might look out of place. The crown guards will not extent to protect the crown, leaving it likely to get banged up.

Take it from me, I have had the GMT II and now the GMT II-C and the one complaint I have about the watch is that the crown digs into my wrist. My dad's Sub does the same to him. When I had my GMT-II it did not. My advice is to keep it original.

roger0770 · 11 May 2011, 04:51 PM

the diameter on the triple lock crown is bigger, thus the crowd guard space needs some work done first. then you'd probably need a new tube. all the above required a skilled watchmaker to do the job.

Richard. · 11 May 2011, 05:04 PM

Don't try it.

Chris B · 11 May 2011, 06:32 PM

Delicate little pansy isn't it ?

JJ Irani · 12 May 2011, 01:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by george..k

If the crown wasn't small, Rolex would't have responded with a Triplock crown on the latest incarnation of the GMT II. In 20-40 years, the crown will still be puny.

What's important is that this TWINLOCK crown serves the purpose for which the GMT was designed.

It's NOT a diver's watch, but a pilot's watch and also a frequent traveller's watch. But in spite of that you still have guaranteed waterproofing to 100 m - a depth to which most normal men would never even dream of venturing.

So, that's it. The new GMT-IIC may have a TRIPLOCK crown, but because it has a relatively much thinner caseback than the SUB, is still rated to only 100 m depth. Once again, this watch has been perfectly designed for the very purpose for which it was intended.

JJ

Cru Jones · 12 May 2011, 01:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JJ Irani

What's important is that this TWINLOCK crown serves the purpose for which the GMT was designed.

It's NOT a diver's watch, but a pilot's watch and also a frequent traveller's watch. But in spite of that you still have guaranteed waterproofing to 100 m - a depth to which most normal men would never even dream of venturing.

So, that's it. The new GMT-IIC may have a TRIPLOCK crown, but because it has a relatively much thinner caseback than the SUB, is still rated to only 100 m depth. Once again, this watch has been perfectly designed for the very purpose for which it was intended.

JJ

excellent insight, jj! nice to see you posting.

one could, by extension, go so far as to say that the GMTIIc's triplock was over-engineered for no specific purpose. it's why i disagree with criticisms of the new explorer ii's twinlock.

landroverking · 12 May 2011, 01:53 AM

Just my two cents worth. The Twin Lock Crown is much easier to set.

rad87gn · 12 May 2011, 02:24 AM

What for?? It's perfect already! It fits perfectly with the crown guards and is way more than enough for over 100m of water resistance.

Ah, go for it! We'd LOVE to see pics when you are done!

ibramr · 12 May 2011, 10:52 AM

I agree with the tacit feeling of many colleagues in this thread that the triple lock gives somehow more secure feeling than the double lock. So, I added the 14060 sub no date to the 16710 wonderful GMT. I oscillated between the two models and enjoyed both equally...till.....my better half discovered the 14060. She, unilateraly, sequesterated the watch and pressed it into her daily service--I did not use the watch since. So, maybe, the double lock is not bad after all. If you insist, change it to triple lock but at your own risk. But regardless of the route you take...enjoy in good health.

11 May 2011, 01:54 AM	#1
george..k Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Toronto Posts: 127	Triplock crown for my GMT II 16710? Is it possible to replace the puny Twinlock crown of my 16710 with a Triplock crown? Has anybody done this?

11 May 2011, 02:03 AM	#2
mrbill2mrbill2 "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Real Name: Mr. Bill Location: South Florida Watch: 16610 Posts: 6,148	If it can be done Rolex won't service it. __________________ Card Carrying Member of the Global Association of the Retro-Grouch-Curmudgeons - ID # 13

11 May 2011, 05:04 PM	#7
Richard. "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: UK Posts: 969	Don't try it. __________________ A father is someone who carries photographs in his wallet - where his money used to be.

12 May 2011, 02:24 AM	#12
rad87gn "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Real Name: Chad Location: Des Moines, Iowa Watch: Rolex, PAM, Omega Posts: 1,607	What for?? It's perfect already! It fits perfectly with the crown guards and is way more than enough for over 100m of water resistance. Ah, go for it! We'd LOVE to see pics when you are done! __________________ Rolex P-Series SS GMT II Black, Rolex Y-Series Sea-Dweller, Rolex F-Series TT Blue Sub, Rolex F-Series Sub LV, Rolex D-Series Ladies SS/WG DJ for wife, Panerai K-Series PAM 112, Omega Speedmaster Pro 3570.50, Omega Seamaster 300M Chrono 2594.52

11 May 2011, 09:12 AM	#5
rob 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Northern Ca. Watch: SS only Posts: 865	To answer you original question is: you probably can, but it might look strange. It's sorta like the older (80-86) sedans that some put the 22" rims on. Yeah the car goes but it looks dumb, and the rims raise the car to where it sorta looks like and SUV. The GMT II is a classic design with everything in proportion. If you take the triple lock crown and place it on the non maxi case GMT it might look out of place. The crown guards will not extent to protect the crown, leaving it likely to get banged up. Take it from me, I have had the GMT II and now the GMT II-C and the one complaint I have about the watch is that the crown digs into my wrist. My dad's Sub does the same to him. When I had my GMT-II it did not. My advice is to keep it original.

11 May 2011, 04:51 PM	#6
roger0770 Banned Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: On Earth Watch: A Few Posts: 1,510	the diameter on the triple lock crown is bigger, thus the crowd guard space needs some work done first. then you'd probably need a new tube. all the above required a skilled watchmaker to do the job.

11 May 2011, 06:32 PM	#8
Chris B "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Peterborough Posts: 9,631	Delicate little pansy isn't it ?

12 May 2011, 01:53 AM	#11
landroverking "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Real Name: Jay Location: TEXAS Watch: Daytona Posts: 7,648	Just my two cents worth. The Twin Lock Crown is much easier to set.

12 May 2011, 10:52 AM	#13
ibramr "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: usa Posts: 173	I agree with the tacit feeling of many colleagues in this thread that the triple lock gives somehow more secure feeling than the double lock. So, I added the 14060 sub no date to the 16710 wonderful GMT. I oscillated between the two models and enjoyed both equally...till.....my better half discovered the 14060. She, unilateraly, sequesterated the watch and pressed it into her daily service--I did not use the watch since. So, maybe, the double lock is not bad after all. If you insist, change it to triple lock but at your own risk. But regardless of the route you take...enjoy in good health.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)