DW 7032 vs Gen Tudor 7149: Another Quickie Photo-Comparo

[LHOOQ 0]

 

One of the biggest admirers of my modded DW 7032 is a local Rolex collector who I've referred to as "Mr. 6263". It was his Daytona, after all, that featured in a side-by-side comparison with my DW 6263 last month. The guy has a huge collection of vintage sports Rolexes from the 60s to the 80s, but he has never owned an early Tudor chronograph. Ever since he saw my 7032 last year, he's been hunting for a gen. Unfortunately, these watches aren't nearly as common as hand-wind Daytonas (ho-hum), so it hasn't been easy for him. Last week, a blue Tudor 7149 finally showed up on the local market. Mr. 6263 sold a couple of sapphire Subs, and he was off to buy his Tudor.

 

 

Obviously, this isn't a like-for-like comparison: The dial and bezel of the 7149 are completely different from the 7032, as is the movement behind them. (Sorry, no shots of the beautiful Valjoux 234!) However, the early and later Tudor cases should be nearly identical.

 

So let's begin! Gen at bottom of each pair of photos:

 

 

I was happy to confirm that the crystal profile of the rep is very close to the gen, if not quite as tall. I should note that I do have a genuine Cyclope 128 fitted on my 7032, but mounting it wasn't a straightforward task. I was worried that the crystal didn't protrude as far as it ought to, but the difference is insignificant.

 

The second feature that jumps out of these shots is the beveling on the corners of the lugs. The gen has a thick character line on the outer edge, plus a little bit of work on the insides of the lugs. The DW's bevel is barely there by comparison.

 

Believe it or not, the gen has period-correct 282 endlinks and they fit terribly--marginally better than my rep 358s. Perfect-fit 589s wouldn't be available until the latter part of the 1970s.

 

 

Profile view. Here's where we get to the real meat of the comparison! But first, I should note a few glaring points of interest in these pictures:

• My 7032 flew off my wrist and landed crown-first into the pavement while I was vacationing in Bologna. Consequently my 703 and reset pusher are forever scarred as mementos.
  
• The 7149's Twinlock is partially unscrewed in these photos. My fault for not checking it first, but don't let it screw up your depth perception.
  
• Q: Why is the 7149's reset pusher so far to the left? A: It's a Valjoux 234, which has the same asymmetrical pusher layout as the V23 and V72. As a wise man once said, '"Uneven" Pusher position as per genuine'!
  

So here we finally see the big difference in lug and CG shapes, which -to be honest- isn't nearly as bad as I'd expected. In fact, it looks pretty good. The lugs are blunter on the gen, but it's the lugholes that cause the biggest headaches. As I've discovered, there is no way you can fit a 589 or 605 (from the Tudor Big Blocks) endlink between those lugs. CGs are overly square ("excessively orthogonal?") on the rep, and are missing the slightly concave outer surfaces, and the angled corners created by those aforementioned bevels. Overall, the entire CG area on the DW could use a bit of softening. The rep pushers, as on DW's Daytonas, are toothier than the gen's.

 

The next time I get my hands on this 7149, I'd like to pull out a ruler and measure the length of the case. I get the feeling that the DW is longer from lug-tip to lug-tip.

 

 

Oh, my poor Triplock! Here we see a more angled cutout beneath the crown of the gen. Otherwise, no significant differences.

 

 

The caseback is the single weakest part of the DW rep, in my opinion. Fonts are passable, but it's the shallow engravings that ruin the illusion. We also get another good look at the CG area, especially the concavity of the surfaces and softness of the edges that I mentioned above.

 

 

There's not a lot to directly compare between these two, so here are a few assorted notes:

• My 7032's sweep hand is from CWP, repainted in Tamiya Orange enamel after it was scratched up during a repair. The color match is excellent. As noted in my hands comparison, the CWP is the only aftermarket sweep hand for the 7032 with a correctly long tail. It's a bit shorter than the gen in overall length, but I believe the tail is more important. Heck, it's right in the middle of the dial! The downside is that you'd be paying a lot for just that one hand...
  
• The apparent difference in rehaut depth may be due to the difference in movement. I'm not sure.
  
• The DW could really use a wider dial opening, though. The DW dial's dimensions are near-perfect, and there really ought to be some black between the orange minute numerals and the rehaut's edge.
  
• I was glad to confirm that my datewheel has the correct font.
  
• Note the blue sunburst pattern on the genuine dial, and the inverted dishes in the subdials. I don't think the aftermarket (read: Yuki) has even attempted to replicate those features. Also note the beveled frame around the date window. Breathe easy: The genuine 7032 didn't have one.
  
• Lume on the gen has all but turned to dust and blown away (or collected around the edges). What was it about 70s Tudor lume that made it age so badly, especially when compared to the stuff on Rolex dials?
  

 

So that about does it for this comparison. As with the 6263, I only had a 10-minute window to finish this shoot. I really wish I'd taken a few more close-up shots of the CGs (and screwed down that crown), but it completely slipped my mind at the time. If I get the chance, I'll shoot them and post an update.

 

Overall, I'd say that DW came off pretty well in this comparison. I've long held the opinion that his dial blew all previous efforts out of the water when it was released last year. However, the DW 7032 case is also a much better replication than I'd believed. (Outwardly, at least.) Its biggest flaws are the wrongly-placed lugholes, crap hands, and the fact that it can't take a genuine C128 without some effort. Considering only one of those absolutely cannot be fixed, that's really quite good. Also, given that DW's kit sells for less than 1/5 the cost of competing cases, it's a real bargain--even if you're only buying one for, say, the dial and bezel.

 

But if you've got large piles of cash sitting idly...

 

[ThinkBachs 1]

I love these reviews, thanks for putting it together. As far as the marks on your crown and pushers- love those! Adds character, and tells a story. Thanks

[opus9 0]

Great Review.Not knowing anything about Tudors this was very informative.

Thankyou

Opus9

[wat44 0]

LHOOQ, you are a dead set champion!!!!

[powderfreak 0]

Amazing! And imho a good example for how good some of our reps are nowadays. 99% of even the Rolex fans wouldn't be able to tell the differences if they don't have a gen to compare with...

[LHOOQ 0]

Thanks, guys!

 

ThinkBachs: The upside to smashing my watch was that I was able to meet the legendary sssurfer (aka the guy who grinds his own cyclops for his Panerai reps), who took me to his own watchsmith in Rome AND bought me a coffee, to boot. What a guy! Netted out, I have some good memories from the ordeal, so the crown is staying put. As a bonus, I save money by not having to buy a genuine 700 Twinlock for this watch!

 

powderfreak: Definitely. Without a comparative example, the only bit that looks slightly suspicious is the caseback. Easy solution: Never take the watch off.