JohnG 41 Posted February 10, 2009 I recently confirmed, with the help of several members, that my new SSD from Ruby is the "v2" or 2nd version with the "thicker" bezel (not actually thicker as discovered by Tribal - but rather machined differently so that it sits slightly higher on the case). As a result of my curiosity about my bezel version, I had studied a lot of pics of the old and new SSD bezels. So I was very disappointed when I discovered, while browsing on The Rolex Forums, the following pics of a gen SD bezel. It is clear that even the new bezel leaves a lot to be desired. I have made a composite below of close-up side lateral views of the bezel of a gen SD, the SSDv1 (from BK's new case/bezel offering comparing the old and new bezels) and my own SSDv2. One of the distinguishing features of the new bezel is that the tooth cut terminates about half way down the vertical lateral face of the bezel. This, I had thought, made the bezel appear thicker (in addition to the difference in the machining that causes the v2 bezel to sit higher on the case - according to both BK and Tribal). But when I saw a close up side view of the gen bezel I realized that the lower termination of the tooth cut is actually much closer to the old v1. I have placed red lines on the composite so that you can easily see how far down the face each tooth cut ends on the various watches. I also noticed that the peak between each tooth is narrower on the gen but is more closely matched by the v2. Here is the comparison: To me the solution is a tooth cut that is slightly more vertical but does not remove more material at the top of the cut - only at the bottom of the cut. This would give the tooth a lower termination and a narrower peak between cuts. Additionally it would give a more symmetrical penetration of the cut into the bezel material - the gen appears to have about the same penetration at the rim of the bezel as at the vertical flat. The v2 appears cut appears to have a more conical geometry... And I guess the obvious question at this point is, am I being way too anal about a watch that has a huge (and equally un-modable) rehaut thickness problem? Perhaps, but I am interested not just in the problems that can be fixed (and which I may never fix anyway) but rather in the features that distinguish the watch from the gen. Even if I don't intend to or can't fix certain flaws, I still like to know what they are. I imagine the SSD bezel issue has been talked to death already but I thought I ought to contribute something once in a while instead of just make wise-cracks. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
greg_r 81 Posted February 10, 2009 Interesting comparison. It's not just the shape, but the quality of the machining that gives it away (not unexpectedly). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnG 41 Posted February 10, 2009 Interesting comparison. It's not just the shape, but the quality of the machining that gives it away (not unexpectedly). True, but you have to be REALLY close to see that. You almost (depending on your age) need a macro shot or a magnifying glass to appreciate the difference... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
greg_r 81 Posted February 10, 2009 Interesting comparison. It's not just the shape, but the quality of the machining that gives it away (not unexpectedly). True, but you have to be REALLY close to see that. You almost (depending on your age) need a macro shot or a magnifying glass to appreciate the difference... Yup - no way I could tell the difference in the bezel cut shape without a photo or good magnifying glass. My sight ain't that bad (I don't need glasses yet), but it's just too small a difference for me to see with the naked eye. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
alphakazi 0 Posted February 10, 2009 wouldn't make the slightest difference to me if that was the only issue with my rep the HE valve dimensions are also a tad off Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
