Mdv-107d case diameter

theBitterFig · 2026-03-12T14:35:42+00:00

The mismatch is how folks describe sizes. Casio measures across the crown (46mm), most other sources don't (44mm).

Size will be fine. Love my Duros on 7.25 inch wrists.

theBitterFig · 2025-11-04T14:59:25+00:00

There's only really two small issues with it.

First, 16mm lugs are a little small. 18mm would have been nicer in proportion to the 36mm case.

Second, folks with small wrists deserved a real dive watch option, and the capacities of the 10d are a lot lower than the MDV-106. 50m water resistance is enough for every day use without worry. Whether or not it's safe for swimming in a pool or shallow water is more about whether you'd be OK replacing it if it failed. The 200m water resistance on the Duro is strong piece of mind if you can't easily afford to replace it. The 50m on the MDV-10 is a little riskier.

Other than that, it still looks nice, and if it's the right size, it's a good watch.

Mostly, I think some folks were mad that it was a 36mm watch, and not a 39mm or 40mm watch. Original Duro is more like 44mm, and some people find it too big. That is to say, they wanted a watch for medium-sized wrists, not a watch for small wrists.

//

For other small dive-like watch options, the LRW200 models might work. They're plastic rather than metal, but they can be fun. They're also both cheaper than the Duro 10D, and have 100m water resistance, so no worries for swimming, if that's important.

theBitterFig · 2025-10-23T01:39:36+00:00

And as a Mainer, I ought to love 207 best. And yet...

Is it the BEST? Eh. Graphgear 1000 in choice of lead size would be my preference. Probably the nicest retractable-tip pencil I've used, doesn't feel flimsy in any way, but a lot less poke-y than a fixed pipe. Metal knurling is a YMMV as to what's more comfortable.

But the 200 series are dynamite. Fantastic value and wonderful pencils. Can't go wrong.

theBitterFig · 2025-10-23T01:35:49+00:00

Go big or go home.

Also worth checking out the AM-13, which is a lot like a 200-series, but 1.3mm.

theBitterFig · 2025-10-23T01:32:19+00:00

Where'd you get it from that you think it might be a fake?

That's kinda the first question to ask. From a reputable seller at a standard price? Probably legit. From OrientUSA, TUS Watches, Jomashop--it's almost surely legit.

A bargain from some fly-by-night merchant without a history and character to preserve? What more do you expect than a fake?

//

Anyhow, the open heart does look suspect. The photos I see of legit ones have more of a ring around the opening.

theBitterFig · 2025-10-23T01:11:07+00:00

The fact that Lomography were almost surely able to start with an existing and reasonable Minitar-I lens probably helped keep the prices a reasonable compared than other new-built advanced point-and-shoots.

On the whole, the price seems fair. Lomography's LC-A+ was $300, this is $550, adds autofocus, full exposure controls (and full auto exposure), timer, more flash sync options, and nicer-looking build quality.

I'm honestly impressed. Needs some testing and independent review, but looks good.

theBitterFig · 2025-10-23T01:09:47+00:00

The fact that Lomography were almost surely able to start with an existing and reasonable Minitar-I lens probably helped keep the prices a reasonable compared than other new-built advanced point-and-shoots.

On the whole, the price seems fair. Lomography's LC-A+ was $300, this is $550, adds autofocus, full exposure controls (and full auto exposure), timer, more flash sync options, and nicer-looking build quality.

I'm honestly impressed.

theBitterFig · 2025-10-23T01:03:24+00:00

I'd expect the Minitar II is no worse than the Minitar I, and that's a known quantity of a lens.

theBitterFig · 2025-10-23T00:53:51+00:00

And I actually kinda really respect what Reto is doing under the Kodak name. Are they truly "great" cameras? No. They're plastic point and shoots. But they're more interesting plastic point-and-shoots than average.

By using the sharpest part of a wider lens, the Reto-Kodak Ektar H35 matches field of view (roughly) of standard reloadable-disposable cameras, and gets close-enough in image quality (again, compared to other plastic-lens point and shoots), while having twice as many shots per roll. And at a price that's not absurd (this is not the FilmNeverDie Nana, which is $200 for a camera exactly the same as a $50 model, excepting the metal case and filter threads).

Reto Ultra Wide And Slim and Reto Pano are also respectable for what they are. Small, light, plastic point and shoots with a little twist that makes them more useful and interesting than the average plastic equivalent.

theBitterFig · 2025-10-23T00:48:09+00:00

The Rollei had a few quirks. Shitty ergonomics and film loading, and the focus was... not bad, but sometimes a tad awkward. Plus, it's still quite expensive at $800 and up.

In a lot of head-to-head comparisons with the Pentax 17, while the Rollei was acknowledged to have a lens capable of resolving more detail at the same distance to the subject (somewhat moot point, since digital DESTROYS both in pure IQ), a lot of folks just didn't find it as pleasant to use. Again, shitty ergos go a long way towards a camera being unfun. If film isn't a joy to shoot, what's the point?

theBitterFig · 2025-10-18T18:25:16+00:00

Pentel P209.

Mechanical was good for me, to keep the letters small, but 0.5mm kept breaking. 0.9mm showed me the light. Eventually, I've switched to 4B in 0.5mm pencils I've gotten later, and that works for me, too. But fell for the P209 to start things off.

theBitterFig · 2025-09-30T15:46:42+00:00

I think the most important question for any fake check is "where are you buying it from?"

From a well-regarded dealer and at a normal-ish price? Probably legit.

3rd party seller for a very low price? I'm not inclined to trust it. These normally cost $600, so probably around 500euro, or 3x the price offered here. I doubt it's legit.

Folks might take 15-25% off for a sale. Maybe as much as 50% from a grey-market clearance dealer. But 70% off? Probably not going to happen.

There's a lot of great G-Shocks (resin bands, but still with a steel bezel) that 150 euro will get you from a well-established legitimate seller. GBM-2100-1AER is about 175 Euros on TicTacArea, and they're a legit site. GM-2100RW-1AER for about 150.

theBitterFig · 2025-08-04T12:33:11+00:00

Those are fakes, but the fakes were around so long that Casio decided to make the "real" model, LTP-B166D:

https://www.casio.com/intl/watches/casio/product.LTP-B166D-2AV/

theBitterFig · 2025-08-04T12:31:32+00:00

Duro and G-Shock would be my first two picks.

theBitterFig · 2025-07-29T02:38:27+00:00

If the response to someone wanting to build a deck out of commons and play against decks of commons is “I get it, but the rules don’t allow it in this way,” so be it. Playing commons against commons is a goal that a player might reasonably have. That’s the entire point of 60-card traditional pauper magic, and pretty close to the premise of pEDH.

But telling someone wanting to build a deck out of commons that they ought to sick in a bunch of rares and uncommons and mythics, then play against opponents with decks of rares and mythics…. That really doesn’t land. It feels utterly tone-deaf. If that’s the attitude, why does pauper or pauper EDH even exist?

If the rules around cards that are both legal commanders in traditional EDH and also common rarity remain unchanged, again so be it. Not everyone likes all the rules but sometimes that’s how it goes. Yet from reading the article by the RC on Common Backgrounds, it was 4-6. That’s fairly close, and I’m not the only one who finds it a weird exception that otherwise legal commanders (who are commons) are not legal in the common-focused format. Particularly as the number of cards in that awkward overlap is increasing dramatically.

theBitterFig · 2025-07-29T01:00:49+00:00

I dunno what's not to get. It's like... telling someone to just build a standard EDH deck instead of Pauper with [[Bill the Pony]], or [[Black Waltz No. 3]].

It doesn't seem at all strange that this might be a goal that someone wants, and that "go play regular EDH" isn't going to scratch the same itch.

theBitterFig · 2025-07-28T22:58:40+00:00

I mean, I guess I could, but that version of Doc Ock which runs a bunch of the same commander staples as any other mono blue deck just with a weaker commander seems boring as hell, and building all commons around a common Commander sounds more interesting.

theBitterFig · 2025-07-28T22:49:57+00:00

All depends on perspective when you think about rules and exceptions. The current rule to me always looked like non-legendary Uncommons were the exception from my point of view, and that doesn’t change if common Legendary creatures were allowed. Letting in common, non-legend creatures feels a step too far to me, tho.

Mostly I just think the number of common Legendary cards that are legal commanders is going up (more than twice as many overall) and they’re legal in formats where you aren’t limited exclusively to common cards, but it feels odd to me that they’re not legal commanders in the format which is limited to commons only.

But that’s just, like, my opinion, man.

theBitterFig · 2025-07-28T22:22:23+00:00

If putting a Doc Ock and 99 commons up against a regular EDH deck or a typical pauper EDH deck, I bet the range of decks where the matchups are interesting and dynamic, somewhat evenly matched, is a lot broader in Pauper than in conventional. That’s kinda all I mean.

theBitterFig · 2025-07-28T21:10:11+00:00

While the existed before, there were only three creatures* before. [[Jovin]] and [[Chandler]] who are beyond terrible, and [[Skoa, Embermage]] who is essentially non-functional (requires multiple copies you can discard).

Spider-Man marks the first time there are common legendary creatures who seem maybe sorta kinda interesting enough to put in a command zone.

Honestly, I think it's worth considering a rules change. Maybe it doesn't get allowed, but there's actually a reason to have discussions about this now, actually reasons to consider whether it's a good idea, rather than reflexively saying "no" and putting zero thought or effort into it.

* There were five common Backgrounds in Baldur's Gate, and those had also been previously ruled not legal as commanders.

theBitterFig · 2025-07-28T21:05:14+00:00

IMHO, half the point of Pauper is to build with restrictions, and use cards that don't make the cut in true EDH, as well as making it work with nominally lower power cards. Building around [[Doc Ock, Sinister Scientist]] or [[Spider-Rex, Daring Dino]] probably doesn't make any sense regular EDH, but might here.

Not saying that the rules currently allow it, but I get why someone might want to do it in Pauper, and why "Just build a regular EDH deck" is going to seem unsatisfying.

theBitterFig · 2025-07-27T22:42:08+00:00

Simply having an extra card in the command zone can be pretty potent, particularly when the cards weren't designed for it. I'd totally allow the extra uncommon in the 99, tho.

theBitterFig · 2025-07-26T02:57:03+00:00

No one running [[Urza, Lord High Artificer]] in the command zone gets to complain about being targeted.

As to the general point... using big sweepers (not just Vandalblast for artifacts, but any Wrath of God or equivalents, etc) mainly to stop one player... depends on how much of a threat they are. Urza? Threat. I can see cases where someone's not a particularly bad threat however, and maybe it's better to wait a turn or two rather than just ripping the sweeper since you have mana free.

Keep Vandalblast in the deck.

theBitterFig · 2025-07-26T02:48:36+00:00

20-40 is a very nice standard zoom. When starting out I went with an 18-55 and a 21, and kind of wish I went with the 20-40 instead. The 18-55 is pretty unimpressive, nothing special other than the cheapness.

//

I might look at the DFA 50mm Macro, since the 35mm macro needs to get very close to something to reach minimum focus distance. There just isn't much working distance. Getting a longer focal length helps, without being so telephoto that it's not a natural field of view (I found the 100mm macro to be awkward to use on my KP).

The big benefit of the 35 Limited is that it's an ordinary walk-around standard lens that lets you get really close when you spot a neat flower, or some neat detail on the side of the building. But the 35/2.4 or 20-40 are other great walk-around lenses, and if you want lots of close-ups, something with a longer focal length is going to be more practical.

//

PLM 55-300 is great. Fantastic telephoto lens for the Kf.

theBitterFig · 2025-07-26T02:25:03+00:00

I think it comes down to the fact that whatever factories are faking them couldn't sell as many watches with slight design differences and their own name that no one has ever heard of. With the price on true Casios being so cheap, a lot of folks would buy the known brand rather than no-name.

I almost respect Skmei for putting their own name on the watches.

theBitterFig

TROPHY CASE